While the Guardians of Truth in the "mainstream" media have declared false the assertion that Barack Obama supported sex ed for kindergartners, the truth that the rest of the world understands tells a different story.
When the bill in question was examined, it was found to read
"any of grades K-12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
Hmmm...sounds like more than just "don't talk to strangers" to me.
According to Brit Hume's Political Grapevine, Byron York at the National Review writes, "The 'touching' provision did not have the prominence that team Obama has suggested it had, and certainly wasn't the bill's main purpose."
Barack Obama is a liberal social engineer of the highest order. For every reason in the book, this man cannot be trusted at the helm of our great nation
From TheRiteWing
4 comments:
Learn that this bill was pulled before passing because of that line, and guess who helped re-write it to a higher grade level, high school only, that's right, Obama. I know it sounds great and is easy to take one line from a bill of thousands to make it sound like Obama is a horrid man, but the truth is that the truth is being left out on nearly every attack on Obama and evevry plan Mccain is boasting. Talk to me about McCain wanting to tax health care provided by employers as income tax, talk to me about McCain "fixing" our wasteful spending by ridding Washington of earmarks when earmarks make up 1% of the national budget. Let's have a real discussion, not one about silly distortions.
You'll never catch me heaping praise on John McCain for being a great Republican or a great example of the values that made America great.
But compared to Obama, who seems to have discipled at the feet of Karl Marx and Margaret Sanger?
The federal government, under President Bush, already funds a policy which calls for HIV education starting in kindergarten. These policy guidelines have been adopted by boards of education in places like Alabama, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Don't take my word for this- just follow the links (many of which are to government websites) which I supply later in this post.
The dishonesty of McCain's ad is the suggestion that the Illinois bill was somehow unusual in calling for HIV education in grades K-12 and the suggestion that there couldn't possibly be anything age appropriate about such education in kindergarten. If you believe that, you'd have to believe that the county board of education in Perkins County, Alabama (where it's not even legal to buy alcohol) has adopted inappropriate guidelines which push sex ed on kids before they are ready.
What could possibly be age-appropriate for kindergartners, you ask? Well, how about teaching them (1) that although they may hear the terms "AIDS" or "HIV", it's not something that kids their age need to worry about or (2) if word gets out that there's an HIV-positive child (who contracted it from the mother when born) in the class, that it's fine for the other children to play with this child.
OK, here is the proof that this is a policy the Bush administration funds and apparently has funded for quite some time. If you go to this CDC web page:
http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/partners/ngo/nasbe.htm
... you'll see that the CDC funds an organization called the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) for the purpose of "providing HIV-related information and guidance to state boards of
education and other education stakeholders on policies that promote
effective HIV prevention for kindergarten through 12th grade students in
schools across the nation. "
Here is the model policy the NASBE wants the states to follow:
http://www.nasbe.org/index.php/component/content/article/78-model-policies/120-policies-concerning-students-and-staff-with-hiv-infection
It says the "goals of HIV prevention education are to promote healthful living and discourage the behaviors that put people at risk of acquiring HIV. The educational program will be taught at every level, kindergarten through grade twelve;".
Here is the policy of the Tennessee state board of education as of 2003. It echoes the NASBE language verbatim, calling for HIV education to be taught K-12:
http://www.state.tn.us/sbe/Policies/5.300%20HIV_AIDS%20Policy%20for%20Students%20and%20Employees.pdf
Here is the policy of Pickens County, Alabama, a dry county of 20,000 people. It has the same K-12 HIV education language.
http://www.pickens.k12.al.us/Other%20Resources/Policy%20Manual.doc
So just as easily as one can try to twist the language of the Illinois bill (which never passed) into sounding like something inappropriate, I could take the language of the policy (already in place) of the board of education in Pickens County and make it sound like this county that won't let you buy booze is pushing inappropriate AIDS education on kindergartners. How plausible is that?
Here is the Wyoming policy as of 1998:
http://www.k12.wy.us/hs/hivpolicy.pdf
It echoes the NASBE language.
Here is a press release demonstrating that the CDC, via NASBE, gave grants earlier this year to Tennessee, North Carolina, and Oregon for K-12 HIV education:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS214774+28-Feb-2008+BW20080228
So this policy, supported by the federal government, has been around quite some time and continues to this day.
Given all that, how plausible is it really that the Illinois bill represented something unusual and perverse?
P.S. I have been unable to get the fact that the federal government funds this policy reported in any major papers or blogs, so if anyone reading this feels it ought to be reported, I encourage you to email bloggers and reporters about it.
Since the vast majority of AIDS cases come from homosexual activity and drug use (according to the CDC, 72% of male AIDS cases come from homosexual activity and 22% from injection drug use) as long as kindergartners stay away from homosexual sex and injection drug use, they should be okay.
Is there evidence that there is considerable homosexual activity and injection drug use among kindergartners, that such education for kindergartners is warranted?
Post a Comment