New McCain ad: Obama wants to teach kindergarteners “comprehensive sex education”

posted at 9:31 pm on September 9, 2008 by Allahpundit

The only thing I dislike more than defending The One is defending him over and over again on the same charge. This is a perennial accusation against him, dating first from his Senate race with Alan Keyes, then recycled last year by Romney, and now coopted by Maverick for a little culture-war magic. David Brody at CBN wrote a useful post the last time it came up: Essentially, “comprehensive” sex education for young kids would go no further than teaching them what constitutes inappropriate touching by adults. To watch this, you’d think Barry wants to give them coloring books titled, “Why Does It Burn When I Pee?”

The obligatory Obama camp outrage, via HuffPo: “It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Maxx on September 10, 2008 at 12:42 AM

Uh, you do know he was quoting the Obama campaign, right?

SouthernDem on September 10, 2008 at 1:13 AM

Hmmmm… I think I have to side with McCain on the issue. I had heard of Obama’s defense, and I came down on his side, but after reading through the legislation, I can’t completely defend Obama as does AP.

The legislation completely opens the door to any teacher, conservative or liberal, to interpret what “age appropriate” should be.

More disturbingly, it appears that the legislation was modified from its original form, in which it would apply to grades 6-12, but was re-drafted to include K-12. I just think that is completely ridiculous. Knowing how far left Obama is, we can infer that “age appropriate” is really cover for anything goes.

El_Terrible on September 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM

I can’t completely defend Obama as does AP.

El_Terrible on September 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM

Even Democrats have trouble doing that.

Tommygun on September 10, 2008 at 2:01 AM

Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.

Allahpundit

You question McCains honor? I question your ability to do research before diving headlong into the HuffPo position. I think you owe us all an apology.

Maxx on September 10, 2008 at 12:42 AM

HuffPo: “It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”

That is not an AllahPundit quote but a direct quote of response by the Obama campaign… So he doesn’t need to apologize for anything..lol..

Y314K on September 10, 2008 at 2:44 AM

Great ad, grumpy Allah opinion. Nothing’s changed.

leftnomore on September 10, 2008 at 2:57 AM

I think I’ll be ‘the One’ to decide whether my child is ready to be lectured on sexual notions. Teaching a child about sexual predation is as simple as “no touching that feels wrong”……Barry’s bill gave more latitude.

Bill-O did not hit Barry on infanticide either.

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 3:51 AM

More disturbingly, it appears that the legislation was modified from its original form, in which it would apply to grades 6-12, but was re-drafted to include K-12. I just think that is completely ridiculous. Knowing how far left Obama is, we can infer that “age appropriate” is really cover for anything goes.El_Terrible on September 10, 2008 at 1:18 AM

I linked to the actual Bill itself in my quoting of you.

Unless there is some bevy of percieved sexual activity between K-6 I do not see any reason for the State to have to give briefings on sexual harassment to my child. I cannot think of any net benefit to any activity but educating a child about the sanctity of their own body and the fact no one has a right to manipulate them. Occam’s razor says that either the State of Illinois was unable to teach children this fact, OR there is some other purpose at work in lowering the age gate.

Sorry, but I don’t think the McCain ad was saying that Barry believes in how to manuals being required but I cannot disagree that he has made it possible.

Morality is my job, not the state’s…their job is reading, writing, and math.

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:01 AM

Pardon me, but why is the discussion of inappropriate touching in a kindergarten classroom even? Are parents simply unaware of the realities of modern day living with rampant pedophilia? Or is this aimed at making children turn in their parents to school teachers?

Even falsely creates a real hardship. But, mostly, I think I am disturbed by these calls because they a) take the parent out of the discussion and pretend the government is better or b) and practically seem like starter sex programs.

Kat_Mo on September 10, 2008 at 4:06 AM

“Or is this aimed at making children turn in their parents to school teachers?”
duh! stasi fever — catch it!
:-(

Buckaroo on September 10, 2008 at 4:12 AM

Barack wants to teach your child his morals. He is quite clear about this in his actions and in his books. He wants to raise taxes meaning you’ll need to work more to have the same income level which means you can either have less and the same time or be at home less.

He does not even really hide this.

http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/viewtopic.php?t=21566

He wants “boot camps” to indoctrinate your children in class struggle and grievance mongering. He then wants to grow a “civllian national security force” as well-funded and as manpower intensive as the US military. That he does not stress or loudly state this goal does not mean it is not there.

Barack figures that he will have a one party bobsled course for at least 2 years, but given his ties to acorn and the zeal the democrats will try to gerrymander I am thinking he believes he can get 8.

He will NOT waste the opportunity of one part rule like Clinton adn Bush did in his eyes.

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:19 AM

Election ’08: Democrats’ reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.

Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, “Universal Voluntary Public Service.”

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of “social change.”

Check out the youtube about 16 and 23 minutes in

Barry sez:

Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve. Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East LA, or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia. . . .

Today, AmeriCorps – our nation’s network of local, state and national service programs – has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife Michelle once left her job at a law firm at city hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. These programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America’s greatest resource – our citizens.

That’s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Don’t we have a national security force of civillians that’s just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded as the Active duty military?

We call them the US National Guard V…..

what does Barack need a politically trained, civillian “security force” for V?

Why is whether or not Sarah Palin fucked Todd’s business partner more important than THIS issue?

You keep on hitting Sarah because sooner or later 2 things are gonna happen….

1) in looking at Sarah closer they’ll look at everyone closer

2) the press in response to the backlash that we WILL generate will be forced to at least finally pay lip service to vetting Barack….

I am *certain* the vast majority of the American People will LOVE things like this.

at best he is wanting to nationalize several hundred functions, and give them “parity” with the military and draw them into the federal web….

at worst he is a dimestore Il Duce, who wants to politically indoctrinate people…..

Public Allies is a group of protestors for hire

is any of this sounding familiar?

for him to get financial parity even if this “national security force” is totally benign” he is asking for federalizing 1 trillion more dollars of new spending, and dear God if he uses this is any way to indoctrinate like people suspect Annenburg was engaging in….

oh well whatever….

Sarah’s a slut and bristol’s a whore…..quick let’s whistle up a civillian national security force and a blogstorm to get it.

Team Barry removed the National Security Force from the transcripts they released


“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.

He added that he wants the help of “every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate’s biggest and boldest initiatives before the election.”

Since Farah reported the statement, it’s been the subject of intense discussions on the Internet.

In a post on FreeRepublic.com, Sean Robins explains why he believes it’s likely one of Obama’s handlers counseled him to remove the two lines from the speech and then the senator decided to put them back in.

“Most of the time, when Obama flubs a line and attempts to recover, you can easily spot it,” Robins writes, but in this case, the lines are “delivered clearly, concisely, and succinctly, without any hint that they emanate from a flub.”

Robins speculates the lines were prepared and rehearsed ahead of time, the handler or handlers counseled him to take them out, and “in the moment of the speech, he decided, ‘they’re back in.’”

Robins says that while this is speculation, it points to the need to “pay closer attention to Obama’s speeches, for what is off the cuff, for what his trainers and handlers might not want him to say, but which he will continue to say anyway. We know he’s really good on a fixed script. And we know that he’s really bad on his own.”

so yeah…Stasi may not be far off….

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:25 AM

Election ’08: Democrats’ reintroduction of militant Michelle Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side. But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public Allies.

Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, “Universal Voluntary Public Service.”

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of “social change.”

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:38 AM

Check out this youtube at 16 and 23 minutes in

Barry Says:

Quote:

Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve. Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East LA, or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia. . . .

Today, AmeriCorps – our nation’s network of local, state and national service programs – has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife Michelle once left her job at a law firm at city hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. These programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America’s greatest resource – our citizens.

That’s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Don’t we have a national security force of civillians that’s just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded as the Active duty military?

We call them the US National Guard…..

what does Barack need a politically trained, civillian “security force” for?

Why is whether or not Sarah Palin screwed Todd’s business partner more important than THIS issue?

I want the donks to keep on hitting Sarah because sooner or later 2 things are gonna happen….

1) in looking at Sarah closer they’ll look at everyone closer

2) the press in response to the backlash that we WILL generate will be forced to at least finally pay lip service to vetting Barack….

I am *certain* the vast majority of the American People will LOVE things like this.

all the best,
sven

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:41 AM

at best he is wanting to nationalize several hundred functions, and give them “parity” with the military and draw them into the federal web….

at worst he is a dimestore Il Duce, who wants to politically indoctrinate people…..

Public Allies is a group of protestors for hire

is any of this sounding familiar?

for him to get financial parity even if this “national security force” is totally benign” he is asking for federalizing 1 trillion more dollars of new spending, and dear God if he uses this is any way to indoctrinate like people suspect Annenburg was engaging in….

oh well whatever….

“Sarah’s a slut” and “bristol’s a whore”…..quick let’s whistle up a civillian national security force and a Kos blogstorm to get it.

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:42 AM

so no Stasi may not be that far off….

*staff sorry I missed redacting an f-bomb in the first try at reposting this here, I apologize it is early.

regards,
sven

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:44 AM

Age appropriate means teaching to fetuses, but then again he thinks that life begins in the 4th trimester.

J.J. Sefton on September 10, 2008 at 4:50 AM

Age appropriate means teaching to fetuses, but then again he thinks that life begins in the 4th trimester.

J.J. Sefton on September 10, 2008 at 4:50 AM

Unless of course a donor really needs to ice a 26 year old….

wonder if he said anything on Schiavo…it’d be interesting not as a policy thing but a snapshot into his intentions on the sanctity of life.

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:53 AM

never mind….he was before life before he was against it

Cleveland, OH (LifeNews.com) — Senator Barack Obama debated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton on Tuesday night and said his biggest mistake was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo. Terri is the disabled Florida woman whose husband won the legal right to starve her to death.

In March 2005, just weeks before Terri died from a painful 14-day starvation and dehydration death, Congress approved legislation allowing her family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop the euthanasia from proceeding.

Terri was not on any artificial breathing apparatus and only required a feeding tube to eat and drink. Her family had filed a lawsuit against her former husband to allow them to care for her and give her proper medical and rehabilitative care.

Captain Euthenizer

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:56 AM

The left is all about transfer of family matters to the state. The further left we go, the more irrelevant the family becomes, while the state gradually becomes all powerful.

The care of the sick, the unemployed and the old, not just the education but the raising of children, drift away from both the control and responsability of the family and into the control of the state.

When you realise that this is the left’s ultimate goal, then having children turn their parents in, begins to appear quite normal and not a problem at all. After all, the state is much better qualified to raise them, than their parents are. So why do they need parents??

For the logical conclusion of this political direction, see Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Aylios on September 10, 2008 at 4:58 AM

For the logical conclusion of this political direction, see Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Aylios on September 10, 2008 at 4:58 AM

Yup.

“there any guns in your home?”

“your mom and dad do anything against the rules?”

Communism-100+ million dead since inception…..

“we’re a work in progress pardon the mess”

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 5:01 AM

Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to herd American youth into government-funded reeducation camps where they’ll be brainwashed into thinking America is a racist, oppressive place in need of “social change.”
sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 4:38 AM

Barak youth.

Johan Klaus on September 10, 2008 at 5:43 AM

Didn’t read all the posts, so this may already have been addressed. Does that “comprehensive” sex education for kindergartner’s include “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Daddy’s Roommate”?

SKYFOX on September 10, 2008 at 6:37 AM

Public schools always blame parents for the high teen pregnancy rates but isn’t it a lot more likely that it’s the public schools’ perverted and morally bankrupt sex education programs that are responsible? Of course it is, parents don’t want to see their children’s lives get off track with such problems. But the public schools push the liberal agenda that basically says anything goes and… Oh, here’s a condom…

Maxx on September 10, 2008 at 12:11 AM

When I sat on that sex ed committee for our district, I told them that if my teen ended up with an STD (based on the information they were provided in public school regarding condoms – condoms are safe, effective, yada, yada, yada, if it feels good do it, you’re a teen of course you are going to want to have sex!) that I would SUE the district. And I would. The information they want to provide is totally contradictory to what we teach at home (I thought parents and teachers were supposed to work together??? HUH?). Additionally, since the NIH put out a full report on condom effectiveness in preventing STDs, I’m not believing so much that they are effective at all! Playing russian roulette with a piece of latex…no thanks!

Condom Fact Sheet
Parents educate yourselves!

ConMom on September 10, 2008 at 7:14 AM

1. Allahpundit get your head out of Obama’s butt.
2. Why would you take the name of a pagan night god from Arabia?
3. Michelle why is this Obamaite still around?

bill30097 on September 10, 2008 at 8:28 AM

bill30097 on September 10, 2008 at 8:28 AM

Bill, AP’s the reason many of us come here. I followed him here from his old blog. No offense to Michelle and Ed, of course. The post authors are identified in the headline. If you can read, you can avoid reading AP’s posts.

They could have left off the sex ed business and kept it an ad about Obama as an entrenched education reactionary, which is dead-on.

The excerpts presented don’t give a complete picture of what the bill requires, and there’s an explicit (sorry to use that word) opt-out clause in paragraph (a).

DrSteve on September 10, 2008 at 8:43 AM

Take the high road McCain, stop riding the gutter with Obama.

Seixon on September 10, 2008 at 8:55 AM

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education OFFERED in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)

Would like to see the full bill, but is there any requirement to OFFER a sex ed class in all of those grades? Looks like the requirement only applies if the course is offered.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 8:56 AM

Essentially, “comprehensive” sex education for young kids would go no further than teaching them what constitutes inappropriate touching by adults.

This is not a legitimate role for public education. It may not be handing out condoms with the milk and cookies but it’s pretty offensive that the schools would be involved in something that is clearly not their responsibility. So go ahead and defend Obama, you are as wrong on this one as McCain is right to challenge this aspect of Obama’s record.

highhopes on September 10, 2008 at 8:59 AM

If the ad only dealt with the sex ed thing, I might be inclined to agree with AP. But, it doesn’t. It goes after Obama for his record of opposing meaningful change in the public educations system. And, it does it very well.

eyedoc on September 10, 2008 at 9:01 AM

Now found the bill.

It allows parents to opt out of the courses: “No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.”

The version of the bill I’m reading also has the “age appropriate” language in it: “If any school district provides courses of instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life, then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related
to unintended pregnancy, as the alternatives to abortion, APPROPRIATE TO THE VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS; and whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6 through 12, then such courses also shall include AGE APPROPRIATE instruction…”

It does look to be a cheap shot by McCain/Palin.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 9:06 AM

It does look to be a cheap shot by McCain/Palin.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 9:06 AM

Nope…

The alteration in the bill means that Barry and others must feel there was some need in sex ed in those grades that was not being met. Since teaching about molestation has occured in all the states I have lived in either Illinois was lagging way behind the nation or they felt the need to open the floodgates towards expansion.

Which do you think is more likely?

Sven<——also read the bill and the strikes in the bill

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 9:24 AM

Here’s the link to the bill in your original post: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=.

Take a look at (11) under (c), which adds the language about sexual harassment and nonconsensual sexual contact. Sure looks like it wasn’t required to be discussed under the statute up until that point.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Don’t know why part of that post was blacked out.

Take a look at (11) under (c), Sven, which adds the language about sexual harassment and nonconsensual sexual contact. Sure looks like it wasn’t required to be discussed under the statute up until that point.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 9:41 AM

Essentially, “comprehensive” sex education for young kids would go no further than teaching them what constitutes inappropriate touching by adults.

If so then the whole thing revolves around the Democrats dishonesty. Comprehensive implies far more than teaching inappropriate touching. The use of the word comprehensive was deliberate and implies far more than it actually stood for. Just more “smoke and mirrors” politics. Would the Democrats call an immigration bill “comprehensive” that didn’t include some form of amnesty? They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

TooTall on September 10, 2008 at 9:44 AM

SouthernDem on September 10, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Y314K on September 10, 2008 at 2:44 AM

Correct you are, in that case I owe Allah an apology, sorry about that Allah. I thought those were your words above, that are actually a quote from elsewhere. Usually a quote block is used to quote someone. I saw red.

Note to self: Read for comprehension.

That is actually a relief that you didn’t say that.

Maxx on September 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM

I see I made a mistake in thinking that Allahpundit researched the actuall bill rather than just taking Obama’s word for what he intended it to cover. Looking at the bill it is obvious that the bill intends more than just instructing kindergarden students about inappropriate touching like Obama claims:

093_SB0099

LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b

1 AN ACT concerning education.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing
5 Sections 27-9.1 and 27-9.2 as follows:

6 (105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)
7 Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.
8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil’s his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.
Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

(emphasis mine)

TooTall on September 10, 2008 at 10:24 AM

I found this interesting, from the weekly standard.

The McCain campaign has put out a new ad criticizing Obama for supporting sex-ed for kindergarteners, but Marc Ambinder and Allahpundit both say that the program Obama supported merely taught kids what amounts to inappropriate touching by adults. Jim Geraghty, however, points out that the text of the bill Obama supported included the following: “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.” Those aren’t exactly things that most parents want their young children to learn about.

Dscw66 on September 10, 2008 at 10:39 AM

Read a few lines further, TooTall:

(2) All course material and instruction shall
be age and developmentally appropriate.

Cheap Shot by McCain.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM

jim m- you are missing the point. he voted “yea” to an earlier version of the bill that did not include that clause. thats the argument. not what the final bill says.

Ridiculous on September 10, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Cheap Shot by McCain.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM

The ad is perfectly legitimate, parents will want to know that Obama supports the further sexualization of their children in public schools, now beginning in kindergarten. The ad is fair game, Obama voted for it, let him explain it.

Maxx on September 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM

I think McCain was right on the money with this ad. Most teachers I can remember in my life had a liberal agenda, no morals, and hated Christianity.

Think about it this way, a kindergarten teacher has the potential of being the class manwhore or class slut from your high school graduating class.

Do you really want your kindergarten child learning about sexual intercourse from a manwhore or a slut? I don’t. I don’t want my future children learning about this crap from anyone by myself and my wife.

This piece of legislation was another way for Obama to steal a parents rights to teach their kids values.

I mean seriously, how do you tell a child “oh honey, your teacher is only right some of the time, not all of the time”

leetpriest on September 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Cheap Shot by McCain.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM

who determines \”age appropriate”?

The same sorts of clowns that decided public school “jihadi for a fortnight” classes are the way to go….

sorry Jim no sale….

they want to fight fondling?

Great I’m on board I guess the democrat dominated state had never done that before?

They want to leave an opening to Heather Has Two Mommies?

No sale.

sven10077 on September 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM

It’s a strong charge, but McCain couldn’t make it if it wasn’t true.

chiefeditor on September 10, 2008 at 11:32 AM

he voted “yea” to an earlier version of the bill that did not include that clause. thats the argument. not what the final bill says.

Ridiculous on September 10, 2008 at 11:14 AM

Did the earlier version contain the opt-out clause? That doesn’t appear to have been substituted or amended.

DrSteve on September 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM

Go click on http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=99&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=734&SessionID=3&GA=93.
and look for the introduced version of the bill (which I assume is the earlier version you were talking about).

It has the opt out and age appropriate language. If I’m wrong about the bill you were refering to, can you give us a link?

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM

Cheap Shot by McCain.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM

That’s just ridiculous.

I can’t believe that there are people here who think that public school kindergarten teachers should have any role in sex-ed, at all. That is really shocking to me.

progressoverpeace on September 10, 2008 at 11:59 AM

To jim m- the bill does contain the opt out clause. i haven’t been arguing that it didn’t.
my claim is that obama voted for “yea” to the bill before it contained the “age appropriate clause” as the record clearly shows on the link i posted earlier and you reposted.

3/6/2003 Senate Do Pass Health & Human Services; 007-004-000
3/18/2003 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Filed

Ridiculous on September 10, 2008 at 12:20 PM

All amendment 1 did is move the language around a bit. Here’s what the original bill had in clause (c)(2)

(2) All course material and instruction shall
be age and developmentally appropriate.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 1:00 PM

I haven’t read any of AP’s links; I haven’t watched the clip; I haven’t read any of the thread.

My question is: Why is there anything about this at all at the Federal level? BO, this is none of your damn business! Stay the hell out of our kids lives.

urbancenturion on September 10, 2008 at 1:09 PM

This was an Illinois state bill.

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM

good point jim m- thanks for pointing it out. however, as I am not a lawyer, i am now confused further on the timeline of events and process of amending the bill.

The statute says this (when and where did it come from):
(c) All sex education courses that discuss sexual intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Course material and instruction shall be age appropriate.

The amendment says this.

The final text says:
All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Factual information presented in course material and instruction shall be medically accurate and objective.
(2) All
(1) course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

Ridiculous on September 10, 2008 at 1:30 PM

I am also confused how the bill can state first:
“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

and then states the points made in the previous comment above.

aren’t those contradictory?

Ridiculous on September 10, 2008 at 1:32 PM

how can you mandate both
“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV”
AND
“the developmentally appropriate” stuff
at the same time?

Ridiculous on September 10, 2008 at 1:35 PM

It’s confusing.

The statute was apparently passed in 2003 and then amended in 2006 (it says P.A. 93‑88, eff. 7‑2‑03; 94‑933, eff. 6‑26‑06 at the end). But I’m confused by that because the articles I’ve read said the bill that Obama approved didn’t become law.

The final text you’ve linked to seems to be the bill as introduced (which I think refers to itself as the full bill) rather than the final text because the language of amendment one isn’t included in it.

And amendment one obviously came after the bill as introduced.

How you reconcile the requirements of the bill is not clear to me. Maybe you tell the kids that you could get AIDS from tainted blood and some kinds of inappropriate behavior?

jim m on September 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3