Was the Sex Ed Ad a Good Idea?
Was the Sex Ed Ad Fair?
National Review Online writer Byron York posted his findings in a Sept. 16 column on relevant Illinois Senate bill 99 in the aftermath of many liberal "fact check" organizations and newspapers slamming the McCain ad. Obama's response to Alan Keyes, whom raised the issue in 2004, was: "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." He then expounded about the need to teach about inappropriate touching for younger children, like he and his wife did for their two young daughters. (Apparently Obama believes that other parents are failing short on their responsibilities for teaching their children about the unacceptability of others touching their private parts; I don't doubt child predators exist and should be prosecuted. However, I believe that the presumption should be that parents are aware of the issue and are acting in the best interests of their child.)
Barack Obama's response was to Keyes was deliberately misleading. [I'm going to analyze the sources somewhat differently than Byron York, whom goes on to explain, with mixed success, his attempts to contact the bill's sponsors.] On the surface, Obama seems to be covered in that the bill's authors say the purpose of the bill is to "medically and factually accurate" sex education, something they claim is "currently not part of Illinois law" and there is some change language which reflects age-appropriateness of instruction and materials.
However, the original sex education law language ALREADY maintains that courses and instruction should be age-appropriate for grades 6-12. The bill's authors instead add the language adds "and developmentally". The most intuitively obvious explanation for adding this language is to cover classes of kids where there is a critical mass of physically maturing children in grades earlier than the sixth.
It's not really obvious what the authors mean by "medically and factually accurate", in the sense one would expect any teacher or textbook in any subject to provide reliable information. However, if you look at where the terms are used in the changes, they are used in the discussion of contraceptive methods.
My inference is that the bill's sponsors and Obama were really saying is that the current sex education in Illinois, with its focus on abstinence, is inadequate for the 21st century. Illinois Democratic Senator Ronen claimed that half of all Illinois high school students are sexually active and a quarter of those contract some STD/ infection. "Comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education gives young people the information they need to make responsible choices about their health, ...the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections."
If you read the changes in the bill, you see a series of edits, which attempt to broaden the scope of various terms, e.g., changes from "sexual intercourse" to "sexual activity/behavior" (i.e., oral sex), "AIDS" to "HIV", "diseases" to "infections", and "condoms" to "all contraceptive methods" (presumably the pill, diaphragms, etc.)
You see a stripping of any language reflecting traditional values: "honor and respect for monogamous heterogenous marriage"; "abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage"; "abstinence from sexual interface is the only 100% effective method [against pregnancy and STD's]"; "emotional and psychological consequences of [premarital sex] and [unexpected teen pregnancy]"; "alternatives to abortion"; "until marriage".
But this does NOT mean that these changes are without a value system of some kind, of course: namely, socially liberal values, focusing on typical victimization rhetoric. For example, you have the following new language: "resources available to survivors of sexual abuse and sexual assault, including...escaping violent relationships"; "free of ...sexual orientation [gay] biases"; "wrong to take [sexual] advantage of or exploit another person"; "shall teach male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence [and ways for females to protect themselves]".
There is a lot of boilerplate that basically focuses on the recognition of unwanted sexual advances, assault, contact, and rape, particularly by an acquaintance, with emphasis on the touching of an intimate part, as well as peer pressure for sex and statutory rape. The change text also addresses resources for counseling, medical assistance, and filing charges with law enforcement officials
SB99 changes language from the status quo sex education law:
Section 5. The School Code Sections 27-9.1 and 27-9.2
(1) The Sec. 27-9.1 (a) changes wording FROM "each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12..." TO "each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12..." This, without any further discussion, immediately validates the McCain commercial, which simply questions the description of 'comprehensive sex education' in the context of kindergarteners.
I'm not a lawyer, but logically I would have distinguished between LIMITED and COMPREHENSIVE sex education. I would have probably said something like LIMITED sex education for grades K-5 and COMPREHENSIVE sex education for grades 6-12, where LIMITED sex education is restricted to the age-appropriate topic of indecent touching by others. Barack Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer, did support the language change associating grades K-5 with comprehensive sex education.
(2) Sec. 27-9.1(c) changes "1. course and instruction shall be age appropriate" to "2. All course and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate"
(3) The wording of Sec. 27-9.2(a) is more difficult for the liberals to explain away. It changes FROM "...whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades 6 through 12, then such courses also shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS." TO: "...whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of the grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." Why are we including kindergarteners in an age group appropriate for discussing STD's/infections?
(4) Sec. 27-9.1(c) changes criterion 8 to criterion 11 and includes this additional language: "The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961." The same language appears in the proposed Sec. 27-9.2(c) criterion 9.
Section 10. The Critical Health Problems and Comprehensive Health Education Act
(5) Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Act. FROM: "...including instruction in grades 6 through 12 on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS..." TO: "...including age-appropriate instruction in grades K through 12 on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections..."
Byron York's Discussions with Bill Sponsors
The gist of Byron York's discussion with the bill's sponsors yielded a couple of important insights with respect to the reclassification of class limits from grade 6 to kindergarten. First, there was a suggestion that a "one-size-fits-all" approach tied local school officials' hands. My example is that if an urban school district found that a number of fifth graders were sexually active, they would be empowered to address that in their curriculum. [In essence, changing to "kindergarten" gives local school authorities maximum flexibility.] Second, there were claims by Cook County and Planned Parenthood that there were known instances of inappropriate touching among younger students.
In addition, Byron York also found the liberal social value changes in text were allegedly promoted by Planned Parenthood. But the general gist was that Barack Obama was exaggerating the relative significance of inappropriate touching in the context of the bill as a whole.
Conclusion
I do not believe that the bill's sponsors intended to suggest comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners, although any objective, fair reading of the bill's language justifies the McCain ad. Even a rationalization of protecting children from inappropriate touching of intimate parts does not explain what you teach a kindergartener about the spreading of sexually-transmitted infections. I would suggest that the changes in grade limits were the result of careless or arbitrary edits. I guess we shouldn't expect a Harvard-trained lawyer like Obama of understanding the language of bills he supports or for him to be articulate and direct about why he's supporting a bill. (He's engaging in liberal political spin, hoping that conservatives like me won't go through the trouble of actually reading the bill.)
I would submit that Barack Obama's defense of his support for the bill is disingenuous; "medically accurate" sex education means promoting the use of contraceptives, primarily for their use in premarital sex. Conservatives, in the eyes of people like Obama, refuse to acknowledge the reality of widespread premarital sex; existing discussions of condoms under Illinois state law aren't enough.
The language de facto establishes a morally neutral stance between abstinence and premarital sex using effective conceptives. In addition, it promotes a socially liberal agenda of gay rights, radical feminism, victimization and political correctness and attempts to restrict discussions of adoption as an alternative to abortion or of traditional social norms of responsible sex, family and marriage.
I do believe there were legitimate conservative reasons for rejecting the proposed law changes, including the de facto censorship of traditional moral values, but I do question how and why the McCain campaign approached this issue (they picked on an issue that certainly didn't help Alan Keyes). The burden of proof of radical changes rested on the burden of the bill's sponsors, e.g., the need to expand sex education throughout primary grades, the empirical link between the current sex education process and the rate of sexually-transmitted infections among teens (my personal opinion is that a lot of guys, for instance, know that condoms protect against STD's and pregnancy, but dislike the reduced sensation in wearing a condom), and the evidence that instructors and/or current materials available to Illinois teachers do not or cannot discuss more effective contraceptive methods.
