About That McCain "Sex Ed" Ad...
Posted by: Jubal | 09/16/2008 1:21 PM
...the one the Obama campaign and its remoras in the Leftosphere are denouncing as a lie.
NRO's Byron York actually took the time to review the bill in question, SB 99 and what was said about it at the time. While four of the bill's five sponsors either stonewalled York or failed to return repeated calls, one sponsor did talk to York.
Sen. Iris Martinez stated the bill was not specifically about educating young children against sexual predators and inappropriate touching. This runs contrary to the claims of Barack Obama and his campaign, which have been swallowed by the mainstream punditocracy.
I encourage readers to read the entire article.
By the way, here's the language of SB 99 regarding comprehensive sex education:
NRO's Byron York actually took the time to review the bill in question, SB 99 and what was said about it at the time. While four of the bill's five sponsors either stonewalled York or failed to return repeated calls, one sponsor did talk to York.
Sen. Iris Martinez stated the bill was not specifically about educating young children against sexual predators and inappropriate touching. This runs contrary to the claims of Barack Obama and his campaign, which have been swallowed by the mainstream punditocracy.
I encourage readers to read the entire article.
By the way, here's the language of SB 99 regarding comprehensive sex education:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.It replaced this language:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.
CATEGORY:
Making of the President 2008
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Obama sat a committee that reviewed proposed changes to the existing sex-ed law in Illinois.
Obama voted to permit the proposed changes to leave committee and be voted on by the full Illinois Senate.
Obama was not the author of the changes, he was not a sponsor of the bill, but he did vote to allow the bill out of committee for the full Senate to judge the merits of changing the existing law.
The full Senate rejected the proposed changes to the law.
The full law with the proposed changes can be read on-line.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=73
Instead of debating one-line sound-bites put out by both sides, why not look at the actual law and see what was proposed as changes in the law?
For anyone that has not worked on proposed changes to contracts or laws, let me offer some explaination:
Any text that is just plain text is the existing law.
Any text that is underlined is proposed as a new addition to the law.
Any text that is struck through is proposed for deletion.
Page 1
8 (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil.
Page 2
12 (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.
End of page 3/ begin page 4 Proposed addition to existing law:
33 (11) (8) Course material and instruction shall
34 teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal
-4- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1 sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual
2 advances and shall include information about verbal,
3 physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without
4 limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual
5 physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The
6 course material and instruction shall contain methods of
7 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including
8 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that
9 impairs one's judgment. The course material and
10 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
11 respect for others
Text of the proposed changes to the existing law can be viewed via the link below.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=73
Pete Bobb:
Come on, bro -- stop embarrassing yourself.
Obama voted for the bill, and the bill included the above language. It says what it says.
And Obama's explaining away of the bill's purpose doesn't square with that of the one SB99 sponsor who isn't suspiciously clamming up.
Maybe this is one of those times where Senator Profile In Courage should have voted "present."
Hi Lapdog,
Yes, it says parents can review the content of the class, parents decide if their children participate, that it must be age appropriate, and how to avoid sexual peverts.
I'm not embarressed, in fact, I would have supported the change in language if I had the chance to vote on the bill.
I see no problem at all in telling a 5-year-old that if anyone wants to touch you anyplace covered by your underwear, that you need to tell a grown-up like your parents, teachers, or minister.
IMHO, that is age appropriate for a 5-year-old.
Of course, it would have been the schools and PTA that actually would have decided if that level of knowledge would be age and developmentally appropriate for a 5-year-old....
I posted the link to the actual bill and encourage readers to read the entire bill instead of blindly following the one-liners put out by both camps.