Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
- O Baby! The Obamas Visit Maternity Clinic in Ghana
- In Ghana, President Obama Gives Tough Love
- 2 Prez Obama: Questions Sent in Via Text, Email from Africa & the World
- Obama Campaign Plane Emergency: Report Shows it Could Have Been Catastrophic
- Give it Some Time, Obama Says in Defending the Recovery Act
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
From the Fact Check Desk: Does Obama Support Kindergarteners Learning About Sex Before Learning How to Read?
September 11, 2008 6:23 PM
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this week launched a new TV ad attacking Sen. Barack Obama's record on education.
The script reads as follows: "Education Week says Obama 'hasn’t made a significant mark on education' That he’s 'elusive' on accountability. 'A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.' Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family."
The most controversial item in the McCain ad is the assertion that Obama supports children "learning about sex before learning to read," and the accusation that Obama's "one accomplishment" on education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."
But both claims are false.
The idea seems to be to paint Obama as an insanely liberal sleaze ball who wants to teach young kids who don’t even know how to read all about graphic sexual information.
That's not fair and it's not accurate.
One can only imagine what the John McCain of 2004 – who called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads “dishonest and dishonorable” – would say about this ad.
**
To back up its claim, the McCain campaign points to Illinois state senate bill 99, which never became law and which Obama didn't author -- though he did vote for it in the state senate education committee on March 6, 2003, on what was a strictly party-line vote.
The text of the bill can be read HERE.
I spoke to two Illinois advocates who were involved with assessing the bill in 2003 – Gretchen McDowell, the past president of the Illinois Parent-Teacher Association and Kelvy Brown, the legislative coordinator of the Chicago Department of Public Health – to see what the bill was trying to accomplish with regards to kindergartners.
The bill was updating Illinois law on health and sex education, addressing sex education classes that already existed at the time, and offering guidelines to instructors as to what should be in those classes.
This is important because the question arises about the use of the word “comprehensive” in McCain’s ad describing the classes.
McCain’s ad makes it sound as if Obama was mandating that kindergartners receive the same information as a sexually active high school senior.
Not so.
The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that "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" -- in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.
McDowell points out that the bill states “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?
“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says.
Is McCain right when he says Obama wanted kids to learn about sex before they learned how to read?
“If by 'sex' he meant that there are boys and girls and mothers and fathers, yes," McDowell says.
But that's clearly not what McCain is suggesting.
"No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse," McDowell says. "I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”
Says Brown, “things for freshmen in high school and for 7th and 8th graders are not the kind of curriculum you would have for a student in kindergarten."
Obama’s opponent during his run for the US Senate in 2004, former Ambassador Alan Keyes, charged that Obama was proposing teaching sexually explicit material to kindergartners.
During a Senate debate in October 2004, Obama said, “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.”
McDowell says that Obama was correct, and says that the Illinois PTA had been active for a long time in encouraging schools to educate children about improper touching.
“A lot of schools don’t have people trained to explain that kind of thing to students without scaring them,” she says.
The bill said students should learn – in an age-appropriate way -- 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. ...teach male pupils about male accountability for sexual violence and shall teach female students about reducing vulnerability for sexual violence…”
McDowell says this part of the bill would be taught in an “age- and developmentally-appropriate way. Kindergartners need to be taught that there are places – ‘private parts’ - where nobody should touch you. Obviously we’re not going to be talking about rape in kindergarten.”
Brown agrees, saying that part of the bill as applied to young students was “specifically for inappropriate touching and sexual predators. Making sure kids know what’s appropriate and not appropriate. As far as HIV and condoms, you wouldn’t teach that kind of information to students that young.”
McDowell points out that the bill clearly states that no student has to receive the information if his or her parent or guardian objects:
"No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil,” the bill says.
“Any parent could opt out,” McDowell says.
**
I suppose one could twist this stuff any way you want if your only point is to make an inflammatory charge. And win an election.
One could say that if McCain opposes this bill he supports students in kindergarten making unwanted sexual advances towards each other, that he opposes ensuring that 5-year-old girls aren’t vulnerable to sexual violence.
It wouldn’t be true, but Obama could say that -- if his only point was to throw a rhetorical Molotov cocktail at McCain.
The New York Times’ “Checkpoint” (“Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy “), Factcheck.org (“Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners”) and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker ("McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive") say the ad is a gross distortion.
I agree -- in both senses of the word "gross."
- jpt
September 11, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (118)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Obama is relying on everyone being so repulsed by the Sex Ed charges against him that no reasonable person could possibly believe it to be true.
Fact: The legislation Obama supported was not for the purpose of teaching young children about inappropriate touching and predators. That purpose already existed in the Illinois School Code in Section 27-13.2 many years before SB0099 was introduced.
Fact: The language in the bill changed the specific mandate for STD transmission and prevention education from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12.
If there was no intention of providing STD education in kindergarten, it would not be necessary to deliberately change the language in the bill to include kindergarten in the STD education mandate.
The bill leaves intact language which mandates that alcohol and drug use and abuse education be included in grades 5 through 12, but deliberately changes the language that mandates STD education in grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The intent is clear. There would be no reason to change the grade level requirements unless kindergarten were to be included in the mandate for STD education.
Fact: There was so much objection to mandating STD education, among other Sex Ed topics, for kindergarteners and early elementary students - even among Democrat legislators - that an amendment had to be added to the bill changing the bill's originally proposed language of 'grades K through 12' in the STD education mandate passage back to the Illinois School Code's existing language of 'grades 6 through 12' (line 3 of the amendment - the amendment then goes on to change the bill's proposed requirements of 'grades K through 12' in several passages back to the School Code's existing 'grades 6 through 12').
Fact: Obama voted for the originally presented bill, before the amendment.
Fact: McCain's ad is true.
Posted by: Carl | Sep 15, 2008 11:18:11 AM
McCain's campaign manager stated that they're doing what needs to be done in order to win. Effectively, he's saying that the end justifies the means. But if McCain will lie (or tolerate lies in his name) merely to get into office, what makes anyone think he's going to stop once he gets there?
The end will justify the means, remember?
Posted by: Michael Long | Sep 15, 2008 9:11:36 AM
Comprehensive refers to a curriculum that spans grade-level ranges, such as K through 12 - a fact that the NYT pointed out in their Check Point coverage of the Sex Ed ad issue on Sept. 10th, 2008.
The fact is that the language in the bill changed the specific mandate for STD transmission and prevention education from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12.
If there was no intention of providing STD education in kindergarten, it would not be necessary to deliberately change the language in the bill to include kindergarten in the STD education mandate.
The bill leaves intact language which mandates that alcohol and drug use and abuse education be included in grades 5 through 12, but deliberately changes the language that mandates STD education in grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The intent is clear. There would be no reason to change the grade level requirements unless kindergarten were to be included in the mandate for STD education.
Posted by: Carl | Sep 14, 2008 4:15:45 AM
If the class is comprehensive, it must include topics of HIV prevention.
Therefore:
If the class isn't comprehensive, the class need not include the topics of HIV prevention.
We know that kindergarten classes are far from comprehensive, so it follows that they are not required to talk about HIV prevention.
Everyone clear?
Posted by: Charlie | Sep 13, 2008 10:40:43 AM
I watched Planned Parenthood's ad. It will be extremely easy to prove that it's premise is false. Maybe someone should warn them.
Posted by: Carl | Sep 13, 2008 1:31:58 AM
It says K-12 in the bill.
He voted for it... He voted present in 129 other bills.
So now he wants to claim it means something different.
Posted by: holly | Sep 12, 2008 9:57:49 PM
Thank you, Gabriel K., for realizing that Secs. 27.9-1 and 27.9-2 are absolutely irrelevant for kindergartners --- they were written for pubescent/post-pubescent children and the problems they face. That's why it's astounding that party-line Democrats including Obama would seek to change the wording to include kindergartners --- there's no reason to unless you do envision comprehensive sex education classes for kindergartners. The original drafters never did, since they arranged to have the sex dilemmas kindergartners might face dealt with in another section of the Illinois School Code. As it is, the amended bill was so poorly written that it would have mandated additional instruction in STDs and unplanned pregnancy if you even brought up the topic of abusive sexual activity. You know this bill was bad if it couldn't attain passage in the first year since the Ford administration that Democrats controlled all the Illinois State Government.
Anyway, Obama wasn't being candid with Keyes in that 2004 debate. He claimed he supported it because he wanted children to be warned about inappropriate touching, but that's a red herring since the subject's already dealt with in another part of the School Code and if Obama had any particular reforms in mind the changes needed to be made in the appropriate section. He spoke more forthrightly in 2007 when he told Planned Parenthood that Kindergarten Sex-Ed was "the right thing to do," and when asked for specifics he offered that "providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork [that babies come from] is probably not an unhealthy thing." In other words, teaching about sexual intercourse and reproduction. "Learning about sex before learning to read?" as the McCain ad put it. That's certainly what Obama envisioned, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.
Posted by: John | Sep 12, 2008 4:28:57 PM
Yes, please READ the actual text. And while you're at it partisans, read the actual ARTICLE you're criticizing! The text was changed from 5-12 to K-12 because the clause "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include..."
For those of you who are actually capable of reading comprehension beyond skimming, you will see the words "each" and "comprehensive". This means that the ONLY classes that "shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV" are the ones that ALREADY EXIST and which ARE ALREADY CONSIDERED COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED CLASSES.
Erego, since Kindergarten does not have a comprehensive sex education class already... this part is completely irrelevant to Kindergartners.
Secondly, many of you are actually alleging that "Obama changed it to Kindergarten" in the bill's text, when Obama was not the bill's author at all, he just voted on it. He didn't make tha alterations, so in your own words "READ THE TEXT".
Posted by: Gabriel K. | Sep 12, 2008 3:35:59 PM
What many of you need to realize is that, as John stated, the Illinois School Code already had a section about talking to very young children about abuse and inappropriate touching - Sec. 27.13-2. The bill Obama supported did not cover any new ground as far as that purpose was concerned.
What WAS new in the bill was the mandate for STD education in grades K-5 IN ADDITION TO the STD education that was already mandated for grades 6-12.
Posted by: Carl | Sep 12, 2008 3:05:32 PM
Every parent reading this should be inspired to go home and talk to their children. You say, "when" it is right. Well how do you know when is right...children are abused by family members too not just strangers. You may feel that since they only hang out with people you "know" that they'll be ok. Uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, nephews, aunts, moms and dads, friends of the family...all those people that are supposed to be safe abuse children. Older kids abuse their younger siblings not out of malintent but because they are curious and no one explains these feelings. This is a fact although you can choose to not believe me but of my female friends aged 22-55 about 60% of them were sexually abused (i went through wrote their names down and added it up...and those are only the ones who told me). I also know of at least 2 men in my life that were touched inappropriately when they were kids but refused to tell their parents. This is a bigger issue than if Obama voted or not. This is about Americans being sexually repressed and acting out on their desires in inappropriate ways hoping that these children won't speak up and they can get away with it. The time is right once they ask the question, why are boys made different from girls? or Why do I have different parts then Daddy or Brother? or if they start fondling themselves as most kids are prone to do. It is not wrong and they are not evil. Just teach them to respect their bodies and not even mommy or daddy should touch you in your private parts and not even a doctor unless mommy is there. Simple things...also tell your kids that if someone threatens to hurt them if they tell, that the person is just trying to scare them and that mommy and daddy will be fine. Help your kids Please! Please! So many girls are molested and grow up to be sexually promiscuous and its not right, someone should tell them that they are beautiful and that what was done wasn't right!
Posted by: ... | Sep 12, 2008 2:27:33 PM
Santoro, you need to read both the amended bill and the original Illinois School Code. SB99 is a poorly conceived amendment that routinely belies everything you say, since it is taking a Code section written for pubescent children and hamhandedly altering all the 6-12 language into K-12 without intelligent consideration of the surrounding language.
For example, one part reads: "All public elementary, junior high and senior high school classes that ... discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize hat abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, STDs and HIV when transmitted sexually." Want to warn kindergartners about inappropriate sexual touching? By this stupid bill, you're mandated to also tell them about sex and its preventable physical dangers.
The Illinois School Code already has a section about talking to very young children about abuse and inappropriate touching. It's Sec. 27.13-2. Its drafters sensibly separated the younguns from their older, potentially sexual active counterparts -- two different groups with utterly different needs. Obama, appallingly, seems unaware of this, unless he's just lying to try to put a rose on a manure pile. By the by, contrary to what you think high schoolers are intended to be warned about inappropriate touching as well -- the amended bill lawyers up and wants them to be read the text of the 1961 Criminal Code!
Posted by: John | Sep 12, 2008 2:25:47 PM
Rich Santoro states: "There is no intent to teach about intercourse and HIV to kindergarteners"
Read the mandate for the bill's and Obama's intent...
"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."
Then, RS states: "AND it is all optional. Parents can say no way"
How does that change the fact that Obama supports STD education for kindergarteners, as evidenced by Obama's support of the bill that explicitly mandates STD education in grades K through 12?
Posted by: Carl | Sep 12, 2008 2:17:42 PM
How many of you parents can honestly say that you provide all the sex education your children need?
Posted by: Joyce | Sep 12, 2008 1:57:07 PM
If parents are doing such a good job of educating their children, why do we have a 50% school dropout rate?
Posted by: Joy | Sep 12, 2008 1:55:57 PM
Besides, dollar to donuts, this bill was shot down because it removed language about abstinence, and the specification of heterosexual sex, as well as, pushing just premarital sex. it made the curriculum non-specific, and just about sex (regardless of the particulars of a persons life-style).
That is why is was shot down, not because of the fear that Obama is trying to show kids dirty pictures... I have 3 kids, and I have no problem with the language in the amendment. But whatever.
Posted by: Rich Santoro | Sep 12, 2008 1:36:14 PM
I would be interested to see how Tapper would respond to this story now that the Obama campaign has dispatched Planned Parenthood to push the "gross" distortion that McCain's opposition to this bill is evidence that he does not care about the safety of children when it comes to sexual predators.
This is the problem with the Obama campaign and the mainstream media: they will scream their heads off about how the McCain campaign is distorting records and "making stuff up" but then they turn around and do the exact same thing (or fail to report when they do the exact same thing). And do you think the Times, the Post and Factcheck.org are going to do stories about the Planned Parenthood ad? Of course not...I guess for a second I forgot that the Democratic party has already established themselves as the "aggrieved" party and hold all license to that title.
Posted by: Ben | Sep 12, 2008 1:34:30 PM
Even the McCain supporters are a bunch of liars...
The bill says it will all be age appropriate. There is no intent to teach about intercourse and HIV to kindergarteners, nor to teach high-schoolers about inappropiate touching. AND it is all optional. Parents can say no way... Man, the hate from the right is blinding... Well, maybe it is not hate, maybe it is lack of reading comprehension???
14 and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K 6
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. However, no pupil shall
20 be required to take or participate in any family life class
21 or course on HIV AIDS instruction if his parent or guardian
22 submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or
23 participate in such course or program shall not be reason for
24 suspension or expulsion of such pupil.
Posted by: Rich Santoro | Sep 12, 2008 1:20:17 PM
Why did the mainstream media fall in line with Obama so quickly on this without even investigating factual sources? All they did was ask people who had every reason to hide the truth about what the bill would have legally required, had it passed.
It's very clear from reading the bill that Obama wanted STD education for kindergarten kids. The ad is true.
Posted by: Carl | Sep 12, 2008 1:15:38 PM
McCain gets my vote.
I don't need Liberal Democrats educating my young grandkids about sex - their parents can do that 'when' the time is right.
Where are the good reporters?
Posted by: Bill Sanford | Sep 12, 2008 12:47:30 PM
Open up your eyes, people! Do you see a classroom, a school, a textbook in the sex education ad? No, all you see is Obama.This ad, the one with the wolves and the latest - "disrespectful" is the McSame/Rove fearmongering madness
ENOUGH!
Posted by: MJD | Sep 12, 2008 12:44:18 PM
Post a comment
