OBAMA AND SEX ED FOR KIDS

Obama and his supporters have reacted violently to the claim that he supported sex education for kids from as young as kindergarten.

What’s the story?

Is there anything factually untrue in this ad?

Here’s a report from MSNBC:

The Obama campaign gave this statement to CBN's David Brody: "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."

Well that’s both an acknowledgement that Obama did support some kind of sex ed for six year olds, but a denial that it included anything other than making six year olds aware of sexual predators. So is that really the case?

At this point we have the Obama camp saying that he is in favor of discussing sex with six year but denying that it involves anything … what?

To get an idea of what Obama approves, we have an aide referring us to SIECUS.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read: "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there." In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has curriculum for those in kindergarten.

Well, SIECUS has developed a curriculum for schools. In a 112 page booklet entitled: "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education" available in a PDF file it provides a summary of what's to be taught for "Level 1" - age 5 through 8. It's found on page 24.

The subjects to be covered include ...

• Identifying and naming the body parts and their functions
• Including genitals, reproductive organs and genes
• Identifying nipples, penis, scrotum and testicles for boys
• Identifying breasts, nipples, vulva, clitoris, vagina, uterus and ovaries for girls
• Sexual and reproductive organs inside or outside the body such as penises or vulvas or ovaries and testicles.
• That both boys and girls have sexual body parts that feel good when touched.
  
  

I love the last part, the part that tells young kids that with the right touch of the right body part they will “feel good.”

Obama supporters may wish to point out the part where kindergartners are taught about sexual predators. To me it looks like a lesson plan to show the small fry on how they can become sexual predators.

UPDATE: Byron York at NRO spoke with one of the sponsor of Illinois Senate Bill 99 (the one of the five that would speak to him) and read the legislation and writes:

On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right

Click on the link for the entire article. Excerpts:

According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.

What, specifically, was the bill designed to do? It appears to have had three major purposes:

The first, as Ronen indicated, was to mandate that information presented in sex-ed classes be “factual,” “medically accurate,” and “objective.”

The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve.

...Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:

...The bill’s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. [such as monogamy and abstinance]

...The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate...On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.

York did manage to get one of the sponsors, Sen. Martinez, to talk to him. Asked about Obama's claim that the bill was about "inappropriate touching."

So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

“Absolutely not.”

York recalls that this is not the first time this controversy has erupted.

The controversy over the McCain sex-ed ad is a rerun of a similar controversy that erupted in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, when Obama’s opponent, the Republican transplant Alan Keyes, brought up the same issue. In a debate that year, when Keyes accused Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners, Obama answered, “Actually, that wasn’t what I had in mind. We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.”

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 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.

So what did we learn from this issue? First we learn that Obama is not “traditional” in the old schools sense of the word. Second, we are left with a unanswered question: did he not understand the bill or did he understand it and lie about the bill’s intent? If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, it may explain why he voted “present” so often. Comprehension of reality is not his strong suit.