BOSTON — Theresa Breguet’s 7-year-old son could be exposed to a radical sex education program if Massachusetts lawmakers enact two bills backed by Planned Parenthood.

Under the proposal, 4- to 11-year-olds will be taught the “correct terminology for sexual orientation (such as heterosexual and gay and lesbian) “and be able to “describe different types of families,” according to the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Curriculum Framework. Students from 14-18 will learn about “possible determinants of sexual orientation” and confidentiality laws concerning “reproductive health problems.”

Potential requirements like those brought hundreds of people to a legislative hearing in the Massachusetts State House Jan. 31.

The bills would mandate that local school committees adopt a standardized health curriculum from pre-kindergarten to grade 12 that includes lessons on homosexuality and human reproduction. Although health education is now optional, it would become a requirement for nearly 1 million children.

Edward Saunders, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said in an interview that the bills would not affect parochial schools.

However, 48% of the state’s population identifies itself as Catholic, according to diocesan statistics, and many Catholic children attend public schools.

Saunders and parents, pro-life and pro-family advocates at the legislative hearing did not object to general health education on morally neutral issues like hygiene and nutrition. But they strongly objected that the sexuality component would usurp parental rights.

And an “opt-out” provision would be no good if mandated classes were needed to graduate, Saunders said.

Breguet and other parents emphasized that if the bills pass, they would reluctantly but seriously consider leaving Massachusetts.

“We strongly believe that sexuality and reproductive teachings are fundamental to morality,” Breguet testified. “And as parents, we believe that only we know our children well enough to make the decision as to when to introduce this sensitive, intimate subject.”

The measure “treats pregnancy as a disease,” said Dr. Paul Carpentier of Gardner, Mass. “So pregnancy is likely to be viewed as a failed prevention of a disease and rejected, medicated away or surgically removed, to someone else’s profit.”

Carpentier, a father of three, is an authority on natural family planning and a fertility care medical consultant certified by the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, Neb. He said that sex education does not belong in schools, but a “reasonable option” would be to offer voluntary guided lessons for parents themselves to present to their children.

Private School Option

Carpentier’s testimony intrigued one bill’s sponsor, Rep. Alice Wolf, D-Cambridge, but not enough to get her to change her mind.

“I think that it’s an interesting approach for a district to consider,” she said after the hearing. But she stressed that that the sexuality section of the measure is “an integral part of the comprehensive health education.”

Wolf is a former mayor of Cambridge who advocates legalized abortion and same-sex “marriage.”

By contrast, Rep. Elizabeth Poirier, R-North Attleboro, a Catholic, said the measure “treads on parents’ civil liberties,” and could violate a teacher’s religious beliefs if lessons are mandated.

“Parents will take their children out of schools to prevent them from being in the clutches of the liberal elite,” she said.

But removing their children from the public schools is an option many just cannot afford, noted Evelyn Reilly, director of public policy for the Massachusetts Family Institute. She pointed out that Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts “is not a disinterested party” and that it has a “huge financial interest” in its goal that all public schools adhere to a standardized sex education curriculum.

Ray Neary, president of ProLife Massachusetts, questioned how some health agencies could ally themselves with Planned Parenthood in backing the bills. Speakers from the American Heart Association, Children’s Hospital Boston and Planned Parenthood testified in support.

“The abortion industry has been trying to sanitize its grisly occupation in the public eye for many years,” Neary testified. “[These bills] try to equate a deadly procedure with ‘health.’”

Margaret Wooley Busse, a 31-year-old Mormon from Brookline, Mass., agreed that the proposal was deceptive. She and her husband moved east from Utah seven years ago to attend Harvard Business School and are questioning whether to stay.

“We’re very nervous about what it’s going to be like to raise our children here,” she said. “People are saying this is not a family-friendly state. I truly cannot understand why anyone would want to teach a 4 year-old sexual terminology unless they were pushing a very clear agenda.”

That agenda became apparent last year to biology teacher Linda Thayer. She examined the proposal in light of her 34 years’ experience in Boston public high schools and 24 years as a volunteer speaker on faith-based sexuality talks for the Archdiocese of Boston. The resulting analysis, “What Parents Should Know about the Massachusetts Health Frameworks,” was publicized by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and alerted many.

Massachusetts Gov. W. Mitt Romney has said he opposes the bills, which have a mid-March committee reporting deadline.

“This proposal will only be defeated if the public outrage continues,” Poirier said. “If there is a lot of pressure, legislators won’t override the governor’s veto, but people have got to make their voices heard.”

Gail Besse is based in

Hull, Massachusetts.