I was surprised to get an email from an anti-abortion group celebrating the inclusion of a provision that bans abortion in school-based health clinics. To begin with, I had not heard of this part of the bill, but then I assumed that the number of school-based health clinics performing abortions was zero. So it was a symbolic gesture, a bone to the zealots.
Happily, Valerie Strauss pursued this issue, and this is what she found. The language was inserted at the last minute, and it doesn’t mention the word “abortion.” It refers to a section in the Health Service Act that bans the use of public funds for abortions in school-based health clinics. The provision restates what is already law.
The difficulty with a bill that is over 1,000 pages is that it is akin to a Christmas tree, loaded with member items that were quietly tucked in, not always bad, like funding for libraries, after school programs.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
No abortions are done at school based clinics, in fact what they do in school based clinics is prevent abortions. What a bunch of fools.
When did it become commonplace for bills to be introduced without public review? A US Congresswoman told folks in my neighborhood that she had to look through a bill (on another topic) in a room and no note taking, copies or no cell phone use were permitted. How is that Democracy?
Do they continue to vote for this “congresswoman”?
Did she speak out or try to change the practice? or
did she go along to get her pension?
I’m sure there are lots more Easter Eggs hidden in the 1,063 pages. Most, no doubt, for the generous contributors from the charter and reform sector.
We’ll see how this latest interference damages the practice and careers of teahcers nationwide not to mention the kids who are poor and minority.
It will not be pretty since it’s primary purpose was to hasten the demise ot public schools by throwing the Tea Party and ALEC-controlled legislatures in the majority of states the tools to do it swiftly and mostly under the radar.
Bit it did have the imprimatur of the NEA, the AFT, and all the usual safe and sinecured bigwigs so there’s that, right?
1061 pages rushed through without public review will continue to reveal many unpleasant surprises and unsuspected “interpretations” in the coming years. ESSA is a cosmetic repackaging of NCLN/RTTT without calling it by those despised names–continues annual standardized testing 3-8 and twice in high school; continues 95% mandate obstructing Opt-Out; social investment bonds; money for privatized charters; support for bogus teacher-training academies a la TFA; etc. Because of the startling level of parental opposition to PARCC/SBA/CCSS, govt. had to repackage and re-market the plans without admitting error or stupidity or venality. Both major parties also had key interests in taking k-12 wars off the table for this presidential election season. GOP has loud thunder on its tea party right opposing all federal initiatives, so getting CCSS/NCLB off the radar is their attempt to hold together a badly-conflicted party in a badly-divided pres. primary season. The Dems are in similar trouble, similarly needing to throw off the table any mention of the k-12 war against public education which divides the Dems from their appeal to suburban moms and dads especially and to their progressive cohorts who despise standardized testing and the looting of public schools for unspeakable charters. Given that Hillary has no education policy addressing the decimation of the public schools, it was up to Randi/Lily of AFT/NEA to be the first to throw k-12 under the bus by forcing her endorsement. Dem pres. debates followed suits, silencing any questions on public education. So, to suit the presidential election needs of both billionaire parties, k-12 and our troubled public schools had to be sacrificed to an ESSA which is a repackage of the worst aspects of earlier programs with nothing of any consequence to repair the terrible damages inflicted so far. Crony politicians in both parties hope that ESSA will distract, confuse, and dilute the Opt-Our rebellion long enough to get through the presidential season after which all the worst troubles will erupt back into the spotlight.
“On principle, nobody in this House should vote for legislation which he doesn’t understand, has not seen, and contains hundreds and hundreds of pages with many provisions that we know nothing about.” -Bernie Sanders, 1997 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j5h0oRwxnQ
So did he read it?
He didn’t vote.
So he didn’t read it.
“ESSA ccontains an abortion ban”
It bans the Common Core?
Hey, at least Jack Johnson got pardoned.
No school clinic has ever indicted for practicing abortion. How could I expect it’s coming from anti-abortion fanatics?
Abortion? Military recruiting? Gulen immigration visas? … What about leveling the funding playing field in … Education?
So if Congress doesn’t actually read every bill, how do they represent us?
We read it, then complain about things they should have discussed, but oh wait, it’s already law and would require another bill they don’t read to earn their expensive pensions for “serving” the public.
Where is the outrage sheeple!
Jim Realini,
You raise a legitimate point. Who reads a bill of more than 1,000 pages from beginning to end? How much time did members of Congress have to read it? Or did they leave that job to their staff? Did their staff read it? Just as a guess, I suspect that the members read the section that was of greatest concern to them, but not the whole bill. As a matter of democratic process, this bill should have been available for public discussion for at least a month or more. It is very consequential, and it involves the future of our education system and our children and our nation. Ten days is not time enough for anyone to know what is in the bill. Why the rush?
I can see how this entry got into the bill:
“The only way you can have my vote for ESSA is if you put something in against abortion.”
“You have got to be kidding me, John. Even in politics, this is too much. Obama will never sign such a document.”
“You don’t have to use the word abortion in the bill. Instead, use lots of legalese and the § symbol a multiple times and refer to another document that forbids abortions. This is an old trick people use in accounting.”
“That’s clever, John. I already visualize lots of exciting applications of this here in Washington. So what is your suggestion in this case?”
“Well, do you remember that bill we just passed about restricting abortions in Health Centers? Make a reference to that in relation to Health Centers in school buildings.”
“Clever, clever, clever. I am writing it, as we speak.”