PART 1: THE ISSUE BRIEF

On January 1, 2016, new sex education regulations went into effect in

California. The regulations, introduced as Assembly Bill 329 and signed into law
by Governor Jerry Brown, combined mandated-HIV prevention information with
what had, up until now, been optional comprehensive sex-ed curriculum. One
important addition to the bill, now named the California Healthy Youth Act and
that has been a source of controversy, is the line that states that sex ed
curriculum should provide pupils with the knowledge and skills they need to
develop healthy attitudes concerning adolescent growth and development, body
image, gender, sexual orientation, relationships, marriage, and family (Education
Code Article 1 General Provisions 51930 (2)). The bill also mandates that sex
education must only include information that is considered medically accurate,
and that it must leave religious doctrine out of sex education curriculum.
Californias mandated comprehensive sex education bill is one of the first
of its kind, as a debate rages across the nation regarding sex education
curriculum. On January 25, Arizona Rep. Juan Mendez introduced legislation to
mandate age-appropriate sex education to public school students from
kindergarten to high school. However there is debate as to what constitutes ageappropriate, or what information about sexuality is even appropriate or true. Also
in Arizona, Rep. Martin Quezada is attempting to repeal a law that mandates that
homosexuality is taught as a negative life choice with dire consequences
(Fischer). While there are many nuances to the debate over sex education

curriculum in public schools, the easiest way to understand it would be the

abstinence-only camp and the comprehensive sex-education camp. While some
sources state that abstinence-only sex education can help discourage teens from
making choices that could potentially impact their future in a negative way, other
sources state that abstinence-only sex education only leads to a climate of fear
and misinformation that may lead to even worse consequences, at worst a health
crisis where the rate of teen pregnancy and STI transmission increases.
Beyond the abstinence-only-until-marriage vs comprehensive-sexeducation question are questions such as what comprehensive sex-education
curriculum would look like at each age, and when to start implementing what
lessons. The complexity of the situation is illustrated by the fluctuation in what
qualifies as education fluctuates from state to state. For example, medically
accurate information is only required in 19 of the 22 states that require public
schools to teach sex education (National Conference of State Legislatures). In
other than 9 states, sex and dating can only be referred to in a heteronormative
context, as sexual orientations other than heterosexual are not allowed to be
discussed, while in 4 states, sexual orientations other than heterosexual must be
presented negatively (Guttmacher Policy Brief), like Alabama for example, where
teachers must say that homosexuality is an unacceptable, criminal lifestyle
(Temblador).
The conflicting viewpoints about sex education are the result of conflicting
viewpoints about these issues within society. Because sex education concerns
the education of children and teenagers, the controversial aspect is amplified as

parents and community members become concerned about the impact that the
wrong sex education will have on the sexual experiences (or inexperiences) of
their children and the children in their community. Politicians take advantage of
the opportunity (on both sides) to play on the emotions of parents. They also
involve community stakeholders by presenting it as a public health issue on both
sides. The pro-comprehensive sex-education side views a lack of information to
cause the rate of teen-pregnancies and STIs to go up, as teens already have a
disproportionate rate of STI transmission compared to the general population.
Already teens account for only of the sexually active population, but acquire
half of all new STIs (National Conference of State Legislatures). The procomprehensive-sex-education camp believe that a lack of information will not
cause them to not have sex, but they believe will cause them to just having less
safe-sex if they are less informed, and use correlational statistics on STI rates
and teen pregnancy/abortion rates with the type of sex education students
recieve. The abstinence-only proponents believe that if there is more emphasis
on the consequences of teenage sex and less emphasis on right way (safely) to
have sex, teens will make the smart choice and practice their communication
skills to tell their partners that they are not interested in making that decision and
this viewpoint is largely backed by anecdotal evidence. Whether sex education is
viewed as a public health issue, a moral issue, or an education issue, there are
clearly a lot of conflicting viewpoints on the topic!

PART 2: THE ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Oliver, John. "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Sex Education
(HBO)."YouTube. YouTube, 9 Aug. 2015. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

John Oliver is a well-known and popular comedian whose shows consist

of exposing facts related to the US government that audience members do not
have a lot of knowledge on. Other than adding in his English humor, this video is
a good source for my project because it provides information about many
different states policies. He also keeps it visually appealing by including maps
and other infographics, as well as primary sources such as clips from abstinenceonly sex ed. He even includes a helpful sex ed video at the end with lots of
cameos. He argues that sex-ed in America is a highly flawed system.

2) Chou, Jennifer. "Sex Will Burn You, and Other WTF Moments from
Abstinence-Only Sex Ed." ACLU Blog. American Civil Liberties Union of
Northern California, 16 Dec. 2015. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

This is a blog post where the author, a reproductive justice attorney with
the ACLU, documents some of her reactions to some of the highlights she has
found in abstinence-only sex ed, including that sex is like fire, and can burn you
outside of the fireplace of marriage. She argues that this type of information is
not only out of compliance with current CA law, but the shame strategy used to
scare kids out of sex is very harmful. I can use these to argue that these

damaging messages perpetuate inequities in our society based on identities like

gender identity, sexual orientation, and although not necessarily an identity but a
scary thing for a teenager, virginity status.

3) Brown, Emma. "Omaha Parent Says Proposed Sex Ed Approach rapes

Children of Their Innocence." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 6
Jan. 2016. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

This is a good public response source because it is an article from a

reputable source, and it is an article that is a public response but it also talks
about the public response to my topic! The author summarizes the issues at
hand in the specific situation that prompted an Omaha woman to say sex ed
rapes children of their innocence, while also drawing back to the broader
context of the nation-wide discussion. The author argues that the parents
advocating for abstinence-only education are overly dramatizing the situation.

4) Guttmacher Institute. "Sex and HIV Education." State Policies in Brief (1 Jan.
2016.): n. pag. 1 Jan. 2016. Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

This is a great and relevant article because it is a reputable source that

includes all of the sources of its information. It will be helpful when I am trying to
get quick evidence to backup my claims or to make a case about a certain state
since the sex ed curriculum is divided into many different categories, and there is

information about every state. It is also organized well so I can look it through it
efficiently. It is literally just facts.

5) Fact Sheet: Federal Programs Cheat Sheet. Rep. Sexuality Information and
Education Council of the United States, June 2015. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

This is another great source because it is simply a compilation of data that

I can pull from when making my claims. It lays out the different federally funded
sex-ed programs, including both comprehensive and abstinence-only. It
describes each program, with a link to each so I can continue to research if it will
benefit my project, and compares the funding granted by the House and the
Senate (separated) for the 2015 and what has been requested for the fiscal year
of 2016.

6) Howell, Marcella. "The History of Federal Abstinence-Only Funding." The

History of Federal Abstinence-Only Funding. Advocates for Youth, 2007.
Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

This research traces the history of federal abstinence-only funding. While

it is from 2007, some of the same information is relevant because it talks about
Section 510, which was allowed to expire recently but then brought back with the
Affordable Care Act. I also think its important to know the past to understand the
present, and to try to understand the logic and politics behind the progression for

abstinence-only education in order to clearly argue against it. The author of this
piece advocates for better, comprehensive sex-ed.

Issue Report
1) Adequately and succinctly identifies and describes a public
issue thats important to you by providing key facts, context,
and details that would help a lay-person understand the scope
of the issue [4 points]: The facts and details were great but
the typos throughout (highlighted in green) were
beginning to impede my understanding of the text
2) Adequately and succinctly identifies and describes the
different kinds of audiences participating in and/or reading
about this public issue, noting what they have at stake in its
outcome [5 points]
3) Adequately and succinctly identities and describes the
various arguments circulating about this public issue, including
the main claims that are made and the various types of
evidence used to back up those claims [4 points]: You did a
great job describing the arguments and evidence used for
those in favor of comprehensive sex ed but you were less
thorough with the other camp. Is it because they dont
use evidence? Or do they appeal to the Bible only? I felt
like you needed a few more paragraphs there toward the
end.

13/15
Annotated Bibliography
1) Adequately and succinctly provides three academic sources
and three public responses, all of which are correctly cited
in a preferred citation style (MLA, APA, or Chicago) [5 points]
2) Each annotation is adequately and succinctly annotated in
50-100 words and explains the main argument of the source
and why each source is relevant to the study of your topic. [4
points] Many of your annotations were too vague and as a reader
I still didnt get a sense of what they argued
3) The sources are also relevant to the public issue being
investigated, each lacking redundancy, having a distinct focus
and variety, and indicating that they were chosen
purposefully. [5 points]

14/15