SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Critics of “comprehensive” sex education claim the programs are less about informing students about the dangers of irresponsible sex, and more about promoting a progressive social agenda to children.

A bill making its way through the California legislature seems to support that theory.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 329, would make it mandatory for California schools to offer comprehensive sex education programs, combined with already mandatory HIV/AIDS instruction. Under current law, schools are allowed to offer the programs, and most reportedly do, but are not legally obligated.

MORE NEWS: From Classroom to Consulate Chef: Culinary Student Lands Dream Job at U.S. Embassy in Paris

AB 329 is full of language that de-emphasizes traditional concepts like marriage, monogamy, teen abstinence and the exclusive right of parents to ingrain their moral values in their children.

It would also require sex education courses to promote available abortion services, and present homosexuality and other alternative lifestyles as normal and acceptable, regardless of whether parents want their children to be taught those ideas.

Perhaps most importantly, AB 329 would prohibit school districts from adopting “opt in” policies for parents. Such policies prevent children from being enrolled in sex education programs without prior parental consent.

“It’s pretty concerning, for sure,” said Matthew McReynolds, the senior staff attorney for the Pacific Justice Institute, which has provided legal assistance to parents who are concerned about comprehensive sex education programs.

“This bill seems to come from a mindset that is very antagonistic toward parents and their values, particularly those values that might interfere with what (progressives) want to teach kids about permissive sexual experiences.

“We see a lot of disturbing legislation out here, and this one ranks right up there. It seems to take sex education in exactly the wrong direction.”

There’s no guarantee that AB 329, sponsored by Democratic Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, will become law. It’s currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee awaiting a possible hearing.

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

But the bill recently passed the Education Committee by a 6-1 vote.

It did much better than a competing bill, AB 517, which would guarantee “opt in” rights for parents when sex education or HIV/AIDS prevention classes are taught by outside contractors. It failed in the Education Committee by a 5-1 vote.

That bill was reportedly drafted in response to the concerns of parents in the Acalanes school district near San Francisco, who were upset by a sex education course taught by Planned Parenthood.

Among other things, that course teaches that it’s normal for students to self-identify as a “woman, man, two-spirit, genderqueer or genderless;” according to media reports.

The fact that a bill promoting that type of instruction has a chance to become law, while a bill expanding parental rights is going nowhere, says a lot about the political climate in California, according to McReynolds.

“Certainly the deck is stacked against legislation that is parent-friendly in favor of legislation that is hostile toward parents,” he said.

Troubling legislation

According to an analysis of the bill, provided by the Assembly Committee on Education, it would revise a requirement that “instruction and materials teach respect for marriage” to read “prepare pupils to have and maintain committed relationships such as marriage.”

Teen abstinence, or at least monogamy, are also de-emphasized in the bill, particularly when it comes to HIV/AIDS instruction.

For instance, the bill would remove language from existing statute that says, “This instruction shall emphasize that sexual abstinence, monogamy, the avoidance of multiple sexual partners, and abstinence from intravenous drug use are the most effective means for HIV/AIDs prevention…”

The proposed replacement language says classroom discussion should be based on “information on the manner in which HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are and are not transmitted, including information on the relative risk of infection according to specific behavior, including sexual activities and injection drug use.”

The relative risk? Shouldn’t they stress the fact that it’s wise not to roll the dice at all, or at little as possible?

The legislation would also require teens be taught that “successfully treated HIV-positive individuals have a normal life expectancy …”

That’s true, and infected individuals should definitely seek treatment. But shouldn’t the main message be that it’s far more advisable to avoid the infection in the first place?

The bill guarantees that a positive, accepting viewpoint of alternative lifestyles be presented to students, regardless of what they learn at home or in places of worship.

For instance, it would require “instruction under this act to affirmatively recognize that people have different sexual orientations and, when discussing or providing examples of relationships and couples, shall be inclusive of same-sex relationships,” the legislative analysis said.

The bill would also require “instruction under this act to teach pupils about gender, gender expression, gender identity, and explore the harm of negative gender stereotypes,” the analysis said.

Promotion of abortion would continue to have a place in the classroom. According to the analysis, the bill would require sex education classes to provide “information on pregnancy, including an objective discussion of all legally available pregnancy outcomes, including all of the following: parenting, adoption, and abortion.”

That, of course, would provide convenient marketing opportunities for organizations like Planned Parenthood, which are contracted by many schools to provide sex education instruction, and also makes money by providing abortion services.

Moral guidance from parents is definitely not stressed in this legislation.

The legislative analysis said the bill would amend “a requirement that instruction and materials encourage students to communicate with their parents or guardians to also encourage that students communicate with other trusted adults, and that this instruction also provide students with the knowledge and skills necessary to do so.”

The difference between “opt in” and “opt out”

Obviously many parents, if they knew the facts, would object to their children being taught many of the ideas embraced by AB 329.

But their ability to keep their children from receiving such instruction would be compromised by the bill, due to its abolition of parental “opt in” policies.

The bill would still allow “opt out” polices, which allow parents to remove their children from sex education with a written request. The bill says parents would receive advanced notice that the instruction will occur, and that they have a right to inspect the materials being presented.

But there’s a big difference between “opt in” and “opt out” policies.

“Opt in” policies prevent a student from being enrolled without the explicit, prior consent of parents. That provides a safety net for parents who may not fully understand what’s being taught.

“Opt out” policies are built on the assumption that parents approve, unless they go to the trouble to have their children removed. Some parents may not fully understand the nature of the curriculum, or the need to inspect it. Some may be too busy, or too timid, to submit a written objection, even if they have concerns.

“Opt in certainly makes the school district work harder to get parental buy-in to what they are wanting to teach,” said McReynolds, who suspects that the state may ultimately make comprehensive sex education mandatory for all students, regardless of parental objections.

“Opt out policies put a lot more burden on parents to stay aware of what’s going in. In a lot of cases kids may not bring home the opt-out form, it might stay in backpacks or be discarded. It creates a greater likelihood that kids are going to be subjected to these programs.”