Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in…
Posted in:
* So, back in 2003, state Sen. Barack Obama voted for a bill in commitee that expanded non-mandated sex education classes to far younger students. Previously, sex education was available by state law only to children in grades 6 through 12.
The proposal, sponsored by Sens. Carol Ronen, Maggie Crotty, Susan Garrett and others (but not Obama) passed Sen. Obama’s Health & Human Services Committee on a 7-4 vote.
It was backed by the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Lake County Health Department, the IL Public Health Association and the IL Champter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others.
* One of the changes, besides the school grade range, was this (all changes underlined)…
All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
* One of the stated goals of the bill was to make sure that younger children were informed how to avoid sexual predators, and the language on that section of existing law was tightened up (again, proposed additions are underlined)…
Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and 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.
* The bill came up in Obama’s 2004 campaign against Republican Alan Keyes when Keyes made this point during a candidates debate…
“Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be “age-appropriate” sex education.”
* Obama responded to Keyes…
“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.
“Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean.
“And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.” [Emphasis added]
Keyes was so outrageous on everything else that nobody really bought into his argument.
* Sen. Susan Garrett, one of the co-sponsors, said today that, as she remembers the bill, it never required schools to teach sex education and it allowed an opt-out, both of which are correct.
* This is what Obama told the Daily Herald in 2004…
“‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’” Obama told the Daily Herald. “‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’”
* However, the proposal was certainly controversial. It was never brought to the full Senate for a vote and the Republicans were against it. Even so, former GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney tried to make it an issue, but it never caught fire.
* And, now, it’s become part of the presidential campaign via an ad by Sen. John McCain…
* From the ad…
“Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.”
* From an AP story…
McCain’s ad is to air in parts of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin, as well as on the Discovery channel.
* Mclatchy fact checks the ad and pronounces it way off base…
This is a deliberately misleading accusation. It came hours after the Obama campaign released a TV ad critical of McCain’s votes on public education. As a state senator in Illinois, Obama did vote for but was not a sponsor of legislation dealing with sex ed for grades K-12.
* Marc Ambinder also jumps in…
But the gap between the implication (Obama has liberal, radical views about sexuality) and the reality in this ad is pretty big and fairly consequential.
* The Obama campaign is furious…
“It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
* My own take: The bill in question was just too hot to deal with at the time, and remains so today. Too often in Springfield, legislators vote for legislation in committee just because it’s supported by a friend, or a fellow party member, or to advance it along because they support the concept but realize that it needs further work.
Obama has said time and again that he supports the concept of teaching sex ed to kindergartners to help them avoid sexual predators, but that’s not completely what this bill was about. If he wanted to just help kids learn the warning signs, he could’ve sponsored a bill to do only that. This bill went beyond that scope.
For instance, here is some of the proposed language…
Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Again, this was all supposed to be age and developmentally appropriate, but the above language had absolutely nothing to do with keeping very young kids safe from sexual predators.
Still, McCain’s TV ad is way, way, way over the top and is terribly misleading, if not downright scandalous. It probably deserves whatever criticism it gets.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:12 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: This just in…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When should Sex ed begin, 16?
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:17 pm
This is ground zero for the culture wars. I taught my kids at a very young age that no one should touch them and to never be afraid to tell or yell. To be quite honest, I included their teachers in that group. Terrible experience has taught us that no group — teachers, clergy, doctors — automatically warrants trust. I consider it a job for parents.
The spot, however, is dishonest.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:34 pm
Don’t you love how Obama was a sponsor, but didn’t vote for the bill. He needs to grow a pair!
And you criticize McCain ad, when Obama does a tap dance on an issue everyone wants to run from.
Comment by Ken Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:34 pm
===Don’t you love how Obama was a sponsor, but didn’t vote for the bill. He needs to grow a pair!===
Are you illiterate or just a poor reader? Read the post again, please.
He was not a sponsor and voted for the bill in committee.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:36 pm
Ken, you might want to re-read the post, get your facts straight before you shoot off.
Obama WAS NOT a sponsor, and voted FOR the bill.
Comment by Speaking At Will Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:37 pm
Memo to other “journalists” — facts matter. So does context. Thanks Rich, although I suspect it will do little to elevate the debate.
I’m sure Vanilla Man will be along soon to tell us why this is so important that McCain was obligated to make a television commercial out of this distortion.
The GOP would rather lie and be caught lying to give us something new to talk about instead of the debacle of the last 8 years. So far, Obama is falling for it.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:43 pm
Boy that Carol Ronen just keeps doing this campaign favors.
Rather than volunteer for Obama, perhaps she should be paid by McCain.
Illinois Democrats will be Obama’s demise.
Comment by Frank Booth Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:52 pm
47th - Distortion of the truth and lies are two different concepts. And welcome to a presidential election. Expect more of the same from BOTH candidates and their support base.
God I’ll be glad when it over.
Comment by BandCamp Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:52 pm
Perhaps this is where one of those courageous ‘present’ votes would have been advantageous.
I don’t want anyone outside my immediate family introducing the concepts of stranger danger to my kids. They do not know the children and are likely to do more harm than good.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:52 pm
“Perhaps this is where one of those courageous ‘present’ votes would have been advantageous.”
That was a funny line-Thanks
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 12:59 pm
How about parents teach their children what is right and wrong. We don’t need schools and politicians dictating these things. We need a little more personal responsibility in the country.
Comment by nonewtaxes Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:01 pm
===How about parents teach their children what is right and wrong. We don’t need schools and politicians dictating these things.===
Yet another person unclear on the concept.
For the slow readers: This was a non-mandatory program for schools that allowed parental opt-out.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:03 pm
Thanks Bandcamp. Karl Rove couldn’t have said it better.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:09 pm
I just lost any shred of respect I had for McCain, if he can put his name on that spot. That’s on the level of the Rove whispering campaign Bush used against McCain suggesting he’d fathered a bastard child with an African-American Mother, when all he’d done was adopt a girl with dark skin. Where’s all McCain’s bold talk of honorable campaigning now?
When the main stream media parses this out over the weekend, complete with truth-squad treatment, it is going to end up with McCain looking like he supports the child molesters Obama tried to protect.
Considering more of the headline-grabbing sex scandals have mostly been on the Republican side the last couple years, maybe he’s trying to play to his base? Okay, that was over the top, but it shows the desperation in his campaign. A guy who is REALLY leading in the polls (he’s not, according to KOS, the pollsters just amped up their republican sample) shouldn’t need to stoop so low.
Comment by Gregor Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:12 pm
Rich I understand that concept. Instead of having a teacher tell 6 year olds what is appropriate. Have teachers talk with parents at parent/teacher conferences and sending home a flyer or packet. There is no reason to opt out and single your child out.
Comment by nonewtaxes Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:13 pm
It has the same “truthiness” as the current accusations about Palin “lying” on the Bridge to Nowhere and Creationism in Schools. When you track down the “evidence” and look at the complete picture (or in the case of the Creationism bit the entire article from the Anchorage paper that everyone cites) a slightly different reality emerges.
Both sides are doing it, and you can expect both sides to get worse before Nov. 6.
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:21 pm
The problem with the bill is that it goes beyond teaching very young children what is inappropriate sexual touching and slides into contraceptives and STD issues, providing a basis (weak enough but present enough) for the “sex education” in school to the very young charges to stick.
Obama’s response is not very accurate as it pertains to the McCain ad. The McCain ad also is not very accurate but there is an element of truth to it.
With less than 2 months to go in the campaign, such ads are to be expected from both sides as both sides distort their opposition’s records and accomplishments.
Today’s debate is over insult lipstick and pig jokes, something that does not need evaluation or further comment for determining who is best suited to be elected to the most important political office in this country.
The old expression that if you play with fire, you should expect to get burned applies here.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:24 pm
If you want to attack Obama, do it on legitimate things, like his claims to have “greatly expanded health care in Illinois,” and his associations with Rev. Wright, Ayers, Reszko and Emil Jones. This commercial is nothing but a unfair, cheap shot. You have to wonder about the judgment of the people running his campaign.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:27 pm
I suppose this is the downside of running for President
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:42 pm
At Catholic schools in Springfiled parents volunteering at school must go through a 2 hour class on “Protecting Children”. It is an eye-opener on how to protect your own children and how to relate to other children, and what seemingly nice people might be doing when no adults are around. The classes the children go to are age appropriate and are taught by professionals or are videos that are specific to an age group. To educate a child on this subject is to protect them when you as a parent aren’t present. Most parents never address this issue with their children.
Comment by Bonsaso Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:53 pm
===To educate a child on this subject is to protect them when you as a parent aren’t present. Most parents never address this issue with their children.===
I watched a documentary the other night about how a Catholic priest had managed to worm his way into families and sexually abuse their own children right in their very own homes.
Parents don’t always know best, or know, for that matter.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 1:58 pm
I haven’t seen very many political TV ads that are not “way over the top” in a very long time. Thoughtful debate and constrained self-promotion are the stuff dreams are made of, but not political campaigns.
Comment by Captain Flume Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 2:04 pm
If Plain had passed this bill in Alaska maybe her 17 year old daughter wouldn’t be pregnant and dropped out of high school?
Comment by Doggone Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 2:13 pm
==I watched a documentary the other night about how a Catholic priest had managed to worm his way into families and sexually abuse their own children right in their very own homes.==
Rich, you’re not making a jab at the commenter’s reference to a catholic seminar, are you?
This is a sensitive topic, especially for those with kids. There is no total insulation from predators. I admire anyone’s attempt to protect children of all ages.
Using it as a political weapon is retarded.
Comment by BandCamp Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 2:15 pm
Thanks, Doggone, for clarifying why many Republicans will excuse over-the-top statements by their side
Comment by Greg Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 2:21 pm
==I’m sure Vanilla Man will be along soon to tell us why this is so important that McCain was obligated to make a television commercial out of this distortion.==
Don’t be ridiculous. I fully understood where Obama was in 2004 regarding this bill, and I understand it now. It was an odd bill that Obama should have voted “present” on. He was so careful in crafting an appropriate voting record for his presidential run as a state senator, I am surprised how he didn’t run away from this bill like he did on so many others.
McCain’s ad is wrong and it should be pulled. It damages his campaign by making an issue out of dubious circumstances. I don’t know the staffers who put this piece of crap together, but they need to be put on a very short leash for not doing their homework.
And for those of you who think they have me pegged - once again I reaffirm that I voted for Obama in the primary in 2004, and in the general in 2004. I am on the books as a Democrat, you emotional ninnies!
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 2:33 pm
===Rich, you’re not making a jab at the commenter’s reference to a catholic seminar, are you?===
Um, no. It was a documentary. That was the subject. Try not to read into too much. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 2:36 pm
thanks for the clarification on this add.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 3:09 pm
I thought this McCain ad was a cheap shot. The “pig with lipstick” ad was pretty good, though. It’s political silly season, Rich. Obama doesn’t exactly have clean hands in trying to score points to win an election.
Comment by phocion Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 3:13 pm
one of the best of all time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbdzMLk9wHQ
Comment by windsurfer Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 4:11 pm
John McCain has been co-opted by the dark side of the clout: hia Rovian strategists know that the Republicans lose an issues-based campaign because of the miserable performance of the Cheney-Rove-Bush adminstration. McCain’s only hope is to resurrect the culture wars to distract voters from the real issues like the economy, health care, education, and endemic Republican corruption.
Honor, integrity, and competence have been superceded by a desparate effort to maintain/achieve power. Hence the egregious lies, distortions, and attacks by the McCain-Palin campaign and surrogates.
I share Clarence page’s view that the Palin- culture wars strategy ultimately will backfire. I’m still pretty optimistic that Obama will prevail based upon large increases in voter registration and an outstanding ground game by Obama in the battleground states.
I’m not buying the polls: primarily becasue I believe new voters,young voters,and frequent non-voters, as well as the apparent likelihoood of significantly higher Democratic turnouts in targeted states compared to the last two presidential election, will provide Obama with, at least, a modest margin of electoral college victory.
My main reservation about my general optimism about the outcome is an inability to get a real handle on the magnitude of the offsetting Bradley effect.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 4:36 pm
Downright scandalous? It goes both ways, Rich. Obama’s litany of “present” votes and suspcious votes on matters related to reproductive rights is quite troubling, to say the least…and I am a DEMOCRAT.
You know what they say, “only a woman could understand!”
Comment by Black Ivy Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 4:45 pm
Just toclear up something… This blog is about state stuff. That ad is about a state bill, ergo the post.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 5:11 pm
SB99 was Planned Parenthood’s attempt to replace pretty outrageous language that currently exists in statute regarding sex education curriculm. Classic battle between the left and right abortion activists..no surprise Obama was with his friends on this one. Also, SA1 addressed the kindergarten issue
SA1 “If a school offers a class or course in sex education in grades K through 5, the course material shall be age and developmentally
appropriate and medically accurate.”
Comment by LEFT/RIGHT/LEFT! Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 5:15 pm
“Attention class, this morning we are going to talk about your peepee or your weewee and who should and should not see, touch or talk about it. We are also going to discuss why Sally has two mommies and Benjamin has two daddies. Now, of course, if your parents are some right-wing extremists who want to burn books and stiffle debate, you need to leave the room. That would be you Stash, Mona, Mary Pat, and Miguel.” Have read the law, know how it has been applied in other states and believe the above is fair comment.
Similar statutes in other liberal states have ushered in similar instructions with this apparently neutral and limiting language. Everyone who voted for this understood that the language of the statute allowed for a VERY expansive definition of what would be appropriate kindergarteners and put no limit on a school district that wanted to “push the envelope.” All that it needed was one expert to opine that discussions of all sorts of sexual activity would be “age appropriate.” I like Sen. Obama and look foward to Nov. when I can cast a vote in support of an historic achievement in America’s history. Voting for this though, is not the highpoint of Sen. Obama’s legislative record.
Comment by Fortunato Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 8:40 pm
I called Obama the best Dem politician of his generation earlier today. But I have to say, he blew it with the response to this “lipstick on a pig stuff.”
To borrow a phrase, what was he thinking? When he said it, all the people behind him rose and cheered, thinking he was talking about Sarah.
If he did it unintentionally, it was stupid. If he did it intentionally, it was incredibly stupid.
I’ve had my ups and downs with women in my life, but I know one eternal truth: There are a few monosyllabic words that you never, ever, even remotely associate with a woman. Pig is one of them.
His response was bad. He should have just directly said he wasn’t talking about Sarah. Instead, he tried to make himself out a victim.
Bad, bad, bad. I hope he puts the fire out in the morning.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 9:59 pm
He’s on Letterman right now still talking about it; explaining that he was talking about McCain’s economic policies and “hypothetically, she would be the lipstick, and the failed policies were actually the pig.”
Ouch. Here comes day #3 of Pig-gate.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 10:54 pm
This bill must part of the impressive record Obama has in the Illinois Senate that 47th Ward was discussing the other day.
I think Obama should have voted present on this one also. The add is dirty but it will be effective as many dirty ads are.
I have a five year old kindergartner She is not even close to being ready to discuss the “medically accurate” sex education. Not even close and I do not trust the teachers or the school board to decipher which children are “age appropriate”.
I have also 1st grader who could understand and is mature enough to understand the concepts. However, we as parents would prefer to teach our children at this age. Though I do support the schools teaching at some (reserved) level at a later in life.
At five years old and in kindergarten the lesson is simply “nobody touches your pee pee or privates” and tell us if they do. We hope & pray we (& You) never have to confront abuse in our lives.
Comment by Larry Mullholland Wednesday, Sep 10, 08 @ 11:09 pm
Good to know who the wicked ones are
Comment by red dog Thursday, Sep 11, 08 @ 8:41 am
==John McCain has been co-opted by the dark side… Republicans lose an issues-based campaign …distract voters from the real issues…endemic Republican corruption…a desparate effort to maintain/achieve power…egregious lies, distortions, and attacks by the McCain-Palin campaign==
What to do? Is all hope lost?
==I’m not buying the polls…Obama will prevail…large increases in voter registration…outstanding ground game…new voters,young voters,and frequent non-voters…will provide Obama with, at least, a modest margin of electoral college==
So we’re OK, right? The good guys will win? America will prove herself? A new age is shine?
==My main reservation about my general optimism about the outcome is an inability to get a real handle on the magnitude of the offsetting Bradley effect.==
So if things continue to go as the polls indicate, America is full of old racist voters distracted by the real issues because endemically corrupted Republicans co-opted the Dark Side to maintain power by attacking new voters, young voters and frequent non-voters who are not bigoted but whose outstanding ground game in battleground states did not provide, at least, a modest margin of victory in the Electoral College.
Captain, it sounds as if your steamship is short a cord of wood!
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Sep 11, 08 @ 9:32 am
Rich, thank you for the fantastic summary. I’ve found this ad discussed all over the blogosphere, but your approach seemed particularly balanced and well researched. Thanks!
Comment by Joshua Thursday, Sep 11, 08 @ 2:17 pm