Byron York: McCain’s sex-ed attack ad is accurate
posted at 11:45 am on September 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I owe you a follow-up after having defended The One on this last week. FactCheck says the ad’s unfair, partly because the bill never passed and therefore doesn’t qualify as an “accomplishment” and partly because it did include language, as Obama’s long asserted, that each grade level’s sex-ed classes should be age-appropriate. Indeed it did, says York. But it also said this:
The old law read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.
Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education 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.
He tracked down the five state senators who sponsored the bill — only one of whom would talk to him, natch — to see how honest Obama’s been in stressing that the thrust of the bill was to teach kids how to recognize molestation:
When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health — both major contributors to the bill — “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.”…
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”
So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?
“Absolutely not.”
In fact, the bill was a comprehensive overhaul of the state’s sex ed curriculum, replete with replacing language about teaching abstinence as the “expected norm” with language about abstinence being just one method of preventing pregnancy. Read York for details. My question’s simply this: How do we square the passage on teaching kindergarteners about STDs, which is located in subsection (a) of the bill, with the age-appropriate language in subsection (c)? Quote:
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 … course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
Obama shills are ignoring the STD clause while Team Maverick’s ignoring the age-appropriate clause, the better to make it seem like The One endorses interrupting sandbox time for show-and-tell sessions involving rolling condoms onto a banana. Alas, they’re both in the bill, leaving us to wonder what sort of information on AIDS and syphilis is “developmentally appropriate” for five-year-olds. The most charitable explanation I can come up with it is that the lessons on inappropriate touching are themselves a form of STD prevention: E.g., “Don’t let the bad man make you touch him down there. Not only is it wrong, but you could get sick.” Any alternate theories?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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]
An investigation of Planned Parenthood would be a very good thing for the children of this country. Spend some time outside of an abortion mill, and see for yourself how young some of the girls going in there are. It’s heartbreaking. The PP facility in Aurora, Illinois was set-up to take advantage of the fact that Illinois doesn’t have a parental notification act, and girls from the surrounding states that do have one, are brought here for abortions.
Mulligan on September 16, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I suspect it’s part of the agreement O’reilly and Obama came up with to get Obama on Bill’s show. There was an article out before Obama came on stating this very thing, but it was dismissed by some. Perhaps they should re-think their original conclusion.
xblade on September 16, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Just one. Age-appropriate discussions of HIV infection in a K-5 setting might include letting kids know they can’t catch HIV from casual contact with classmates. There are elementary school children with HIV — more and more, in fact, as therapies and treatment protocols improve.
DrSteve on September 16, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I don’t even want to go there. Too disturbing…
CliffHanger on September 16, 2008 at 2:51 PM
You dropped the ball on this one, AP. If you (or anyone in the press) had actually gone and read the bill you would have seen his campaign was lying. In addition, his bill also would have stricken teaching abstinence until marriage and respect for marriage.
The press is just printing Obama’s talking points without doing any fact-checking.
Heywood U. Reedmore on September 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Go back to reading the bill, Heymore.
(3) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent
unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections,
including HIV.
jim m on September 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM
jim m at 3:14
Abstinence as one of many methods to prevent pregnancy isn’t the same thing as teaching abstinence until marriage and respect for marriage. Only a fool would not teach that abstinence is a way to prevent pregnancy, but the law had previously said to teach respect for marriage, with heterosexual marriage as the best context for sex and with there being emotional consequences for sex outside of marriage.
It’s a totally different view of sex and of what constitutes the most healthy, risk-free sexual lifestyle.
justincase on September 16, 2008 at 3:40 PM
all you needed was the reaction fro the Obama camp to know this ad was true. Look at how they went over that radio station. they can not handle the truth.
unseen on September 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Exactly how does one teach a FIVE year old about how to avoid HIV without basically explaining about anatomy and sexual intercourse? Without addititonally explaining the larger dangers of even more invasive types of intercourse that lead to HIV? As a family relationship specialist for many years, I see this as insanely inappropriate for children of this tender age. This is precisely why the Obama camp is insisting that Barry voted for it solely from the predator angle - which makes no difference, a yes vote is a yes vote. It was a huge error and Barry knows it.
marybel on September 16, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Shocking yet correct? Huh.
chiefeditor on September 16, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Call me extremely old fashioned but I don’t think there should be any sex ed in schools until the kids can read and write and cipher. Unless the main goals are to disrupt the family and unnaturally sexualize children, this is a major misuse of resources.
snaggletoothie on September 16, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Brit Hume just covered the truth. O’Reilly is certainly scrambling right now to figure out how to correct himself without looking foolish. (too late)
db on September 16, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I would say its a major misuse of resources if it is the goal also, and I think it is.
Maxx on September 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM
O’Reilly is definately in the tank for Obama and seems to be subtley undermining McCain. He is an arrogant, pompus Harvard pinhead!
wepeople on September 16, 2008 at 8:43 PM
I would go one step further. I do not believe that sex education has any place, in public schools. Sex education is the sole responsibility of parents, as parents have values, standards, principles and morals associated with sexual behavior, which they want to instill, in their own children.
Some children may not have good parents but that is a matter for Social Services.
We cannot sacrifice our children to social experimentation and, in many cases, to pedophiles. What do parents know about the sexual thoughts of strangers, simply because they are so-called educators?
Planned Parenthood and organizations like Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)should be banned from public schools. Both organizations appear to have agendas and the main goals may very well be to disrupt the family and unnaturally sexualize and indoctrinate children.
Parents who would permit a stranger to teach their children about sex is putting them in harms-way.
sinsing on September 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM
DrSteve:
Marybel:
Besides what DrSteve mentioned, appropriate HIV education for five year olds might include how you *can* catch HIV: by exchanging blood. E.g., if your playmate gets a cut, don’t mess with it, go get her mommy.
There used to be a custom among British schoolboys of proving friendship by exchanging blood: both boys would cut the palm of their hands with a pocket knife, press their cut hands together, and swear eternal friendship. This is a bad idea in the age of retroviruses, and it’s worthwhile to warn kids not to do this.
Bartrams_Garden on September 16, 2008 at 9:30 PM
I think teachers can admonish children not to cut themselves or get other people’s blood on them without an act of Congress.
And the schoolboys you’re talking about were kids in their teens not kindergarteners.
Maxx on September 16, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Agree 100%. Well said.
Maxx on September 16, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Come on, you’re smarter than this.
It only applies if the kids are already receiving comprehensive sex education.
McCain ad:
Wrong. The legislation was to teach about STDs to any student already receiving comprehensive sex education. The ad makes it sound like the legislation introduces comprehensive sex education to kindergardeners. That’s a distortion.
Byron:
Only if the classes were already being taught to such children. The bill didn’t address who should receive comprehensive sex education.
Consider a law that requires that children between the ages of 5 and 18 be required to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Now imagine the McCain camp arguing that Obama wants to force kindergartners to ride motorcycles.
Mark Jaquith on September 17, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]