There have been a lot of media protestations about an ad run by Republican presidential nominee John McCain in which the Arizona Senator says that Barack Obama supported sex education for kindergartners in Illinois.
While the McCain campaign stood by its claim, the Obama campaign called it a lie and major news organizations like the Washington Post and the New York Times lambasted the Republican Senator saying the ad was a gross distortion of reality that brought politics to a new low.
A careful examination of the actual language contained in the legislation, however, available on the Illinois General Assembly web site, seems to give credence to McCain's argument.
The controversial bill is SB0099, which states: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered 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." Comprehensive sex education. Doesn't K stand for kindergarten?
The bill does allow parents to keep their kids out of the sex education courses, if they do so in writing: "No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such corse or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."
The legislation does call for "age appropriate" course material and instruction, but one has to ask: what is considered "age appropriate" for kindergarten? The bill doesn't specify, instead charging the state superintendent of education to develop courses. With the absence of legislative direction, other than some requirements for fact based material, medical information, legal consequences, etc., one can only assume that the superintendent has great latitude in determining course content.
Is this what lawmakers intended? There seems to be more than Senator Obama has claimed, and more than Senator McCain included in his ad. But the basic claim of offering comprehensive sex education to kindergartners seems valid.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 53
The ad is a lie, bold faced lie. There is no credence to the argument, you are grasping at straws.
Kindly fade away, as you and your candidates will.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
Those who perpetuate lies are called...?
Senator Obama supported "age appropriate" sex-education for children as a means of teaching them what was proper or improper touching, as well as to protect them against pedophiles.
In the small Pennsylvania county where I live, there were 717 children who were the victims of sexual assault last year. Of those children, 141 were children 5 years old and younger, and 198 were children 6 to 11 years old. I have written more on this in previous posts, if you care to look back.
The McCain campaign chose to say simply that Obama favors sex education for kindergarteners.
By my way of thinking, this shows John McCain's insensitivity to a serious problem facing our society -- how to best protect our kids from sexual predators and how to help them make healthy choices as they grow up.
True, while in the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted for, but was not a sponsor of, a bill that provided non-mandatory sex and health education to grades K-12, ensuring that all instruction was "age appropriate."
The bill, which was never passed into law, allowed any student to opt out of the course with a written request from their parent or guardian and required all instruction to be age appropriate and factually and medically accurate. It emphasizes the consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases as well as how to say no to unwanted sexual advances. The course instruction would be based on personal responsibility, promoting healthy relationships, and would be free from bias. The will was clear that all content would include "age appropriate instruction."
An amendment to the bill stated that "if" a school instituted a "Family Life" Curriculum, the course material would be age and developmentally appropriate. A further amendment that "if a school offers a class or course in Family Life in grades K through 5, the course materials shall be age and developmentally appropriate and medically accurate.
Senator Obama answered questions about his intent in supporting this bill clearly in 2004 when this was brought up in another political campaign, and again in 2006.
And yes, I have read the language in the bill. Of course the language in the bill would not be read to kindergartners - that is absurd. However, I don't think any explanation of the facts will satisfy ultra-conservative evangelicals such as Sarah Palin who favor only abstinence education in the schools. That's the real issue here.
If you care about families, the middle class, the economy, jobs, health care, education, and family friendly policies in the workplace, there is only one candidate to stand up for you -- and that is Barack Obama.
"The ad is a lie, bold faced lie. There is no credence to the argument, you are grasping at straws." Really? Does it not say comprehensive sex education for grades K through 12? Does K not mean kindergarten?
Which part, exactly, is a lie?
"Kids are being exposed to molestations earlier and earlier and need to be protected." They should be educated on these topics by parents when they are that age, not the government.
"To insinuate that Obama, who has two little girls himself, is just trying to push sex education to small children, is absolutely disgusting." It's not insinuating anything. The legislation clearly states "comprehensive sex education" for grades K through 12. No insinuation there. Clearly stated by the Illinois General Assembly.
"Another idiot rightwing lie." I merely cut and pasted the EXACT text from the Illinois General Assembly bill. Which part of that is a lie? Did you read the bill yourself? It clearly states age appropriate (determined by the state, not parents) comprehensive sex education for grades K through 12. I fail to see how that is a lie.
Was the ad in poor taste? Maybe. Did it leave out some aspects of the bill? Of course. But that's politics, not a lie. A lie is when Obama said McCain wants to fight the war in Iraq for 100 years, even though the video clearly shows McCain saying he could see an American presence in Iraq for 100 years IF IT WERE LIKE THE PRESENCE IN KOREA OR GERMANY WHERE AMERICANS WERE NOT BEING WOUNDED AND KILLED. I know, semantics, right?
"The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." IT WOULD HAVE LOWERED THE AGE AT WHICH STUDENTS WOULD BEGIN WHAT THE BILL TERMED 'COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION' TO INCLUDE KINDERGARTEN."
That's from your link, Sam. So again, which part of that is a lie?
"...a bill that provided non-mandatory sex and health education...." My problem with this is that the burden is on the parents and not on the school system. Why not ask the parents permission instead of putting the burden on them to request, in writing, that their children be excluded from the courses?
And shouldn't it be up to parents to determine what is age appropriate for their children, and not the Illinois state superintendent of education stipulated in the bill?
"If you care about families, the middle class, the economy, jobs, health care, education, and family friendly policies in the workplace, there is only one candidate to stand up for you -- and that is Barack Obama." I would change that to say, "If you care about hate-filled, anti-American preaching, raising taxes, forced government health care, no school choice, and increased government intervention in the private lives of individual citizens, then Barack Obama is your candidate."
Thusly, twisting the words to say that Obama wants to teach five year olds what boning is is a LIE.
Which makes you, and your candidate, a LIAR.
A desperate, undereducated, misguided, and generally stupid, Liar.
And I didn't say Obama wanted to teach five year olds about "boning." I said the bill authorizes comprehensive sex education to grades K through 12, which is exactly what the bill says.
So drop the liar routine and do some actual reading instead of adhering to partisan talking points. You're making yourself look and sound like an idiot.
By the way, wouldn't you rather determine what is age appropriate for your kindergartner than have a local school district or state superintendent of education do it? What about parental responsibility? Why do we rely on the nanny state?
"My link" also said "don't buy it."
Sex ed is a necessity, because I don't want to pay for your children's kids, because you and the rest of the Pharisees in this country are too embarassed or morally uptight to tell your kids to wear a rubber. Abstinence only = Bristol Palin.
And before you call me a liar, I will quote your comment and show you how you prove yourself wrong from paragraph to paragraph.
"wouldn't you rather determine what is age appropriate for your kindergartner than have a local school district or state superintendent of education do it?"
So now it is either the local or state superintendent? Meaning that it is designed to give regional school boards control over what it is and when it is taught? Meaning that what I said before is totally accurate and that you are in fact a LIAR.
As is your candidate.
By the by, the nanny state you refer to would not be necessary if kids wore rubbers. True definition of nannying, right? No matter how much your sexually repressed pastor tells you it can, you're not going to turn the clock back on 16 year olds boning.
Yet another example of pie-in-the-sky conservatism...
Now only if those clocks ran backwards...
This guy isn't even recognizable to me.
The intent of the article, which unless you can read my mind you could not discern, was to provide the ACTUAL TEXT of the bill that Senator Obama supported.
There is no "game." Only the truth as dictated by the Illinois General Assembly in their legislation.
We rely on the nanny state because we as a society have willingly abdicated our personal and parental responsibilities, choosing instead to let strangers in government tell us what is best for our children.
"Sex ed is a necessity, because I don't want to pay for your children's kids, because you and the rest of the Pharisees in this country are too embarassed or morally uptight to tell your kids to wear a rubber. Abstinence only = Bristol Palin."
Yes, it is a necessity. I disagree that it is a necessity in schools in kindergarten. As children approach puberty, medical / biological health education should be paired with sex education to help them prepare for the realities they will face. Prior to that, it should be the responsibility of the parent. You resort to name calling and speculation when you know nothing about me or what I believe. Stereotyping is a tactic of the weak who cannot defend truthfully that which they are professing.
"So now it is either the local or state superintendent? Meaning that it is designed to give regional school boards control over what it is and when it is taught? Meaning that what I said before is totally accurate and that you are in fact a LIAR."
NO!
I put local / regional in there because you seem to be under the illusion that the text of the bill stipulates that. I clearly said the bill designated the state superintendent, but you seem to think it's a local / regional responsibility. I said that so you wouldn't be lost in the conversation.
What you said is in fact NOT accurate, yet you resort to name calling. I realize the bill is about 9 pages, but have you actually bothered to read it?
"No matter how much your sexually repressed pastor tells you it can, you're not going to turn the clock back on 16 year olds boning." Again, you know nothing about me or my pastor. If you did, you would know that I don't go to church because I don't buy into organized religion. I believe any faith should be between the individual and his / her God / belief system.
Further, I think it is ignorant to believe that kids will not have sex. Abstinence only does not resonate with youth, therefore comprehensive sex education, including methods of birth control are necessary and appropriate. Just not in kindergarten.
You show your ignorance and blind partisanship by stereotyping and name calling without looking at facts.
From Factcheck.org (yawnnnnnnn)
"Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate."
So can you come up with some REAL issues to debate?? Can you at all discuss how John McCain will bring "victory" in Iraq? How John McCain will undo the disaster of Bush era executive branch rule? Can you deal with the rampant hipocrasy of the Republican defenders morality as they tap dance in airport men's rooms? Or shall we deal with impotent legislation DEBUNKED too many times to count? Can ANY OF YOU RWN'S STAND AND FIGHT????
I wonder why this could be.
In truth, I did believe you were a Pharisee (religious right), so my apologies for that.
So, instead of being a Republobot, and while I admit you are not a Pharisee-Republobot, after the news of the handouts Wall street is getting this week, how can you mislead people into believing Obama wants to teach kindergartners to bone.
Please, I want to know.
"Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate."
Right. But the bill did call for comprehensive sex ed for K through 12, and Obama supported it. I also noted in the article that parents could opt out. My issue is with the state determining what is age appropriate sex ed for my kindergartner. The facts in the bill and the fact that Obama supported it are not in doubt.
Iraq is actually doing much better. And Obama, if elected, will inherit an Iraq that is much more stable and on the path to recovery than the one that existed just a year ago. And that success is a result of Bush policies.
About half the country, it seems based on the latest polling data, thinks McCain will do okay? Whatever will you do if Obama loses?
"Can you deal with the rampant hipocrasy of the Republican defenders morality as they tap dance in airport men's rooms?" Stereotyping. One guy makes for the collective, huh? Does that mean Jeremiah Wright speaks for all black people? Of course not. Your arguments are reaching the point of ridiculousness.
In case you hadn't noticed, I am standing and fighting you, and you are losing. You resort to name calling instead of acknowledging that the bill in question calls for comprehensive sex ed for K through 12, and that Obama supported it. Nothing more, nothing less.
"And you show your ignorance by attacking a man that you seemingly agree with by saying that he wants to teach kindergartners about boning." How am I attacking him? By giving Gather patrons the text of the bill? No matter how many times you repeat it, I did not say he wants to teach kindergartners about "boning." I said he supported a bill that called for comprehensive sex education for grades K through 12, which he did.
"...after the news of the handouts Wall street is getting this week, how can you mislead people into believing Obama wants to teach kindergartners to bone." What the hell are you talking about? First, the handouts wouldn't be necessary if the seeds for the current crisis hadn't been planted 15 years ago (but you knew that since you've been to my article on that subject) and one has nothing to do with the other.
You should stop putting words in my mouth. I merely presented the text of a bill supported by Obama. You can click on the link and read it for yourself if you'd like.
Your conservative ideology is dead. Capitalism doesn't exist in this country anymore. Your backers are asking: Please Mom, Please Dad, I just need another 90 billion for my Maserati.
Joke... the fact that you are trying to pin Free Market Capitalism De-Regulation on Bill Clinton is LAUGHABLE. This started with Saint Ronald Reagan, and King George oversaw the last, disastrous 8 years.
Joke. As are you.
The sterotype of the Republican party cleaving hip and thigh to the religious right while nesting with a plethora of perverts is just and right political fodder. I
F you were to read the ENTIRE sermon of Rev. Wright I will debate its text historically and biblically and time you wish.
Do not even attempt to play the "Iraq is stable" card. Iraq is still a freaking mess. It is more divided by sect and enthic groups than ever and WE are dumping billions each month in payoffs while the Iraqi repeat "Yankee go home!" and Bush ignores them. No long term bases, no sweet deals for the oil bastards, nothing to show but the hanging death of the guy who did not possess WMDs. Great surge that.
The executive branch is barely functioning. How will MCCain fix it without dumping every right wing moron entrenched and will the neo-cons let him? Let's talk about "drill baby drill" and realtime impact on oil price. How about the Enron Loophole? Did we ever find out WHO was on Dickey's energy task force? How many shell companies are buying back into the energy market to inflate the market? How do you justify the run up in prices when supply and demand ratios have been the same for 4 years?
Justify violating the 4th amendment. Justify and show result from torture. Show how repeal of posse commitatus makes America more secure. Defend wars of pre-emptive aggression. Or are you only capable, like most of your RW comrades, of whining about Illinois state legislation that was never passed? Like I said; stand and fight.
"AC you have won nothing." I didn't say I had won. I said you were losing.
"I'll give you persistence in foolishness...." Ditto.
"It's faintly amusing watching you squirm but growing quite boring." You must be confusing me with someone else. No squirming going on here. Just presenting facts that seem to get you in an uproar.
"IF you were to read the ENTIRE sermon of Rev. Wright I will debate its text historically and biblically and time you wish." There's no question he was presenting a valid line of thought concerning American actions abroad and the consequences of those actions. My problem is more in presentation and choice of words. He comes off as hateful and disdainful and uses inflammatory rhetoric that often times has no basis in fact (like alluding to the possibility that the U.S. government invented the virus that causes AIDS to kill black people). What I find more disturbing than Wright, though, is that Obama expects us to believe he attended that church for 17 years, was married by Wright, had his daughters baptized by Wright, donated about $20k to that church, but never heard any of the inflammatory rhetoric. I guess it only happened when Obama wasn't in the pew.
"Do not even attempt to play the "Iraq is stable" card. Iraq is still a freaking mess. It is more divided by sect and enthic groups than ever and WE are dumping billions each month in payoffs while the Iraqi repeat "Yankee go home!" and Bush ignores them." You can't be serious. Iraq is a hell of a lot better than it was a year ago. Even Obama admitted that. And it's getting better every day. Political reconciliation and accommodation are happening from the bottom up, instead of the top down like we envisaged. But it is happening nonetheless. It remains to be seen whether or not the dysfunctional central government will come along, but there is no disputing the fact that Iraq is a hell of a lot more stable than it was.
"No long term bases, no sweet deals for the oil bastards, nothing to show but the hanging death of the guy who did not possess WMDs." What's wrong with long term bases in a region of strategic interest to the U.S.? We have long term bases in Europe and Asia. Why should the middle east be any different? And while we block American companies from getting oil deals, the Chinese, Russians and Europeans are gobbling them up. Smart move.
"The executive branch is barely functioning." That can be said of any administration in its last few months. Everybody waits out the elections; congress, foreign governments; corporations; wall street. Why would this time be any different?
"How do you justify the run up in prices when supply and demand ratios have been the same for 4 years?" Actually demand has been increasing steadily, led primarily by China and India. It is a world market, you know. And demand is expected to increase by about another 900k bpd next year. Supply and demand. It works.
"Defend wars of pre-emptive aggression." I absolutely agree with wars of preemptive aggression. If a president knows of an imminent threat and does not act, he is criminally negligible. Yes, I know, Iraq was not an imminent threat. But we are talking the principle of preempive war, and that I am in favor of. I have argued before that Iraq was a poor choice in any war on terror, and it has been well established that there was no imminent threat. But that does not change the basic principle of preemptive war.
I'm here, buddy. Keep it coming.
1) Democrats could not have blocked anything Bush wanted to reform in 2003, as they did not control anything but their own souls in 2003. Remember how painful 2006 was, AC? Remember why?
2) It is truly remarkable that Investors Business Daily would try to pin their own ill-advised robber-barondom on Democrats, considering the Republicans were the ones that deregulated the system from 1994-2006 and were the ones that made them even richer by giving them tax cuts.
I sincerely hope you're rich. At least if so you are typing all this NONSENSE for your own economic self-benefit, as opposed to the angry white lemmings you hope to sway.
If you are middle class or poor, thanks for selling out, we don't want you anyway.
I hope the slice of the pie they give you is a big piece - big enough to buy your soul back anyway.
I didn't say they blocked it. I said they opposed it. Read the NYT article on the other thread. Read the Investor's Business Daily article on the other thread. Besides, ever heard of a filibuster?
Ah yes, Charles' wisdom trumps IBD. I see. Thanks, but I'll stick with folks who know what they're talking about.
And no, I am not rich by a long shot. I don't consider myself a sell out, either. We have different views of the world, and I'm good with that. I respect that. As for my beliefs about government, I sleep fine at night.
It is a laughable notion, and deep down, you know that.
I am not saying Dems didn't profit, that some didn't get rich, but it is Republican, and moreso your own ideology on deregulation that landed us here.
And the 'article' from IBD is in fact an editorial from someone that is actually a member of the Republican National Committee.
Again, laughable...
And I think Jojo the Indian Circus Boy's Wisdom trumps IBDs considering they backed Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie and basically propagandize the joys of stock ownership in every issue they sell.
Again, laughable.
that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
--- one of the sections added before the bill could be voted on.----
Even conservative columnists say he has gone too far, and ask 'Can McCain ever be an honest president?'
No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's his 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.
Next, learn how to read legalese. The next paragraph follows:
All public elementary, junior high, and senior high
20 school classes that teach sex education
Not the use of the word THAT, not SHALL or MUST. The regulations that follow apply to those schools that have chosen to teach the class. It is not mandating a requirement that the class must be taught.
(2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.
The use of the word "Comprehensive" means comprehensive FOR THE AGE LEVEL. Comprehensive math classes for 1st graders don't teach Algebra. Comprehensive Reading courses for first grade are not teaching Plato.
Also, this bill would have taught children not only about how to protect themselves from predators, but discouraged sexual harassment between students. I for one would have appreciated it in school if my fellow students that were male had been taught not to grab my ass when I stopped at the water fountain. If you said anything, teachers would shrug their shoulders and say "boys will be boys." Maybe teaching children that not only does nobody have a right to touch you inappropriately, but that you have no right to touch others inappropriately, would help our country's "moral values" a bit.
As for the legalese, I understand it. But the bill did support comprehensive sex ed for K-12, and Obama supported the bill. What you are saying doesn't change the basic premise.
And if you read the above comments, we've already covered age appropriate. In sum, my personal belief, and I am not trying to force it on others, just expressing it, is that at that age (kindergarten, at a minimum), parents should be deciding what is age appropriate, not the state superintendent of education.
My problem here is that we are alleviating parents of their inherent parental responsibilities by saying the government will take care of it for them.
Then of course there is no good touch bad touch taught to kindergarden....so those kids that dont have involved parents can learn it on the streets.
Sounds like a plan to me.
Government is not always the answer.
And with most sex ed classes you as a parent can exercise your rights to NOT have your child attend.
Also it does teach kids who they can go to if they are molested.
As a parent you can look at the classes being taught in your kids school.
Or you can be uninvolved and bitch about it and do nothing.
Allow me to repeat this point:
The use of the word "Comprehensive" means comprehensive FOR THE AGE LEVEL. Comprehensive math classes for 1st graders don't teach Algebra. Comprehensive Reading courses for first grade are not teaching Plato.
You are fixated on the word "comprehensive" without using it in context.
As far as WHO should be helping educate children, most children are molested by family members and people known to the family. "Stranger Danger" is real, but small, compared to the actual statistics. As to whether or not it should be "opt out or opt in" making it Opt Out forces the parent to make a decision and think about it. Asking them to "opt in" means they can just ignore it and hope it goes away. Most people are passive. If they don't have to take action, they won't (even for things they agree with!). So having parents opt out means they are forced to make themselves aware of their children's education. And frankly, the parents of this nation have done a piss-poor job of preparing their children for school. And the schools have done a piss-poor job of responding.
The GOP has sensationalized this
Common Sense People!!!! No one would be bringing in anatomically correct displays with graphic descriptions for elementary children.
How can one be prolife & not want kids to understand the basics. The more kids know the reality of sex, the less enticing it would be.
NOTHING MEANS ANYTHING TO THESE GUYS...THAT'S HOW THEY'VE GOTTEN AWAY WITH ALL THIS CRAP THE LAST 40 YEARS.
THE PARTY OF NIXO. FORD. REAGAN.BUSH QUAYLE BUSH MCCAIN PALIN GRAMM........WHAT A PARTY! PUTTING COUNTRY FIRST INDEED....FIRTS TO KILL EVERYTHING IT'S SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR!
"AC W no government isnt always the answer...but if this is taught in school at least you give the opportunity to those kids whose parents arent involved to know about reproduction and birth control and at a younger age like kindergarten what a stranger is and what is a good touch."
My problem with this is simple: where do you draw the line? There will always be parents who are not involved in some aspect of their kids' lives. Some parents don't care if their kids run the streets all hourse of the night. Some parents don't care if their kids don't do their homework. Some parents don't care if their kids....you fill in the blank. Should government intervene in these cases? Where does it stop? You can't protect everyone from everything, and the more government is involved, the greater the opportunity for abuse and infringement on individual rights and liberties.
"And with most sex ed classes you as a parent can exercise your rights to NOT have your child attend." Right. I just wish the order was reversed. ASK the parents first instead of providing unless they act.
"Allow me to repeat this point: The use of the word "Comprehensive" means comprehensive FOR THE AGE LEVEL." I understand what the bill says, Julie. My problem is with WHO is determining what is age appropriate.
"As far as WHO should be helping educate children, most children are molested by family members and people known to the family." But you can't protect everyone from everything, unless you want government running every aspect of your life. I'm sure you don't, but where do you draw the line? Every time government inserts itself it infringes on basic rights and liberties.
"...making it Opt Out forces the parent to make a decision and think about it. Asking them to "opt in" means they can just ignore it and hope it goes away." How do you figure? If a response is required or the class will be taught, parents will have to respond if against the course or not respond and allow it. Still a decision.
"And frankly, the parents of this nation have done a piss-poor job of preparing their children for school." That's personal opinion, and I'm sure that more than a few parents would disagree with your general characterization of them.
"Common Sense People!!!! No one would be bringing in anatomically correct displays with graphic descriptions for elementary children." But they might. The bill leaves it to the superintendent of education to develop the courses. That means that person decides what is taught. Your statement is speculation. Common sense, but speculation nonetheless.
"How can one be prolife & not want kids to understand the basics. The more kids know the reality of sex, the less enticing it would be." I absolutely believe that kids should be taught. My issue is with who is doing the teaching at what age.