Comments on: Fact-checking the liberal fact checkers: The truth about that sex-ed bill

By: Michelle Malkin » Who says conservative bloggers don’t do reporting?

Michelle Malkin » Who says conservative bloggers don’t do reporting? — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:05:54 +0000

[...] NRO’s Byron York also did extensive original campaign reporting, including this excellent piece exposing the truth about Obama’s sex-ed bill and fact-checking the liberal fact-checkers. [...]

By: SansPretense » On Education, Part I: Empowerment through education

SansPretense » On Education, Part I: Empowerment through education — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:24:44 +0000

[...] The Michelle Malkin link dump, as promised, explaining some of the more recent and controversial education activities: California teachers vs. traditional marriage First graders take school field trip…to teacher’s gay wedding Reason #99,999,988 to homeschool: Obama-fied textbooks College credit-for-Obama students scheme killed Fact-checking the liberal fact checkers: The truth about that sex-ed bill [...]

By: MDH3

MDH3 — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:22:04 +0000

First of all, said line (14) indicates that the information in the bill is to be taught to children in grades “K through 12.”

You have quoted only part of the sentence. The entire sentence is as follows, emphasis mine:

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 AIDS.

What was that word you used? Disingenuous?

By: Michelle Malkin » Conversation with a Goon Squad goon

Michelle Malkin » Conversation with a Goon Squad goon — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:05:14 +0000

[...] Fact-checking the liberal fact checkers: The truth about that sex-ed bill [...]

By: ABC: Obama Lying/Race-Baiting in Two Languages « American Elephants

ABC: Obama Lying/Race-Baiting in Two Languages « American Elephants — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:52:15 +0000

[...] Obama runs around the country claiming a McCain ad, that is comletely true, lies about his support for teaching sex-ed to kindergarteners, he is running a Spanish language ad [...]

By: happy2behere

happy2behere — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:09:39 +0000

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.

By: corkie

corkie — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:34:30 +0000

On September 17th, 2008 at 3:13 am, Mark Jaquith said:

Mark Jaquith, you also forgot to mention the part about Obama lying about this bill.

By: Mark Jaquith

Mark Jaquith — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:13:06 +0000

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.

By: Obama Wants to Expose 6-year Old Kindergarten Kids to Sex « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:59:48 +0000

[...] And yes, that really is the truth of it: [...]

By: vickisoup

vickisoup — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:51:56 +0000

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?

By: corkie

corkie — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:34:10 +0000

On September 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pm, les 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.

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?

By: vickisoup

vickisoup — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:18:41 +0000

shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV

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”.

By: les

les — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:26:44 +0000

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.

By: 29Victor

29Victor — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:58:17 +0000

factcheck.org has not been impressing me with their fact checking this election season.

By: corkie

corkie — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:21:51 +0000

On September 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm, bluesoc said:

If you really think that was their intention, then I can’t fault you for getting upset.

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.