Comments from the Minnesota Catholic Conference to the Minnesota Department of Education Health Survey Draft 2

PDF Version

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding the benchmarks associated with the second draft of the Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in Health as part of Health Survey Draft 2.  Given the current document includes about 600 benchmarks across various strands, we did not comment on every strand but chose to focus our comments on the draft benchmarks for the “Sexual Health” strand for the various grade levels as it touches on sensitive subjects that related to human flourishing.

While we all agree that the common good is served when young Minnesotans are properly instructed on how to lead healthy, responsible lives, the draft benchmarks are critically flawed in terms of both their substance and in who is recognized and empowered as the best source of guidance on matters relating to relationships and reproduction.  Parents are the primary educators of their children, and should be involved in, not replaced by, school sex education programs.

As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a child is not a mere creature of the state.  Parents are the rightful stewards of their children, and schools support the role of parents, but do not replace them.  These benchmarks instead, rather than merely teaching “the birds and the bees,” propagate what have proven to be harmful understandings of the human person and human sexuality based on the idea that consent is the sole standard of the good and that sexual autonomy is the path to human flourishing—sexual autonomy not just as a non-coercion principle, but instead that any chosen sexual identity or sexual activity can be a path to flourishing.

The promises of the Sexual Revolution, however, have been illusory and have caused immeasurable pain.  At minimum, this failed experiment should not be imposed upon our State’s children without the alternative presented.  We seek to prevent more victims.

Therefore, though there are some elements within them with which we do not disagree, we oppose generally the “Sexual Health” benchmarks, particularly the aggressive and dangerous promotion of comprehensive sexual education (especially for very young children), the strong emphasis on contraception and birth control to mitigate the dangers of promiscuity (watering down that abstinence is 100 percent effective), the proliferation of harmful and inaccurate information regarding gender identity, and encouraging information gathering and decision-making involving sexuality (including potentially promoting abortion) by minor children outside of parental knowledge or involvement.

In general, the conversations that are implied to address many of the “Sexual Health” benchmarks undermine the role of parents as primary educators and empower agency “experts” to best determine how to discuss sensitive sexual topics, and many benchmarks are not age-appropriate, often promoting the sexualizing of children at an extremely young age. Some (not all) examples are below.

• 4.1.01 (for kindergarteners): Use medically accurate terms for body parts, including genitals.
• 4.1.03 (for kindergarteners): Identify ways to prevent the spread of germs that cause infectious diseases.
• 6.1.01 (for kindergarteners): Identify correct anatomical terms for the private parts of their bodies.
• 4.1.02 (for third graders): Describe internal and external reproductive body parts using medically accurate terms in a gender-neutral way.
• 4.1.01 (for fourth graders): Explain that HIV is not easily transmitted like other common infectious diseases.
• 4.1.04 (for fourth graders): Describe ways that common infectious diseases are transmitted.
• 4.1.01 (for fifth graders): Describe ways that common infectious diseases are transmitted.

Next, while abstinence is mentioned in some benchmarks, the focus on contraception and birth control not only encourages sexual activity by children but undermines and waters down the fact that the primary way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is to practice abstinence until marriage.  The contraception alternatives being offered and promoted are not 100 percent effective, while abstinence is. Below are just two other examples of flawed benchmarks.

• 4.1.35 (for 6-8 graders): Describe the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the transmission of HIV and other STIs.
• 4.1.40 (for 6-8 graders): Describe the importance of using a condom for STI/HIV prevention while also using a more effective contraceptive method for pregnancy prevention.

Next, these benchmarks propose that children as young as third graders be taught that sex or “gender” is "assigned at birth," when science is clear that sex is determined at the moment of conception, and that biological sex is engrained in every cell of our bodies from the moment of conception.  The falsehoods of gender ideology—essentially, the view that gender is unrelated to biological sex and can be chosen at will—are not fit to be disseminated anywhere, least of all in our schools.

As the 2024 Cass Review by Britain’s National Health Service reported, the evidence supporting puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormone therapy for youth is notably weak and of low quality, with limited reliable data on both medical and psychosocial interventions.  It emphasized that most gender-questioning children do not require medical interventions, that long-term outcomes are uncertain, and that any prescription of puberty blockers should occur only within research protocols, accompanied by comprehensive mental health support. In other words, we do not need more kids seeking treatment that has been found to be dubious, irreversible, and deeply harmful.  Yet, that is exactly what these standards do by encouraging young children to question their biological sex and whether they were born in the wrong body.  This will rob people of their well-being and potentially their ability to form families.

Let us be clear: proponents of gender ideology may have good intentions, but they are deluded and dogmatic in their inattention to the facts.  Children should not continue to be the victims of gender ideologues, unscrupulous medical professionals, and pharmaceutical companies with the imprimatur of the state of Minnesota.

Our schools should be places where children are trained to pursue the true, the good and the beautiful—or, at the very least, equipped to honestly and rationally engage with objective reality.  A school should be a place of education, not ideological instruction.  Just some examples of the flawed benchmarks related to gender are below.

• 4.1.04 (for kindergarteners): Recognize the range of different family and peer relationships.
• 4.1.05 (for third graders): Define gender identity and expression.
• 4.1.06 (for third graders): Explain the difference between sex assigned at birth and gender identity and expression.
• 4.1.04 (for fifth graders): Define sexual orientation including sense of identity, attractions and related behaviors.
• 4.1.05 (for fifth graders): Describe the differences between sexual orientation, and gender identity and expression.

Finally, attempting to avoid parental involvement or consent in sex-related decision making (potentially including abortion) for minors continues to violate and disrespect the role of parents and puts children in harm’s way by assuming others know how to protect and guide children better than their parents.  Several benchmarks reference “reproductive health”.  Assuming those references imply abortion, the benchmarks may be purposefully or inadvertently encouraging minors to seek abortions (including possible use of an abortifacient).  Several benchmark examples are below.

• 6.4.1.46 (for 6-8 graders): Describe young people’s rights to confidential services in their state.
• 6.4.1.47 (for 6-8 graders): Describe young people’s legal rights to consent to sexual and reproductive health services, including STI/HIV testing, treatment (including ART, PrEP, PEP), and contraception.
• 6.4.1.49 (for 6-8 graders): Describe the importance of “time-alone” between young people and the healthcare provider to discuss sexual and reproductive health and other sensitive health topics.
• 6.4.3.01 (for 6-8 graders): Analyze the validity of sexual and reproductive health information.
• 6.4.3.02 (for 6-8 graders): Describe situations that call for professional sexual and reproductive healthcare services.
• 6.4.3.03 (for 6-8 graders): Determine the availability of valid sexual and reproductive healthcare products.
• 6.4.4.01 (for 6-8 graders): Demonstrate the effective use of verbal and nonverbal communication skills to promote healthy relationships and sexual and reproductive health.
• 9.4.1.25 (for 9-12 graders): Describe young people’s rights to confidential services in their state.

Parents are the primary educators of children.  Sexuality is extremely personal and should be discussed primarily in the atmosphere of trust provided by a family setting.  Schools do not need to take it upon themselves to colonize the minds of young people and properly civilize them according to today’s standards.  Nor should they undermine the relationship and communication between students and their parents.

Again, while there are some elements within them with which we do not disagree, we oppose generally the “Sexual Health” benchmarks and ask that you protect our children by protecting parental rights as the primary educators of their children.  And we request a public hearing on Draft 2 of the Minnesota K-12 Academic Standards in Health.

Contact:

Matt Hughes
Assistant Director for Government Relations
[email protected]