Health Data Collection Improvement Act requires kids to reveal sexual preference

Late last week, mind Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin introduced new legislation that aims to improve health care for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. HR 6109, the Health Data Collection Improvement Act allows the Department of Health and Human Services broad discretion in collecting data on sexual orientation via surveys done by the HHS – including surveying of school children.

Baldwin herself is openly gay, so in addressing the needs of her own underrepresented community, her aim is fair – to collect data to help diagnose and predict trends.  Similar studies have been done for most groups represented in the U.S. population, as genetic and behavioral trends tend to exist within groups. Finding these links can lead to better care. For this reason, more information is never a step in the wrong direction, but yet, passing the legislation would mean that all Health and Human Services programs would now include mandatory surveying of its users about their sexual orientation and gender identity, which includes children of all ages attending schools.

n a press release, the theoretical need for this legislation is explained, “Ultimately, H.R. 6109 will allow health researchers, LGBT community organizations, and government agencies to better assess the health and wellness issues affecting the LGBT community and individuals. In addition, it will allow both private and public funds to better target evidence-driven LGBT health programs.”

Should there be more studies done to make sure our government is best serving every American, including the GLBT community?  Sure, but asking kindergarteners about their sexual preferences is clearly not be the best way to do this.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Potential Grade 1 Survey Question:

Are you a lesbian?

___ yes

___no

___let me ask my Mom

___what is a lesbian?

___ boys have cooties
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The legislation itself is not entirely bad, more research can only lead to better care, but why is the part that applies to children necessary?  How would it deter from the goal to include an over-18 only clause?

The legislation has made it to the “bill” stage but will it make it any further?  Either way, we certainly haven’t heard the last of it.  Expect to hear much more about this bill in coming weeks.

Source: Examiner

About The Author