In the wake of heavy editing to tailor the narrative to the paper’s left-wing ideology, the original argument was somewhat lost.

 Below you’ll find the original piece, which offers an unfiltered perspective.

 We wholeheartedly believe you deserve a more comprehensive understanding of this important topic without the constraints of a political agenda, so you may form your own independent opinion.

Don’t call common sense a ‘book ban’

A recent state senate hearing into whether the legislature should set standards for school library content quickly turned into a debate over a “book ban,” proving once again that it’s easy to reject a commonsense idea by labeling it an attack on free speech.

Calm down. Nobody’s banning books.

A student at one of the high schools in my district called attention to books in the library that carried explicit – as in, no newspaper would dare publish them – illustrations of sex acts for young people. When it turns out that his mom was affiliated with a parents rights group, my own hometown newspaper carried a “gotcha” story calling this a book ban. Opponents called it a manufactured crisis.

Let’s consider what they’re saying. A witness presented portions of illustrated books showing two teen boys engaging in oral sex, a boy engaged in sexual exploration with his sister, and print materials with recommendations on how best to engage in oral and anal sex.

There are two important points here.

First, a young person’s sexual awakening is a difficult, sometimes traumatic, event. A bit of privacy is in order and a school library isn’t the best spot for it. Nor is a middle school library the place to put a how-to book on the shelves for youngsters who, whatever their orientation, would be ill-served by encouragement to engage in sexual acts.

Second, if these books are so valuable, wouldn’t photographs be as acceptable as the already graphic drawings of teens engaged in sex acts? Authenticity would suggest that’s the next development. It would also be child pornography. We should be afraid of our kids picking up these materials. We should be terrified of adults providing these materials to our children without parental knowledge or consent.

It’s a good rule of thumb that if you can’t share a picture in the newspapers or TV broadcasts, they’re probably not suitable for children. Do the same sensibilities stop at the schoolhouse door? 

The argument over these books isn’t about banning. That terminology allows people to discuss these books in the abstract without the uncomfortable dilemma of having to actually see what’s in them while arguing that they should be made available to children. 

Let me direct you here to the public testimony in the senate hearing into these books and whether we need legislation setting standards for what goes on school library shelves. Be warned. Some of it is graphic.

Sexual desire is not an opinion nor should it be an ideology. It is a vital, human function that should not be triggered by any governmental entity, whether it be a middle school or a governmental department. In short, sexual how-to materials might belong somewhere, but a middle school library isn’t among them – at least not without parental consent.

That’s why I have sponsored a bill to require a parental opt-in to decide if their children should be given access to these materials. Parental permission is already required for most school trips, team sports and many school assemblies. Nobody is calling them a travel ban or a sports ban. Most of us call it parenting.

The bill doesn’t remove books from the library. It governs access according to which parents are comfortable with their children seeing sexually explicit materials on school time.

Many parents take great lengths to protect their children from content like this on smart phones, TV, and the music they listen to – all of which have parental controls and rating systems to assist parents in their efforts. 

Parents are frustrated that they now must protect their children from this content while at school, without the same easy parental control options.

It shouldn’t be easier to protect your child from explicit content on Netflix than in their middle school.

We’re not questioning children’s Constitutional Rights. We’re asserting parental rights. We think parents will agree that our public schools should not be an unregulated free-for-all when it comes to one of the most sensitive aspects of childhood.

Ryan Aument, R-Lancaster, is a member of the Senate Majority Whip and co-chair of Building a Stronger Pennsylvania.