Sex Ed

During yet another appearance on the Talk to Solomon Show, Alan Keyes maintained that allowing young people to obtain condoms is like a parent who “handed their child a six-shot revolver with one bullet in it and said, ‘go ahead and play spin the barrel and put the barrel to your head and fire,’ that’s what you’re doing when you tell them that they’re safe using a condom.”

Keyes added that a condom “is not real protection” as it “is not going to protect you over 80 percent of the time,” which is laughably untrue.

“It’s essentially playing a kind of biased game of Russian roulette,” Keyes continued, “We’re pretending that encouraging our kids to do this is consistent with loving them and with having a responsible attitude toward them, that’s insane.”

Watch:

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL) appeared on Washington Watch yesterday with Family Research Council Tony Perkins to discuss his legislation that “would spend $110 million a year for the next five years on grants to abstinence programs around the country,” funding that would have otherwise gone towards comprehensive sexual education. He claimed that while the Obama administration backs “very dangerous and experimental education programs,” programs pushing abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum have “incredible success records.”

Far from having “incredible success records,” abstinence programs have a history of failure. Reports have consistently found that there is no evidence to support the claim that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs reduce premarital sex or teen pregnancy; on the other hand, studies show that comprehensive sex-ed decreases the rate of teen pregnancy and STDs.

Perkins: What you’re doing is you’re redirecting money from a program that has negative consequences and redirecting some of it into one that has proven to have positive outcomes.

Hultgren: That’s right, yes. Like you said, this has changed dramatically under President Obama and his administration and Kathleen Sebelius. Basically they see it as a slush fund that they can use however they want to and they are putting it into some very dangerous and experimental education programs for younger and younger children. What this would do is money that is already there would put it into programs that we know work. You look at the track record for abstinence education, incredible success records, kids really want to make good choices and if we give them good information it will just help them make these good choices.

Reisman: Sex-Ed Turns Children into Prostitutes and ‘Little Sexual Deviants’ Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber has been promoting new claims by Judith Reisman, a fellow professor at Liberty University, that the Department of Health and Human Services may be breaking the law by actively “grooming” children for sex. Wonkette published quite the takedown of Barber’s column, noting that he and Reisman both glaringly distort Alfred Kinsey’s research. Reisman spoke to Janet Mefferd about the column, where she said that the HHS along with groups like Planned Parenthood and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a group she compares to the Hitler Youth and says is part of the “pedophile movement,” are “grooming children” to embrace sexual activities that “either could kill them or maim them.” She warns that comprehensive sexual education will lead to “drug abuse, alcohol abuse and everything else,” including higher rates of venereal diseases and AIDS, by “teaching [children] sexual perversions in order to turn them into little sexual deviants.”

Mefferd: When you’re talking about these sexual educators, are you talking about people like Planned Parenthood, GLSEN, some of these groups?

Reisman: Sure, it’s all criminal activity and it’s all been to violate every rule and common sense and our prior common law, but all of this was essentially activity that involved grooming children to become either pedophiles, pederasts or to enter into other kinds of sexual activities that either could kill them or maim them or to normalize prostitution of children and by children, and all the dysfunctions that go with that which include drug abuse, alcohol abuse and everything else.

…

Reisman: We’re hit with all these VDs and AIDS and now we’re going to come into your classroom, says the sex educators, now we’re going to come into your classroom and we’re going to teach you more criminal stuff about AIDS under that rubric and now they’re in there trying to talk about bullying as the reason and so forth. But the major thing we’re talking about across-the-board is lowering children’s inhibitions, lowering their resistance to sex and teaching them sexual perversions in order to turn them into little sexual deviants, and that is exactly what is taking place.

Seeing that Reisman has zero credentials in the field of sexuality (she has her degrees in Communications) no one takes her seriously, save for those who agree with her calls to ban pornography and fight the scourge of “erototoxins,” it was no surprise that she lashed out at the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association during the interview.

According to Reisman, these groups all reject her claims and back comprehensive sex-ed because…you guessed it; they are run by pedophiles themselves! She alleges that these professional organizations are led by pedophiles who have “their eyes on children for sexual purposes” and as a result endorse such health programs.

Not only have pedophiles taken over the fields of psychology, psychiatry and sociology, but she also warns that gay judges have been unfairly finding in favor of sex-ed programs, and conservative lawyers (like those trained at Liberty University) need to fight the “sexual perversion” backed by LGBT legal groups and challenge their supposed legal dominance. “We’ve got to sue the pants off these guys and get them put away in jail, just like [Jerry] Sandusky and the rest of them,” Reisman said. “It’s time to bring these people down.”

It isn’t just Sandusky, it wasn’t just Kinsey; it’s all over. We’re talking about pedophiles in power and pederasts in power and they have been in power for many, many years. They’ve been in power in the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, Sociological Association, and so on, and these have always been people who have had their eyes on children for sexual purposes.

…

We have to get our conservative lawyers to be as nasty as some of the gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender and undecided, Lambda Defense and all those folks are. We have to go into courtrooms ready with our information at the fingertips and swinging. No judge who is homosexual or who has any other sexual perversion, that’s what it used to always be called for various good and logical reasons that only have to do with health and welfare, should ever be permitted to rule on a sexual issue because their special interests are such that they cannot be objective about the information. We’ve got to sue the pants off these guys and get them put away in jail, just like Sandusky and the rest of them. It’s time to bring these people down.

Earlier this month, a coalition of health and education groups released new recommended guidelines for sex education in schools, which address topics including sexual orientation, birth control and bullying. The non-binding recommendations have not, unsurprisingly, been popular among the talking heads of the Religious Right.

On Wednesday, Candi Cushman of CitizenLink, Focus on the Familiy's political arm, joined Janet Mefferd to discuss the new guidelines and her displeasure that, among other things, they recommend teaching young children to “demonstrate respect for these different types of families,” a notion that Cushman insists is “undemocratic.”

Cushman: The important things for parents to understand is that these standards are supposed to start in kindergarten so at the elementary level students are going to start to be taught to ‘identify different types of family structures.’

Mefferd: Ugh.

Cushman: And then demonstrate respect for these different types of families. That’s basically codes for, ‘We’re going to teach your kids about same-sex marriage and homosexual relationships and this is an option worthy of being embraced just like heterosexual marriages and relationships.’ Not only are they going to be willing to embrace it but they’re going to respect it and they’re going to get that down by the second grade. So they will need to start that probably around kindergarten so they’ll have it down in their heads by second grade. That’s just one example of them dealing with the homosexuality topic.

Mefferd: Well and in most states we don’t have same-sex marriage, so why the need for that?

Cushman: Right, it’s totally undemocratic.

Mefferd and Cushman went on to discuss the recommendations for older students, including discussions of the proper use of contraception, which Cushman claims were designed by “left-wing, casual-sex activist groups,” and are not intended to promote public health.

As for the inclusion of discussions about bullying, Cushman insists bullying prevention is a Trojan Horse for gay rights groups: “They do have this agenda of inserting homosexuality promotion under the category of bullying and this is one way they go about that with these sexuality standards.”

Cushman has been the voice of CitizenLink's opposition to anti-bullying programs, which we wrote about in detail in a report last year.

Mefferd: I thought the whole purpose of sex-ed originally was to tell kids the birds and the bees, but now it’s flat-out indoctrination.

Cushman: Right, if you look at the material that the groups who did these standards put out it’s all about students’ sexual rights, their rights. The emphasis is not on prevention, avoiding disease and harm, it’s about ‘Oh let’s just reduce the risk, what are their rights?’ Its activism, it’s not about health. That’s why we shouldn’t just surrender our schools to left-wing, casual-sex activist groups.

Mefferd: I agree. I’m sure from what I read there’s this aspect of bullying. They love throwing that around, ‘We need to deal with the bullying issue and the gay bullying issue,’ even though bullying has been around since time immemorial for kids, from kids, for all sorts of reasons, not just the homosexual issue. But do they talk much about that? Are they framing it in terms of, ‘We got to talk about this stuff to stop the gay bullying’?

Cushman: Yes they do. In fact, I found that very interesting that they were titled sexually standards but they address bullying. I thought, now we’re just saying that bullying is sexualized now.

Mefferd: Wow.

Cushman: I really think that bullying should be its own category, not in sex-education. Bullying should be addressed as prevention, protecting all students no matter how they identify because they’re human beings, as I’ve explained many times before. So yeah, I found that an interesting part that they’re trying to mix those two, sex-education and bullying. But I think the reason they are mixing them is because they do have this agenda of inserting homosexuality promotion under the category of bullying and this is one way they go about that with these sexuality standards.