Middle school sex education ban falls: informed consent introduced

The League in the Chamber of Deputies has filed an amendment on sexuality education at school, partially corrective to the text of the Ddl on informed consent that was approved last month in committee in the Chamber and is now before the assembly. The prohibition for middle schools, which are thus placed on an equal footing with high schools, where the consent of parents is required for such activities, who must be familiar with the topics and teaching materials. "Without prejudice to the provisions of the national indications," the text reads, "the ban remains for pre-school and primary school. The green light from Montecitorio on the text is expected between Wednesday 12 and Thursday 13 November, after which the measure will pass to the Senate for a second parliamentary examination.

Explaining the rationale of the measure is the rapporteur Rossano Sasso: the change that concerns middle schools is contained in a 'new amendment, which we have filed under the first signature of Latini (League)' and aims to 'clarify,' he says. 'We are not the ones who want to prohibit people from talking about affection and respect in class', so we opted for 'a change in the law in light of the exploitation taking place'. In practice, says Sasso, 'even in primary school it will be possible to talk about respect education, of course, no one enters into that field' and then the ban is not peremptory but 'without prejudice to what is laid down in the national indications'.

There were various and weighty criticisms from the opposition in the House during the general debate. For Irenze Manzi (PD) 'in the end, the right wing was forced to turn back. After weeks of controversy, criticism from the world of schools, associations, psychologists and anyone who cared about the education of children, the ban on introducing sex education courses in secondary schools fell. The League,' he added, 'has in fact announced the filing of a corrective amendment to the text approved in committee. It is an obvious backward march, an obligatory step after the unanimous protests against a meaningless, ideological and harmful measure'.

In his opinion, however, 'a corrective is not enough to erase the basic error: that of thinking that schools should keep quiet about everything that concerns the emotional, relational and sexual growth of adolescents. Affective and sexual education is not an ideological whim: it is prevention, it is a culture of respect, it is protection for our young people. Today the Right is forced to recognise this. We will continue to urge the majority and the government so that the other questionable aspects of the measure are also modified'. Because, in the end, 'schools must educate, not censor'.