Children Deserve A Sex Education Policy That Provides Answers

There has been much ballyhoo made by Republican Party ads of the notion that Obama would support "learning about sex before learning to read." I may be tarred and feathered for this statement, but - great! Fabulous! Teach them all their little brains can hold. Why? Because the actual language of the legislation in question is:

SB99: Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity. ... Course material and instruction shall teach pupils ... how to say no to unwanted sexual advances ... and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment.

I should admit first that my children attended parochial elementary school. They clearly did not attend for the sex-ed classes. It was a choice of religion, pure and simple. They are now enrolled in urban public high schools; since I'm pretty sure whatever religion they were going to develop has already come about. Our local public schools here are doing their level-best to close achievement gaps and raise scores, and as an educated and involved parent, I'm willing to help them out on that path.

What I have found remarkable in the parochial school arena, though, is this vast making up for lost time by requiring parental background checks, FBI clearances, and countless other measures to keep those elementary school Catholic children safe from potential sexual dangers - those dangers that are discussed in the above senate bill. What clear-thinking parent doesn't want their child to learn, in the most thorough manner possible, "how to say no to unwanted sexual advances" and to understand "...methods of preventing sexual assault..." or "avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment?"

Please, please, someone help me in this gravely important and serious task. Must I spend all of my time at home not just helping with their homework, but constantly reminding them of what are "good touches" and "bad touches?"

Let's not forget that some of those "touchers," unfortunately, are parents or caregivers. Is it wrong, then, to have schools provide some instruction to the kids whose parents or babysitters might be the predators themselves? It's arguably the absolute-best measure of all! Teach them all we can so that we don't find the public schools in the same clean-up mess that we have found the many Dioceses across the country - paying for lack of information and reliance upon archaic systems that inevitably led to unspeakable abuses.

According to McCain, it would be better to invest time, energy, and countless dollars in cyber-school, charters, and home-schooling. McCain's own website notes that he will "make real the promise of NCLB by giving parents greater choice." But apparently sex education, and defense against potential sex abuse, is not among the available choices. Instead, he would rely on his running mate's plans for sex education in schools. Palin's response to a 2006 Alaskan questionnaire designed by the "Eagle Forum," pro-family group, noted that "sex-ed programs would not find [her] support."

Obama's initiative to close failing charter schools and support high-quality afterschool programming are featured as his response to the need for this instruction at an early age. Obama/Biden's policy articulates very clearly their intention to stop forcing teachers to "spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests". So, gee, does this mean that teachers could help guide their students into making better choices all along their educational path, both with respect to sexual and safety choices as well as gaining an understanding of geography, like the fact that Iraq does not border Pakistan? Now there's an educational policy to stand behind.

Are we to assume that, under McCain, public school children will continue to receive instruction as-is? (He hasn't discussed his stance, or written it on his official web site.) Or is it safe to bet that they will instead be instructed in the abstinence-until-marriage track that has failed so miserably thus far? When it comes to education reform, McCain claims that he will allocate 60% of the Title II funding for teachers in challenging settings, in areas of math and science. Will that science include information about how a sperm travels to an ovum? Will that funding cover teachers who address the psychology of sexual assault? Will that funding dry up if creationism is less a part of the matrix than the difference between consent and rape? McCain refuses to outline any of these parameters.

Obama, on the other hand, voted clearly and decisively in Illinois Legislative Committee (2003) to support the modified sex-ed, based on the recommendations of education and public health groups, the Parent Teacher Association, State Medical Society and Public Health Associations of Illinois, and even the Illinois Education Association.

Creating educational opportunity includes creating educational safety. The old saw "knowledge is power" may be the most valuable thing to children in keeping them safe. Kindergarteners are just as vulnerable to sexual assault and molestation as eighth graders, if not more so. Instead of creating that educational safety, McCain and Palin would have our students learn from creationism that one day they will wake to find a rib missing and a new mate by their sides. They would have them learn that abstinence is the only acceptable option, despite what they see on television, in the news, and obviously in the prospective VP's family. (Let's be real here, a baby will be born and the news will discuss it - matters of the sanctity of her privacy can't be adhered to when the discussion is abstinence-education policy.)

So go ahead, give children that knowledge. Give them that power. And quit calling it plain old "sex-ed." We know from the Republican ticket that kids today know how to have sex. What we need them to know is outlined in the bill above: "exercising good judgment."

This week OffTheBus is publishing a variety of stories that cover the policy differences between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. If you have a policy expertise and would like to participate, please see Calling All Policy Gurus.

Comments

[ItHasToGetBetter]

I think Obama has the right idea on this one. He recognizes that in the case of sex, ignorance is not bliss. Education can prevent early pregnancies. The anti-abortion people should like this. Prevention of pregnancy will make abortion a decision that won't have to made.

[ReesieKitty]

As a mom in Illinois whose son HAD this program in kindergarten ( sponsored by the bill Obama voted for) I am getting really SICK of the lie that it was about teaching sex to little kids.

It was a VERY AGE-APPROPRIATE discussion by a school counselor about things like stranger danger and how to trust your gut instinct if you have a weird feeling about how someone is behaving with you. It also had put a lot of emphasis on ALWAYS TELL. It was a totally positive and non-scary discussion and just reinforced a lot of things we were already talking about at home. Kindergarten is a perfect age for this because for lots of kids, it is the first time they are away from their parents and dealing with adults alone outside of the family.

I signed a permission slip and had every opportunity to pull my child out if it was inappropriate. I am starting to feel as if the McCain campaign and the other idiots who rail against this program are criticizing ME personally as a parent for letting my child participate. I think other mothers feel the same- McCain will not get their vote by slandering them as parents and implying that they encouraged their little kids to find out about sex. STOP THE LYING AND DISINFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROGRAM. Oh wait- you're McCain supporters. Lying and disinformation is pretty much all you have going for you at this point...

[Susan Kelley-Stamerra - Huffpost Blogger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-0M0Cd27qY

This pretty much says it all.

[SPiHC]

Perhaps an easier rhetorical question:

Don't the children of America deserve an education based in science, and not religious belief?

Sarah Palin is to the far right fringe of her party.

Sarah Palin isn't Hillary Clinton.

Learn the difference, vote smart.

www.SarahPalinISNTHillaryClinton.com

[mojojanglesjoe]

Your link isn't working but I agree with you.

Kids today are having sex like bunnies and Palin's point of view would just reenforce this behavior without giving kids the knowledge needed to protect themselves.

[nccp1870]

We Americans have trouble facing our physical drives. Other countries have a more reasonable and responsible approach to what comes naturally. The writer is right when noting that most of the bad touching comes from people close to a child---including parents, ministers, teachers, and friends. Think how poor Oprah might have been helped by knowing more than she did as a child who was abused.

We now also have an obesity problem, the result of not educating ourselves and our children against bad foods, or, at least, lesser choices. Would you deny children instruction in food facts, calories and nutrients, in school, because you are a vegetarian, and don't believe in ever eating meat?

The problem here, beyond America' s tendency to alternately worship and reject our bodies, is the teaching of values....­.that, indeed, is the parents' job. Issues such as WHY abstinence, waiting, etc.may be the right choices, should be happening at home. But teaching the facts of life, love and disease are really just another form of information. Let's not elevate it to some kind of secret, scary stuff.

[twomom]

I am the mother of two teenaged daughters. They have had comprehensive sex education since elementary school. I have always received a notice that would allow me to pull them out of sex ed. I never have and let me tell you why. I see my role as my daughters' mother as teaching morality. I can also teach them about keeping themselves safe. Sex ed in the districts we have attended followed my state curriculum and was about safety and biology. Not about morality. Fine with me.

Now I happen to be an "older" mother and I remember back in the early '60' when I was in junior high school the famed class where girls learned about menstruation (too late for some of us) and getting pregnant and boys learned whatever they learned (class was segretated). We giggled and rolled out eyes throughout the class and I know the teacher was as embarassed as we were.

Is this what we want to return to? Not me.

[theway08]

Great….Now you want the federal government to teach our children about sex? That is your job as a parent! I don’t know what you’re complaining about. You freely decided what private school to send your children to! You should have done your research and enrolled them in a non-religious private school. It’s that easy. You are playing the victim card based off your own choice, unbelievable! Also, if you don’t want to get pregnant or HIV the best way is not to have sex. Its sex ed 101. Teach your children abstinence. Look at Africa and its failed policy to pass out condoms to all. Now 50% of their teenagers have Aides.

[SeKelley]

Unless *both* husband and wife are virgins, and have had zero other risks of exposure, there is not a 100% guarantee not to get HIV, and the last time I checked, marriage was certainly not a means by which not to get pregnant, especially since most married people do, in fact, have sex.
My argument, which you missed, is that sometimes the parents (whose job you claim it is to teach about sex ed and preventing molestation and assault) are the molesters themselves. To wit, see the reply directly below.
I'm not playing any sort of victim card, since I was not implying that my children are in danger or ever were. I was indicating that parochial schools are just now able to begin repairing the damage caused by the gap in instruction of so many years.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/reality-check-video/comprehensive-sex-education-vs-abstinence-only

[mcole]

look at africa?? look at yourself! your veep candidate teenage daughter is pregnant!!

she herself had an unplanned pregnancy!!

you people are a joke

[SummerNite]

First off, its 'AIDS' not 'Aides'.

It mystifies me that you are using Africa as an example for ineffective condom use. There is a large portion of women/children who got HIV-AIDS through rape/molestation caused through civil wars within their country and ignorance towards the cause and/or cure to this disease. (ie. Men were told that have intercourse with a new born cures AIDS).

If nothing else, your example proves why proper education in relation to sex is important.

Also, you clearly didn't comprehensively read th article above. The author indicated that one of the reasons this education is important is because predators are sometimes parents or other close adults. The author was clearly thinking about more than JUST HER CHILDREN which is something that we as responsible adults should do. More importantly, as an adult, I would give my life to protect an innocent child from going through such horrors at the hands of some freak - why do you disdain me and others that want to protect children by giving them the voice to say 'non, 'stop' or 'help'?

It's unfortunate that you and others seem to think that predatory behaviour doesn't deserve every ounce of preventiion that we can reasonably come up with.

Finally, the author was not playing victim for any of her choices. Maybe you should try reading the article again and see what you come up with. Right now, you are not sounding intellectually attuned to what the conversation is about.

[bdaved]

How often do you get the feeling that someone must've read a different post than you did? Or live on another planet?

[SeKelley]

I'm pretty sure that "skimming" has been elevated to a fine art.

[cityartgrl4]

As a survivor of sexual assault (by my father, no less), I hope that this legislation is passed. I say I survived, because my sister didn't. She turned to drugs and prostitution, (eventually she was murdered -case still open)to hide the pain, humiliation and self hatred that comes from being a child victim of a molester. I finally quit drinking myself to numbness two years ago) I just hope that this will prevent more childern from being victimized. I don't want pity. Children need protection from adults who think they can get away with this behavior, and if its being taught in school, perverts like my dad might think twice before acting on their sick impulses.

[SummerNite]

Not that you want cheerleaders - but I think you are strong and I wish you the best in life.

Fight for what you nelieve in because your experience will helpsomeone else that thinks there is no one or anything that will help them.

Peace

[deanatali]

Please check this out, the most comprehensive page of information on Sarah Palin on the Internet ... including videos of her saying her proposed $30 billion pipeline is the “will of God,” her saying a month ago she doesn’t know what the vice-president does, and her recently praising the biggest pork barrel spender in Congress Ted Stevens -

http://dailysource.org/palin

It has in-depth research, audio clips, videos, excerpts, and links to hundreds of articles, including many from newspapers and TV stations in Alaska. It has rare footage, including her telling the ‘08 convention of the Alaska Independence Party, whose aim is to give Alaska a vote on seceding from the U.S., to “keep up the good work.” The level of research is unparalled. The site’s editors and volunteers include an Emmy-award winning CNN reporter, the former operating editor of the Monitor’s web site, the former head of NPRs News Blog and the Executive Director of the Online News Association -

http://dailysource.org/about/team

[pillgirl]

and of course, in 'standing by the ad' about obama's supposed sex ed for kindergartners, mccain said "read the language in the bill."

wow. how dare obama try to empower little kids who might not have anyone else to stick up for them.

[Icantbelieveher]

Children don't vote -- why should McCain care about them?

[PioneerKing]

PBS has a poll going for people to vote whether they think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. Right now the "yes" votes are winning, because the right wing is voting en masse.

To change this trend, click on the link below and vote (you don't have to provide email or personal info, just click yes or no in the link and it will give you to vote to date.

http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

[isis]

I don't want my tax dollars supporting private schools that teach children about one religion. That is not what public money is for. Where I live the teen pregnancy rate is much higher in the private schools. The students are not getting an education that prepares them for the real world.

[bswen]

Agreed, we need a more realistic sex education curriculum. For more on abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex education check out our short video on the subject: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/reality-check-video/comprehensive-sex-education-vs-abstinence-only

[PalibanMom]

I'm saddened that so many people hate Jesus enough that they want to give children how-to sex lessions in the schools. That's the sort of thing a woman should learn from her husband, on her wedding night.

As we all know, Governor Palin is an outspoken advocate of abstinence-only education. Her happy, healthy family is living proof of its efficacy!

Now, I admit to being somewhat biased. I am an active member of the paliban www.paliban.orgg), and I believe, as Governor Palin does, that we need more God in schools and less sex!

[middle of the road]

This post is quite insane. I'm glad you are such a fervent believer in religion, but there are man others out there who do not share your view. In fact, it may astonish you to note that up to 20% of American's do not even believe in God (oh the horror!). So lets get real. Separation of church and state, look into it sometime.

Now here is my question. If Palin is so into teaching creationalism in schools side by side with evolution and letting the children choose. Then why is she against teaching sex ed in conjunction with abstinence in schools and letting the children choose? Seems hypocritical to me.

[SeKelley]

Along with her happy, healthy, unwed pregnant daughter? Yep, abstinence-only is working like a charm, there.

[Icantbelieveher]

To say that someone supports sex education also hates Je sus is unbelievably judgemental and self-righteous. I am a Christian first and foremost, but the religion that preaches to judge and be totally intolerant is not the religion Jesus taught us! God gives us the chance to choose whom we will serve. Jesus never shoved religion down anyone's throat. I am offended by your post!

Judge not lest ye be judged! And furthermore, are you going to spend the time and money on those unwanted children that will be flooding the foster care system? No, republicans are the first ones to cut the spending that helps children. And they want no responsibilities to help those people who cannot afford to feed their children. Jesus fed the poor, remember? Sometimes I think these so-called "Christian" republicans should actually read the Bible and pay attention to what it is saying!

[Icantbelieveher]

Try telling that to the pri ests that Mo lest children so often! But if you had your way, the children would be ignorant about what was happening and not know what to do to protect themselves!

[Icantbelieveher]

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

Try telling that to the pri ests that Mo lest children so often! But if you had your way, the chil dren would be ignorant and not know how to protect themselves from these people!

And to say that people who teach their chil drento protect themselves hate Je sus is totally in and of itself a hateful statement!

[SeKelley]

Watched it. Love it. Will do my best to promote it!

[hypnotoad72]

And not just saying "no" to unwanted attention, but adding an extra cause into the concept - like "love", "self-respect", "respect for others" -- and the other aspects seemingly ditched 40 years ago. (At least for dating... relatives or others touching as in molestation is 100% wrong.)