A controversial bill backed by MPs that called for teenage girls to be given lessons in sexual abstinence has been withdrawn.
The bill, proposed by Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, would have required schools to offer extra sex education classes to girls aged 13 to 16 and for these lessons to include advice on "the benefits of abstinence".
In May, MPs voted 67 to 61, a majority of six, in favour of allowing Dorries to bring forward her bill. The bill was listed to receive its second reading on Friday morning.
However, it has been removed from the Commons order paper, meaning it will not now be debated on Friday.
A spokeswoman for the Commons information office said it might be rescheduled for another day, but for now had been "removed from effective orders".
The Guardian called Dorries, but the MP said she was too busy to speak or explain why the bill had been removed.
The bill is likely to have been withdrawn by Dorries herself. "No one would be able to remove a private members' bill without the permission of a member," the Commons information office spokeswoman said.
The bill was eighth on Friday's list of private members' bills, meaning it was very unlikely to have been heard.
Dorries's sex education (required content) bill had angered feminists, humanists and pro-choice activists, hundreds of whom staged a demonstration outside parliament on Friday morning.
Andrew Copson, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said that even if the bill had been debated "it would not have been passed".
"It would be nice to think that Mrs Dorries withdrew her bill because she at last realised that abstinence 'education' is a dangerously unrealistic and irresponsible proposition for our young people. In the more probable eventuality that her decision was guided by politics rather than a change of heart, we will all certainly need to remain on our guard against such foolish proposals in the future," he said.
"The fact that the bill ever got tabled for a second reading at all has given all those who care about good quality, comprehensive sex and relationships education the chance to say so, and take a stand against the sort of unevidenced ideologically motivated policy making that the bill represented."
The bill had elicited considerable criticism from politicians in all three of the main political parties.
Dan Rogerson, co-chair of the Liberal Democrats education and family backbench committee and MP for North Cornwall, said the bill would result in girls being given a "dire warning about their future prospects".
"To single out girls is at best unhelpful and at worst damaging," he said. He said boys and girls needed to be given high-quality advice on all aspects of relationships.
Niki Molnar, chairman of Conservative Women, which has at least 4,000 members, said boys needed to be included in classes on sex and relationships to ensure that they learned to respect women.
When the bill was first proposed, Dorries said it would counter the fact that society was "saturated in sex". Teenagers should be taught that it was as "cool" to say no to sex as to know how to put a condom on their boyfriend.
"The answer to ending our constant struggle with the incredibly high rate of teenage sexual activity and underage pregnancies lies in teaching our girls and boys about the option of abstinence, the ability to 'just say no', as part of their compulsory sex education," she said.
"Peer pressure is a key contributor to early sexual activity in our country. Society is focused on sex. Teaching a child at the age of seven to apply a condom on a banana is almost saying: 'Now go and try this for yourself'."
The latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows teenage pregnancies are at their lowest rate since the early 1980s. The under-18 conception rate for 2009 was 38.3 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17 in England and Wales. This represents a fall of 5.9% compared with 40.7 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17 in 2008.
Source
The bill, proposed by Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, would have required schools to offer extra sex education classes to girls aged 13 to 16 and for these lessons to include advice on "the benefits of abstinence".
In May, MPs voted 67 to 61, a majority of six, in favour of allowing Dorries to bring forward her bill. The bill was listed to receive its second reading on Friday morning.
However, it has been removed from the Commons order paper, meaning it will not now be debated on Friday.
A spokeswoman for the Commons information office said it might be rescheduled for another day, but for now had been "removed from effective orders".
The Guardian called Dorries, but the MP said she was too busy to speak or explain why the bill had been removed.
The bill is likely to have been withdrawn by Dorries herself. "No one would be able to remove a private members' bill without the permission of a member," the Commons information office spokeswoman said.
The bill was eighth on Friday's list of private members' bills, meaning it was very unlikely to have been heard.
Dorries's sex education (required content) bill had angered feminists, humanists and pro-choice activists, hundreds of whom staged a demonstration outside parliament on Friday morning.
Andrew Copson, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said that even if the bill had been debated "it would not have been passed".
"It would be nice to think that Mrs Dorries withdrew her bill because she at last realised that abstinence 'education' is a dangerously unrealistic and irresponsible proposition for our young people. In the more probable eventuality that her decision was guided by politics rather than a change of heart, we will all certainly need to remain on our guard against such foolish proposals in the future," he said.
"The fact that the bill ever got tabled for a second reading at all has given all those who care about good quality, comprehensive sex and relationships education the chance to say so, and take a stand against the sort of unevidenced ideologically motivated policy making that the bill represented."
The bill had elicited considerable criticism from politicians in all three of the main political parties.
Dan Rogerson, co-chair of the Liberal Democrats education and family backbench committee and MP for North Cornwall, said the bill would result in girls being given a "dire warning about their future prospects".
"To single out girls is at best unhelpful and at worst damaging," he said. He said boys and girls needed to be given high-quality advice on all aspects of relationships.
Niki Molnar, chairman of Conservative Women, which has at least 4,000 members, said boys needed to be included in classes on sex and relationships to ensure that they learned to respect women.
When the bill was first proposed, Dorries said it would counter the fact that society was "saturated in sex". Teenagers should be taught that it was as "cool" to say no to sex as to know how to put a condom on their boyfriend.
"The answer to ending our constant struggle with the incredibly high rate of teenage sexual activity and underage pregnancies lies in teaching our girls and boys about the option of abstinence, the ability to 'just say no', as part of their compulsory sex education," she said.
"Peer pressure is a key contributor to early sexual activity in our country. Society is focused on sex. Teaching a child at the age of seven to apply a condom on a banana is almost saying: 'Now go and try this for yourself'."
The latest data from the Office for National Statistics shows teenage pregnancies are at their lowest rate since the early 1980s. The under-18 conception rate for 2009 was 38.3 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17 in England and Wales. This represents a fall of 5.9% compared with 40.7 conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17 in 2008.
Source
I'm sure a quick Google search for the results of many American studies regarding abstinence "sex education," and a quick skim through Not Under My Roof, would have told her otherwise.
Edited at 2012-01-20 03:21 pm (UTC)
It would surely be better to improve what is currently taught, specifically the emotional aspects of sex and include more information about contraception. Admittedly I finished secondary school in 2006, but my sex education included watching a video of a woman giving birth, a video of a woman having an abortion, graphic pictures of STDs and about half an hour discussing condoms and the pill. Nothing about Depo, the implant, diaphrams, or the importance of trust, respect and equality in a relationship.
You're right, it's a stupid idea.
Anything else I learned from my mom (mostly about protection and BC) and books.
Finally my high school biology teacher got frustrated with the idiotic program and spent one class day teaching us how condoms and other methods of birth control work. I didn't think it was that odd or revolutionary when it happened but looking back now, that woman is my hero.
My high school didn't hold sex ed classes at all, but my seventh grade year I had a sexual health class for an entire term, girls only, that covered every aspect of sexuality and sexual health, including birth control options and how to establish and navigate positive sexual relationships with self and others. I loved it.
Edited at 2012-01-20 08:01 pm (UTC)
Edited at 2012-01-20 03:58 pm (UTC)
But maybe I'm missing something because I don't know about Dorries, but it sounds like she was presenting abstinence education to go along with comprehensive sex education?
When the bill was first proposed, Dorries said it would counter the fact that society was "saturated in sex". Teenagers should be taught that it was as "cool" to say no to sex as to know how to put a condom on their boyfriend.
I mean a lot of her statements are contradictory, including the one about teaching a 7-year-old to put a condom on a banana is like encouragement (first of all I doubt that elementary school children are learning how to put a condom on, and second of all no it's not) so I'm not sure what she's trying to say here. But I don't think there's anything wrong with presenting abstinence as an option for adolescents and young adults, as long as it's not valued or privileged over sexual activity. (The problem is the last part.) A lot of adolescents do, in fact, have sex because they think all of their friends are having it - they overestimate the activity of their peers and so they do it to keep up, not necessarily because they want to. I think it's good to discuss that and to reassure teenagers that they don't have to have sex if they don't want to, and that that doesn't make them a freak. But it should definitely be done in conjunction with "but when you do, be ready."
Also, it kind of assumes that abstinence is never taught ever, which isn't true. In our first-ever lesson of sex ed, I remember the teacher stood at the front and said 'the only 100% effective method of contraception is abstinence, unless you're the Virgin Mary. But since I know you guys aren't all going to want to go that route, this is how condoms work.'
(And yeah, 7-year-olds are taught nothing about condoms, only the fact that relationships happen. 10-year-olds are sometimes shown videos about what male and female parts look like and how missionary position sex happens, but it's usually kept until secondary school.)
I suspect if she were to carry on, she's eliminate the sex education we do have. Furthermore, she was introducing this bill so that abstinence is taught to girls, and only girls. That's what angered people most, tbh.
My problem with Dorries' bill is that it was to teach abstinence to girls only - because it totally reeks of saying that the problems with teens having sex are the fault of girls, to which I agree with Dan Rogerson, both unhelpful and damaging.
That said, I do think sex education needs a complete overhaul. It probably has improved somewhat since I left school in 1997, however, I get the impression that it still heavily leans towards the mechanics of sex without teaching anything regarding the emotional aspects of sexual activity and relationships. I also think that it needs to be taught from the perspective of varying sexualities.
Then of course there's getting in to the issue that, yes, she seems to want it alongside comprehensive sex education...which doesn't seem to have a strong set of rules from what I've seen, and can be a little as addressing the mechanics of sex and not go in to any kind of relationship details or forms of contraception other than condoms/the pill (this article highlights some stats -- 6% of teens surveyed said their sex ed gave them the info they needed). Back when I had my sex education, parents could request that their child(ren) opt out of sex education classes (I think largely for religious reasons, although there may have been others), and I'm not sure if they would be allowed opt-outs for these additional abstinence classes.
(And as this is getting long: she was also behind measures to strip abortion providers of their ability to provide counselling because it is a 'conflict of interest' and one of the new providers of counselling would have been [largely religious led] crisis pregnancy centres who of course won't have an interest in trying to get the woman to continue the pregnancy).
Thanks to you and all the other commenters who put this more in perspective...I saw that she wanted to only target girls but I don't understand the particulars of British politics, so I didn't know whether this would be like (for example) Sarah Palin saying that we need to teach abstinence "along" with sex ed.
Yes, certainly (I did start rambling about my ideas of what I'd like sex ed to entail, including everyone being taught that they have the right to say no and that if no is said to them they should listen, then cut it out as it was rambly and not really relevant; now that I've looked back I can see the implication in my statement).
It's no problem for me -- with Nadine Dorries, it's not necessarily one statement she makes that has a number of people side-eyeing her, but the history of what's she's said as well (which is why I linked the abortion counselling article), especially as all I've seen her in the news for is reproductive issues.
No one is teaching seven year-olds how to put on condoms. Stop making shit up, or at least try not to be so blatant about it.
BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasps for air* HAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You really think you're going to be able to teach teenagers that something is cool?
Especially when that thing is abstinence?
*descends back into hilarity*
1) i don't care if this nasty person is happy; and
2) a trip with the Doctor would be wasted on her
And I really doubt she'd be as happy as you'd expect. She's one of those people who loves benefiting from feminism, but hates the movement itself.
Edited at 2012-01-21 01:07 pm (UTC)