Yes, McCain was correct about the "sex ed for kindergartners" bill that Obama said was not about sex ed.
In recent days, a consensus has developed among the Obama campaign and commentators in the press that John McCain has decided to lie his way to the White House. Exhibit A in this new consensus is McCain’s ad, released last week, claiming that Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment†in the field of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.â€Â
Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the Obama campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.†The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators†and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. In a stinging final shot, Burton added, “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.â€Â
...
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.â€Â
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just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.â€Â
So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?
“Absolutely not.â€Â
...
Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.
You can see where the law was changed to talk about sexual predators and not give comprehensive sexual education to kindergarten level students. I didn't read the whole law but it's pretty plan in the first few paragraphs what is going on.
" If any school district provides courses of 8 instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive 9 understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological, 10 hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life, 11 then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching 12 of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related 13 to unintended pregnancy, as the alternatives to abortion, 14 appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such 15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6 16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age 17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually 18 transmitted infections, including the prevention, 19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall 20 be required to take or participate in any family life class 21 or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian 22 submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or 23 participate in such course or program shall not be reason for 24 suspension or expulsion of such pupil."
Note that the law covers kids K through 12 which "then such courses also shall include age 17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually 18 transmitted infections, including the prevention, 19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS"
I think those Nationial review people should read more carefully.
*wikies* OMG! Yes, Spats! I want those too! Would look awesome. Though would I be allowed to go for a cocky monocle instead of a top hat? Top hats are awesome, but so are monocles, and silly evil gentleman curly moustaches.
The National Review, Steve? Seriously? How about you actually read any article written by people who actually read the proposal instead of reading more dreck from people who do nothing but publish rumors.
Just to put another nail in the coffin of this stupid sex-ed intentional misinterpretation by the neocons:
The ad on TV that accused Obama of supporting sex ed for kindergartners started with a citation from Education Weekly. Here's a link and a quote:
The Post also takes issue with the attribution of two other statements in the ad—that's he's been "elusive" on accountability and that he's defending the "public school monopoly." These come from opinion pieces in The Post and the Chicago Tribune, but you wouldn't know that if you're not closely paying attention because the attribution quickly flashes on screen. "A casual viewer or listener could easily get the impression that all the quotes came from Education Week," The Post said.
So it's just more intentional smear from McCain instead of engaging on any issue. The one thing that is different about sites like FactCheck.org and publications like, oh I don't know, the NY Post is that one uses citations that are factual and reliable, not simply plucking inaccurate quotes that essentially come from "some guy on the internet".
According to a recent NY times poll, 37% of registered voters do not consider the candidate's position on issues to be the primary item of consideration when voting. They look at leadership qualities and personality first and foremost. 48% look at the issues first. So, whether or not we want it to be that way, it's a popularity contest, and the issues don't matter as much as they should.
"Age appropriate sex education" is still "sex education." It is not "explicit" sex education as some on the right have tried to portray it as but it is still sex education.
"Age appropriate sex education" is still "sex education." It is not "explicit" sex education as some on the right have tried to portray it as but it is still sex education.
Yes but if you read the law, the "Sex" education is just educating them what a bad touch and when someone is going too far.. That'a bit different then teaching them about Sexual intercourse or masterbation.
"Age appropriate sex education" is still "sex education." It is not "explicit" sex education as some on the right have tried to portray it as but it is still sex education.
A poop by any other name would still reek. McCain appears in the ad supporting what it says. Its goal is obvious, and you're attempting to play semantics.
"Age appropriate sex education" is still "sex education." It is not "explicit" sex education as some on the right have tried to portray it as but it is still sex education.
Give me even one good reason why "good touch/bad touch" shouldn't be taught in schools.
I would like to prompt Steve to come up with a name for teaching "good touch/bad touch" other than sex education that sounds publishable and not completely perverted.
I would like to prompt Steve to come up with a name for teaching "good touch/bad touch" other than sex education that sounds publishable and not completely perverted.
-"Teaching about weird Uncle Larry" -"That thing priests do." -"All about Mr. Peepers and Ms. Hoohoo." -"You're all evil, filthy children." -"If you don't know what it is, don't put it in your mouth."
"Age appropriate sex education" is still "sex education." It is not "explicit" sex education as some on the right have tried to portray it as but it is still sex education.
Give me even one good reason why "good touch/bad touch" shouldn't be taught in schools.
Great! Good to hear we have your support. We look forward to your vote for Obama in November.
Don't link us to an article by the National Review lambasting the bill for being a corrupter of children then tell us you're in support of it once you've been upstaged. Really, you're only making yourself look bad.
Great! Good to hear we have your support. We look forward to your vote for Obama in November.
Don't link us to an article by the National Review lambasting the bill for being a corrupter of children then tell us you're in support of it once you've been upstaged. Really, you're only making yourself look bad.
I didn't link to it for that purpose. I linked to it to point out that the bill is about sex education, even for kindergartners.
You said you weren't against kindergartners being touch good touch and bad touch. What does it matter if you refer to that teaching as sex education or not? The point is that the policy is a good one, and Obama supports it. If you think the policy is a bad one, what part of it do you find disagreeable?
You said you weren't against kindergartners being touch good touch and bad touch. What does it matter if you refer to that teaching as sex education or not? The point is that the policy is a good one, and Obama supports it. If you think the policy is a bad one, what part of it do you find disagreeable?
I don't find it disagreeable. What I find disagreeable is that the Obama campaign is saying that it is not sex education.
Comments
Yes, McCain was correct about the "sex ed for kindergartners" bill that Obama said was not about sex ed. Read the entire article.
They link to the actual law right here.
You can see where the law was changed to talk about sexual predators and not give comprehensive sexual education to kindergarten level students. I didn't read the whole law but it's pretty plan in the first few paragraphs what is going on.
" If any school district provides courses of
8 instruction designed to promote wholesome and comprehensive
9 understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological,
10 hygienic and social responsibility aspects of family life,
11 then such courses of instruction shall include the teaching
12 of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related
13 to unintended pregnancy, as the alternatives to abortion,
14 appropriate to the various grade levels; and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall
20 be required to take or participate in any family life class
21 or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian
22 submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or
23 participate in such course or program shall not be reason for
24 suspension or expulsion of such pupil."
Note that the law covers kids K through 12 which "then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS"
I think those Nationial review people should read more carefully.
HMTKsteve, you should find better sources for your news then the New York Post...
The ad on TV that accused Obama of supporting sex ed for kindergartners started with a citation from Education Weekly. Here's a link and a quote: So it's just more intentional smear from McCain instead of engaging on any issue. The one thing that is different about sites like FactCheck.org and publications like, oh I don't know, the NY Post is that one uses citations that are factual and reliable, not simply plucking inaccurate quotes that essentially come from "some guy on the internet".
Source
-"That thing priests do."
-"All about Mr. Peepers and Ms. Hoohoo."
-"You're all evil, filthy children."
-"If you don't know what it is, don't put it in your mouth."
(ROFL)
Don't link us to an article by the National Review lambasting the bill for being a corrupter of children then tell us you're in support of it once you've been upstaged. Really, you're only making yourself look bad.
"WHAT DO YOU SEE?!"