Don’t let the word “debate” in the term “floor debate” fool you. Floor debates in Springfield are no more debates than transwomen are women. There is no cross-examination or rebuttal, for which most of our lawmakers must be deeply thankful in that they couldn’t argue their way out of an imaginary paper bag—at least not using logic and evidence.

Floor debates in Springfield are occasions for bill sponsors and supporters—almost always Democrats—to pontificate and for opponents to try to point out flaws that are promptly ignored by Democrats no matter how reasonable and justified. A floor debate in Springfield for Democrat-sponsored bills is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing but more government restriction of liberty, more government spending, and more moral chaos.

For an example, let’s look briefly at last Friday’s floor debate preceding the vote in the Illinois House on the pernicious sex ed bill that now awaits Governor J.B. Pritzker’s signature. According to the bill’s chief sponsor, State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago), the bill was socially constructed by three far left organizations—”Advocates for Youth, SIECUS and the Answer”—all of which are dedicated to normalizing abortion, early sexual experimentation, and sexual deviance. It is noteworthy that this bill is so perverse and troubling that even Illinois Democrats were barely able to scrape together the 60 votes needed to pass it.

Before looking at the “debate,” here’s a reminder of what lawmakers in Springfield think government employees should be exposing other people’s children to.

If signed into law, this bill will require all personal health and safety lessons in Illinois public schools—including charter schools—to teach children in grades K-2 about unmarried moms and dads and families led by homosexual couples. These very young children will also be expected to define “gender identity’’—a euphemism for the disordered desire to be the opposite sex.

Government employees will demand that children ages 8-11 explain, describe, and define masturbation, homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-sex impersonation, the use of hormone blockers for children who pretend to be the sex they aren’t, and “gender expansiveness”—a socially constructed leftist term.

Then in grades 6-8, government employees will instruct other people’s children in the ways of oral and anal sex; the “methods of contraception that are available without a prescription”; the “many methods of short- and long-term contraception that are safe and effective and … how to access them”; and the meaning of intersex, queer, twospirit, asexual, and pansexual. And, of course, leftists have snuck in some critical race theory, so 11–14-year-olds will be taught as objective and true the socially constructed theory of “intersectionality.”

To ensure that religious Illinois school children graduate from high school ashamed of and detesting the faith of their mothers and fathers, government employees will teach them about the evils of what leftists call “homophobia” and “transphobia.” In the Upside Down where leftists live and move and have their being, the true belief that homosexual acts and cross-dressing undermine the image of God imprinted on all humans constitutes irrational hatred.

State Representative Avery Bourne (R-Raymond) was able to get Lilly to admit that this law—like the ever-shifting moral beliefs of leftists—is fluid. If the bill becomes law, it will forever be tied to the National Sex Education Standards which change as progressivism affirms additional forms of sexual perversion. Bourne’s question elicited this shocking confession from the hapless Lilly:

As the National Sex Education Standards are updated, the State Board of Education shall update these learning standards.

All the ideas related to sexuality just mentioned are socially constructed leftist terms embedded with leftist assumptions. All the terms tossed about with absolutist certainty by Democrats to justify the indoctrination of other people’s children, including “age-appropriate,” “developmentally appropriate,” and “culturally appropriate,” are defined by leftists using criteria established by leftists.

Virtually no theologically orthodox Christian believes it is “culturally appropriate” for their 5-8- year-olds to be taught anything about homosexuality or “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices. SB 818’s supporters like to emphasize the sop they’re tossing to conservatives: Any parent may opt their child out of perversion-positive training.

Doesn’t sound very inclusive to me. In addition, conservatives still have to pay for perversion-positive “personal health and safety” training.

Curiously, in the floor “debate,” the issue of moral development never arose. It’s clear that moral assumptions/conclusions are embedded in the National Sex Education Standards with which this law requires all health and safety curricula selected by schools to align. How do I know that moral conclusions are embedded in these standards?

I know because these “standards” do not require schools to teach about, for example, polyamory, zoophilia, or infantilism—all forms of “identity” for some people. Even though these are forms of identity, Springfield Democrats don’t—yet –require that Illinois schools affirm them. The reason is that not enough Democrats—yet—believe these forms of identity are moral. Currently, Democrats believe homosexual and cross-sex identities should be normalized via taxpayer-funded schools because Democrats have concluded they are morally acceptable.

Remember what this bill requires as I quote some of the dumb things Democrats said about it in their fatuous floor speechifying, starting with the foolish sponsor of the bill, Camille Lilly:

Under SB818 … the materials and instruction must be age and developmentally appropriate, medically accurate, correct, complete, culturally appropriate, inclusive. … SB818 is not a mandate. Under SB818 parents, guardians and others will still be able to review the materials used by schools. Parents are still able to opt out, and local control applies to the selection of courses and materials and the curriculum. In addition to reducing stigma, SB818 would result in creating and the creation of learning standards that reflect the diversity of all students here in the state of Illinois.

Some brief thoughts about Lilly’s claims:

• SB 818 is not age-, developmentally, or culturally appropriate. The claims by leftist sexperts do not change reality.

• If by “correct” Lilly means “conforming to truth” or “proper,” she is incorrect.

• Clearly, materials and instruction will not be “complete” because the NSES do not include any information about polyamory, zoophilia, infantilism, sadomasochism, or any other paraphilias. I wonder if Camille Lilly et al. hate polyamorists, zoophiles, infantilists, and sadomasochists.

• SB 818 is a mandate in that no school may teach anything on personal health and safety in grades K-5 unless the materials they choose align with the age-, developmentally, culturally, and morally inappropriate leftist National Sex Education Standards.

• Lilly should explain which stigmas she seeks to reduce because this bill stigmatizes the moral views of many Illinoisans.

State Representative Delia Ramirez (D-Chicago) asked Lilly if it were true that the Illinois State Board of Education and the Illinois Association of School Boards are “neutral on the bill,” to which Lilly responded “Yes.” Then in an amusing and obvious manipulation of rhetoric, Ramirez changed the word “neutral,” saying, “So, educators don’t oppose the bill.” Well, it’s equally correct to say, “So, educators don’t support the bill.”

It would be interesting to poll anonymously all K-5 teachers in the state, asking if they are in favor of being required to teach about homosexuality, bisexuality, co-habitation, masturbation, cross-sex impersonation, hormone-blockers, and gender expansiveness in personal health and safety lessons.

And we should ask if they think there should be a law prohibiting all teaching on personal health and safety unless it includes those topics. No discussions of healthy eating permitted unless they’re accompanied by affirming discussions of cross-dressing, hormone-blocking, and self-pleasuring.

State Representative Maurice West (D-Rockford) apparently derives his hearty support for requiring public school teachers to instruct 5-year-olds in the intricacies of masturbation and 11-year-olds about anal sex from TLC’s programs about hoarders and obese people:

We view television shows on TLC like Hoarders, My 600-Pound Life, just for example, where they often recall their childhood experience with shame, emptiness, guilt, confusion from their dealings with that word: sex. This legislation’s primary focus is not about the birds and the bees. It’s about equipping our children with age-appropriate conversations about how they can be empowered within themselves.

Well, West is right on one thing: This bill is definitely not about the birds and the bees.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s not the job of education majors to sexually “empower” other people’s children with the pagan sexual beliefs of regressives.

Two questions for West and all leftists:

1.) Since when did it become the task, pedagogical obligation, or right of public school teachers to solve all societal ills?

2.) Are there any pedagogical, ethical, moral, emotional, or psychological problems potentially created by introducing sexual imagery, ideas, and beliefs to other people’s children who have never been abused or shamed and whose parents have successfully protected them from ideas they—the parents—believe are age-, developmentally, culturally, and morally inappropriate?

In case parents don’t yet realize it, this newest bill is centrally about normalizing homosexuality and “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices. In yet another statement made with a voice quivering with faux-emotion, lesbian activist with a burnt soul, State Representative Kelly Cassidy, made that clear:

For far too long, LGBTQ youth were either invisible or expressly stigmatized. And I remember that. It burned into my soul. …  I remember that. … And as a kid who didn’t understand why I didn’t fit in, who couldn’t define why I felt different, and whose parents were not an option to go to, I wish I had had a teacher I could turn to. I wish I had had a curriculum that didn’t call me unnatural.

The presumptuous Cassidy demands that public schools affirm her arguable belief that homosexuality is natural, and if parents disagree, Cassidy wants the state to come in between them and their children.

State Representative Ann Williams (D-Chicago) made this boneheaded statement:

[I]t’s hard to imagine why anyone would think our children should not learn about sex education in school, but rather should refer to the internet or Google to determine what sex is or what their questions are and get them answered there. Right now, if you Google any of these terms related to sex education, you’re going to get a lot more explicit information than anything would be provided in a curriculum.

Phew. I guess Illinois parents should thank Democrats. At least curricula aligned with leftist standards won’t be as bad as what kids can find on the Internet.

It’s unfortunate that Williams suffers from such a dearth of imagination. It’s true, many people don’t think children should learn about sex in public schools. Here’s something else that may surprise the unimaginative Williams. Many people don’t think children should be learning about sex in co-ed classes in public schools. They believe that talking about menstruation and nocturnal emissions in co-ed classes can be embarrassing, inhibit discussions, and undermine the virtue of modesty.

Poor Williams suffers too from an inability to reason logically. Suggesting that there exists only the choice between public schools and the Internet is a classic example of the fallacy of the false dilemma. In addition to leftist-controlled public schools and the Internet, there are parents, grandparents, churches, libraries, and bookstores that can and do educate children on sex. It is not the business of the government to step in and expose all children to assumption-riddled claims about sexuality because some parents are derelict in their responsibilities.

Here’s a modest proposal: Rather than devouring the hearts and minds of other people’s little ones, how about schools offer two classes in personal health and safety—a perversion-positive class and a truly age-appropriate class. The class descriptions should include all materials used, the name of all organizations that constructed the materials, all the standards employed by those organizations, and all the criteria used to determine what constitutes age-, developmental, and cultural appropriateness. Let parents opt-in to whichever class they want or none at all. And allow teachers to choose which class they want to teach. With their deep commitments to diversity, inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and choice, leftists should love this modest proposal.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to Gov. Pritzker’s administrative staff to urge him to VETO SB 818 as a terrible overreach of government. Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Dumb-Things-Dems-Said-in-Sex-Ed-Floor-Debate.mp3

Our Springfield snollygosters are working tenaciously to provide Christian parents with a plethora of reasons to abandon government schools in Illinois. On Thursday afternoon (May 20th), the Illinois Senate took up and debated another “comprehensive” sex education bill (SB 818) that so-called “progressives” and their evil allies–Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Equality Illinois–are using to indoctrinate children starting in kindergarten.

This bill to corrupt children with leftist humanistic values is sponsored by Illinois State Senator Ram Villivalam (D-Chicago) and passed by a partisan vote of 37 to 18 with four members not voting. It is now up for consideration in the Illinois House, where State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) is the chief sponsor.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to vote against SB 818. Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Background

The Illinois Senate debated this controversial legislation for almost an hour on Thursday afternoon. You can watch/listen to the entire debate on the IFI YouTube channel or on our newer Rumble channel. You can also watch the embedded version at the end of this article.

It was encouraging to see five conservative senators rise to question the sponsor and/or criticize the bill. Kudos to Illinois State Senators Sue Rezin (R-Morris), Terri Bryant (R-Murphysboro), Darren Bailey (R-Louisville), Neil Anderson (R-Moline), and Jason Plummer (R-Vandalia) for boldly speaking against this terrible bill.

Regarding the hour-long debate, there are just too many fallacies, outright lies and corrupt intentions to address in one article. Here are just a few of the glaring problems.

State Senator Celina Villanueva (D-Summit), a former sex education teacher, rose to ask the sponsor, “What’s the main goal of this bill?” Senator Villivalam responded:

The main goal is to insure that our youth have the opportunity to be safe and healthy by obtaining and having access to age and developmentally appropriate, medically accurate information and making sure that no one, no one, feels excluded in their classroom. No one feels excluded in their community.

Well, the bill also demands that comprehensive sex education classes be “culturally” appropriate, which the bill defines as follows:

“Culturally appropriate” means affirming culturally diverse individuals, families, and communities in an inclusive, respectful, and effective manner, including materials and instruction that are inclusive of race, ethnicity, language, cultural background, immigration status, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior.

Culturally diverse and culturally appropriate? This Planned Parenthood legislation is neither inclusive nor respectful of orthodox Jewish, Christian or Muslim families. What families from these faith traditions deem to be “developmentally appropriate” is wildly different from what Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and Equality Illinois celebrate and promote. This point is further illuminated by the floor statement made by State Senator Patricia Van Pelt (D-Chicago):

In my history, before I came here, I was a preacher, and I preached on a regular basis. When I looked at bills like this it was really, really hard for me to get my hands around it, because it was so contrary to what we teach in church. But this is a law this is not a church. And we are representatives of the people in our district. We are not their preachers. We are not their pastors. We are not the ones that’s gonna make them keep the values right or their morals right. 

I learned by being here that many of the things that we held true in the church was actually hurting our community. And I think not having that knowledge not letting those children have the knowledge about what this is [is not good]

…

I’m standing in support of this bill as a new Patricia, not the Patricia that came in here. Because the Patricia that came in here would have had a hard time even voting for it, more less standing up and saying ‘yes, these children need to know what’s happening to them.’

State Senator Van Pelt has been in Springfield since 2013, and by her own testimony, it appears she has been thoroughly corrupted by the Springfield swamp. The “new Patricia,” must have a heart of stone because she has repeatedly ignored the Holy Spirit’s promptings to do what is right. The “new Patricia” no longer has a problem upholding sexually corrupt material being taught to children.

It was also disappointing  to hear State Senator Doris Turner (D-Carlinville) assert that “families come in very different sizes and boxes and no one has the right to define what a family is and what a family should consist of.” As with “marriage,” the God of creation ordained family. It is He who has the right to define what a family is and what it is not.

Senators Van Pelt, Turner and many of their colleagues think that “knowledge” will solve the problems caused by a sexualized culture. State Senator Linda Holmes (D-Aurora) even stated on the floor during debate:

I just don’t understand it, I think what we are doing when we are teaching–again, age-appropriate, medically accurate–sex education to our children, we are arming them with knowledge, and I don’t know when that has ever been a bad thing. 

Maybe Senator Holmes doesn’t remember, or maybe she was never taught the creation story. Genesis 2:15-17 tells us:

Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Knowledge of evil is not a good thing. It leads to death. Comprehensive sex education as proposed by Planned Parenthood, et al. is evil. Exposing young, innocent and impressionable students to Planned Parenthood’s  view of “age appropriate” material normalizes early and high-risk sexual experimentation.

Perhaps the clearest denunciation of this atrocious bill came from State Senator Darren Bailey who rightly said it will put “perversion into our schools.”

I sat here and I listen to this, and I participate in what I expect to be a prestigious body. And here we are dealing with absolute nonsense of putting perversion into our schools. Yeah, that’s what it is, it’s perversion.

Thank God we still have some state lawmakers in Springfield with the moral clarity and backbone to boldly tell the truth about this insidious agenda to undermine and subvert Judeo-Christian values.

You can watch/listen to the entire 57 minutes here:

More info:

The War on Children [VIDEO]

Stop CSE Tools & Resources

Sign the Online Petition

A Plea to Exit Public Schools ASAP

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

UGLY-HEAD-REARING ALERT

Two years ago, yet another “anti-bullying” law (HB 5290) was defeated in the Illinois Senate. It has now been resurrected by one of Springfield’s most troubling homosexual activist lawmakers, State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago) as HB 5707.

Particular Illinois lawmakers seem to believe that it’s not possible for the government to do enough to eradicate beliefs with which they disagree—including the moral, philosophical, and political beliefs of other people’s children. The beliefs these lawmakers seek to eradicate are conservative beliefs on issues related to homosexuality and gender confusion.

Cassidy’s resurrected bill is not centrally about ending bullying, which is a goal all decent people share. Illinois already has a more than ample anti-bullying law, which passed in June, 2010 and was followed up with over 100 pages of implementation recommendations that appear on the Illinois State Board of Education website.

No, this bill is centrally about using government resources to advance the non-factual Leftist assumption that conservative morals beliefs are the hateful, ignorant cause of bullying.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to contact your representative and urge him/her to oppose HB 5707.  

The last time this politically motivated bill came around, the bill’s sponsors were asked (by even some potential Democratic supporters) to include an opt-out provision that would allow students and staff members to opt-out of any presentations that would espouse non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality that violated their consciences. IFI agreed to remain neutral on the bill, if this wording were added:

No student or school employee shall be required to attend or participate in any anti-bullying program, activity, or assembly that infringes upon free expression or contradicts personal or religious beliefs.

Liberal sponsors of the bill refused to toss even that shard of a bone to conservatives.

Here’s an excerpt from a piece I wrote two years ago when the previous incarnation of this bill was proposed:

Cassidy stated that this additional law is needed because 3 school districts (out of over 900) have no policy and 20 do not have “adequate” bullying policy. What she failed to make clear during floor debates is that the 3 school districts that don’t have bullying policy are already in violation of existing law, so HB 5290 is unnecessary.

Furthermore, HB 5290…would do nothing about the 20 school districts that have—in Cassidy’s view—“inadequate” policy. If these 20 districts have bullying policy, they are in compliance with existing law.

To illustrate that “anti-bullying” programs that address homosexuality or gender confusion (aka “gender identity” or “gender expression”) are centrally about promoting “progressive” notions about homosexuality, just replace “sexual orientation” (a Leftist rhetorical creation) with another condition constituted by subjective feelings and volitional sexual acts.

Everyone knows that teenage girls who are promiscuous are often called ugly names. No decent person wants promiscuous girls bullied, so why don’t anti-bullying laws and school policies include promiscuity in their list of conditions for which students may not be bullied? Why don’t teachers show films in which promiscuity is portrayed positively? Why don’t schools invite speakers who affirm a sexually promiscuous identity to come talk to students about how bad it felt to be bullied in high school for their promiscuity? Why don’t they have “youth programming” in which promiscuity is affirmed? Why don’t teachers have students read and perform plays in which promiscuity is celebrated and disapproval of it is portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, provincialism—all in the service of ending bullying?

In addition to the indoctrination aspects of current “anti-bullying” efforts, there would be substantial costs associated with adopting the following recommendations in this bill:

• creating, implementing, and maintaining procedures for in-school anonymous reporting of alleged bullying incidents
• creating and implementing student “training programs,” “restorative measures,” and/or “social and emotional skill-building” exercises
• creating and implementing personnel training
• collecting, maintaining, analyzing, and reporting to the State Board of Education data related to the prevalence of bullying
• “reevaluating,” “reassessing,” “reviewing,” and “revising” (whew) school policy every two years  

Eight years ago, a purportedly “Catholic” colleague of mine in the writing center at Deerfield High School told me that she was so sure that conservative moral beliefs about homosexuality were wrong that she doesn’t think they should be allowed to be spoken in schools even as “progressive” views are espoused.

And Freeport, Maine public high school English teacher Rich Robinson said this about bullying:

Bullying happens when one feels threatened physically or emotionally….[I]f “you” cause a gay kid to feel “less than” because of his/her sexuality and the expressions [and by expressions, Robinson means volitional behaviors] that will naturally result, then I say “you” are a bully and need to be called out. This is what it means to protect kids.

In the view of “progressives,” if student A says something that makes student B who identifies as homosexual feel “less than,” then student A is a bully.

That, my friends, is what liberal lawmakers and “educators” believe and seek to impose through laws and curricula.

While you’re going about the business of opposing this bill, please ask both proponents of this bill as well as your local school administrators and board members this question:

If in a classroom or cafeteria discussion, a student were to state that homosexual attraction is disordered, or that homosexual acts are immoral, or that Illinois should not have legalized same-sex “marriage,” or that homosexual couples should not be permitted to adopt, is it possible under the wording of existing law that this student could be accused of bullying?

The question is not whether sponsors Kelly Cassidy, Greg Harris (D-Chicago), or Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) thinks it would happen, but rather whether it’s possible that it could happen.

And while you’re in a civic engagement mood, please send an email to your local high school and middle school superintendents, principals, and school board members asking these two easy-to-answer questions:

1. In the classroom, are teachers permitted to express their support for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” or adoption by homosexuals?
2. In the classroom, are teachers permitted to express their opposition to the legalization of same-sex “marriage” or adoption by homosexuals?

If they answer “no” to both questions, ask them how they communicate that message to teachers. If you get a response, please send it to IFI.

Become a monthly supporter of IFI.  Click HERE for more information.

Editor’s Note:  This bill could be called for a vote as early as this afternoon.
Please take a few minutes to contact your state senator today!

As noted in my last article on the comprehensive sex ed bill (HB 2675), no lawmakers in the Illinois House who supported the bill, including the sponsors, provided any research-based evidence during floor debates proving the superior effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed. In response to an inquiry from an Illinois citizen, State Representative Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) provided two articles and one study in defense of her support for this troubling and unnecessary bill (currently any school district is free to use comprehensive sex ed curricula). Her use of these particular pieces of evidence demonstrates exactly what’s wrong with both this bill and the sloppy way it’s been promoted in Springfield.

The bill’s supporters cited the high rates of teen pregnancy and STDs as the reasons this proposed law is necessary. If passed this bill would mandate the use of what are called “comprehensive sex ed” or contraceptive-based “Sexual Risk Reduction” (SRR) curricula, while banning the use of what are called “abstinence-centered,” or “Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA)” curricula in any school district that teaches about sexual health, which is virtually every school district in the state.

The two articles cited by Gabel are “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs: Ineffective, Unethical, and Poor Public Health,” and “Review of Key Findings of ‘Emerging Answers 2007’ Report on Sex Education Programs.” The one study is “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S.”

In addition to making arguable claims about abstinence education, neither of the articles even claims that comprehensive sex ed is more effective at reducing rates of teen pregnancies and STDs.

And the one study Gabel cites is a deeply flawed study from the University of Georgia (UGA) that addresses only teen pregnancy.

Mary Anne Mosack, National Director for State Initiatives of the National Abstinence Education Association writes this about the UGA study:

This study is a weak attempt to correlate high birth rates in states to abstinence education. Even the most basic understanding of research protocols, cautions against claiming causation based on correlation.  This study draws a very simplistic conclusion to the complex problem of teen pregnancy. There are numerous factors contributing to high teen birth rates not the least of which are family structure, poverty and cultural environment.

However, this study attempts to draw conclusions for a subset of the population (only students in abstinence education classes) by looking at data for an entire state population to establish their findings. This showcases an extremely flawed study design that not only invalidates findings but calls into question the motivation behind a study that purports to seriously inform public policy based on scientific rigor.

By examining state sex education laws alone the researchers make the erroneous conclusion that these laws accurately reflect what is actually being taught in schools and make no mention of the percentage of students in a state who actually received abstinence classes, a serious research error on which to base such sweeping conclusions!

Vast field experience across the country shows that contraceptive-based programs have been implemented in every state regardless of the law. Even the very anti-abstinence Guttmacher Institute concluded that only 25% of schools across the country were receiving abstinence education during the decade examined in this study. In actual practice, no state can be categorized as “abstinence-only.”

Further considerations must note this study does not indicate how a state is trending. Are they moving in the right or wrong direction? It is clear that abstinence opponents would like to take all the credit for the recent positive drop in teen birth rates while disingenuously attacking abstinence education. Producing a flawed study to make that claim is sad commentary on what should be a sincere attempt to effectively reach the youth we are trying to serve.

Here are two lessons we should learn from this embarrassing attempt by Rep. Gabel to justify the legal banning of the use of abstinence-centered education:

1. If the Left introduces, for example, three studies that say something negative about abstinence education and/or positive about comprehensive sex ed, and the Right introduces three studies that say something negative about  comprehensive sex ed and/or positive about abstinence-centered education, it’s a wash. Lawmakers can’t rationally mandate the use of one type of curriculum unless they can provide proof that it is consistently more effective at achieving some particular goal.
   
   
2. The bill’s supporters have told us what their goals are, and they can’t change goals when their lack of evidence for their stated goals is exposed. The bill’s sponsors stated that their goals are to reduce the rates of STDs and teen pregnancies. Gabel produced only one flawed study that addresses only one of those problems [the bill’s House sponsor State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) produced none]. The other two articles didn’t even claim that comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence education at solving the problems of high rates of teen pregnancies and STDs. The articles make the arguable claims either that abstinence education hasn’t achieved its own goals or that it’s no more effective than comprehensive sex ed. Well, if the two types of curricula are roughly comparable, the Left can’t rationally ban only one of the two.

The Left continually misrepresents abstinence-centered (SRA) curricula and even created a term that embodies their misrepresentations: “abstinence-only education.” To those like State Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) who admitted he never even looked at an abstinence-centered curriculum before voting to ban them, this title suggests abstinence-centered education addresses only abstinence, which is false. Here is a description of the content of typical Sexual Risk Avoidance curricula:

SRA abstinence education teaches that “having sex” can potentially affect not only the physical aspect of a teen’s life but also, as research shows, can have emotional, psychological, social, economic, and educational consequences as well. That’s why topics frequently discussed in an SRA abstinence education class include how to develop a healthy relationship, how to avoid or get out of a dangerous, unhealthy, or abusive relationship, developing skills to make good decisions, setting goals for the future and taking realistic steps to reach them, understanding and avoiding STDs, information about contraceptives and their effectiveness against pregnancy and STDs, practical ways to avoid inappropriate sexual advances, and why saving sex for marriage is optimal.

Remember, if the evidence provided by our lawmakers doesn’t specifically address STD and teen pregnancy rates, it’s irrelevant. And if the evidence doesn’t prove conclusively that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence-centered education in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates, there is no justification for legally prohibiting the use of abstinence-centered curricula.

The evidence on the efficacy of abstinence-centered sex ed is certainly sufficient to allow school districts the right to choose it. For more clarification on the biased and inaccurate claims made about abstinence-centered sex education, click HERE.

Here are two articles of particular relevance on this website:

NAEA Report: Considerations for Protecting Teen Health: Part I will refute point by point the claims from the Guttmacher article on the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed that Rep. Gabel cites.

Correcting Misinformation.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.  You can also call the Capitol switchboard number at (217) 782-2000 and ask to be transferred to your state senator’s office or call IFI for their number.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

All Illinoisans should be troubled that our lawmakers vote for bills without demanding any evidence proving that the bills will solve the problems that the bills’ sponsors cite as the reasons the bills are needed.

Case in point: last week’s passage of the “comprehensive” sex ed bill (HB 2675) in the Illinois House of Representatives, which followed embarrassing performances by “progressive” lawmakers that wouldn’t pass muster in high school mock legislative assemblies.

State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) sponsored HB 2675, citing the problems of unwed pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among teens as the reasons comprehensive sex ed is necessary, but never provided conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex ed would solve those problems or that abstinence education—which is type of curricula that “progressives” detest—is the cause of the problems.

This bill compels every school district that teaches about sexuality to use “comprehensive” sex ed curricula even though every school district in Illinois already has that right. In fact, 60 percent of school districts in Illinois already use “comprehensive” sex ed.

Why would lawmakers mandate that all school districts use the type of curricula that most districts already use and is apparently failing? Why rob school districts of the right and freedom to choose abstinence-based curricula, which by the way, are medically accurate, unless there is rock solid proof that comprehensive sex ed is more effective at reducing the rates of teen pregnancy and STIs. Why rob school districts of the right and freedom to use the type of curricula that the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce just last summer recommended?

I listened to the entire floor debate on this legislation. Let’s look at what passes for logic and evidence in Springfield and what our lawmakers find intellectually persuasive:

State Representative Kathleen Willis (D-Northlake) — a supporter of the bill — suggested that this bill is necessary in order that “young children” will not “find out their sex education on the playgrounds or from their friends?” Rep. Willis offers the peculiar proposition that there are only two possibilities: comprehensive sex ed or playground sex ed. There is, however, another alternative: medically accurate abstinence education.

The strangest exchange during the debate took place between Rep. Lilly and Rep. David Reis (R-Olney). Perhaps someone can make sense of Lilly’s nearly incomprehensible responses:

Reis: “What exactly is ‘age-appropriate’ curriculum?”

Lilly: “Age-appropriate basically deals with providing information at the age at which the youth is prepared to receive.”

Reis: “And who determines that?”

Lilly: “The schools, they determine the curriculums.”

Reis: So, the State Board of Education won’t be mandating a certain curriculum at a certain time with your bill.”

Lilly: It’s a local school decision made by local officials of the school system.

Rice: “You say that it’s not a mandate to teach a particular curriculum, but it is a mandate…that they [schools] have to teach something. Is that correct?”

Lilly: “This bill is not a mandate.

Reis: “It’s not a mandate to teach a particular curriculum, but it is a mandate that they have to teach something. Is that not correct?”

Lilly: “No, it is not.”

Reis: “Are you sure?”

Lilly: “I am positive.”

Reis: “If that’s the case, why do you need your bill?”

Lilly: “Currently, the schools already have comprehensive sex education on the books. This bill brings clarification and definition to the existing code.”

Reis: “But if each school district has their own control over their own curriculum, and what they do, and whether or not they choose to do this, why do you need your bill? Your bill is a mandate that they [schools] have to teach something.”

Lilly: “This bill brings a standard of comprehensive sex education throughout the state—comprehensive, basic standard of sex education within the public school system.”

Reis: “So, now you’re saying there is a basic curriculum that needs to be adhered to, and then if the local school system wants to teach more of that they can?”

Lilly: “No, each school has the opportunity to decide whether they would want to offer sex education to their schools. That decision is made by the local school professionals and officers.

Supporters of the bill, either confused themselves or trying to confuse others, repeat ad nauseum that this bill allows schools to choose their own curriculum. What they don’t clearly explain is that schools may choose their own curriculum as long as it’s a “comprehensive sex ed” curriculum. School districts may choose not to offer sex ed, but if they offer it—as most do—this bill robs them of the right and freedom to choose an abstinence-based curriculum. (Don’t be deceived by the adjective “comprehensive.” Comprehensive sex ed simply means it includes whatever “progressives” view as important. Click here to get an overview of what “comprehensive sex educators” view as complete and age-appropriate.)

State Representative Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) then asked if this bill “would provide instruction on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of…sexually transmitted diseases.” Perhaps Gabel would be surprised to learn no form of contraception prevents sexually transmitted diseases, and some forms of contraception don’t even reduce the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease.

Gabel also asked, “Isn’t it true that numerous studies show that comprehensive sexual health education that stress abstinence as well as provides information on prevention results in positive health outcomes for teens and young adults?” Neither Gabel nor Lilly, however, cited these “numerous studies.”

Rep. Gabel went on to share an irrelevant but illuminating tidbit of parenting advice from her own life. When her daughter was a “preteen,” Gabel bought her the feminist sexuality bible Our Bodies, Ourselves, infamous for the inclusion of age-inappropriate material wholly unrelated to reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. To read an excerpt from this book that Gabel thinks is age-appropriate for an 11 or 12 year-old, click HERE.

Rep. Gabel further shared this: “I would see my daughter’s friends just reading through this book, and her friends had no other place to go. They would call her on the phone. They would come over to the house to read the book.”

Does Gabel know for a fact that her daughters’ friends had no other place to go for essential sexual health information? Does she know for a fact that the parents of her daughters’ friends did not share essential sexual health information with their children? Could it be that the information in Our Bodies, Ourselves that her daughters’ friends found so compelling were ideas that were not essential to sexual health, or that it was information their parents would have found age-inappropriate? If her daughters’ friends were not getting the information presented in Our Bodies, Ourselves from their parents, was it Gabel’s right to present it to these young girls?

This anecdote epitomizes the arrogance of “progressives” who believe that children belong to the “collective” and who are so certain that their beliefs and values are the only correct ones that they are willing to usurp and circumvent the rights of other parents.

While sexuality amoralists like Lilly and Gabel wax concerned about the high rates of teen pregnancy and STIs, they intentionally omit discussions of the central reasons “progressives” push for comprehensive sex ed. They push for it because “progressives” have virtually no moral boundaries when it comes to sexuality, including the early sexualization of children and the affirmation of homosexuality and gender confusion as normative. While there is no conclusive research proving that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence education at reducing rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, it is indisputable that comprehensive sex ed is much more effective in advancing Leftwing beliefs about early and deviant sexual activity.

If you’re ambivalent about the value of this bill, perhaps this exhortation from State Representative Chris Welch (D-Westchester) will convince you: “This bill is keepin’ it real….These kids are having sex….It is important that we make sure that they do it properly and safely and that we can make sure the public health is maintained.” In the service of keepin’ it real, I’d like to suggest that “proper teen sex” is oxymoronic, perhaps even moronic.

State Representative Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago) prophesied with absolute certainty that the passage of this bill is the “fiscally responsible thing to do. We’re going to avoid spending money on the treatment of STDs. We’re going to avoid additional money on social services for unwanted children.” Apparently, Rep. Mitchell’s presumptuous proclamation is as good as actual evidence to those who voted for the bill.

State Representative Elaine Nekritz (D-Buffalo Grove) disingenuously expressed her deep concerns about the floor debates: “I find it troubling that we’re debating whether medically accurate, age-appropriate information is appropriate.” Any thinking and fair person knows that opponents of the bill have no problem with medically accurate information being presented to students. Opponents of this bill are concerned about the “age-appropriate” part. What the creators of typical comprehensive sex ed curricula view as “age-appropriate” is viewed by others as wildly inappropriate.

Rep. Nekritz then told a secondhand story about a teenage girl who found herself pregnant despite never having had intercourse. That is the “evidence” Nekritz believes is sufficient to justify a bill that prevents schools from using abstinence education. Did Nekritz bother to inquire about whether this young girl had received any kind of sex education and if so, what kind?

Rep. Lilly cited one CDC study but didn’t identify the study, so it’s difficult to fact-check. Lilly claimed that a CDC analysis found that “comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence only.” According to the Washington Post, one 2009 CDC study found that “there is insufficient evidence to know whether programs that focus on encouraging teens to remain sexually abstinent until marriage are effective.” A 2012 CDC study of comprehensive sex ed and abstinence education concludes  that “No conclusions could be drawn on the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education.” And a 2012 criticism of the 2012 CDC analysis is found here.

In addition there is research demonstrating the efficacy of abstinence ed (here and here.)

It’s astonishing that lawmakers, many of whom are attorneys who should understand the importance of evidence, feel no compunction about voting for a bill following such a stupid floor “debate.” Since research is inconclusive at best, it seems utterly unwarranted to prohibit school districts from using abstinence-based curricula if that’s what they want to use.

To summarize, this bill will rob school districts of the right to choose the type (i.e., comprehensive vs. abstinence) of curriculum that the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce recommendedjust last year. And it will rob school districts of the right and freedom to choose the type of curriculum that myriad studies have demonstrated is at least as effective if not more effective than “comprehensive” sex ed curricula are at reducing the rate of teen pregnancies and STIs. Unbelievable.

This bill is now in the Illinois Senate.  Let’s hope the Senate floor debate proves more substantive than the fatuous House debate.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

How did they vote?

The Illinois House of Representatives passed the disastrous “Comprehensive” Sex Education (HB 2675) this afternoon by a vote of 66–52.  This bill would mandate that public school that teach sex education teach “comprehensive” sex education in grades 6-12.  That may sound reasonable until you read what the national go-to organization for sex-ed curriculum, SEICUS, lists as “age-appropriate.”

Illinois law currently mandates that schools teach abstinence until marriage.  Teaching “comprehensive” sex education is currently optional as a local school decision.  This bill was sponsored by State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) and heavily promoted by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Illinois.

Click HERE to see how your state representative voted on this anti-family legislation.  It is important to note that State Representatives David Reis (R-Olney), Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), Pam Roth (R-Morris), and Dwight Kay (R-Edwardsville) raised strong objections to the bill during floor debate.

HB 2675 is completely unnecessary and an intrusion into local control. Public schools in Illinois already have the ability to teach “comprehensive” sex education if they wish. Local public school administrators do not need a mandate from Springfield telling them they must teach comprehensive sex education when the preponderance of evidence suggests, and the U.S. Congress agrees, that authentic abstinence education is successful.

The bill now moves to the Illinois Senate.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.

We need a flood of calls, emails and faxes if we hope to stop this bill from passing in the Illinois Senate. Call the Capitol switchboard at (217) 782-2000 and ask to be transferred to your state senator to urge him/her to vote against HB 2675.

Please take a few minutes NOW to contact your state representative: Message: Oppose HB 2675 to ensure that students in our taxpayer funded schools are not needlessly subjected to “comprehensive” or “Abstinence Plus” sex education that emphasize and encourage contraception use, rather than abstinence.

Contraception-centered sex-education curricula encourage children and youth into early sexual experimentation. They mislead youth and create a false hope that condoms will provide sufficient protection from the physical, emotional and social consequences of early sexual activity. Authentic abstinence education programs provide youth with life and character skills, not condom skills. Sexual activity among youth is far too costly for adolescents, families, society and taxpayers.

Passing HB 2675 would mandate the teaching of curricula that most parents and taxpayers would find objectionable. Moreover, this proposal would require teachers to say that “contraception” prevents sexually transmitted disease (STDs).  Please take a moment to contact your state senator to urge him/her to stand in opposition to this bill.

Call your state senator now.

 Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.