When to Veto a Controversial Bill

Earlier tonight, Governor Gary Herbert decided to veto a controversial abstinence-only sex education bill.  This bill would have require that high schools in the State of Utah, when they teach Sex Education, the only method of birth control that they may mention is abstinence.

The bill has stirred up a lot of controversy in the State of Utah.  Many experts believe that abstinence-only Sex Education is not effective in preventing teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock child birth.  I agree that it is not effective at all.

The problem is that we do a lousy job at teach kids how to avoid situations where "Mother Nature" is going to take control, even in church.  But even that is not the most effective form of Sex Education.

I have read many studies since this bill was being debated.  I have learned that the most effective method to prevent teen pregnancy has little to do with education at all.  The most effective way to prevent teenage pregnancy is for parents to take the time to develop a good relationship with their children.  This does two things.  First, children will not seek for substitutes to their parents love.  Second, children will trust their parent's opinions about many things including sex.

I know that things happen between kids when they allow themselves to be alone.  Often, teens will find themselves sliding down that slippery slope to the procreative act before they realize what is happening and before they are prepared.  At that point, any lecture about birth control isn't going to be remembered.  Abstinence should be emphasized, and children need to know to wait until they recognize and can control these situations.  And yes, they should even wait until they are married and are prepared to have a family.  When children have that relationship with their parents, where they can trust mom and dad with anything, studies have shown that they are more likely to put off sex until they are older, have fewer sex partners and use contraception.

We have a society today where there are so many distractions from good family relationships.  In television shows, people are very free and open about sex.  But sex is not portrayed in a realistic manner.  There are very few pregnancies and very few deal with the other negative consequences of sexual activity.

Many children live in single parent homes, and when mom or dad is absent because of work or other choices, children are less likely to develop that strong bond and are more likely to experiment with sexual activity before they can recognize that nature is taking it's course.  In these situations, it is unlikely that sex education lectures are going to be of help the majority of kids.  But a small percentage will heed their lessons and will take steps to protect themselves.

As a fiscal conservative, that means fewer kids growing up in welfare and in foster care.  That means less money being spent at the state level on social programs.  As a social conservative, one must recognize that fewer out-of-wedlock pregnancies will lead to fewer abortions.  If you want conservative principles, I have just spelled it out for you.  But let me say it again...less money spent on social program and fewer abortions. That's conservatism.  An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  If 1% of the children in a sex ed class listen and take steps to protect themselves, thousands of state dollars are saved.

This bill was vetoed on a Friday Evening, the day after the Republican Caucus in Utah.  Many people have viewed the timing of the veto as spineless and as poor leadership.  I disagree with this assessment.  The abstinence-only bill has turned into a beehive in a tempest in a teapot.  A good leader sometimes recognizes that one should not kick the teapot.  By removing the teapot when he did, he will still get stung, Governor Herbert's opponents will use it against him.  But the controversy will fade when people in Utah are spending the weekend doing other things.  The governor also put as much time as he possibly could between the veto and the Republican Convention in April.  That is not necessarily good leadership, but it is the mark of an experienced and well seasoned politician.  No matter what Gary Herbert did with this bill, it was going to make him look bad.  The state legislature painted the governor in a corner.  I suspect that the Governor, in his debates, will throw it back on his opponents and say, "don't tell me what you would not do...tell me what you would have done instead."  Not everyone believes that this veto, and it's timing was the mark of poor leadership.

But if you want the governor to stand by his principles and make a big announcement of the veto and a big show of it on the eve of the GOP caucuses across the state, what could have happened?  Want to get rid of Orrin Hatch?  Want to discuss keeping Hill Air Force Base open? (A hot topic at my caucus).  This Sex Ed bill would have been the hot topic.  Hatch would waltz to a general election victory, and other conservative issues would not have been discussed.  Wait too long, then this is the hot topic at the state convention.  The governor was smart to diffuse this controversy as much as possible.