September 16, 2008
On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right
National Review Online: What Was That Illinois Sex-Education Bill Really About?
-
(AP)
-
Play CBS Video Video TV Doc Promotes Sex Ed Grey's Anatomy's Kate Walsh speaks to Congress about the importance of sex education after data shows abstinence-only programming to be ineffective. Julie Chen reports.
-
Video Saying No To 'Abstinence Only' Congress and the Bush administration have pushed "abstinence only" sex education in schools. But many states have refused federal funds for a program, they say, doesn't work. Sharyl Attkisson reports.
-
Photo Essay John McCain Some call him a hero, some a maverick. Will Americans call him Mr. President?
-
Photo Essay Barack Obama The junior senator from Illinois is making his name known.
In recent days, a consensus has developed among the Obama campaign and commentators in the press that John McCain has decided to lie his way to the White House. Exhibit A in this new consensus is McCain’s ad, released last week, claiming that Barack Obama's “one accomplishment” in the field of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”
Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the Obama campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.” The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. In a stinging final shot, Burton added, “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”
Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. “The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Post wrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”
The condemnation has been so widespread that the Obama campaign has begun to sense success in placing the “McCain-is-a-liar” storyline in the press. But before accepting the story at face value, it might first be a good idea to examine the bill in question, look at the statements made by its supporters at the time it was introduced, talk to its sponsors today (at least the ones who will consent to speak), and find answers to a few basic questions. What were the bill’s provisions? Why was it written? Was it really just, or even mostly, about inappropriate advances? And the bottom-line question: Is McCain’s characterization of it unfair?
21st-CENTURY SEX EDUCATION
The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education. (The text of the bill is here, and everyone interested in the issue should take a look at it.)
When the bill was introduced, a coalition of groups including the Illinois Public Health Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and others issued a press release headlined “Coalition of Legislators, Physicians and Organizations Bring Illinois Into the 21st Century with Omnibus Healthcare Package.” It was a three-part campaign; Senate Bill 99, covering “medically accurate sex education,” was the first part, with two other bills addressing “funding for family planning services for women in need” and “contraceptive equity in health insurance.”
According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.
What, specifically, was the bill designed to do? It appears to have had three major purposes:
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.Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:
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.
Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this:
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…
Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.” And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances:
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…
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 course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. 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 wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.
By Byron York
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
More From Opinion
Add a Comment See all 32 Comments
- If only Republicons and their simple minded servants at the National Republicon Order (NRO) were not so against education. Of course they are against government, workers, middle class, freedom of speech, women''s rights, peace and the rule of law so it doesn''t surprise me.
- Reply to this comment
- Bush apologists and campaign McCain spinners flail about trying to justify supporting an out-of-touch Bush clone. A more germane subject for NRO to discuss is the effect this financial meltdown would have had on individual retirement accounts if Social Security privitization had been instituted.
- Reply to this comment
- Ummmmm....actually, on the, um, Seks-ed ad McCain was WRONG and it was the dealbreaker for me. My vote will go to the candidate of HONOR.
- Reply to this comment
- As usual, the National Review is publishing drivel that has no basis in fact! Another GOP mouthpiece like FOX news!
- Reply to this comment
- McCain.......whomever is your slammer/jammer man or "woman with lipstick issues" that are trying...but not suceeding to slam Obama with Total Gargage and Slander LIKE THIS BLATANT LIE...is totally SOMETHING BEYOND unbelievable...that they think they are going to get away with all this crapola...and on this issue/mean and vicious LIE...for what??? It only shows McCain''s real side...IT IS TRYING TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE BY LYING TO THE TOP/SORRY,JOHN BOY/HOW DUMB DO YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE OUT HERE...HOW DARE YOU SACRIFICE "TREES FOR THEIR PAPER TO PRINT THIS STENCH! BAD NEWS BOYS...COME NOVEMBER!
OBAMA/BIDEN WILL BE THE WINNING TEAM ON ALL COUNTS! - Reply to this comment
- The CBS Rules of Engagement state "no lying, no fabricating", so how was this op-ed piece even posted?
- Reply to this comment
- it looks like McCain''''s doing well enough with the base maybe he just needs to focus on reassuring skittish swing voters (?)
Posted by SamTheTVCat
====================
Is his base STUPID enough to buy into this ad''s claim?
Will skittish swing voters say "WOW! Obama wants to have seks with kindergartners after he teaches them how at the grade school?"
God, please don''t allow people so easily suckered to make their way into a voting booth. In the meantime, God, please expose the LIAR, strip him bare. Amen. - Reply to this comment
- You can smear a tube of lipstick the size of a silo on this PIG, Mr. York, but is still gonna be a stinking, LYING pig.
Now call your boss and tell him the story went over like a dead fish wrapped in paper. - Reply to this comment
- why does the title say the ad is right when it is obviously wrong, too many people do not read this si so misleading, don''''t tell me that it was intended to create a buzz. it is so wrong, where is our morality.
the ad is a lie, the bill teaches about avoiding and reconizing predators. helps children be more informed so they do not get abducted.
my God save us all from horrible people
Posted by SmoQ at 11:00 AM : Sep 17, 2008
Because it is an opinion piece and the author is deceptive and uses garbage ''logic''. Just like McCain''s ad.
Actually, I should have just said, ''Because it''s the NRO'', LOL. - Reply to this comment
- why does the title say the ad is right when it is obviously wrong, too many people do not read this si so misleading, don''t tell me that it was intended to create a buzz. it is so wrong, where is our morality.
the ad is a lie, the bill teaches about avoiding and reconizing predators. helps children be more informed so they do not get abducted.
my God save us all from horrible people - Reply to this comment
- Mr. York obvious failed in his debating and logic classes, because he changes horses in midstream.
In the 1st paragraph he quotes the McCain ad''s statement that it was ''legislation to teach ''comprehensive s.e.x. education'' to kindergartners''.
Comprehensive used in this sense means all-inclusive or complete, and McCain''s ad implies that the intent was to teach all about s.e.x. to kindergarteners.
That is what people have objected to, because it is absolutely and obviously untrue.
''The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of s.e.x.-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that all s.e.x. education courses that discuss s.e.x.ual activity or behavior be AGE and developmentally appropriate''.
What part of opt-out and age-appropriate do you not understand, Mr. York? Why do you have a problem with allowing local communities to decide on what they feel is age-appropriate?
Changing the focus from what McCain''s ad said to whether or not the legislation was written SOLELY ''to protect young children from s.e.x.ual predators'' is a garbage argument, especially since no one ever said it was written SOLELY for that purpose.
Grade= F, Mr York. - Reply to this comment
- According to this article, the charge that the McCain charge is dishonest is correct. There is a difference between a law that requires schools that choose to teach *** education to do so accurately and in an age appropriate manner and one that requires comprehensive *** education for kindergarten.
- Reply to this comment
- Mr. York obvious failed in his debating and logic classes, because he changes horses in midstream.
In the 1st paragraph he quotes the McCain ad''s statement that it was ''legislation to teach %u2018comprehensive s.e.x. education%u2019 to kindergartners''.
Comprehensive used in this sense means all-inclusive or complete, and McCain''s ad implies that the intent was to teach all about s.e.x. to kindergarteners.
That is what people have objected to, because it is absolutely and obviously untrue.
''The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of s.e.x.-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that %u201Call s.e.x. education courses that discuss s.e.x.ual activity or behavior%u2026be AGE and developmentally appropriate.%u201D
What part of opt-out and age-appropriate do you not understand, Mr. York? Why do you have a problem with allowing local communities to decide on what they feel is age-appropriate?
Changing the focus from what McCain''s ad said to whether or not the legislation was written SOLELY ''to protect young children from s.e.x.ual predators'' is a garbage argument, especially since no one ever said it was written SOLELY for that purpose.
Grade= F, Mr York. - Reply to this comment
- No, McCain is wrong and so is the NRO.
- Reply to this comment
- I read on Politico that historians have shown that McCain''s camp is far from the ''sleaziest campaign in history'' or whatever Obama was claiming.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:57 AM : Sep 17, 2008
Well, that is some talking points to be proud of...
That is like Saddam saying "Hitler gassed more people than me!"... - Reply to this comment
- Do you Neocon idiots read English? Do you know what "grade" and "appropriate" mean?
Of course you do. You just have a vested interest in defending and spreading McCain''s lies. It''s what you''ve done. It''s how you got us into Iraq.
NRO = Neocon = liar.
The stench of your articles makes me sick. - Reply to this comment
- I read on Politico that historians have shown that McCain''s camp is far from the ''sleaziest campaign in history'' or whatever Obama was claiming.
So hasn''t Obama therefore lied?
That''s a good enough face saver for me - best to stick with the issues, because it looks like McCain''s doing well enough with the base maybe he just needs to focus on reassuring skittish swing voters (?) - Reply to this comment
- Reading these comments, it appears you all are missing the point. The point is whether McCain''s ad is a lie or the truth. Not the merits of *** education. It appears it is the truth, albeit using words out of context maybe, but advertising has done that for eons. Point is...Obama is now the liar. Now he has to lie to cover up his lie. Hilarious.
- Reply to this comment
- Byron York, like so many other commentators on the campaign circuit these days, needs a refresher in 1st year logic.
The paragraph "Each class or course in comprehensive *** education in any of grades K through 12 shall..." does not prescribe that comprehensive *** education be expanded beyond Grade 6. It merely expands the earlier clause to include training about preventing STDs and AIDS to all comprehensive *** education classes in all grades. It certainly does not prescribe teaching comprehensive *** education to kindergarteners, and the bill clearly mandates "age-appropriateness" elsewhere. - Reply to this comment
- IDNNSG.....A thousand thank you''s for your post. You are so right on in what you said. I am so sick of these lying basstards and religious freaks that I could scream. I want to hear about the issues that are dragging our country down the drain instead of being told that "I have foreign relations experiance because I can see Russia from here." This woman hit the stage lying, "I told them thanks but no thanks" and hasn''t stopped since. I would rather have seen McCain pick Huckabee than Palin and he is a religious nutcase. Hopefully the Americans will get their heads out of their arses in time and realize that Palin/McCain is the wrong way to go. I noticed that you placed Palin''s name first too. I do that because it is Palin who is leading the ticket.
- Reply to this comment
Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more.
