FactCheck.Org Gets Fact Checked On The Obama Sex-ed Bill
From MM:
Both the Obama campaign and many media commentators claim that McCain’s recent sex-education ad is a sleazy, dishonorable, blatant, clear-cut lie.
Do these critics have a point?
First, read the bill, especially line 14, and judge for yourself.
Now, read this excellent article in National Review Online by Byron York, who interviewed one of the bill’s sponsors.
After reading the bill and York’s article, it’s hard to disagree with York’s conclusion:
“[T]he bill’s intention was to mandate sex education, especially concerning contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, for children before the sixth grade and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.”
Obama’s been in stressing that the thrust of the bill was to teach kids how to recognize molestation.  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.
You be the judge….
Others blogging:
- Hector Projector Alert: Obama’s “Honor” Ad Shows His Own Sleaziness at Haemet
- Obama supports sex ed for kindergarteners « Write Wing Politics
- Obama’s Kindergarten Sex Ed « Above My Pay Grade!
- Did Obama want sex-ed for kindergartners or not? Here is the bill read it for yourself. « The IUSB Vision Weblog
September 16, 2008 - 11:54 AM on September 16th, 2008
The argument is muted by the fact that a parent is allowed to object without detriment to the student. If any of you are involved in your kid’s educational process, you know they get bombarded with stuff that doesn’t help them. What’s wrong with something that does help them?
NY-David
September 16, 2008 - 12:32 PM on September 16th, 2008
Easier to say that then to back it up David. There is detriment in that if your kid is the only one pulled out, you are the narrow minded one etc.!
Yes we know kids are bombarded with stuff that doesn’t help them. Have you looked at a comparative analysis of testing scores and the decline in the past 30 years? Welcome to the Republican Party.
Please tell me how discussing sex, std’s, or abortion to a 5 year old, benefits them? What do you find appropriate about that?
September 16, 2008 - 12:35 PM on September 16th, 2008
There is no way anyone can argue that anything related to sex should ever even infringe on the consciousness of 5 year old. Period! The bill was bad, it was evil, and Obama
is evil to have supported it.
September 16, 2008 - 02:25 PM on September 16th, 2008
Agreed, Pam. My understanding of the perspective cirriculum is that anything below the age of 8 has to do with dealing with possible inappropriate touching, strangers, etc. Something my school did as part of a self defense class for kids after hours. As Robert correctly indicates, kids that age don’t even have the concept so it would stir up more questions then answers.
I see an alarmist trend here on the subject. As a parent, I try to have the conversations and explainations first before my kids hear something at school, taught intentionally or otherwise.
How would you feel about a simliar bill that only focused the subject for kids older then 14?
NY-David
September 16, 2008 - 04:21 PM on September 16th, 2008
Certain things I am okay with at the age of 14, David. But if you are asking about the above mentioned items? No.
September 16, 2008 - 10:59 PM on September 16th, 2008
I can tell you that my parents and a number of others were more than a little miffed when they had an STD class for all of the 5-8 grade kids at the elementary/jr high that I went to. They separated the boys from the girls and showed us all photos of the effects of various STDs on human body parts. I wasn’t even the youngest kid in the class and I was clueless as to what they were talking about. All I knew was they were showing us pictures of penises with nasty looking sores and telling us they were caused by a disease none of us even knew how to catch. I was either 11 or 12 at the time. Mom WAS NOT PLEASED that they had done this without her consent. This was almost 35 years ago.
September 17, 2008 - 12:07 AM on September 17th, 2008
“All I knew was they were showing us pictures of penises with nasty looking sores…”
Sounds like they were showing you the Democrat Hall of Fame photo gallery…
September 20, 2008 - 09:17 AM on September 20th, 2008
If we didn’t live in a world in which “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Daddy’s Roommate” are considered acceptable reading for elementary-school students, Allahpundit’s comment about the seemingly irreconcilable clauses would be accurate. However, reality is that many people do consider these things to be age-appropriate, perhaps because they don’t see any aspect of sexuality as “inappropriate”.
September 20, 2008 - 06:29 PM on September 20th, 2008
Sorry Roxeanne, its called reality. Unless you’d like to live in a world like Iran, where they say it doesn’t exist.
NY-David