Submitted by John Arbeeny.
In an Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) statement dated 3 May 2022, Superintendent Chris Reykdal inserted himself into discussion of the leaked US Supreme Court majority opinion about Roe v. Wade.
“As Washington state’s elected K–12 schools chief, it would be short-sighted for me to believe that my job starts and ends within the walls of our classrooms. While I have opinions and responsibilities related to content areas such as reading, math, science, and physical education, education leaders are also undeniably invested in the future of our young people and in the well-being of our families. It is counterintuitive and dangerous to believe that stripping access to safe abortions will not have detrimental impacts on our children and families.”
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WAOSPI/bulletins/3163446
Indeed Reykdal was elected as “….Washington state’s elected K-12 schools chief….” whose “….job starts and ends within the walls of our classrooms”. That is what his “sights” should be set upon. He was not elected to pontificate on leaked political issues such as abortion outside the realm of his responsibility.
In his unabashed support of abortion, he stepped out of his role as the State’s chief educator and has taken on the role of political pundit. What does he expect will follow at subordinate school Districts in their discussion of abortion with students given his expressed opinion, not fact, on the matter? Such discussions require a broad examination of the abortion issue, not merely a parroting of “politically correct” partisan language.
Reykdal may have a personal opinion about abortion but a personal opinion cannot be the basis for addressing the issue throughout the Washington State public school system. Here are some of the very necessary components, a curriculum if you will, that must be part of any discussion of the abortion issue in our schools:
- Historical: Beginnings of abortion movement, rationale and organizations (Planned Parenthood, National Right to Life, etc.), values, eugenics, racism
- Political: Positioning of political parties on abortion from Civil War to present
- Racial component: Racial origins, disproportionate Black abortions, impact upon Black community, exploitation by providers
- Constitutional issues: Alleged basis in 14th Amendment, federal vs. states’ rights, judicial activism vs. legislative action
- Legal: Tracing abortion’s movement through the law up to Roe vs. Wade, attempts by states to regulate abortion and the forthcoming US Supreme Court decision
- Biological: A biological timeline from conception to birth indicating child’s development, DNA distinctions, description/visual of actual abortion procedure
- Individual: Testimony by mothers who underwent abortion pro and con, testimony by those who could have been aborted or survived
- Moral/ethical: Discussion of whose “rights” have priority, who is the victim and who the prime “beneficiary” of abortion
- Religious: Comparison of major religious doctrines regarding sanctity of life
- Socio-economic: Impact of 55,000,000 missing population (1/6th of current US population) with respect to workers, economic contribution, aging population
You cannot, as Reykdal has done, simplistically and dismissively sum up the argument for abortion as “Millions will be harmed by this decision.” It’s ironic that he does not consider the 55,000,000 who have already been harmed and the millions more who in the future will be denied the basic right to life and thus the opportunity for liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For more information on the impacts of abortion far beyond just the individual’s prerogative, please refer to the following US Government Center for Urban Renewal and Education report:
Here’s the lead in statement of this report:
“Politicians argue for abortion largely because they do not want to spend the necessary money to feed, clothe and educate more people. Here arguments for inconvenience and economic savings take precedence over arguments for human value and human life… Psychiatrists, social workers and doctors often argue for abortion on the basis that the child will grow up mentally and emotionally scarred. But who of us is complete? If incompleteness were the criteri(on) for taking life, we would all be dead. If you can justify abortion on the basis of emotional incompleteness, then your logic could also lead you to killing for other forms of incompleteness— blindness, crippleness, old age.”
(Then pro-life) Jesse Jackson, January 1977
The superintendent is a victim of misguided academia, if a pregnant woman is murdered the criminal is charged with two homicides, killing the unborn is legal and acceptable, just hideous!
New OSPI motto: “If ya can’t teach em, grease em!”
Fifty-five million abortions have been performed of which over thirty million were babies of color. It is no coincidence that Planned Parenthood clinics are located where they can be easily accessed by minority women. Margaret Sanger may be dead, but her belief in eugenics is sadly alive and well. Abortion providers obviously don’t think “Black Lives Matter”. How tragic.
Thank goodness for citizens like you, Mr. Arbeeny, who are thorough in presenting the multiple aspects of the issue of abortion–in contrast to Superintendent Reykdal, who with no detail, stated in his bulletin to Washington State school districts, “It is counterintuitive and dangerous to believe that stripping access to safe abortions will not have detrimental impacts on our children and families.” Simplistic hyperbole! Is he an educator or a politician? Is Mr. Reykdal not aware that abortion legislation will remain in the hands of individual states, or did he choose not to mention it in order to “spin” the matter in order to influence school teachers and staff according to his own bias? The purpose of education is to teach students how to think critically after examining all facts. It is not to indoctrinate them.
Mr. Arbeeny,
Let’s do talk about the start of the anti-abortion christian right. The christian right had no concern with abortion until Jerry figured out that since it was no longer acceptable to be racist it would be a good vehicle to control those with small minds. I think it appropriate that the Superintendent put out a statement regarding this. He is sure to receive questions about how it is that the justices lied during their confirmation hearings. Along with questions about how it is that a small minority who want this get their way, albeit only temporarily. And lastly, who are you to try to restrict his freedom of speech. The republicon party is dying and hopefully will be dead after the elections in November. They will lie about anything, to anyone, for any reason, as long as they can get their way.
Let’s see in November which political party “died”. Justice Ginsberg, the liberal icon on the Court, found problems with Roe v. Wade as far back as 1974. Read up on it and educate yourself. Reykdal can have his own opinion about abortion and he can speak out about it but not in an OSPI official news release which has the effect of giving subordinate Districts their “marching orders” when it comes to discussing this issue with students. It would be no less offensive if every teacher showed up Monday morning parroting Reykdal’s position (or some other position) based upon their opinion. We owe our students a full and unbiased examination of the subject which is this article’s main point.
Please don’t lump all of us on with this garbage…. I bet the author of this post wouldn’t have said two words if the ospi had voiced his opinion in favor of overturning roe v wade.
On top of all that, the argument has been made that young Women are the ones getting the abortions- maybe school age women. If an issue can affect the student than why shouldn’t they have an opinion about it? If he gave his opinion on a bond for a new sports arena that would be out of his scope but unfortunately this is not.
Making assumptions about what someone you don’t know might do is rather presumptuous. Point is, regardless of your opinion on the matter or that of OSPI Reykdal, the issue of abortion cannot be summed up in a few choice words on either side. If OSPI is going to suggest that the subject be discussed with students then the entire range of issues involved in the subject should be addressed. Read the article! By the way, do a little research into the demographics and age distribution of women having abortions. In Washington State under 19 = 10%; 20-29 = 54%; 30-39 = 32%; 40+ = 4%. The % for under 19 has been going down as have numbers across all age groups.
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/distribution-of-abortions-by-age/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D