The Senate Republican Caucus lists several Republican-sponsored bills that the Democrats wouldn't bring to a floor vote, along with several bills that the Democrats pushed through.
The House Republican Caucus has similar lists for that chamberhere and here
SB 5297 - mandates that Washington's public schools teach comprehensive sex education to include contraception and the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also eliminates a school district's choice to teach only abstinence.
If you want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the growing threat of STD's and such then go ahead and teach abstinence only. If you want kids to know the truth in order to live healthy STD free lives you really should teach them the truth.
Posted by: Cato on March 19, 2007 02:27 PMSchools shouldn't be teaching sex ed...
PARENTS should be teaching sex, how and when they deem fit for THEIR OWN CHILD.
Posted by: BRC on March 19, 2007 02:38 PMCan't the Republicans pass anything? LOL
Posted by: swatter on March 19, 2007 02:39 PMOr SB 5708 -- once you turn 60, you don't have to pay property taxes anymore, regardless of how much you make.
Doesn't seem like the GOP wants to be taken too seriously.
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 19, 2007 03:03 PMAnd actually, I thought they got along a little too famously. It seems there was always a big D gorilla looking over the legislature shoulder and called a governor.
Today, we have the two houses and the governor run by the D party. Different story there Bill L.
Posted by: swatter on March 19, 2007 03:13 PMWhen was the last time you saw a kid listen to their parents?
Some teens do listen to their parents. It really depends on the relationship established in the family during their formative years....like age 1-12. If you have raised kids responsibly, even at the tender age of 13, they will be able to evaluate their decisions and predict outcomes. I'd rather they be able to make decisions than know a box of condoms is the only answer to premarital sex.
You imply that because I want to teach my own children sex ed, it will only be abstinence that is taught. That isn't a correct assumption. Like MANY parents, I am educated on the facts of life and for my children know how, what and when to teach it.
You can't be serious when you think state educators who can't teach multiplication tables to kids by the time they graduate should be entrusted with a significant personal subject on which there are many views?
Posted by: Old Faithful on March 19, 2007 03:44 PMCato - true or not - abstinence is 100% effective in avoiding pregnancy? True or not - abstinence is 100% effective in avoiding the spread of STD's? True or not - abstinence is 100% scientifically proven? Why would the absolutely best proven method for avoiding pregnancy and STD's be the one most limited in classes?
Every year, we are told that our children need schools to teach them more about sex and at younger and younger ages because..... why?
These programs have been around since the 1970's. They have gotten more specific and more graphic, yet the problems they supposedly were designed to help avoid don't seem to be abating. Does this bill actually fix a problem?
Use your reasoning for more graphic and younger ages for sex education and apply it to other safety aspects of our lives. Does the reasoning make sense in other scenarios?
Gun safety? Refusal to use a gun isn't good enough. All kids must learn several different methods to shoot guns, but still avoid inadvertantly wounding or killing someone else.
Driving safety? Kids will be kids. They speed, they drive faster than the roads or conditions allow, but instead of telling them to slow down, we'll teach them how to drive fast, safely. We'll give them good pointers on how to pay attention to their driving while texting, juggling iPod tunes, being 'cool" with their friends.
Drug or alcohol safety? They going to do it anyway. Show them "safe and responsible" ways to drink or do drugs.
Behaviour has consequences, sometimes unwanted or unintended. This does not mean that it is wrong to suggest (even endorse) the best behaviour choices that result in the least amount of unintended or unwanted consequences. Encouraging "second" best behavioural choices by putting "safe" bandaids on the choices doesn't make them superior.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on March 19, 2007 04:04 PMWhen your mom was talked out of aborting you.
Your arguments are inane Cato, SouthernRoots put it quite well. If you can't grasp the point then you are a true representative of the ineffective policies of the left.
I also sincerely hope you lose your house when you retire and can't afford the taxes on the house you own. Our seniors deserve a break and/or deferal on these taxes.
Posted by: Jeffro on March 19, 2007 04:19 PMSo the rest of us can pay more? If the tax burden stays the same - or more likely, increases - who's going to pick up the tab for those breaks and deferrals given to certain segments of our population? Answer: Everybody else.
I'm all for keeping seniors in their houses. Houses that they purchased many years ago and due to an ever-increasing burden of taxation are having difficulty in staying in those houses. However, the solution isn't to shift their taxes onto others - who are also having to deal with an ever-increasing tax burden.
Reduce the amount of programs - including senior programs - that all of us are having to fund, and reduce the overall tax burden.
And Richard Pope is correct. An $80,000 exemption? Are you kidding me? If you - as a senior - can't pay your property taxes on a fixed, $80,000 income, then maybe you ought to downgrade that fancy motorhome and pay your taxes so that young couple making $45,000 - with the new baby - isn't thrown out of their home.
I'm tired of the pandering to groups at the expense of everybody else.
Posted by: jimg on March 19, 2007 05:43 PMYeah, it just isn't fair. This is yet another system, created by liberals, that needs a total do-over. But until then, the $80,000 bundle is gone the second one of the elder couple has advanced alzheimers and any number of other maladies that effect our elderly. Then our great stystem takes your assets so that they can be put into a home while the other partner has the house sold in foreclosure due to unpaid taxes.
I'm far from retirement, I have no dog in this fight, but I can tell you that my wife went through kemo and our $90,000 combined income wasn't enough to keep our house in King County.
That's with zero credit card debt - so when you've been there, talk to me about the inequities. the system needs a redo but lets stop taking the houses away from the folks that have worked hard, paid their fair share of taxes only to have some rich, liberal, transplant yuppy take advantage of the misfortune and high cost of livng in western Washington.
Posted by: Jeffro on March 19, 2007 08:54 PMJeffro is right!!! I don't mind paying for those that have PAID into our system, than for those that CHOOSE not too, and let US pay for it ALL.
Our system as it stands, doesn't reward those who take care of themselves, only those that suck the system dry.
But it's not fair to deny sex ed to the many, many children who would not get any education about sex if it wasn't for what they learned in school.
Posted by: Cat on March 20, 2007 08:33 AMCat - Read SouthernRoots post, it really is quite insightful. I also completely agree with the logic.
Cat - I ask you, what age is appropriate to have your child receive sex ed, keeping in mind that it's a one sided program? Do you have children? Is this the states job? Has sex ed reduced the ammount of teen pregnancy and std's since its inception?
Posted by: Jeffro on March 20, 2007 10:00 AM