Obama’s Great Idea: Sex-ed for kindergarteners
Oh, boy, Obama. Via ABC News:
ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
“I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
“‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,’” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”
“But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”
No condoms and bananas left behind!
The Obama campaign scrambled to do damage control when pressed about his comments:
When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with ‘medically accurate’ information . . . ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’”
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign.
***
If you don’t believe the social engineers hide behind the mantra of “age-appropriate sex ed,” you are living in fantasy-land.
Here’s a recent reality check in my neck of the woods…from a Clinton-appointed judge, no less.
***
John Hawkins: “Obama Is A Radical Liberal Who Wants To Expose Kindergartners To Sex And Force You To Pay For Abortions”
Robert Bluey: “If these Democrats are serious about reaching out to voters on social issues, they’re certainly not acting that way.”
The video is spreading across the Internet. Jim Hoft has it on MotionBox. Not listed yet on YouTube, but it’ll turn up there soon, I’m sure.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian Obama’s Great Idea: Sex-ed for kindergarteners «
- Mr. Obama, where do babies come from? « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Pirate’s Cove » >>Americans Never Quit » Obama Sex Ed Guru
- “Hi I’m Five Years Old, wan’t to Have Sex?” « The Conservative Christian
- Planned Parenthood and…. , Spider-Man? « Volunteer Opinion Journal
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » “50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School: Real-World Antidotes to Feel-Good Education.”
- Hyscience
- Moonbattery
- Pieces of a Whole » Blog Archive » The appeal of Mr. Barack Obama and his qualifications
- July, 2007 Archive « Right Minded Online
- An Obama Presidency Would Mean 4 More Years of Playing the Race Card « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Parental responsibility and sex education. « The Sadim Touch
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama, Education
David Frum
» "The Chicago Way"
Stop The ACLU
» How McCain Can WinGateway Pundit
» Oh Brother... AP Claims Obama's Church Was Not RadicalRedstate
» Campbell Brown Cavorts With FelonsJawa Report
» No Making Fun of Democrats!Right Wing Nut House
» AYERS-OBAMA: THE VOTERS DON’T CAREWeekly Standard
» CNN Actually Reports on Ayers-Obama ConnectionNewsBusters.org
» The Most Clueless Man in Chicago
I saw this on Drudge earlier and all I could think of was the South Park episode where they taught sex-ed to the kids - ( insert banana reference here ) - to dead silence…except the once kid who suddenly broke out in a long “WAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH”!
What idiocy.
Their colors continue to show….
Age-appropriate sex-ed for kindergarten:
“Go ask your parent(s).”
I’ll happily make this “training module” available to all school systems for free.
‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’”
How are Barack Hussein Obama and like-minded people so arrogant as to think that parents aren’t doing the job as they see fit? Why aren’t parents allowed to make the decision about when kids hear about sex? Why should local communities and local school boards make that decision?
Perhaps just as importantly, WHY DOESN’T ANYONE ASK THEM THESE QUESTIONS?
Wow! A misquote of a misquote, and now Barack Obama wants to have sex with your kindergartens! Thanks, responsible media!
Um, Obama mentioned bananas and condoms where?
Obama said that kindergarteners should be taught where babies come from. I’m down with that. If you think kindergarteners should be taught fantasies about storks and diamonds in cabbage patches, more power to you. But equating that with teaching six-year-olds how to put a condom on is lunacy.
In kindergarten I still thought babies were obtained from hospital nurseries(in fact, until I was shown the “facts of life” movie in 4th grade, that my Mom and I attended in public school, I did not know a thing about *sex*).
The point is, this introduction to the subject was done by the school with my mother’s permission opening up the discussion.
Why confuse kids and shove this into their minds along with discussions of homosexuality? Five year olds are not supposed to have sexuality! Let them be innocent children as they are barely out of diapers and still take naps!
Republicans have to unite behind a candidate in 2008 or we will no longer recognize this country.
Schools need to concentrate on teaching Dick and Jane how to read, write, add, and subtract. It’s up to Mom and Dad to teach them how to multiply.
I can see it now. Kindergarten sex-ed: curriculum provided free of charge by Planned Parenthood. Snacks provided by the GLAAD.
Obama said that kindergarteners should be taught where babies come from.
And does anyone here for one second believe the answer to that question would be as simple as it needs to be?
Does anyone not believe 5-year-olds would be exposed not only to the finer points of reproduction, but other sexual behaviors?
This is nothing more than an attempt to indoctrinate youth into accepting a no-holds-barred philosphy of sexuality, brought to you by public schools.
Issues of sexuality should be taught at the discretion of parents. Period. If parents choose not to address this issue until the child is older (a radical notion, I know) that should be their decision and their decision alone.
Since when did my tax dollars have to go to teaching kindergarteners about where babies come from?
Since when have we presumed (or, more accurately, allowed) parents to push responsibility for something like this on the schools?
I do not want a public school teacher telling my 5-year-old where babies come from. That’s my job, thank you.
Most rational people already don’t.
This is an overblown non-story that‘s going to make the right side of the blogosphere look foolish and desperate to slow down the momentum of Obama. I expect better than this tabloid sensationalism from Michelle who so far is the only one to bring up bananas.
Kindergarten Sex Ed, public school style:
“Teacher, where do babies come from?”
“Well, Cindy, the woman and her lesbian lover go down to a doctor where they give her a special potion in her special place and 9 months later, the baby appears!”
Sick.
@Rusty…
Grow up. No one is suggesting diamonds under cabbage leaves. (I’ve never even heard of that one… )
Heather already posted the correct answer for kindergarten teachers… Go Ask Your Parent(s). Frankly, that’s what they already do at my kids school. I know.. 2 of mine aked me. The other already knew before she went to kindergarten.
I do not trust the school, the state and CERTAINLY not the Federal governemnt to know when such questions are appropriate for my kids. Kids are NOT one-size-fits-all.
I am not against sex-ed in high school. I feel sorry for the kids that don’t know by then.. but I know that there are some that don’t. My best friend in high school found out waaaaaay more than she thought in sex-ed. Her parents concept of sex-ed was “ask me the day before you get married”. I remember her panic when she got her period. I hadn’t had mine yet but I knew what it was so I helped her. Her parents hadn’t told her even the most basic functions. (The school here discusses puberty in 5th grade. Her parents had ‘opted out’.) While I understand wanting to protect your children from the hazards of irresponsible sex.. ignoring it does not make it go away.
However, Sex-ed in Kindergarten? NOT.
This is an attempt at Hugo Chavez mind control. They want to slowly take the parents out of the picture, till all children get libb indoctrination. It is not the job of government to raise my child.
the school cannot teach johnny or janey to read, but they can teach them about sex… right…LOL..
it is not the job of government to determine when my child or any child has the ability to deal with the sex education. the parent will know when a discussion is necessary.
if a child asks a teacher where do babies come from, makes you wonder why they haven’t asked their parents? cause it was more natural for me to ask my mother before asking a teacher.
i went to a private school that in the 6th grade taught repoductive education. just calling it ’sex’ connotates the obsession our culture now has thanks to the entertainment industry.
misspelling on reproduction.. sorry
Obama did not say little kids should be putting condoms on bananas, though that would do them no harm. Better they should grow up knowing than not knowing, or picking up mis-information on the playground.
I grew up on a farm and at about 5-6 years old my mother came out of the house and threw a bucket of water (was not cold as we had no refrig back then and the water was the drinking water bucket that I had drawn from the spring house) on 2 of my dad’s hunting dogs that were locked up.
I asked my cousin (a city kid one year older) what was that about.
That is how I learned where puppies came from and then he told me the real shocker.
I was made that way too!!
Let obama raise his kids and we will raise ours.
Delay the goverment from getting its filthy hands on your kids as long as possible, they will be the better for it.
yeah, all those kindergartners talk about sex on the playground…
3Steps, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I’m just saying that Obama is not suggesting anything revolutionary here like handing out condoms to 6-year-olds.
MM made a comment and put up a picture of a condom-wrapped banana. If she could point out where Obama mentioned either of those things I would be duly impressed by her wizardry. It’s not there. She’s making a mountain out of a molehill.
Which isn’t to say that the molehill isn’t disagreeable. It wasn’t until 3rd or 4th grade when I started hearing about the birds and the bees on the playground. That’s when, in my opinion, the school’s sex ed department should step in. Condom lessons should wait until high school.
What in Dixie does that mean? Science based? Um, pardon this old southern boy but, reproduction existed before science and nodody (before science) had to teach 5 year olds about sex. Leave it to a liberal to mess up something so simple.
Rusty,
Michelle’s reference wasn’t necessarily to Obama, but to the whole culture of liberalism injecting itself into areas where some of us see absolutely no need for it to be. Putting condoms on bananas (or cucumbers) is something that has been practiced in our “public” schools for some time now - under the guise of “sex education”. So try laying off the snide comments about Michelle including that imagery. It has a lot to do with the topic at hand.
What BH Obama is proposing is nothing more than an extension of that practice that so many of us find objectionable - the government in general and liberals in particular injecting themselves into our lives where there is no right or reason to. And don’t shoot back with some kind of line about conservatives and abortion - apples and oranges no matter how much you want to try to spin it otherwise.
While I agree that there comes a time in each child’s life that they need to know the straight facts on reproduction and human sexuality, I disagree vehemently with the view that it is our school’s right or duty to provide said facts. Each child matures at a different rate and it should be the parent’s decision as to when it’s best broached with their child.
Whatever happened to the idea that the schools were there to teach things like reading, writing, spelling, math, geography, the sciences, etc., and things like morality and sexuality were things to be taught by the parents (in the case of sexuality), and by the parents and perhaps their church (in the case of morality)? Oh excuse me. That would require some personal responsibility and good parenting skills - something which more than any generation before them - the boomer generation seems to be lacking on a wide scale. Not all of them mind you, but I would argue that it’s a larger percentage than any generation that came before them.
I guess some of us are just tired of that irresponsible percentage getting to dictate to the rest of us their skewed version of morality and personal responsibility.
Sadly, those people just never grew up and took responsibility for their actions - in this case becoming a parent. They looked at the expanding “nanny state” the US Government has become and decided that it would be just fine to delegate their personal responsibilities to Uncle Sam.
Enough is enough. Teach my kids what they need to know to be competitive in today’s world and leave the birds and the bees to me. And if you can’t handle that chore with your own kids, then I have two words for you:
Grow up.
governmentdrone:
Excellent post.
Thanks englishqueen.
This whole area is kind of a sore spot with me - but I guess you can tell that, huh?
=)
What the hell is age appropriate sex education for 5-year-olds?!?! See Dick and Jane, well, you know….!?!?
If we can only somehow hammer a hole through the mainstream media and let mom and pop sixpack and aunt Martha get an earful of this stuff, these people would be lucky to get elected dogcatcher.
There are reasons for the history of human behavior: pardon the gross example, but things like vomit and fecies are repellant so we won’t eat them! It’s programmed into us as a survival mechanism. Where on earth have societies ever taught sex ed to 5-year-olds?! Nowhere, except maybe ancient Rome, and we know what happened there. The problem with “progressives” is they have no idea what constitutes true progress, and what constitutes pushing the envelope for no other reason than it exists and therefore can be pushed.
No, this is very much worse than wrong, it is, perhaps quite literally, sick.
Rusty….i mean you know harm. I don’t even know how old you are supposed to be. I wrote the following before I read governmentdrone’s excoriation of you. lo siento, mi hijito! (I’m in LA and feeling rather Latino today…)
Anyways..here goes.
Rusty said:
“MM made a comment and put up a picture of a condom-wrapped banana. If she could point out where Obama mentioned either of those things I would be duly impressed by her wizardry. It’s not there. She’s making a mountain out of a molehill.”
Rusty- Your literal projection onto MM’s use of a SYMBOL of liberal/socialist school districts who HAVE USURPED parental rights to teach issues of sexuality and sexual behavior to our own kids (because the liberal-socialist assumption is that all parents are so uptight and repressed that they cannot and will not discuss these matters with their kids- a hazy notion heldover from the 1960s when most white liberals hated their parents after discovering sex was fun- ugh! I’m kidding!)
Bananas and condoms shall forever haunt the liberal/socialist know nothings who actually did that in the schools using Hussein Obama’s way of thinking.
And besides, everybody knows that most boys learn how to put on condoms by filling up water balloons from a faucet. Problem with Obama is he he assumes kids are stupid and walk around ignorant about life and how life is sustained. Kids are pretty perceptive until they fall victim to too much ranch dressing on their organic salad and get brain damage (I’m joking! ) And why in tar-nation is anybody seriously believing the country is going to elect Hussein Obama for president.
No matter how much money he raises or how hard MoveOn.org tries to make him look grass(NUT)rootsie, or sound like JFK, fuggedabouddit.
The John F. Kennedy gloss aint happenin. Shrillary is creaming him by 12 points. Who cares what this Wahabbi trained Manchurian Candidate “meant” by what he said. He is aligned with the liberal/socialist mentality on the outside and he is a Muslim on the inside. He has blended in, just like a good Jihadi-lite is supposed to
That’s it. He is getting the GONG! Right now. CHONNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG! Rusty, I meant no offense. MM is right to associate Hussein ObamaShama with Bananas and Condoms. I would associate him with one thing further…Wahhabi and Kohlrabi….it aint just for breakfast anymore.
This is Bear 1909 from the Wells Fargo Plaza in downtown LA workin everyday away from Berkeley California. OUT!!!!
Sing it, Bro,
Sing it, loud and clear,
That’s the message,
We all wanna’ hear.
heh,heh,heh
Nice of him to mention Alan Keyes who ran a shortened, last minute, and weak campaign against him to give the idea credibility.
That’s the main thing that galls me about Obama’s ‘credentials’. I remember the GOP feverishly searching for an opponent (any opponent) after the leading GOP candidate dropped out for reason I forgot - probably some scandal. Keyes (who I think has some good ideas but is a bit looney at times) ran about a 2 month campaign and lost.
THIS is what Obama takes from that campaign? Obama is not Presidential Material for beating a weak Keyes candidacy for the Illinois senate. If Obama is Presidential material, I am. . . I don’t care how much money he raises, he’s not experienced enough to be commander in chief.
I do wish the curriculum was ‘ask your parents’ if some kid came up and asked a public school teacher where babies came from. Not ‘the stork’, not ‘the store’, not the ‘birds and bees’.
ASK YOUR PARENTS is all that needs to be said.
Why not just hand our kids over to the state for raising. This country is getting downright scary.
The same with me.
The same people who advocate the teaching of sex to five-year-olds are the ones who’d go apopletic if religion so much as darkened the classroom door. Were it such that for every stupid, inappropriate idea a liberal forced on public schools a lesson on Christianity were taught. You can bet there’d be no sex ed in kindergarten then.
I believe part of the motive for this push of sex education is meant to undermine parental authority and strip families of their morals and values. Which means values-minded parents of public school children need to be extra vigilant in making sure this tripe isn’t taught without our knowledge…
Har. If only it were that simple.
My Catholic school (obviously) did not have sex ed so I had to go with trial and error. Trial and error is woefully inadequate if you want to prevent teen pregnancies and abortions.
Saying that the banana and condom picture and jokes apply to any discussion of sex ed is disingenuous. It’s an extreme example that doesn’t apply to this story.
I agree very much that strong parenting is much more valuable to a child’s sexual future than anything presented in a classroom. However, as sex ed becomes more popular, we’ve seen teenage pregnancy (and abortion) rates hit rock bottom. I would be very much surprised if this was a coincidence.
Source
If you’re pro-life/anti-choice, I find it very difficult to also be anti-comprehensive sexual education.
Lemme’ see if I got this straight…
Hilary wants to pick my pocket for the common good.
Obama wants to learn my 5 year-old about sex.
I KNOW there’s a slogan there, someplace.
Let the campaign begin !!!
Rusty said:
It was a joke Rusty. But some of us GOT THE CONCEPT OF PUTTING A BALLOON ON A SPIGOT FROM PUTTING A BALLOON ON A SPIGOT. It transferred well into real life.
Rusty, I was raised a Catholic and had 16 years of Catholic education. I learned how to pray, receive the sacraments, confess my sins, and boink like a Wild Man….all in the name of Creation, Dude.
People remain ignorant about how to use a prophylactic because they WANT TO REMAIN IGNORANT.
My Mother, may She rest in Peace, did a phenomenal job of teaching me, at the age of 8 how a woman’s body worked. I had 4 sisters who she also taught. We all learned well, right alongside the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, alongside all the alcoholic priests that graced our parish, and all the sadistic nuns who ran our school.
As for the abortion and pregnancy rates hitting “rock bottom” I guess it comes down to whom you are going to believe. The govt stats are not trustworthy.
And besides….how many abortions go unreported these days…laws or no laws….
My children didn’t get sex ed in school (ages 31 and 28 now) and my youngest (9) here in Berkeley is already getting the indoctrination about “Families Can Be Anything You Want Them To Be” message……it is not going to help him learn about sex, his body, her body, your body…it is going to fill the void in the minds of the indoctrinators who “want to do good work” while ignoring the gist of second rate educational practices in public schools which is LACK OF FOCUS and IMAGINATION on how to teach to standards.
oh but i digress.
This is Bear 1909. OUT!
Rusty,
I didn’t say I was “anti-comprehensive sexual education”. I am anti-sex education for five-year-olds.
And the fact that I don’t think schools should be the source and summit of sexual knowledge doesn’t mean I’m “anti-comprehensive sexual education”, either.
However, I will say that regardless of how comprehensive the sex-education may be, the best and safest way to prevent pregnancy (and, therefore abortion) and STDs is abstinence. And the statistics are irrefutable on that one. People who abstain have a 0% chance of pregnancy and disease.
I don’t mean to be personal, but where were your parents on this? If they weren’t available or unwilling to discuss this topic with you, why do you decide that schools should automatically take the place of parents in teaching this material?
Additionally, why should it be assumed a Catholic school should HAVE to teach sex-education that is clearly contradictory to its beliefs, philosophy, and mission?
Why is there an assumption that teens are just going to have sex anyway, so we may as well not even try to instill in them a sense of self-control, self-worth, and self-respect?
Because my friends and I all grew up with less sex education in school, none of us were promiscuous, got pregnant, or had STDs, and we all seemed to survive just fine without condoms and bananas.
As for MM’s choice of picture - it’s called hyperbole.
Rusty,
I didn’t say that the banana/condom reference applied to all discussions on sex ed. Only that it very much applies to this one. To suggest otherwise implies that you fail to see the whole picture of this discussion and are determined to stand behind your pointless criticisms of Michelle in regards to this issue. So be it, it’s your “right” (or in this case “wrong”).
As to your link to statistics regarding the number of pregnancies and abortions. Yes, it is true that the raw number of pregnancies and abortions is down. Now, let’s take a closer look at the numbers you provided a link to. In non-whites, the abortion percentage has either held steady or slightly increased. The states with the highest abortion rates in this study included our old friends Massachusettes and New York.
Oh and how about this? While the raw numbers of pregnancies and abortions are down, so is the number of females in the age groups of the study. Get it? Fewer females = fewer pregnancies and abortions.
Also, the introduction to the paper gave some reasons for the drop in pregnancies and abortions. Listed first: Abstinence. Second was more widespread use of birth control. Sex ed in schools?Not mentioned.
Curious that abstinence was the first thing mentioned, since that is the one method of birth control that 1) Liberals throw a conniption fit about teaching, to the point of suing schools that dare to do so; and 2)Works EVERY TIME IT’S TRIED.
There’s an old saying. There are lies, dam*ed lies, and statistics.
Your arguments are unconvincing and lack sufficient objective, incontravertable evidence to back them up.
I repeat: Some things should be taught at school. This isn’t one of them. If you aren’t responsible enough to raise your own children then do us all a favor and don’t have any.
I agree my high school should not have taught comprehensive sex ed. (Though they did teach us the useless rythym method).
My parents would have helped me if I asked. I didn’t really start dating until college so it never really came up. Just thinking of the awkwardness of that hypothetical conversation is giving me goosebumps. That’s an older brother type of conversation.
And I agree regarding abstinence, too. We agree about so much!
Drone, yes, less kids are having intercourse. Teenage oral sex rates are way up but, overall, that’s probably a good thing since intercourse is obviously more dangerous both pregnancy and disease wise.
The problem with abstinence only sex-ed is that it doesn’t prepare children for their adult lives as sexually healthy adults. What’s the point of getting through high school unscathed if you’re just going to go and get knocked up at 19 or 20?
And, yes, that source has issues. It was very difficult to find something as unbiased as that. Most studies are done groups with clear ideologies like Planned Parenthood or the Heritage Foundation. Not very reliable. I just wanted to point out that sex rates and abortions are down. Something we can all celebrate.
Ok. What’s an example of sex-ed where that doesn’t apply then. I can’t think of anything further from a banana/condom than the simple facts of reproduction. One is sex-ed and the other is basic biological science. This isn’t even close enough to call one apples and the other oranges.
I guess Obama wants to live in Hillary’s village.
#17 lgm said:
“Obama did not say little kids should be putting condoms on bananas, though that would do them no harm. ”
Are you kidding me? My daughter is entering high school now, but if I had walked into her kindergarten class and seen her handling a condom and a banana I would have caused some serious damage.
The plain fact is, and has been stated here repeatedly, this is not appropriate for 4/5 year old children.
Rusty,
You miss the point. The point isn’t that less kids are having intercourse. The point is that there are less kids period. That simple fact is enough to render your argument re: less pregnancies and less abortions in this context moot.
And no, you didn’t want to point out that “sex rates and abortions are down”. You specifically said
I simply provided information from your own source to effectively label this as an example of data manipulation. You know, selectively picking information in order to support your pre-conceived outcome. Nice try, but I’m not buying it.
I suggest you review your previous posts before you change your arguments/tactics next time. It doesn’t work too well when it’s out there for all to see.
Let me also say at this point that I have nothing personal against you Rusty. How could I? I don’t even know you. I just like my debates to be intellectually honest.
You answered my question, even if it was in a round-about way. I believe that information on sexual behavior should come from parents - despite the “goosebump” factor you describe. Quite frankly, I think it’s more creepy when a total stranger (i.e., a teacher) discusses personal matters with me.
I believe this is indicative of a culture where people don’t want to take responsibility for their actions (in this case, parents not wanting to speak to their children about sex because it’s “uncomfortable”). But that’s a long discussion for another topic.
Actually, what you call the “rhythm method” is now referred to as NFP and - if practiced properly - has a success rate equal to that of the Pill and condoms.
Personally, I use a digital assistance device called Baby Comp, which has a Pearl rating of 0.7 (the Pearl index rates methods as such that if 100 women used the same method for a year, and 1 became pregnant, the Pearl rating for that method is 1).
I’ve been married two years, have only one child (planned), and have not - despite rumors to the contrary - conceived again per the “evil” plans of the Catholic Church.
Which shows that there are not only alternatives to traditional contraception, but a slew of varying viewpoints that Obama didn’t even consider in his bold endorsement of state-sponsored indoctrination into early promiscuity.
Does anyone care that Mitt Romney has said the same thing in the recent past? And despite that, he still had the grapes to attack Obama for it yesterday? Guess he was for it before he was against it.
This absurd proposal if SOLELY for the illegitimate population’s benefit.
Remember; kids having kids?
This is who the Dems believe it would benefit. These 12-14 year old girls having babies…..Now do you really think they can tell their children about SEX? Of course not, except how to play the system.
More dumbing down and degrading family values.
This has nothing to do with most of us that post on this site. Yes, we’ll be affected via higher education tax dollars.
Personally, I’d rather the funds go toward STERILIZATION OF IDIOTS.
Obama Banama…………appropriately called as of now.
Governmentdrone, you’re right in that I can’t back-up the relation between the decrease in abortion and pregnancy rates (see Table 3.3) and comprehensive sex-ed with cold hard facts. If schools featured condoms and bananas and dental dams and what have you in the 1970s, my argument is shot. I am just making an inference. I think it’s a reasonable one.
So, gayle, the purpose of what Obama proposed is… a conspiracy to indoctrinate children to have babies so they can go on welfare?
Tinfoil hats - apparently not just for the fifth column anymore.
If this is such a great idea, let’s not stop with the public schools. If seriously considered by either party, then it should be mandated for public, private, parochial - even home-schoolers. In this case, the only ones with the collective ability to challenge it are the parochial/religious schools. Step back and watch the ACLU and CAIR take it to the Supreme Court.
Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper, huggybear, and he will not get my vote in the primary.
I won’t support him in that position simply because he’s a Republican.
Good to see some people have iron-clad principles and stand by them, regardless of party loyalty, englishqueen. I respect that 100%. But if this is such a hot-button/the-sky-is-falling kind of issue - as it appears to be to many readers if the comments above are any indication - then why wouldn’t Mitt Romney have his feet held to the same fire? Particularly on a right-leaning site? This is what I don’t get.
I doubt this post will change any of MM’s reader’s minds about Obama - that has clearly been decided already. But rather than using this as a tool to smear Obama, why not use it as a tool to weed the desireables from the not-so-desirables amongst the candidates on your side of the aisle?
Here’s the key question: Is it the issue or is it the person?
huggy, his sole purpose is to obtain the BLACK VOTE.
Hence, my opinion.
Huggybear #49 - I don’t care which party or candidate…..this is a hot button no candidate in their right mind would touch. I would hold the feet of the Pope himself to the fire if he came up with anything clearly as impossible to deal with at a local level as this one. The candidates clearly do not want to discuss or debate anything of substance. It’s diversion from the tough issues, and I find that offensive.
How would a teacher with students suffering various language barriers even attempt it?
Well, the only think I think kindergarten teachers should say in response to such a question is “ask your parents”. . .but this is hardly a scandalous comment by Obama.
This is a non-story, a tempest in a teapot. Those who are trying to make it a major issue are only making themselves look foolish.
Well for such a diversionary non-issue [and for the record I agree with that], it sure made a few heads explode here. Take a quick scroll throught the comments above - some seem to believe that providing teachers with “age-appropriate” sex ed materials will forever change the course of our country, and [spoiler alert!] - it’s not for the better. There’s even something up there about lesbians and test tubes. Yeesh! Again with the tinfoil hats.
You can’t really blame the guy for giving an honest answer to a question that was asked of him. Cant’ say the same of Romney, though.
@queen
I’m thrilled that you have great luck with NFP…
Didn’t work so well for my parents.. admittedly.. they didn’t have a computer.
But after three of us before they were 24 yo… my dad took steps to make sure there were no more ‘ooops’. (I’m pretty sure that’s not allowed if you are catholic?!?)
@huggybear
Tell me you are kidding here….
I wouldn’t care if it was Bush, Fred!, Ronald Reagan or Hillary. The only answer a kindergartener needs is Go ask your parents.
This really is a no brainer.
Because I don’t believe Romney is a serious candidate for the Presidency. He may be a “hot commodity” in some circles, but he doesn’t have the clout to win.
Obama does.
So while Romney’s equally as culpable in the respect he supports a program that violates parental rights and is inappropriate, the chances of him seeing the White House - nay, the GOP nomination - are slim.
@ Yashmak:
This isn’t “scandalous”. This is policy, and Obama is campaigning to be our President.
There is a difference between celebrity gossip and serious issues.
I think anyone who advocates teaching my child sex - even where babies come from - at the age of five is deserving of scrutiny when they’re a front runner for major political office.
I agree, but I just didn’t take his comments that way from the article. I dislike Obama for many reasons, but this just doesn’t seem that serious to me. It’s like claiming he’s exposing kids to heavy metal music for saying he doesn’t find anything wrong with a teacher answering the question “Is Metallica a rock band?”.
Obama should never had even made the suggestion about sex education in the schools.
PERIOD.
To some it may be a non issue, but the fact the he made it one……well?
Seems to me there are more important issues for him to discuss if he wants to be taken as a viable candidate.
Of course, he isn’t presidential at all. With his Muslim background, I’d be very skeptical as to what he really is all about.
OK, can we officially and permanently brand this incoherently audacious opportunistic BS artist an ultra-liberal? Hey Barry H-Dog, when we get around to quotas for the POTUS position, we’ll call YOU…
I blogged about this at The American Thinker this morning.
Every parent knows that at age 6 or 7, a child’s ferocious curiosity about everything inevitably turns to the question of “where do babies come from?” The kids don’t need an army of public school health bureaucrats to goose them into asking that question. And if there is a more personal decision a parent can make about how and what to tell their child, I can’t think of one.
Parents know their children best and can judge for themselves what to tell their kids about sex and when the appropriate time might be. Obama supports taking that decision out of the hands of parents and putting it in the hands of - who else? - government. The argument that “parents don’t tell their kids about sex so someone else should be doing it” doesn’t wash here. There’s plenty of time in a child’s development at that age to inform them about the birds and the bees. The idea that government bureaucrats are any better at disseminating this kind of knowledge than parents is outrageous.
Obama is way off base on this one.
“Age appropriate” is a fine concept but who will determine what is age appropriate? B. Hussein Obama? Congress? How ’bout leaving this issue where it belongs, with the parents.
But interestingly, did anyone else pick up on the word play here? B. Hussein Obama talks about Alan Keyes and their senatorial race as though it happened in the ancient past. “Anyone remember Alan Keyes?” etc. There are no better spin-masters than the libs: B. Hussein Obama was elected 3 years ago, his primary deficiency in the polls is lack of experience, and now he’s spinning it to appear he has plenty of experience and the American public with their 30 minute attention span will, at least subconsciously, buy right into this strategy.
I just don’t agree that he made it an issue. The only people who seem to be making it an issue are the conservative bloggers.
It’s not part of his official campaign platform, and I’d be shocked if he ever mentions it again. . .seems more like off-the-cuff comments.
But you guys go ahead and pick on it if you like. Kinda silly though. Rail on the guy for the stuff that matters, not this.
Here’s an example of something that’s worth all the gnashing of teeth:
In a stump speech, Obama said that stopping a potential genocide is not worth keeping troops in Iraq for.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/republicans-democrats-draw-line-on.html#comments
I realize that emphasizing the fact that Obama’s middle name is Hussein is supposed to make him seem scary, but to everyone outside the right-wing fringe, it’s the people who feel the need to emphasize this fact that seem scary.
Are you privvy to some information the rest of us are not?
This is an overblown non-story that‘s going to make the right side of the blogosphere look foolish and desperate to slow down the momentum of Obama.
Momentum!?
He’s down by double digits to the Wicked Which of the East, and this clown says, momentum!?
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaahhh!!! You can’t make this stuff up! Momentum!! LMFAO!!
It would be better if the parents taught sex ed to children. Not the state.