Byron York: McCain’s sex-ed attack ad is accurate
posted at 11:45 am on September 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
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just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”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 Next »
You rarely see bloggers on the left correct themselves when they make a mistake. You and Ed are the bomb.
BadgerHawk on September 16, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Someone tell Bill O’Reilly he was WRONG last night. PLEASE.
Oink on September 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Wow, thanks for the update Allah. Nice correction and nice work.
Hunt035 on September 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Bill’O rarely correct his mistakes. He is not the bomb.
BadgerHawk on September 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I caught a little bit of the Stephanie Miller show on Air America on the drive in one morning. She played a clip of McCain saying that the fact check website isn’t perfect.(If I recall correctly.) And of course laughed at that. I had to turn off the program not long after that. I really have respect for people who can listen to this or any other program on that network for more than 60 seconds at a time.
In any event. I wonder if Miller or anyone else there will report on this. And the answer is pretty obvious. No they won’t.
wise_man on September 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM
How can any sane person vote for this shell of a person? The information is overwhelming. By the way, where is Michelle? Why is he wasting an asset like that?
volsense on September 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM
My daughter is in kindergarten. Age-appropriate sex-ed for her, coming from my husband and I only right now, is all about how babies are made, and only that Mommy, Daddy, and the doctor (with Mommy or Daddy present) can go anywhere near her privates. There is no need for her to learn about STDs, not when she’s getting the working basics of the reproductive systems down.
Methinks what I consider “age-appropriate” and what Obama et all think is “age-appropriate” are in two different galaxies.
Anna on September 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM
It looks to me like Maverick is ignoring the “age appropriate” clause because… it doesn’t make sense. Like you said, what gonorrhea information exactly is “age appropriate” to a kindergartender?
Lehosh on September 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM
And of course you’re wrong.
wise_man on September 16, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I thought this was the Dems approach to sex education …….
Get laid, get pregnant, have an abortion, rinse and repeat.
fogw on September 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
O’Reilly is wrong a lot more after his session with the “messiah’. I think their arrogance was a bond between them that has O’Reilly and little dizzy.
volsense on September 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Well, it appears that me and others who originally disagreed with AP giving Obama the benefit of the doubt were in fact right. Of course once you open the door to sex ed in kindergarten the line will be pushed more and more, especially after a bill passes and attention turns to other matters.
echosyst on September 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Depends.
Depends on kindergardeners in Alaska, or New Jersey.
wise_man on September 16, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Bill is naive about Obama’s true identity. I think he makes the same arrogant mistake of Bush’s “I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw his sole” remark. Bill doesn’t see Obama’s lying for what it is; a cloak to hide his sinister designs for the country.
marklmail on September 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Hmm. I believe this was pointed out repeatedly by commenters to you, AP. But, you continued to disparage. Of course, we’re just the “little people” not a NRO COLUMNIST who’s every word and turd is gold.
Blake on September 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Rush and Sean both read passages that talked about wanking, homosex, genital parts and nomenclature, mutual touching etc. It was rather explicit and supposedly geared to kids c. 5-8 years old.
Now, I’m no prude, but it was nothing but blatant sexualization of children, and Rush had tape of Hussein defending himself against accusations about it saying, among other things, “It’s the right thing to do.”
Am I confused again? What are you saying?
Akzed on September 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Bill O’Reilly is in the tank for O.
Anita on September 16, 2008 at 11:56 AM
No, he not ignoring the age-appropriate clause, since it only refers to “materials” and “instruction,” not content. In other words, it requires Kindergarten teachers to use materials and methods of instruction on STD’s and HIV that a six-year-old would understand — like pictures. Ugh.
Nichevo on September 16, 2008 at 11:57 AM
The real question is who decides what is age appropriate? Certainly not the parents that’s for sure. And this is giving teachers the right to teach whatever they think is objective and healthy–a huge range of topics.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 11:57 AM
I just realized a great idea for a new Elmo doll. Fluff-Me-Up-Elmo.
Squarestate on September 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM
I think “instruction” encompasses “content.”
Allahpundit on September 16, 2008 at 11:59 AM
if Obama is elected, imagine what the media will let him get away with
jp on September 16, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Comprehensive Sex Ed? I thought Bill Clinton did that already from the Oral Office.
Fletch54 on September 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Here’s my duplicate post from over at MM:
I’m at work, so don’t have time to link here. As I stated on the previous blog regarding this topic, I am a member of the sex-ed committee for my local school district. We reviewed dozens of curriculums to implement in our local district. The content of some of these curriculums are enough to make a grown adult blush. Really disturbing stuff. Check out SIECUS and go from there if you’d like to see what the libs want your 5 – 8 year olds to know and experience in the classroom. Level 1 is for 5 – 8 year olds.
I can provide some links later if anyone is interested.
McCain’s ad was right on for those that want to protect the latency period of their children. For goodness sake, does my early el student need to know the details of condom usage? Perpetrated by the “if it feels good, do it crowd”!
ConMom on September 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
A little touch up…
right2bright on September 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I went to Catholic grade school, and we started sex-ed in 2nd grade. It was age-appropriate, and advanced with each year.
It focused initially on the differences in boys and girls how the body works, changes, and interacts with others. Obviously, not touching each other inappropriately was the first lesson.
We did not discuss STDs until 4th or 5th grade.
Samhain on September 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Thanks from all of us.
Akzed on September 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Now he is beginning his campaign to have Palin on. Stating that she won’t have any “weight” unless she comes on the factor.
He kind of dissed Hannity and sloughed that off as “well she is spending some time with Hannity”. But it is not O’Reilly.
I say stave him off and let him whine.
right2bright on September 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM
I don’t believe this type of sex ed is appropriate for elementary-age children, but I still question the effectiveness of the attack. Why go there when you could hammer him on pork, being wrong on the Surge, his liberal record, his ties to a very unpopular Democrat Congress, his questionable associations, his opposition to drilling, etc?
changer1701 on September 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
O’Reilly seems to have been taken in by Obama. I guess he is just another media person in the tank. His normal arms length attitude is gone. Obama must cast some personal spell. Last night he suposedly talked about his early upbringing. He didn’t talk about anything. Just he was born. His dad left. His mom gave him to his grandparents… No discussion of his early life under the influence of his Muslim step-father and Atheist mother. And politically wacky grandfather. O’Reilly glossed over all that–like everyone else. Poor Obama nobody took good care of him…
But they did influence him, his politcs and his worldview. In fact Obama uses his time in Indonesia as lending him foreign policy expertise. It will be too late before anyone cares to get into the nittygritty of it.
It’s much more important to know if Palin has a tanning bed.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Good lord, the man has a show and he wants to have guests on his show. What a monster O’Reilly is!/s
wise_man on September 16, 2008 at 12:07 PM
O’Reily is just desperate to retain “Indpendent Moderate” status, that the media and left already don’t grant him anyway.
jp on September 16, 2008 at 12:08 PM
“age appropriate” is necessary in order to allow planned parenthood early access to our children. The sooner they can get to them, the sooner they can supply with abortions and condoms; and business will be good for them.
bloggless on September 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM
maybe O’Reily just liked the way Obama kept touching his leg? maybe he got the same tingle that Matthews speaks of
jp on September 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM
This is one if the things that make me crazy about The Factor. Many opinions are put forth by Bill O’Reilly and stated as fact. I was disturbed when I heard him state the ad was incorrect when I had already seen the actual excerpts. Now I’m going to tune in to see if he corrects his error. Frankly, he never has before.
SayWhat on September 16, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I don’t think O’Reilly’s interviews are any tougher or have revealed anymore than anyone else’s. I think he has decided to look out for Obama–paternal instict for the poor orphan boy. Not looking out for the folks anymore.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Wow. What a shock.
The moral? NEVER DEFEND THE OPPOSITION.
Spanglemaker on September 16, 2008 at 12:12 PM
O’reilly hides/ignores things just to be seen as unbiased. He’d better not piss off his “base”.
marklmail on September 16, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Anyways, the entire point here, which Obama is skillfully trying to dodge, is that he supported a bill that wanted to expand “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners.
By whining about “lies” and “distortions” and that other parts of the ad are incorrect, Obama’s trying to weasel out of the main point with the ad.
He realizes, naturally, that most Americans don’t feel too positive about expanding sex ed to kindergarten.
Obama’s campaign has turned this into an allegation of Obama being “perverted” as to knock down that strawman and let the real argument blow away in the wind. Like a bale of straw.
Seixon on September 16, 2008 at 12:12 PM
What is with that “Chrinicles of the
NarniaO”Anita on September 16, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Sort of like the cigarette companies using cartoon characters to advertise… age appropriate.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM
I have an idea: how about the federal government shove it, and leave sex ed to the parents? Just a thought.
fourstringfuror on September 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM
There is a very thin thread between parents raising their own children,and the state stepping in. Having children turn on their own parents was a big part of National Socialism and the Soviet system.
As a father of four, I have run into this issue of people wanting to raise my children time and again from a school nurse with a PhD who was teaching about AIDS in my son’s fourth grade class (and terrified him), to a “shelter” for run away teens that invited kids to come get get dental dams and condoms at the Jr. High level, plus meet the drug addicts and predators in residence. This is the rubber to the road issue for any parent, and it needs to be stressed over and over again, until parents understand what is at stake.
Hening on September 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM
The bill was left intentionally vague and ambiguous so that the bureaucrats could make the decision what is age appropriate. Some leftist teachers will no doubt pull kids out of the sandbox to teach how to use condoms, because they deem it appropriate. Like Obama said while mocking Keyes, “Nevertheless, it is the right thing to do.”
tommylotto on September 16, 2008 at 12:15 PM
How do you square any pair of Senator Obama’s statements? Is this not his modus operandi, making various inconsistent statements so that whatever the issue, he can cite something the current audience will view favorably?
Annoying Old Guy on September 16, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I wasn’t surprised with O’Reilly getting it wrong last night, but I was surprised that Mary Katherine Ham didn’t get it right.
digitalintrigue on September 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Agree 100%. Thank you for being so diligent.
Loxodonta on September 16, 2008 at 12:17 PM
The York article has a comment from someone who says, “What might be appropriate in an urban inner city might not be appropriate in a rural community.” I keep going back to that James Taranto column on community organizing where he talked about the people at Altgeld Gardens waiting for the government to fix their toilets. I think it’s key to understanding the way the 0 intends to govern: as if we’re all poor, uneducated, helpless and borderline criminal inner city residents.
Quisp on September 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM
You just have to read the bill. If it doesn’t say anything specifically about preventing molestation but it does talk about comprehesive age-appropriate sex education, you have to assume that the effect will be to mandate comprehensive age-appropriate sex education.
As we have learned in the fight over comprehensive immigration reform, the parts you don’t like always seem to arrive first, and the parts you do like always seem to lag.
gridlock2 on September 16, 2008 at 12:20 PM
This is quite the conundrum – what to make of the seemingly contradictory statements in the bill?
AP – as to alternate theories: The portion of the bill about appropriateness is vague while the portion of the bill about what subjects should be taught is specific. If an administrator were going to play it safe and enforce curriculum that follows this bill they would be more likely to follow the specifics being able to defend any claims that material was ‘inappropriate’ by having an alternate opinion of what’s appropriate (one that fits the specifics). I think the age appropriate part was thrown in partly because all bills describing education standards for such a broad spectrum of students requires one and partly because it makes the more controversial parts less ’scary’.
gwelf on September 16, 2008 at 12:20 PM
What I’d like to know is why Planned Parenthood knows about young children being touched inappropriately. Grade school kids don’t go to Planned Parenthood. Why would parents go to Planned Parenthood if their children were being molested?
And secondly, I’d like to know what Planned Parenthood does when they found out a child was molested.
justincase on September 16, 2008 at 12:21 PM
All the do-gooder dems decry the early sexuality of teenaged girls…. they blame the media. There is a chicken/egg problem here… Do they learn it from media or school?
To suposedly protect a few molested children the school exposes ALL children to early sexual language and “objective” morality. Before most kids would ever have any thoughts other than getting mad when a boy pulled their hair.
A loss of innocense happens as soon as a teacher brings up the subject. That is a form of molestation in and of itself.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Hide the women and children if Baaaraaack wins.
kirkill on September 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Grade school kids don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood, PP comes to them. Anyway, I am sure that grade school kids do go to Planned Parenthood. If a child was molested, I don’t know that PP does anything, other than test for STD and provide abortions to the minors without parental notification.
bloggless on September 16, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I am too lazy to look it up. But planned parenthood ignored when an underage girl claimed to be pregnant from an adult mail. This was done several times as kind of a sting operation against PPH.
Someone will pop up with the links.
right2bright on September 16, 2008 at 12:26 PM
This is really too funny. Part of why they’re calling the ad unfair is because McCain mistakenly attributes an “accomplishment” to the woefully unaccomplished BHO? Is that for real? This is all too much.
I guess I know where Gallup that silly idea of “unfairly positive” in their poll …
progressoverpeace on September 16, 2008 at 12:26 PM
As a parent I don’t want a school saying one word about sex, stds or ANYTHING ELSE! It’s my job to raise my children. How about we get the 3 Rs right! OK?
marklmail on September 16, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Give me a break.
Throwing in a line that the instruction must be “age appropriate” is not substantive. It simply demands the next question: What’s age appropriate? A question on which even reasonable people might disagree.
If he meant something other than the SEICUS standards (the only quasi-official standards on what “age appropriate” means in the context of sex ed), there’s no indication of that. And the SEICUS standards are considerably more “explicit” than you might think.
ClintACK on September 16, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Where are the parents in this village, known as Chicago?
kirkill on September 16, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Separation of school and state. What a concept.
Akzed on September 16, 2008 at 12:29 PM
5 Rs would be better:
Reading, wRiting, aRithmatic, Respect, Responsibility! What a novel concept.
kirkill on September 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM
12! If you are 12, you can make an appointment. What I want to know is how do prove you are twelve? A driver’s license? Ask your Mom for your birth certificate?
bloggless on September 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Somebody should tell him grade school level taunts don’t work. He’s one of those people who wouldn’t be fair to Palin just so can appear to be fair to the left who want nothing to do with him.
Blake on September 16, 2008 at 12:32 PM
http://www.ppgg.org/site/c.esJMKZPKJtH/b.1102051/k.BAD0/Teens.htm
forgot the link!
bloggless on September 16, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I wouldn’t mind Bill having Governor Palin on, except for having to listen to O’Reilly. The guy is as transparent as glass.
bloggless on September 16, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I cannot think of any kind of sex talk that is appropriate for 5 year olds! They pretty much are embarrassed if someone sees their underwear. I’ve had a couple of kids that young help with a cat having kittens. That seemed age appropriate.
Don’t talk to strangers? Um I don’t even let my kids buy ice cream from the ice cream man alone. And my neighbor wanted our kids to take a bath after swimming and I made a rule they had to leave their suits on. The rule–don’t take your clothes off with someone else in the room… They don’t need to know why.
Protecting kids from molestation is watching what situations you let them be in. You have to know who is supervising them. You can’t expect a child that young to know even if you tell them!
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 12:35 PM
How about this?
Liberals are always telling is social conservatives that we’re prudes who won’t acknowledge the fact that kids will have sex no matter what and that younger and younger kids are starting to have sex. They’ve also said that kids are having sex even before they are old enough for sex ed.
With that mindset in mind, teaching kids as young as five about how to prevent STDs actually makes sense. Yes, at that age they’re too young, but better too young than too old. This way they can guarantee that they’ll get kids before they start having sex.
Is there really any other logic explanation? You don’t get an STD because someone touches you. But even if the concern is that a child molester would transmit an STD, what’s the point here? Are the kids supposed to ask the person to wear a condom?
Seriously, teaching about STDs to children is like teaching women about them in the context of rape. Yes, it could happen, but there’s likely very little the victim can do about it, making the knowledge gratuitously frightening.
Esthier on September 16, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I’m surprised that anyone thinks that the “age-appropriate” language means anything. Who thinks that someone would be in favor of age-inappropriate instruction?
To state that instruction in a public should be “age appropriate” is akin to saying that circles should be round. It means nothing as no one in their right mind would ever support anything they felt was age-inappropriate.
Some people are treating this “age-appropriate” language as if it means anything, when, by definition, it can’t!! Kind of like advertising that people are advised to breathe.
progressoverpeace on September 16, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I think there was too much inappropriate touching going on during that interview…
Mr_Magoo on September 16, 2008 at 12:41 PM
If the clear intent of the law were teaching kindergarten students things that they couldn’t understand anyway, then there should be schools across Illinois attempting to follow the law. I have seen no evidence that kindergartens are doing any such thing. It’s just ridiculous to bring up this issue which comes pretty damn close to lying, when there are so many real issue that don’t require tons of exegesis to make your point. If McCain keeps this up, Obama will be successful with the liar meme.
thuja on September 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM
The village is raising them.
I am not opposed to the schools teaching when they are older… hopefully they do stick to the biological stuff on the list. But by the time they are older 11-12 hopefully they understand what we believe is moral behavior and what isn’t.
At those early ages it would be more important to tell the parents…We are concerned that children know not to let anyone touch them inappropriately… here is some language you may find helpful in talking to your children… But like I said earlier having delicate things talked about by a teacher could be abusive in my opinion.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Here’s a link
that shows how Planned Parenthood responds to pedophiles.
Mulligan on September 16, 2008 at 12:44 PM
A couple years ago some elementary kids were approached on the school playground after school by a man who had been convicted of sex crimes. The next day the school had an assembly talking about how to deal with the situation of being approached by a stranger. It wasn’t a sex-ed issue or how to prevent AIDS. It was a public safety issue. he school sent home a letter to us parents explaining the situation.
I understand that most molestation is done by someone the child knows. That’s a different issue than “Hey, if daddy fiddles with your privates make sure you both wash hands afterwards.” The bigger issue is that if this is happening, the child needs to know how to be safe from it happening again. A child isn’t in a position to demand that their daddy put on a condom when he abuses them.
If the issue is kindergarteners touching each other, then what’s the school’s message to those kids? Make sure you don’t cut or scratch each other in the process? Abstinence is one way to prevent AIDS?
If the issue was a classmate having AIDS, then it would be addressed by basic sanitation – health – school rules instruction, not by sex ed. As a kindergarten and first-grade teacher, I taught the kids basic instructions on how to prevent the spread of germs. Had nothing to do with sex ed.
I just don’t understand what legitimate role the school would be trying to play in any of this.
justincase on September 16, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Actually, you make a good point. What is being taught in Chicago schools. I have seen the curriculim suggested but I’m not clear on what is taught.
But the thing is it shows how much more LIBERAL Obama is then he pretends. That is the point of the ads that bring it up. And that is not a lie. He pretends that he is just like us. That he shares our values, but he doesn’t. He beleives that the schools have to teach our children family issues.
Maybe it is his lack of a real family when he was young. But regardless, he IS more liberal than I am comfortable with. I should know that don’t you think?
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 12:50 PM
The government indoctrination centers role in all this is their capitulation to the liberal ideology brought to your local public school by the likes of Planned Parenthood and GLSEN, to name a few.
Maybe it’s not actually capitulation since our public schools seem to be overrun with socialist educrats!
ConMom on September 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Conmom
Thanks for the info. I agree w/Petunia too. Just talking about it is a form of molestation.
I told my husband last night, why does my kindergartener have to call her pee-pee a vagina? Why does my son have to call his pee-pee a penis?
I don’t understand why they have to say the textbook names for their body parts at age 6. Jeez, let them have a childhood. If they start saying the appropriate names for everything, things could get really embarrassing in public. I’m no prude, but I like the cutesy-ness of little kids, being little kids.
JAM on September 16, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Mulligan at 12:44
Who is in charge of prosecuting RICO charges? If PP is telling their workers to circumvent the law on reporting pedophiles, then they should DEFINITELY be facing RICO charges.
justincase on September 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM
No one familiar with legislation could have had any doubts about what this legislation was intended to accomplish after reading the actual language of the bill. As far as I could tell, the McCain ad was fair and accurate.
I’ve gotten the impression that FactCheck has a reputation for expertise and political neutrality, but I’m still not clear as to how that came about. They were all wrong about this.
Infidoll on September 16, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Interrupting sandbox time for rolling condoms onto bananas could very well be what educators have in mind, only provided they believe it is “age and developmentally appropriate,” in their estimation, over which parents would have NO control.
The fact is: what “age appropriate” is, is left undefined by this law, and the law should have failed to pass on that fact alone. Laws are not suppose to be vague, proposed laws that leave such an important element undefined should be rejected, just as this one was.
Who believes that Planned Parenthood is the great defender of children? They were behind this bill, what was their motive? I don’t know, but I do know that there is plenty of inappropriate and criminal behavior going on in the public schools.
A law such as this would have given teacher lawful cover to do just about anything with very young children and if there was ever a complaint, they could simply say it was part of the codified program. Teachers have shown they are not worthy of that kind of trust. No one except a leftwing proponent of destroying parental rights and further indoctrination and sexualization of kids would have supported this law. Its no surprise that Obama did.
Maxx on September 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM
And then these same people will decry how much younger kids are dressing in sexy clothes and makeup… I really wonder where that begins. Is it a reaction to media (or Brat dolls) or does the seed begin with sex talk in Kindergarten?
My elementary school has really cracked down on the dress code and make-up (none through 6th grade) I see that as good sex-ed!
Teach them to respect their bodies by wearing appropriate clothing in public! Is that on any curriculim list?
They have to wear sleeves now. (We live in AZ) Even I lost it though when my daughter was sent to the office for wearing flipflops. No open shoes! I moved to AZ so I didn’t have to take care of socks! But I have to conform. and I really like the no make-up or dangly earrings. It helps so much when the school backs you up. And that gets them through 6th grade before they look like little hookers at least.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 1:05 PM
ConMom at 12:54
I was in MN when they started their Outcome Based Education state standards. I’m not there any more so I don’t know what’s happening now, but I looked at lesson plans for sex ed that required students (I don’t remember how young) to go into a Planned Parenthood and pick up their materials.
How’s that for advertising?
justincase on September 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM
O’Reilly is either illinformed, or he’s intentionally hiding information about Obama’s views. Either way, Bill is starting to alienate me.
marklmail on September 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Wait–have we determined whether these kindergartners have human rights yet?
This answer is essential to concluding the morality of this issue.
Nuance.
Matushka on September 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Pretty soon Planned Parenthood will be having campaigns like the Humane Society–have your children spayed or neutered so we don’t punish society with anymore stinkin children! Responsible child owners make sure their child is neutered…
Not really, that image just popped into my mind. Sorry.
petunia on September 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM
If you elect Barack Hussein Obama, what’s next? Well how about Lamaze classes for 13-year old females. And, how about lessons on vasectomy for 15-year old boys.
I agree we should leave sex-education primarily to parents and their own indications as to when their children are ready to receive such instruction for the health and well-being of their own children. Due to variable stages of maturation of children, they are not all ready to take sex-education at the exact same age.
An argument could be made for the idea that it may be, or is, harmful for children to receive adult ideas they are not ready to completely comprehend.
Down with Barack Insane Obama the radical socialist.
Long live America and American values.
AdrianS on September 16, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Did Obama’s kids get sex ed? That would explain their 10yr old’s slutty outfit at the convention.
marklmail on September 16, 2008 at 1:19 PM
told you so….
sven10077 on September 16, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Maxx at 1:05pm
There was a pedophile teacher who taught my sisters’ third grade class. When the school board found out he was touching little girls they gave him a good recommendation in return for him leaving to a different school – rather than fight a tenured teacher.
I can’t imagine how he would have handled the *demand* that he teach the kids about STD’s. Considering all the “hands-on learning” that is “age appropriate” for grade schoolers.
When I look at the NEA fighting against parental notification for minors seeking an abortion, etc AND realize the effects of unions like the NEA in protecting immoral and even illegal activity by ther own members (see Troopergate, for instance), it does make me distrust any cooperation between schools and PP.
justincase on September 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Justincase, there are pro-life groups with litigation out against Planned Parenthood. PP is funded by our tax dollars, and helped by a lot of politicians. It’s a very difficult fight to win.
Mulligan on September 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Mulligan at 1:25
Is RICO something that can be brought by someone other than a US attorney? Anybody know anything about that? We talk about the need to clean up America’s political house, but how far can us little guys go if judicial appointees won’t pursue the corruption?
That’s really what I see in the Troopergate thing. Sounds like everybody and their dog knew this Wooten guy was doing illegal activities – sounds like he was bragging about the fact that even though the whole world knew what he was doing, none of the little guys could ever git him. His union made him “Untouchable”.
That’s the way Washington and everything connected to Washington is also, and if us little people can have an effective voice, such as with Sarah Palin, it would give us hope to try.
justincase on September 16, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Obama was certainly onboard with this or he will sign anything. Beware!
…The Bill is the 93rd General Assembly bill SB0099. It was introduced on 1/23/2003 by Sen. Carol Ronen…
…So let’s take a look at the contents of the bill (link works):…
Page 1 lines 13-17
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.
Note that this bill moves sex ed from the 6th grade down to Kindergarten.
On page 9 line 23 through page 10 line 7:
22 Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Program.
23 (a) The program established under this Act shall
24 include, but not be limited to, the following major
25 educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary
26 and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and
27 health, human growth and development, the emotional,
28 psychological, physiological, hygienic and social
29 responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence
30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy until marriage,
31 prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate
32 instruction in grades K 6 through 12 on the prevention of
33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention,
-10- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS, public and environmental
2 health, consumer health, safety education and disaster
3 survival, mental health and illness, personal health habits,
4 alcohol, drug use, and abuse including the medical and legal
5 ramifications of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, abuse during
6 pregnancy, sexual abstinence until marriage, tobacco,
7 nutrition, and dental health.
…Oh, and yes, it does talk about prevention of sexual assault and repeatedly mentions the age of consent. But only as a component of this program, not the core of the program…
Posted on Freerepublic.com by markomalley Monday, September 15, 2008 (More interesting information available there)
sinsing on September 16, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Gee AP, I mailed you that a week ago… glad to see it
Diogenes of Sinope on September 16, 2008 at 1:40 PM
What’s the surprise? I figured with everyone following the campaign so closely, they would have remembered when Mitt Romney brought this up during the primary. Obama made the same denial/defense, and the facts at the time proved that Mitt’s charge was correct, just as McCain is correct now.
thecountofincognito on September 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM
justincase, oddly enough, NOW for years had a RICO charge against the Pro-life Action League, which was finally settled in the League’s favor. It would be great to use RICO against the abortion industry, I don’t know how to go about it, though.
Mulligan on September 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
What would planned parenthood know about children younger then the sixth grade? Does this call for an investigation of planned parenthood of illinois to see if they are treating underaged children?
peacenprosperity on September 16, 2008 at 2:07 PM
BINGO:
The following is Planned Parenthood’s latest idea of Sex Education instruction for children. In my opinion there’s a pedophile and homosexual component to all this. *Note the old guy who gets involved, in teen sex “discussions”.
Google: Planned Parenthood – Take Care Down There.
Wait until it loads and then click each green tab to access each vile video.
sinsing on September 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM
If you’re actually willing to trust the NEA, or your typical left wing teacher, to decide what’s “age appropriate”, then you’re probably a committed Obama supporter.
For the rest of us, that sounds a lot like giving blank check to people who shouldn’t be trusted.
Which is what Senator Obama voted for.
Greg Q on September 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Correction:
It appears that Planned Parenthood took down the “Take Care Down There” sex videos for children and replaced it with with endless directions but no videos.
Hannity did a show on “Take Care Down There” and you can find it on Youtube. Google: Planned Parenthood’s Take Care Down There and Barack Obama
Sorry about that.
sinsing on September 16, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »