Fact-checking the liberal fact checkers: The truth about that sex-ed bill
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.”
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Columbia University to Offer ‘Occupy 101′ Course
January 2, 2012 11:15 AM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
MSNBC Leans Forward to Apologize to Mitt Romney
December 15, 2011 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Document drop: What Scholastic is teaching your kids about the Occupiers
December 9, 2011 11:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 Comments
Michele Bachmann: By Now, Michelle Obama Would Have Gotten an Apology From NBC; Update: Apology Received
November 23, 2011 02:18 PM by Doug Powers
91 Comments
Did Newt Gingrich Say the Worst Thing Any Presidential Candidate Has Ever Said?
November 21, 2011 01:02 PM by Doug Powers
159 Comments
Nina Totenberg: No Evidence of Anything Political About Solyndra
November 19, 2011 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
45 Comments
Media Seminar: How to Silence an MSNBC Panel 101
November 16, 2011 11:45 AM by Doug Powers
205 Comments
Moonbat of the day: Suffolk Univ. law prof condemns sending care packages to troops, flying American flag
November 14, 2011 08:36 PM by Michelle Malkin
46 Comments‘Smug Shot’ from the GOP Debate
November 14, 2011 02:01 PM by Doug Powers
143 Comments
Categories: Education,Media Bias
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dRedstate
» Media MattersHot Air
» National Review to Newt: Get outAmSpecBlog
» Explosion Near Israeli Embassy in India
That is pretty clear. Obama lied about it.
Truth kills. It is in their interest to suppress the truth, and the media outlets that average John Q. Public listens to will dutifully assist them by keeping muddied the streams of truthful information. I do not think they will be successful.
That’s what the bill says. It mentions nothing about teaching children appropriate touching…I quote:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology. (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.
Nope, I see nothing about “appropriate touching”.
6th grade is clearly changed to kindergarten. facts is facts. they clearly diminished the discussion of abstinence also, which makes one wonder what they are talking about to the kiddies.
While I only read thru secton 5, I can’t understand what kind of insrtuction you can give a 4 or 5 year old on how to not get a disease from sexual activity or behavior. I’m baffled bu this.
I also noticed that they begin by allowing an “out” for students IF a parent or gaurdian writes a note. Ha! How many parents are going to abdicate their parental resposibility to the State?
So, does this mean that a stripper will be showing the kindergarteners how to put condoms on bananas? Just asking is all. Sure beats the heck out of Romper Room magic mirror stuff eh?
Going into lib mode:
Can’t stand it – going out of lib mode – permanently!
Someone send this link to Bill O’Reilly. He was adamant last night that McCain’s ad was a lie. When Mary Katherine Ham tried to tell him it was true, he shouted her down (what a surprise) and said show me the proof.
Someone please do so.
And don’t forget he told PlannedParenthood, the nations 2nd most organized infanticide group…after the democrat party, “It was the right thing to do”.
Too many. That’s part of the problem. They are my children, and it’s my right and my choice to decide when it is appropriate for them to learn about sex. PERIOD.
Don’t like it? TOUGH sh*t. They’re my children.
I have, with the result that I realize this post is both silly and disingenuous. First of all, said line (14) indicates that the information in the bill is to be taught to children in grades “K through 12.” That’s a pretty vast group of kids, and it’s likely what’s taught in grade K won’t be taught the same way it’s taught in grade 12. It also goes on to state, explicitly:
The government undermines the authority of the parent when it decides when and what will be taught when it comes to instruction on what is and is not appropriate sexual interaction. Period.
This should be an OPT IN, not an OPT OUT. If the parent(s) decide that they would rather the government teach their young, they should be required to provide that in writing. Not the other way around.
I’m going on 30, my wife on 29, and we plan on having our first child soon. We will scrape together every cent we have to send that child to a private, Christian school when the time comes. We will not have the state corrupt our child nor undermine our authority.
Good post MM!!!!
My four year-old is not going to public school!!!! These moonbats want to teach them sex education before they learn how to read. They want to start moonbat indoctrination as early as they can. I’m sure Obama doesn’t mind. Pass the grey poupon!!!!!!
But note: It is not to be stated that abstinence is 100% effective…it’s supposed to be treated just like other method with some “failure rate”.
Maybe Alaska should adopt the bill.
-Alaska is the # 1 state in the country for Rape and has been for 23 out of the last 30 years (FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm).
-Alaska’s reported rate of rape per capita is 2.6 times the national average (FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm).
-Anchorage has the ninth highest sexual assault rate of any city in the United States, and Fairbanks is ranked first (FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm).
-Fairbanks’ rape rate is 4.7 times the national average (FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm).
-AK’s Child abuse rate is six times higher than the national average. (Department of Public Safety/ AK CDVSA Annual Report for FY 2006)
1. My wife and I are going to homeschool our children and train them to be Christian men and women, which is something the public school system will not do, and, frankly, will counter every chance they get, whether implicitly or openly.
2. When our children have the maturity, we will go through Wendy Shalit’s “A Return to Modesty” with them.
3. To delude ourselves into thinking that the decision of whether or not to have sex is solely a pragmatic decision is folly.
I think we should start by asking Karl Rove to provide a retraction about McSame’s ads going too far. He needs to clarify his stance on this ad. I think he has enough integrity to do it.
Michelle, if you have his e-mail or phone no., please let him know about all the research that has gone into looking at this bill.
The truth hurts and Odumbo’s acolytes shouldn’t be granted a foothold on the ladder of righteous victimhood because some folks on the right misguidedly give them the benefit of a doubt.
You sure have a high degree of confidence government employees. I notice that government employees bring us all of the current government “foul-ups” (from mis-management to corruption). Speaking only for myself, I have very limited confidence in said group.
Nice try Nyk.
Who gets to decide what is appropriate? Undoubtedly some very liberal minded education experts that probably have a very wide definition of appropriate. I personally can’t think of any sex-related topics that I would like to be seen taught in kindergarten. If a program like this was ever presented as opt-in, I’d be suprised if a single parent would sign their kid up.
Whatever happened to Reading, ‘Riting, and ‘Rithmetic. Our children shouldn’t be guinea pigs for social engineering experiments!
If I MAY QUOTE A “famous” POL: “If you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.” Well no amount of SELECTIVE EDITING by B. HUSSEIN’S MSM can alter what YOU and I can read for OURSELVES… I don’t know about B. HUSSEIN, but when I went to school K-12 meant KINDERGARTEN through 12th GRADE…
Nyk, Age appropriate? By whose standards? Wouldn’t that be mighty subjective? Why not just wait, period? At least until they know what they are being taught. Just show them Mad TV’s Stewart and let him show where the “no touching in the danger zone” is. That’s all they need to know for now unless you have something else in mind.
These opt out policies only serve to cause alienation and ridicule for the kids whose parents make this option. How do you think the kids feel when the teacher says “We are going to discuss sex now so little Obama and little Michelle, its time for you to go to that special room reserved for kids with stupid backwoods hick parents who cling to bibles and guns.”
Sorry jsr. I was posting while you had already made the comment that I was making (subjective).
I watched that too, Bob, and couldn’t believe that Mary Katherine didn’t keep trying and say it darn well IS true. I couldn’t tell from her expression whether she was disgusted or just resigned to the time constraints he kept yammering about.
O’Reilly’s ego can’t get any bigger. He doesn’t need no stinkin’ facts. If he says it’s true, it must be.
I agree with Bob and the others! Bill O was wrong. Michelle, can you please send a message to him?
Speaking of Bill O’Reilly… he has a segment once/week to talk about the internet blogs because he doesn’t use the computer. He’s missing a big part of the news by not using a computer. Tell him he needs to take a class if necessary!
Yeah. Have you read what schools consider age appropriate? —->>> Gay Porn = Art?
Please… that last line does nothing to assure parents that they’re kids will not be exposed to material the parents feel the kids should not see.
If they didn’t want to discuss sex with 2nd graders, they would have just said so. Not left it open for interpretation by some teacher.
Note to O’reilly: Open mouth, stick foot. Like bballbob, I watched O’reilly browbeat Ms Ham last night by shouting. I read the bill and it’s plain, direct, and clear that even I, (English is my second language) can understand it. Hey Bill, and the Obamalites, it is what it is.
that’s because it was amended. it originaly read:
(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually.
Again, this is why I will be homeschooling my children. The government has no excuse telling my children ANYTHING about sex, no matter how appropriate they think it is.
LEt me put it another way.
Precisely what form of Sex Education IS appropriate for K thru 5 ????
oh.. let me answer…. there is none.
I don’t need to listen to anything, I already know Obama is a worthless tool.
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”!
‘rape’ les?
Surely you realize ‘rape’ has nothing to do with sex education?
As a teacher who spent twelve years in K-12 special ed, I can tell you from experience that once a particular subject area is instituted into the core content by a state legislature, teachers have very little control in how that subject is delivered to the students as part of the instructional curriculum.
We are more or less dictated by state law to provide the subject to our students with only those rudimentary changes that allow for greater student mastery of the over-all concepts; in other words, there’s very little a teacher could do protect children from offensive materials and still keep his or her job.
That’s precisely what I was talking about – thanks.
Thanks for posting this, Michelle. Those of us in Illinois remember this failed bill rather well. It’s one of the few times Barack didn’t vote “Present”.
On September 16th, 2008 at 11:52 am, wighttrasch said:
‘rape’ les? Surely you realize ‘rape’ has nothing to do with sex education?
Try reading the bill, articles 11 – 14.
The point is, “what is age appropriate?” for a kindergartener? How do you explain sex to a 4, 5, or 6 year old child? How do you approach the subject and what do you use to illustrate your point.
It is not so much that schools teach sex education since most parents have abdicated their parental duties in favor of the government but the simple fact that the bill was changed from “6″ to “K” was done.
I don’t know about you but I have a problem with introducing a kindergartener to any form of sex education and that is not coming from a far right religious fanatic either.
To even entertain such a thought, one would have to either be very cynical or believe children in kindergarten are engaging in sexual activity. In other words, why educate a child on something so alien to their world at least until they grow a little older. 10 or 11 maybe? That is in itself pretty darn gross and disturbing. At some point, lines need to be drawn and this is a perfect case.
BTW – apparently, after Obama massaged O’Reilly’s ego by appearing on his show, Bill must think it is his place to defend Obama against the mean old McCain. O’Reilly may be one of MM’s favorites but I personally think he is a major (insert your own description).
I think MM parted ways with O’Reilly over his support for shamnesty and his refusal to chastise Geraldo for his nasty remarks against Michelle.
The “key” word in this bill is SHALL. That word leaves no doubt…it means MUST! The use of this word makes sex ed mandatory at all grade levels, not optional.
The wording of the so called “opt out” provision is oppressive. It reminds me of certain businesses that inform you that ‘you may opt out at anytime, if you just notify in writing, blah, blah, blah….’
These companies realize that many customers will NOT take the time to follow through with a letter. And so it is with this provision in the Illinois State bill.
Also, what if a “pupil” feels uncomfortable. or is traumatized by the subject matter? There is no written remedy for that in this bill. Nor did I find a “reasonable time” notification clause in the bill.
IMHO, this is nothing more that forced indoctrination by a liberal police state.
So besides teaching about masterbation, they also want to use public schools as training grounds for gay activists. You cannot make this stuff up!
I wish the government would stop mentally molesting my children.
I have read it, les, it has no business being there…along with the other ridiculous points they intend to teach under the umbrella of ‘sex education’.
He is in O’s tank. He called Elizabeth Hassleback pinhead & Michelle Obama patriot in the same segment.
ConMom, those links would be appreciated. Parents need to understand what the liberal educational establishment wants to
indoctrinateteach their children regarding human sexuality.Do NOT be confused by any part of a law that says parents may opt out so as not to have their children exposed to something they do want them taught. Parents in Novato, CA had opt out forms in place. However, the gay activists screamed at the school district that if the parents were notified before any indoctrination took place, it would violate the civil rights of the gay activists! So, the school district, instead of having a backbone and doing as the parents wished, just caved and let the gay activists teach the wonders of homosexuality to 7 year olds (Second to sixth grade was the audience). Isn’t liberalism just wonderful?! The state knows what’s best for us and our children!
JSR said:
Exactly! You can not make this stuff up! Trust me, I’ve seen and reviewed it all.
THIS SHOULD BE A WARNING TO ALL PARENTS WITH KIDS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DUE DILIGENCE IS REQUIRED!
Latency! Protect your young ones, please!
I pushed for an opt-in program in my district and was successful in getting that compromise from the libs on the committee. Parents are still lazy and just sign it at the beginning of the year, but I think it has been better in getting parents to actually check out what is going to be taught.
I’m 47 years old & I don’t want to hear it.
Whatever happened to just letting kids be kids? When I was in kindergarten and into elementary school, my peers and I weren’t interested in sex except to the degree that we didn’t want to touch girls lest we catch something.
Somehow, the lack of “age appropriate sex education” taught by some well-meaning liberal in my early childhood didn’t prevent me from developing an appreciation for females later in life. Funny, that.
Remember the old Star Trek episode where Spock’s brain got stolen by a bunch of radical yet simple-minded uber-feminists? Remember how the males on the planet surface didn’t even know what the term “woman” meant?
Kirk: “Where are the women of your planet?”
Doofus guy: “Your words — they say nothing to me.”
Kirk finally presses the issue with words like “female,” “mate,” and “companion,” and the light finally dawns:
“Oh, you mean the givers of pain and delight!”
Uh, yeah. Them.
That’s what liberals like Hopenchange must think Americans will grow up like unless they get sex ed beginning in kindergarten. It’s hard to come up with any other explanation that makes sense.
Lets face it OReilly is a misogynist. He treats MM and women in general far differently than Geraldo and Miller. He switched to Obama as soon as McCain picked Palin.
Regulus, pretty interesting choice of Star Trek. The liberals think Star Trek is a documentary sent back from the future to tell us how to be good little Bundists.
I like action-adventure movies and tv, but they’re just that, MOVIES.
So les, shouldn’t we teach safe weapons handling classes to students in inner city schools where the violent crime rates are highest in the nation?
Cuts both ways.
Line 19 mentions abstinance, so I guess we can say Obama is in favor of abstinance, just like Palin. Oh wait, Palin is a stooopid rube for thinking that….sorry…..
On September 16th, 2008 at 12:51 pm, wighttrasch said:
I’m 47 years old & I don’t want to hear it.
wighttrasch, in this case, ignorance is not bliss. I take from your response that you now see the value of the bill and particularly articles 11-14. And agree that proper sex education can help mitigate the incidence of rape.
On September 16th, 2008 at 1:29 pm, SpeakEasy said:
So les, shouldn’t we teach safe weapons handling classes to students in inner city schools where the violent crime rates are highest in the nation?
Stay on topic, troll.
Sure…
OBAMA WANTS TO TEACH 1st GRADERS HOW TO USE CONDOMS.
There.
Define ‘proper’ in this statement. Who would determine that?
Many of us here believe that, at that age, it should be the responsibility of the parents and not the state to determine what is proper. This bill, as much as you might cite rape statistics to justify it, was a door opener to educators deciding how much about sex very young children would hear.
::rolling eyes:: SpeakEasy’s point, I believe, is that rape statistics alone are not a justification for the measure and that liberals would disagree with this tack if the subject was gun control. A bad solution to a problem is not enhanced by suggesting the problem is bigger than previously thought.
I’m curious to know how your interpretation of articles 11-14 would mean mitigation of rape cases. Do you have any evidence of this beyond speculation?
Young children learn early that forceful touching, sexual or not, is wrong. It’s also just common sense that parents teach their children that inappropriate touching of their “private” areas (or however the parent chooses to say it) is wrong.
It comes back to that word ‘proper’. Parents in Illinois wanted to know just how far that went. There’s are a reason it stalled on the Illinois senate floor and died. Using scare tactics of rape and incest doesn’t make it a better solution.
Public schools consider children to be wards of the state, so parents have no say. Most parents have been told that the IL public schools are terrific. After 9 yrs living in IL, I found them to be pathetic.
Does this pass Rove’s 100% truth test?
les:
Didn’t read all the posts, so I don’t know if anybody has pointed this out to you, so here goes:
Everybody concerned has always been in agreement about one thing. Rape is NOT about sex. It’s about violence and the desire to prove a great many things. But it is not about sex.
Sex education is not the answer. Liberals would, I think, consider “Anger Management” a more appropriate way to deal with the crime of rape.
Does anyone here really think the bill was intended to teach 5 year olds about STDs? This is not a rhetorical question. Does anyone really believe that to be the case?
Isn’t it more likely that schools were restricted from talking about “inappropriate touching” because it would be considered “sex ed” thus making it illegal to teach in elementary schools, and that this bill was intended to fix that?
Which seems more reasonable to you? (again not rhetorical, i’d like an answer)
Parents do have a say. Please refer to the bill.
8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil’s parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil.
Speaking of factcheck, factcheck.org seems to be getting it wrong to. The bill isn’t that difficult of a read.
PIMF!
Too, and my link isn’t working!
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
bluesoc, see my post #24 above. Any child whose parents have them opted out will be singled out and made fun of.
Do you want your child to be singled out and sent to the “special room” so a teacher can discuss something you feel is inappropriate for your child? I think not.
It was literally in Illinois Senate bill 0099:
Bear in mind that this line, specifically, was updated from 6 through 12 to K through 12.
Bryon York (Michelle linked his article) interviewed Sen. Iris Martinez (D) about the bill:
Assuming that ‘age-appropriate’ sex education means the same thing to parents as it does to educators would be a poor assumption. Just because it seems reasonable to you that they would not have crossed the line does not mean that there would not be some that do.
Everyone here would like to believe that no kindergarten teacher would be so foolish, but signing off on a bill that did not put much in the way of definition on what ‘age-appropriate’ meant would have been foolish for parents in Illinois. Including an ‘opt-out’ clause would have been ineffective.
Last MA Conservative -
Forgive me if I seem a bit harsh, but kids are tough and will get over it. I’m sure everyone here was made fun of as a child, yet they recovered. In my opinion that is a pretty weak argument and sounds like something a self-esteem-obsessed liberal would say.
Salt -
I am aware that it is literally in the bill. However, you did not answer my question(s)
Nowhere did I assume that everyone has the same interpretation of “age-appropriate”. My questions did not revolve around that issue (although it may be an important one).
I simply asked if anyone here (MM boards) truly believes that Illinois law makers want to teach 5 year olds about STDs. I then provided another possibility and asked which was more reasonable. I pose the same questions again.
I only listen to Bill O’reily to see want stupid thing he’s going to say next.
Since I heard him say that John Karry was/is an honest man I’ve really just gave up on him.
He keeps inching towards the left more and more.
Thus we should create a hostile learning environment for children of conservatives?
Yes, adversity in life builds character. I am not in favor of “gold stars” for everyone or sports with no scores. But is absolutely wrong for adults to purposely expose kids to ridicule.
That’s taught in the next period…”Sexual Harassment 101″.
Last MA Conservative
By your reasoning, classes should not recite the Pledge of Allegiance if any of the children are Jehovah Witnesses, because that too would create a hostile learning environment for the children who do not opt to state the pledge.
Must there be complete consensus among every parent of every child in every school? That seems a bit unrealistic, and very costly as well. Don’t you think a better option would be to have an opt-out policy, and if enough parents opt out the school would rethink its policies? The costs of this are a few hurt feelings as opposed to the logistical nightmare of complete consensus.
PS: who says only conservative parents will object
I did answer them, however it seems as if you’re more interested in some “gotcha” moment.
This was the defense used by the Obama campaign and many others. The distinction was no longer whether or not they wanted sex education, but to what degree of detail they would do it.
I answered your question by pointing out that they purposely changed the language from grade 6 to kindergarten. No doubt this was not just done by some random clerk but through at least some deliberation.
Their inclusion of the “opt-out” clause is also telling. This was an indication that they knew that some parents could be irritated by what was being discussed in the class. Most parents would not, I think, object to educators telling kids to report if someone touched them inappropriately.
But, that wasn’t what was in the bill and prevention of STDs was in there in black and white.
I don’t know if this is your ‘gotcha’ moment, but here it is:
Lawmakers changed the language saying that sex education would be taught at grade K rather than starting at grade 6. The letter of the law is significant to lawmakers. I’m unclear on what point you’re trying to make here. It was important enough to them to discuss and update the bill. To assume that they did not intend to teach STD prevention to kindergartners at this point would be foolish and impractical. I trust lawmakers to write the laws and expect that they be followed as written. I don’t indulge in fantasies that just because it was written it would not really be done. Arguing later about the spirit of the law would then be a “shame on me” situation.
Sen. Martinez did not believe your other possibility was the main purpose of the bill and she was one of the authors/sponsors. I have no reason to disbelieve her intent when it is stated as such. In light of that, why would you believe it’s unreasonable for us to also believe it?
bluesoc,
A little moral equivalence on thet Pledge of Allegiance point don’t you think?
Kids who do not want to participate can just stand respectfully and say nothing. I do that when I attend weddings or funerals held in places of worship in which I do not participate.
I will give you a point, however, on the issue not being a conservative one only.
As I understand this it this was to be a state law that teachers will be mandated to follow.
Don’t you think it would be easier and less costly to not to have the program to begin with?
How about an opt-IN program? Parents who want it could have their children taken out of non essential classes like “Revisionist History” to attend the sex education class.
Salt -
This wasn’t a gotcha moment. I really thought readers would agree that, regardless of the exact wording of the bill, the intention was NOT to teach 5 year olds about STDs. I guess that’s not the case.
Perhaps I should also state the reasons for my position more directly. Here they are:
1. What reason would there be to teach 5 years olds about STDs? I really am struggling to find any
2. If Illinois schools did start teaching 5 year olds about STDs it would be political suicide for everyone involved.
3. I think there are more plausible alternative explanations.
If you really think that was their intention, then I can’t fault you for getting upset.
Your response does not directly address my previous point, which was that an opt-out policy is more efficient than one of consensus.
Your question gets at different point, mainly whether it would be more efficient to have the program with opt-out or to not have the program at all.To answer that you must first consider the costs of not having the program. I’m not an expert on the matter of sex ed and certainly cannot speak to the specifics of Illinois sex ed, but I would venture a guess in saying that the legislature thought the benefits of having the programs would outweigh the costs of children being teased for opting out. So to answer your question, no I do not think it would necessarily have been cheaper (although the bill was never passed so we won’t really know for certain).
Okay NYK, I’ll bite…
Please tell us all what age-appropriate sex education would be for KINDERGARTNERS?
Bluesoc,
Only personal conjecture but I doubt that the legislature considered the potential for kids being teased for having their parents opt them out. This is a classic example of unintended consequences.
The philosophy of “we must do something because the cost of doing nothing is too much” has led to a lot of useless programs. For example the DARE anti-drug program that has been repeatedly shown to have no effect. And knee-jerk gun laws that do nothing to stem gun crime. (In Massachusetts it is illegal to possess a gun without a permit and, would you believe it, we have crimes committed every day by people that have guns without permits! Imagine that, lawbreakers committing crimes!)
I Know, off topic….
See you in another thread.
I think you probably got me there.
I agree that I would hope this to be the case as well and would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but I trust the words written more than trying to discern the lawmakers’ intent.
This is appreciated.
I agree with this. I believe most here do, too. Wouldn’t the logic then follow that if there is no reason to teach it, it would not be necessary to write it into the bill? It’s not clear why they changed it from 6th grade to Kindergarten. I, too, would have liked to have known the purpose of this.
I suppose it doesn’t matter anyway since the bill failed.
They might not have done it so fast, but a steady movement of the curriculum from grade 5 down to kindergarten might not have been as quickly noticed.
There was a time when someone might have said that handing out condoms in schools would have been political suicide. Changing the game by inches at a time might have been the route here. Personally, I wouldn’t want the door left open for the possibility later even if I believe it is unlikely now.
Very few were given (of which I’m aware) outside of trying to make conservatives look foolish for believing what was written in the bill. Even today people are claiming that the whole situation was a lie.
I’m not upset anymore.
I was in 2003 (?) when this was first an issue in Illinois. What I find interesting about this today is the fact that so many on the left would rather just repeat the line that the McCain campaign lied.
nyk, this post was NOT disingenuous.
Obama lied about this bill. Ya got that? L-I-E-D.
He CLEARLY stated that it merely directed the teaching of kindergarteners about child predator defense. That is a lie.
It doesn’t matter if the bill states, “age appropriate” or not. Obama lied. Say it with me…Obama lied.
O’Reilly said it was in error and so has CNN with a “Fact Check” person on air. Animals all.
bluesoc, the language of the bill is clear, therefore, the lawmakers’ intent is immaterial.
However, for the record, yes. I believe that their intent is as stated. That exact language didn’t sneak its way into the bill.
factcheck.org has not been impressing me with their fact checking this election season.
On September 16th, 2008 at 2:09 pm, NJ-Aviator said:
OBAMA WANTS TO TEACH 1st GRADERS HOW TO USE CONDOMS.
There
AND PALIN DOESN’T WANT TO TEACH TEENAGE HOCKEY PLAYERS HOW TO USE A CONDOM.
I guess both positions have their consequences.
Dear Heaven, I can just see it now: “Good morning, boys and girls. Today, after making our rainbow fingerpaint pictures to honor Susie’s 2 mommies, we will learn about little ‘Willy’ who got really sick because he forgot to put on his ‘raincoat’ before going out to play with his little friend, ‘Hoo-haw’, who had a really bad infection. Yes, Billy, what? Yes, I know ‘Hoo-haw’ is a silly name, but uh…..well…..it’s in the book so we have to teach this”.
les, you forgot to add the part about Obama lying.
What consequences? You’re not trying to pass your two little anecdotes off as some sort of analysis. Are you?
Don’t try to reason with les. His logic is ridiculous.
Obama’s plan involving condoms, which are not by any means, fool-proof, pollutes the minds of little children by teaching them that they cannot control their animal urges, as well as robs them of their innocence.
On the other hand, teaching abstinence, while also not 100% fool-proof, empowers the child and lifts them up by teaching them that their bodies are special and are not a playground, that they have value as individual people evey beyond what they can share of their sexuality, and that sexual intimacy is intended for pleasure in the confines of commitment.
I’ll pick Sarah’s “consequences”, how about you?
I read the bill. The McCain ad is dishonest. Nowhere in the bill does it force comprehensive sex education onto kindergardeners, as McCain’s sleazy ad suggests. It mere says that any students already receiving comprehensive sex education must also be taught about STDs. That doesn’t mean that kindergarteners will receive comprehensive sex education. All it says is that comprehensive sex education must contain talk about STDs.
How Byron got through his whole article without understanding that simple phrase in the bill is beyond me. He saw what he wanted to see, I guess. Trust me, I’m no friend of Obama’s. But McCain’s ad is a dishonest, despicable smear. It makes Obama out to be a peddler of sexual information to children, when the bill leaves unanswered the question of when comprehensive sex education should be given to students.
Mark Jaquith, you also forgot to mention the part about Obama lying about this bill.
Mark J – Obama is a smart man. The language in the bill leaves the door ajar for activists to push it wide open.
To that end the McCain ad is not dishonest as you claim, it shows the bill for what it is – overall – a very bad thing.
You have quoted only part of the sentence. The entire sentence is as follows, emphasis mine:
What was that word you used? Disingenuous?