On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right

National Review Online: What Was That Illinois Sex-Education Bill Really About?

(National Review Online) 
TOUCHY SUBJECT
After the ad controversy erupted, I asked the Obama campaign to suggest who I might interview for more information. I particularly wanted some sort of contemporaneous account showing that Obama voted for the bill because of its inappropriate-touching provision. The campaign suggested I call Ken Swanson, who is head of the Illinois Education Association and a 20-year veteran of teaching sixth-graders.

“The intent of the language and inclusion of kindergarten was simply to make it possible to offer age-appropriate, not comprehensive, information for kindergartners so that those young children could be given basic information so that they would be aware of inappropriate behavior by adults,” Swanson told me. “Certainly, it was never intended to be some sort of inappropriate information that might be appropriate for junior high or high school students.” McCain’s accusation, Swanson told me, was “bogus.”

I suggested to Swanson that the bill seemed to provide for HIV education for youngsters before the sixth grade, and perhaps as early as kindergarten. “As I recall the discussion, there was a conversation where in different places in the state - that was something that should be left to local circumstances,” Swanson told me. “What might be appropriate in an urban inner city might not be appropriate in a rural community. I don’t recall anybody, from our perspective, having a one-rule-fits-all vision.”

Swanson suggested that if I wanted to know more I should get in touch with the bill’s sponsors. There were five - State Senator Ronen, as well as Sens. M. Maggie Crotty, Susan Garrett, Iris Martinez, and Jeffrey Schoenberg. All were from the greater Chicago area. But getting in touch with them was easier said than done.

Ronen has left the Illinois state senate. When I called her home, I reached a woman who did not give me her name but told me she knew how to reach Ronen. I gave her my information, but there has been no call back, nor has Ronen answered a number of follow-up calls.

An assistant in Garrett’s office helpfully gave me the senator’s cell-phone number, so I was able to have a few brief conversations with her. In one, she said she couldn’t talk and asked me to call back in a few minutes. I did, and then did again, and ended up doing so several times over an extended period, all without an answer. The next day, I reached Garrett again, who told me that since the debate took place five years ago, she couldn’t speak about it “unless I have the bill in front of me . . . I’d be happy to do that if I could just print out the bill . . . I just want to be sure I get it right.” We agreed that I would email her the bill, but after I did, she didn’t answer the phone. She still hasn’t.

I’ve gotten no response from Crotty or Schoenberg.

That leaves Sen. Martinez, who was kind enough to speak to me by phone Monday afternoon. Martinez began by saying that the bill was indeed about inappropriate touching. “We know that young children, very, very young, have things happen to them that they don’t speak about,” Martinez told me. “It’s important that we teach our young kids very, very young to speak up.”

When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health - both major contributors to the bill - “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.” When I asked about the elimination of references to marriage and the contraception passages, Martinez said that the changes were “based on some of the information we got from Planned Parenthood.”

After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”

So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

“Absolutely not.”

“THAT WASN’T WHAT I HAD IN MIND”
The controversy over the McCain sex-ed ad is a rerun of a similar controversy that erupted in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, when Obama’s opponent, the Republican transplant Alan Keyes, brought up the same issue. In a debate that year, when Keyes accused Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners, Obama answered, “Actually, that wasn’t what I had in mind. 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.”

Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

[noloyalisti]

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.

[sanfelz]

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.

[tawpdawg111]

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.

[mitch5511]

As usual, the National Review is publishing drivel that has no basis in fact! Another GOP mouthpiece like FOX news!

[wakeup60]

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!

The CBS Rules of Engagement state "no lying, no fabricating", so how was this op-ed piece even posted?

[tawpdawg111]

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.

[tawpdawg111]

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.

[ofbyfor2]

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.

[smoq-2009]

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

[ofbyfor2]

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.

[pdchapin]

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.

[ofbyfor2]

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.

[roger3815]

No, McCain is wrong and so is the NRO.

[ioweign]

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!"...

[aakalan]

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.

[samthetvcat]

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 (?)

[horse3farm]

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.

[shankuniyogi]

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.

[element51]

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.