There have been members of parliament or senate throwing tantrums over the proposed reproductive health bill. Their argument has been as senator Musila said
it was against the country’s education policies and preferences
that is in a country where study after study show that teens are having just as much sex as the adults and every year during exam time we hear of pregnant candidates both in primary and secondary schools.
He continued to say,
Sexual abstinence should be the key HIV and anti-pregnancy message at schools. We can provide information about condoms and where to get them, but they should not be distributed in schools
and I don’t know his problem. But I suspect it is the slippery slope argument usually advanced by prohibitionists of whatever stripe. If they are having sex already, what is the danger in providing them with the necessary protection? Which would they rather prefer, hiding behind the cover of morality, that they have sex without protection and no access to contraceptives get pregnant or STDs or they have access to these things.
I decided to read the bill to see why these noisemakers were making so much of it.
Part 6 of the bill deals with reproductive health of adolescents[ who were defined as being between ages 11 and 17]. stipulates
33. (1) The Cabinet Secretary for health shall consultation with the Board facilitate the provision adolescent friendly reproductive health services.
(2) In the provision of reproductive health services to adolescents, parental consent is not mandatory.
(3) Despite sub-section (2) above, nothing prevents a health care provider from whom reproductive health services are sought by an adolescent, from referring the adolescent to a qualified person for provision of the necessary services
the bill continues to stipulate further
34. (l) The Board is consultation with government institutions and other bodies shall-
(a) facilitate the provision to of adolescent- friendly reproductive health and sexual health information and education;
(b) facilitate the provision to adolescents of confidential, comprehensive, non-judgmental and affordable reproductive health services;
(c) develop policies to protect adolescents from physical and sexual violence and discrimination including cultural practices that violate the reproductive health rights of the adolescents; and
(d) facilitate adolescents access to information, comprehensive sexuality education and confidential services.
As you can see from the above, unless I have been blind in my reading of the bill, for this is the section that deals with reproductive health of adolescents, there is no where in the bill that forces teachers, as the MPs would want you to believe, to distribute condoms in a maths class. Musila and his ilk want us to believe parents can offer sex education to their children. In many cases parents are unable to breach this subject with their young ones. I don’t remember my parents having this talk with me and I know this happens to many children.
These MPigs and senators opposed to the bill should stop hiding behind the veil of morality and say what it is they are opposed to. It can’t be sex education.
If there is anything that guarantees power, it is to have and be able to use knowledge. In 1984 George Orwell wrote
He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.
and such is the power of knowledge. It is absurd that anyone in his right mind in this day and age would be opposed to sex education for their children, lessons they will not receive at home nor in church where most of them go.
Here is the draft bill currently before to the house. One would hope it wasn’t
idiots politicians having to debate them before they are assented to by the clown.