Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child’s knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators.
That’s all nice and fine, however, the bill in question goes far further then that. Let me highlight some of the basic parts of this bill:
No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil. 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.
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.
All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
The first thing that pops out at you (if you look at the modifications to the bill) is how this was initially intended for sixth-graders and up, and not starting at kindergarten. So that should raise a red flag right there.
Now here’s the rub to all of this: the bill allows a parent or guardian to “opt out” of the curriculum, which is good. However, after scanning the bill, there is nothing in there that requires the school to notify or inform the parent or guardian that the kid will be taking sex education classes. So yeah, you can object to this type of course, only after you hear about little Johnny telling you about what he learned in school.
As far as “age appropriate” learning is concerned…remember, Barack Obama and Joycelyn Elders are both members of the same Democrat party. And if you don’t remember what the former Surgeon General of the Clinton Administration considered “appropriate sex education”, let me refresh your memory:
In regard to masturbation, I think that is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught.
Whether she meant that it should be introduced to kindergartners or to high school seniors is left to your own interpretation. The fact is that what is considered “age appropriate” is in the eye of the beholder. Given some of the openly depraved people that align themselves with the Democrat party, I’d say that if you give them an inch today, tomorrow they’ll be taking a mile.
Here’s a little debate where Joycelyn Elders further defines her support for Obama’s sex education policy:
Pay special attention to the part where Christine O’Donnell details what Joycelyn Elders promoted from the Surgeon General’s office when she was in charge back during Clinton’s tenure:
I’ve seen what Dr. Elders considers age appropriate. When she was Surgeon General, her office proposed a curriculum for sex – um- sex education in kindergarten. There was cartoon characters of naked children, so called appropriately touching themselves with inanimate objects; and this came from her office. This is what they wanted to teach in kindergarten.
Notice how Dr. Elders doesn’t attempt to deny any of this. Consequently, Dr. Elders fully supports Obama’s views on sex education. This should have most right-minded people running from his presidential campaign in droves.
Byron York from the National Review did a little research into this bill, when it was presented to the Illinois State Senate. His investigation was quite eye-opening:
I suggested to Swanson that the bill seemed to provide for HIV education for youngsters before the sixth grade, and perhaps as early as kindergarten. “As I recall the discussion, there was a conversation where in different places in the state — that was something that should be left to local circumstances,” Swanson told me. “What might be appropriate in an urban inner city might not be appropriate in a rural community. I don’t recall anybody, from our perspective, having a one-rule-fits-all vision.”
Swanson suggested that if I wanted to know more I should get in touch with the bill’s sponsors. There were five — State Senator Ronen, as well as Sens. M. Maggie Crotty, Susan Garrett, Iris Martinez, and Jeffrey Schoenberg. All were from the greater Chicago area. But getting in touch with them was easier said than done.
Ronenhas left the Illinois state senate. When I called her home, I reached a woman who did not give me her name but told me she knew how to reach Ronen. I gave her my information, but there has been no call back, nor has Ronen answered a number of follow-up calls.
An assistant in Garrett’s office helpfully gave me the senator’s cell-phone number, so I was able to have a few brief conversations with her. In one, she said she couldn’t talk and asked me to call back in a few minutes. I did, and then did again, and ended up doing so several times over an extended period, all without an answer. The next day, I reached Garrett again, who told me that since the debate took place five years ago, she couldn’t speak about it “unless I have the bill in front of me . . . I’d be happy to do that if I could just print out the bill . . . I just want to be sure I get it right.” We agreed that I would email her the bill, but after I did, she didn’t answer the phone. She still hasn’t.
I’ve gotten no response from Crotty or Schoenberg.
That leaves Sen. Martinez, who was kind enough to speak to me by phone Monday afternoon. Martinez began by saying that the bill was indeed about inappropriate touching. “We know that young children, very, very young, have things happen to them that they don’t speak about,” Martinez told me. “It’s important that we teach our young kids very, very young to speak up.”
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.” When I asked about the elimination of references to marriage and the contraception passages, Martinez said that the changes were “based on some of the information we got from Planned Parenthood.”
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?
Finally, the last part of all of this: Senate Bill 99 promoted abstinence as part of the program. Remember how the Democrats are constantly telling us that abstinence education doesn’t work?
Confused yet? If you’re not, then you are either very smart, or very warped.
The fact of the matter is, the criticism of Barack Obama on his previous sex education stances is not baseless. It’s masked in terms like “developmentally appropriate”, which shifts based on the opinions of a “learned” few. In its most innocent form, it can ward off sexual predators. But in the most extreme view, it can advocate pedophilia as a way of promoting children’s sexual rights.
Thanks, but no thanks.