“Train up a child the way he should go;
even when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
Proverbs 22:6

Many parents these days find themselves asking a simple, yet important, question: What’s the point in sending my child to a Christian school when public school is far cheaper? I have often asked my parents this very question, since I have gone to a Christian school my whole life. However, as I have grown older and observed the world around me, I now see why they wanted me to attend a Christian school for all these years.

As I have witnessed my friends growing up, I have noticed them begin to stray away from the love of God and into the secular worldview that public schools push upon their students. These are lifelong friends that come from Christian families, yet they still buy into the lies propagated by public schools, as the tactics they use to lure people away from God are powerful and manipulative. There is a myriad of reasons to send your child to a Christian school, but the following reasons are the most important, in my opinion, since they are what I see affecting my friends and other children in this country the most.

Health Class

When I was in fifth grade, my school had “the talk” which consisted of teaching us about puberty and what to expect when growing up. They taught us the absolute basics and taught it from a Christian point of view. In freshman year, they taught us about the birds and the bees, respect, and abstinence, which most of us already knew from our parents anyway. Our teachers made sure to emphasize that abstinence was the best approach since the risks of sex would be completely gone and, most importantly, it is what the Bible commands us to do. This was a great way to introduce students to such a sensitive topic; however, public schools do not teach students about these topics nearly as well.

While my Christian school emphasized abstinence, many public schools may acknowledge it, but they do not emphasize it nearly as much. Most public schools have the mindset that “kids will do it anyway,” so they might as well be safe while engaging in sexual acts. I have been told by my friends that some notable lessons included one where they each had to do an oral presentation on STDs, and one where they were required to practice putting a condom on a banana (no, this is not a joke). Christian schools know better than to think this way. They know that everyone has free will in whether they will sin, and that everyone has the capability to resist sin. As a result, public schools’ methods of teaching sex education to children downplay how major sex is and make it seem as if it is no big deal. This desensitizes children to a sensitive and important issue. You may believe your child will not fall into such traps because your child is not weak in his or her faith and you have raised them well.

The truth is that the tactics public schools use to desensitize children to things of a sexual nature are powerful and manipulative. When you talk about a topic frequently, and talk about it casually, people will become desensitized to it. This desensitization is exactly what is happening now in public schools. More recently, the radical LGBTQ agenda has made its way into health class as well, opening up a whole new can of worms. 

Teachers and Overall Culture at School

Another issue with public schools is the culture and sometimes, but not always, the teachers. While there are some good teachers at public schools, often they are not the best. We know that due to powerful teachers unions, it is nearly impossible to fire a teacher, even if they are not doing their job well. In contrast, at a Christian school, teachers can be removed at any time if they are not doing a good job. As a result, this incentivizes teachers to try hard in their job. The other major difference between Christian and public school teachers is that the teachers in a Christian school usually care more about their job. Teachers in Christian schools get paid far less than teachers in the public school system, and this monetary sacrifice proves their commitment to a higher calling. If they were doing it simply for money, they would have chosen to teach at a public school; however, they chose to teach at a Christian school because they genuinely care about teaching from a Christian point of view, whether in science or even math. Another difference between public and Christian school teachers is that public school teachers may not share the parents and students’ values in life, but the Christian teacher will almost always have the same values as the students and families, and they will express those values to the children in their classroom. This is because, in Christian schools, teachers understand that teaching young people is a high calling from God and a vocation versus a job.

Another factor to consider when choosing between a public or Christian school is what the culture of the school will be like. While every school has a different culture, the Christian school is obviously going to have a more Christian culture. For example, in a public school, students may think that you are the “weird Christian kid” who goes to church, while at a Christian school being a Christian is the default and going to church is looked at as a normal practice. Although this is not always the case, Christian schools will most likely have more well-behaved students since people are paying to go there, and there usually is an interview or background check before admittance. But most importantly, most of the students at a Christian school, if not all the students, are Christian and this means that they will more likely follow the morals of Christianity and be good influences on one another. The culture of a school is important because it is the culture in which your child will spend a lot of their time, and that culture will influence how they act, for better or for worse.

Final Thoughts

There are numerous other issues with public schools that I did not mention, such as Critical Race Theory and LGBTQ history classes, that would be problematic for Christian families. Since I cannot address them all in this article, I picked the reasons that I think are the most important and the issues that I have seen affect my friends. I know it can be difficult financially to send a child to a Christian school, but if you are able, it is something you should consider. It saddens me to think that nearly a whole generation of children are being brainwashed by what they are taught at school. Public schools are leading students away from the faith, but this is no reason to lose hope. There are things that can be done to change this, such as sending students to Christian schools, homeschooling, and maybe even running for a position on a local school board. However, the longer we wait, the harder it will be to implement change, until, perhaps, it becomes too late.

Evan O’Bryan is a high school senior and aspiring political influencer who has been raised in the faith and Christian education since preschool. He is a staunch supporter of Christianity, the MAGA movement, and Conservative ideology. He enjoys challenging the mainstream liberal narrative with those who haven’t yet reached the truth.

This article was originally published in April 2020.

Very few people realize that the reason children today are being sexualized at school is because pedophiles sexually abused hundreds of children, then claimed that the victims enjoyed it. That’s a fact, and the documents prove it.

In government schools all across the United States today, young children are literally being encouraged to experiment with fornication, masturbation, sodomy, oral sex, and all manner of sexual activities. It often begins as early as kindergarten and elementary school.

In fact, what passes for contemporary “sex education” in the United States and around the Western world would have been unthinkable just a generation ago—even a few years ago. And believe it or not, it’s getting more and more radical by the day.

In California, a top school district official defended teaching pedophilia to children because it’s one of a number of “different types of sexual orientation” that “have existed in history.”

The consequences of all this sex-ed mania have been devastating, too.

But it wasn’t always this way. And the history of how the United States got here will blow your mind.

The proliferation of “sex education” in American government schools has its roots in the pseudo-scientific quackery of sexual revolutionary Alfred Kinsey.

Hundreds, maybe thousands, of children were allegedly raped, molested, and brutalized, and their experiences recorded under the guise of “science.”

Even before Kinsey unleashed his perversion on an unsuspecting American public, though, communist butchers had experimented with the use of so-called sex education to break down family, culture, traditional morality, and nations. It worked well.

Kinsey’s ‘Research’

Long before Kinsey came on the scene, sex educators say, there was a sort of sex education being taught in schools. But it wasn’t called that. And comparing it with what Kinsey and his fellow sex fiends and perverts would unleash on America would be like comparing alfalfa to meteors.

In the early to mid-1900s, sex education in the United States, often described as “hygiene,” consisted primarily of religious and moral teachings on the subject. The programs also warned children about the horrifying consequences of extramarital and premarital sex—venereal disease, mental scars, the moral and emotional problems, and so on. That was the norm for generations.

The relatively new idea that children must be taught graphic and obscene sex education only emerged seriously in the United States in the middle of the last century. It came from Kinsey, who was financed by the Rockefeller foundations and the American taxpayer.

In his “Kinsey Reports” published in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Kinsey dropped what was described as an “atom bomb” on American society. Widely viewed as perhaps the worst books to have ever been published in America, the “findings” would unleash a wave of perversion and a “sexual revolution” that continues to claim more victims with each day that passes.

One of the elements of his “sex research” involved pedophiles, who sexually abused children while gathering “scientific data,” experts have concluded. Kinsey’s own data show that potentially hundreds of children were raped or molested by one or more pedophiles using a stopwatch to figure out when the children might experience “orgasm.”

About 200 boys under the age of 12 were among the victims.

Table 34 in Kinsey’s report documents, for example, that one 4-year-old boy supposedly endured 26 alleged “orgasms” in a 24-hour period.

Even babies a few months old were repeatedly abused. One 11-month-old baby was reported to have had 14 “orgasms” in a period of 38 minutes, as documented by the child abuser himself and then afterward recorded as Kinsey’s data. Even a 4-month-old baby girl reportedly had an “orgasm.”

However, experts noted that it isn’t even physically possible for children so young to have an orgasm. Instead, Kinsey’s report reveals that one way the “subjects” defined an orgasm in their “partners” was marked by “violent convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children).” Does that sound like an orgasm? Perhaps to a pedophile seeking to justify his monstrous crimes.

Experts such as Dr. Judith Reisman, the world’s top expert on Kinsey and the author of multiple books on his research, have pointed out that this would be the equivalent of claiming adult-female rape victims enjoyed being raped, as evidenced by their screaming, crying, and convulsing. And yet this is exactly what Kinsey did. And America, tragically misled by Kinsey and his media dupes, believed him. (Editor’s Note: Dr. Reisman passed away in April 2021.)

Why Americans should trust child molesters and rapists for insight into “child sexuality” has never been adequately explained by Kinsey or his disciples. As Reisman put it, why in the world would somebody ask a rapist whether his victim enjoyed it, and then present that to the world as “science” and “evidence” that children enjoy being molested?

“If he would do that to kids, how can you trust anything this psychopath would have to say?” she asked.

Kinsey’s so-called sex research has been widely debunked and ridiculed by other experts as well. Professor of constitutional law Dr. Charles Rice of Notre Dame University, for instance, denounced Kinsey’s work. “Any judge, legislator or other public official who gives credence to that research is guilty of malpractice and dereliction of duty,” he said.

Incredibly, Kinsey even claimed the children enjoyed this abuse, and that sex with adults—even incest—could be beneficial to them. Among other outrages, Kinsey, citing what critics have blasted as his “junk science,” also posited that children are actually “sexual beings” from birth. As such, they must be “educated” in every manner of sexual activity and perversion conceivable.

This radical idea is literally the foundation of all modern sex education today.

Using Pedophiles’ ‘Data’ to Sexualize Children

Based on his fraudulent findings that children experience orgasms from birth, Kinsey declared that children need early, explicit sex education throughout their school lives. He also claimed children should be taught masturbation, homosexual acts, and heterosexual acts. He even claimed sexual abuse of children didn’t produce serious damage to children, which is self-evidently ludicrous.

According to Reisman, Kinsey’s claims and pseudo-science have produced unprecedented levels of child sexual abuse, pedophilia, sexual torture, and more. Laws were changed and repealed based on Kinsey’s fraudulent data, leaving women and children unprotected and sparking a deadly avalanche of sex education that may bury civilization beneath its icy embrace.

In the May 1954 edition of “Sexology,” a “sex science” magazine that styled itself as the “authoritative guide to sex education,” Kinsey is quoted making an astounding claim. After arguing that it was possible to sexually stimulate infants as young as 2 months or 3 months old, Kinsey claimed it was “clear” that “the earlier” children are started on “sex education,” the “more chance they will have” to supposedly “develop adjusted personalities and wholesome attitudes toward sexual behavior.”

By 1958, inner-city public schools serving primarily black children in the District of Columbia became testing grounds for the radical sexual reeducation envisioned by Kinsey and company. This included showing children “explicit” films that featured details of “barnyard animals mating,” “animated drawings of male ejaculation,” and even the use of a torso model with male and female genitalia.

Reisman writes that children as young as 3 years old were targeted for this sort of “education,” according to reports from the now-defunct Sunday Star newspaper.

The effects were predictable. Soaring rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, devastation of the family unit, skyrocketing numbers of fatherless homes, an explosion in venereal diseases, surging crime levels, massive increases in mental health problems, and more.

After those “successes,” the Kinsey-inspired sex education began spreading across the United States.

Many of the early sex-education curricula—often under misleading names such as “family life education,” as it was known in Virginia—openly cited Kinsey’s data as the source.

Pedophile advocacy groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) also have openly recognized the importance of Kinsey’s “research” to their cause.

Long after Kinsey died, his disciples continued to push the idea that these fraudulent findings by child rapists were foundational to the sexualizing of children in public schools. “The specific findings about these children are totally relevant to modern sex education,” former Kinsey Institute boss Dr. John Bancroft told CBS in a televised interview.

The institute had previously included responses to controversies by Bancroft on their website, which, while expressing concerns about the data, confirmed that Kinsey had obtained information on orgasm in children from men who “had been sexually involved with young boys and who had in the process observed their orgasms,” and one man in particular.

SIECUS Is Born

One of Kinsey’s first major speeches was about the supposed need for sexual education for children, explained Reisman, who has worked with the Department of Justice and now serves as a research professor of psychology at Liberty University. But Kinsey claimed only properly trained “experts” could do the teaching.

Thus, in 1964, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, now known just as SIECUS, was officially born. These operatives would be Kinsey’s specially trained “sex experts.”

Indeed, the formation of SIECUS was among the most crucial milestones on the road to the ubiquitous sexualizing of America’s children—and the destruction of their innocence and future families.

The organization, which received plenty of money from tax-exempt foundations and American taxpayers, was founded by Dr. Mary Calderone. The highly controversial figure had previously served as the medical director for Planned Parenthood.

In the late 1950s, Calderone went to the Kinsey Institute in Indiana. At a meeting, the group of radical sexual revolutionaries plotted how to advance their cause, and even assigned roles, Reisman told The Epoch Times during a series of interviews. It was decided that SIECUS would handle sex education, with multiple Kinsey Institute representatives serving on the board.

“SIECUS emerged out of the Kinsey Institute after this meeting, where they decided SIECUS should carry out the sex-education that Kinsey envisioned,” Reisman said. “SIECUS was really Kinsey’s arm—and the Kinsey Institute’s arm—into the schools.”

In 1979, despite receiving all sorts of government funding, Calderone compared the task ahead for SIECUS to the “spreading of a ‘new religion,’” according to Reisman. First, Calderone said, adults would have to be converted, so that children could eventually “flourish” and have an understanding that “sexuality” unrestrained by any moral standards was supposedly “healthy.”

SIECUS actually has been rather open about this. In the May–July 1982 SIECUS Report, on page 6, the outfit dropped a bombshell about its links with the Kinsey Institute:

“Few people realize that the great library collection of what is now known as the Kinsey Institute in Bloomington, Indiana was formed very specifically with one major field omitted: sex education,” the report stated, according to Reisman. “This was because it seemed appropriate, not only to the Institute but to its major funding source, the National Institute of Mental Health, to leave this area for SIECUS to fill.”

The report also revealed that SIECUS applied for a “highly important grant” from the taxpayer-funded National Institute of Mental Health that “was designed to implement a planned role for SIECUS.” This role, according to the same report, was to “become the primary data base for the education for sexuality.”

Today, SIECUS peddles its raunchy sex education all across the nation. For some perspective, the organization’s “National Sexuality Education Standards” call for starting the process in kindergarten, teaching children its values on homosexuality, genitalia, sexual activity, and more.

It brags about this, too. “SIECUS is not a single-issue organization because sex ed, as SIECUS envisions it, connects and addresses a variety of social issues,” the group says on its website. “Sex ed sits at the nexus of many social justice movements—from racial justice and LGBTQ rights to the #MeToo movement.”

The group’s new tagline reveals a great deal, too: “Sex Ed for Social Change.”

In addition to the nexus with the large foundations—and especially those tied to the Rockefeller dynasty—the humanist movement played a role in all this, too. In fact, so significant were the links that SIECUS boss Calderone became “Humanist of the Year” in 1974, continuing the long and well-documented humanist takeover of education in the United States that began with John Dewey, as covered in part 4 of this series.

Planned Parenthood, which today specializes in aborting children by the hundreds of thousands, also has played a key role in sexualizing American children with sex education.

More than a few critics have highlighted the conflict of interest here: On one hand, the tax-funded abortion giant encourages children to fornicate, while on the other, it charges big money to abort the children produced by those children fornicating.

Before Kinsey

Even before Kinsey, subversives had realized the potential horrors that sexualizing children and undermining sexual morés could wreak in society—and they loved it.

In 1919, German homosexual activist Magnus Hirschfeld created the Institute of Sex Research. Among its goals was the promotion of “free love,” masturbation, homosexuality, euthanasia, population control, abortion, feminism, and more. In the United States, this agenda was peddled as a way to fight back against the spread of sexually transmitted disease and poverty.

Communists also played a key role. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Russian communists vigorously promoted perverted sex education and “free love.” However, after realizing that society (and their regime) would collapse if it continued, that was stopped in 1924—at least in Russia, while the “New Soviet Man” was being created.

Outside of the enslaved communist nations, though, Marxists would continue promoting their radical sex revolution in free nations, something that continues to this day.

Bolshevik Deputy Commissar for Education and Culture Gyorgy Lukacs, who assumed his post in Hungary’s Bela Kun regime in 1918, pioneered this strategy in Hungary, with catastrophic results. Upon taking power, Lukacs and his comrades mandated raunchy sex education very similar to what is used today in the United States.

His goal was to obliterate Hungary’s Christian civilization and values on the road to a Marxist Utopia. His tools included mandating puppet shows featuring perverted sex acts to young school children, encouraging promiscuity in sex education, and mocking Christian-style family values at the bedrock of civilization.

While the Bela Kun regime in Hungary didn’t last long, Lukacs became a crucial player in the Frankfurt School, as exposed in part 6 of this series. This group also played a key role in spreading sex education and sexual immorality throughout the West. They did this not just by encouraging sex education, but by deliberately and strategically breaking down traditional values, especially those having to do with sexuality, marriage, monogamy, and family life.

By the early 1900s, the socialist-controlled National Education Association, which was the subject of part 8 in this series, began advocating for “sex hygiene” to be taught in schools as well. The excuse was combating venereal diseases, which of course in the real world have exploded in response to the promiscuity unleashed by widespread sexual liberation.

Another key figure in promoting the idea of sex education was G. Stanley Hall, the progressive who trained Dewey, the architect of today’s “progressive” indoctrination program masquerading as public education. Hall’s pretext for pushing sex education was that some girls believed they could get pregnant by kissing.

Changing Values

Ultimately, sex education was a means to an end: Changing the values of children and undermining the family in order to fundamentally transform society away from a free, Christian civilization and toward a new “Utopia.”

Indeed, in a 1979 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headlined “An Analysis of U.S. Sex Education Programs and Evaluation Methods,” researchers revealed that the “goals” of sex education in American schools had become “much more ambitious” than parents realized. Those goals included “the changing of … attitudes and behaviors,” something that the authors acknowledged wouldn’t be supported by many Americans.

Even before that, the United Nations and its U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which has been crucial in indoctrinating humanity as documented in part 9 of this series, got on board with the sex education, too. A report on the February 1964 UNESCO-sponsored International Symposium on Health Education, Sex Education and Education for Home and Family Living recommended “sex education [should] begin at the primary school level.”

The document also called for sex ed to be “integrated into the whole curriculum” and argued that “boys and girls should be taught together.” Taking a cue from Kinsey, the U.N., which has always been close to the Rockefeller dynasty that financed Kinsey, called for “anti-dogmatic methods of teaching” to be used, also claiming “moral norms are relative concepts which change with time.”

The “anti-dogmatic” teaching and the moral relativism would be crucial. Thus, all of the sex education has been combined with what is known as “values clarification,” a scheme that UNESCO—an outfit dominated by communists, socialists, and humanists from day one—has encouraged in education for decades.

This subversive process is aimed at having children reject moral absolutes—in sexuality and everything else—by using mental and emotional manipulation.

It works by giving children hypothetical situations in which the ethical solution appears to be doing something that they were taught was wrong. For instance, a common example involves a hypothetical life raft that can only hold eight people, but there are currently nine in it. The students are told who is in the boat—a doctor, an engineer, a nurse, a cop, and so on—then asked who should be sacrificed for the “greater good.”

A better answer than choosing a victim to murder would be for the passengers to take turns swimming alongside the raft, of course. But that would ruin the whole point of the exercise, which is to get children to reject the idea of right and wrong, as well as the teachings of their own parents and pastors.

Combined with the raunchy sex education that encourages an “anything goes” mentality and offers children tantalizing claims about “safe” pleasure with no moral standards and no consequences (babies can be aborted, after all), the result has been absolutely catastrophic.

The Effects

The fruit of all this radical sex education is now clear to see. The institutions of marriage and family are in free-fall. Half of marriages now end in divorce. And even the couples that stay together often struggle, big time.

Birth rates, meanwhile, have plummeted below replacement levels across the West.

Civilization is literally dying amid a cocktail of loveless sex, drug abuse, suicide, despair, venereal disease, pornography, and sexual chaos.

The effects on the individual are horrific, too. “Little brains are not designed to process sexual stimuli of any kind,” said Reisman, adding that sex education is confusing and creates anxiety for any normal child. Indeed, these stimuli rewire their brains to accommodate the “new” information, she said.

It also causes children to mimic the behaviors they are exposed to, leading to addiction to sexual stimuli.

“The addiction to sexual stimuli and acting out leads to depression, identity disorders of various kinds, STDs, mental health problems, emotional distress, anger, loss of academic achievement, and more,” said Reisman, one of the world’s leading academic experts in this field.

“In the past, shocking sex stimuli often confused many kids into assuming they were homosexual,” she added. “Now many youngsters will assume that they are transgender, especially as they are encouraged everywhere they turn, and often by their own very troubled parents.”

The data already show this, with a 2017 study from the University of California–Los Angeles finding that more than one-quarter of Californian children aged 12 through 17 identify as “gender non-conforming” or “androgynous.” In Sweden, where sex education is even more radical and ubiquitous than in the United States, reports indicate that the number of “transgender” children is doubling each year.

“Juvenile mental health as well as physical and sexual health have deteriorated in every measurement of well-being historically identified by our society,” Reisman said, adding that this downward trend continues.

Another expert who has explored the horrific consequences of sex education on children is the late psychoanalyst and medical doctor Dr. Melvin Anchell, who wrote the minority report for President Lyndon Johnson’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography and also served as an expert witness for the attorney general’s 1985 Commission on Pornography and Obscenity.

Among other concerns, he said these sexual indoctrination programs targeting young children cause “irreparable harm” to their victims that lasts their entire lives.

Anchell, who has a great deal of experience in the field of sex education, documented the damage done to children in books including “Killers of Children: A Psychoanalytic Look At Sex Education” and “What’s Wrong With Sex Education.”

Citing vast amounts of data and evidence, Anchell argued that sexualizing children causes unspeakable and often permanent harm, severely damaging the children’s future marriages, families, relationships, and lives. In some cases, it can even contribute to psychopathy, suicide, mass-murder, and more.

Unwed child-bearing also exploded right around the time sex-education schemes became ubiquitous in the 1960s. The evidence shows children growing up without a father on average do much worse on every metric than children in homes with a mother and a father.

In the black community, consider that only about 15 percent of children were born out of wedlock between 1940 and 1950. By 2008, after 60 years of sex education, almost 3 out of 4 black babies were born to unwed mothers.

Among whites, less than 5 percent of babies were born out of wedlock prior to 1960. By 2008, that exploded to about 30 percent.

Of course, comprehensive sex education is often marketed to the public as a tool for combating unwed teenage pregnancy and STDs. In fact, the data is clear: After the introduction of sex education, STDs and unwed teen pregnancies skyrocketed. Obviously, reducing STDs and unwed pregnancies was never the goal. If it had been, the experiment would have been stopped by the 1960s at the latest—not turbocharged.

Going Forward

Comprehensive sex education in the United States and around the world is becoming progressively more extreme, with tiny children now being exposed to obscenity, perversion, sexualization, LGBT propaganda, and more.

In 2018, UNESCO released “international technical guidance on sexuality education” urging schools to teach children about “sexual pleasure,” masturbation, and “responses to sexual stimulation” before they even turn 10. By 12, the standards call for children to be taught that “non-penetrative sexual behaviors” can be “pleasurable.”

If the epidemic of perversion, sexualization, and grooming of children isn’t brought under control, Reisman warned of “dark” consequences such as “cultural collapse.” Also, Americans can expect a continued crumbling of families, an explosion in crime, far more suicide, escalating government tyranny, even more drug abuse, widespread poverty, and much more.

“‘The Brave New World’ really was never brave,” Reisman said, a reference to Aldous Huxley’s famous book about a future of free sex and total government regimentation of every aspect of life. “We may find ourselves living it.”

Asked why governments and other powerful institutions seem so determined to sexualize children at younger and younger ages, Reisman said it was partly a matter of following the money. “Governments are backed by people and organizations with money, increasingly the pornography industry, pharmaceutical industry, and the Sex Industrial Complex,” she said.

“Big-government advocates nurse mind-numbed subjects to be dependent upon them,” she added. “If they get children early with sex training, the victim child will have limited critical thinking capability, little real education. Government will have willing subjects to regurgitate propagandistic barbarisms—like Social Justice Warriors, college kids/professors, repeatedly screaming the F word at anyone with another thought.”

Solutions

To deal with the existential crisis, Reisman had two main points: Remove children from public school, and open criminal investigations into Kinsey’s sex-education machine.

“Remove children from public schools; return to parents or grandparents the training of their children,” she said. “Parents are the primary educators of their children and need to reclaim that mantle and responsibility.”

Beyond that, she also called for restoring Judeo-Christian moral standards and repealing exemptions to obscenity laws that protect public-school officials who distribute obscene material to children—something that would be a felony in most circumstances.

On top of that, she called on lawmakers to resurrect H.R. 2749 to investigate the Kinsey Institute for any “past and present criminal activity.” The institute has argued that “patient confidentiality” precludes sharing the information, but Reisman and other advocates say it is essential that Americans learn the truth about what happened.

The sex-education craze unleashed by the communists, then given credibility by “Dr.” Kinsey, combined with the “progressive” government takeover of education, have brought family, civilization, and political liberty to the brink of collapse.

It’s time for Americans to seriously address these matters before it all comes crashing down.

The Illinois General Assembly is considering 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 horrible bill passed earlier this month by a partisan vote of 37 to 18. It is now up for consideration in the Illinois House of Representatives.

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.

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

Written by Dr. Everett Piper

Students are taught self-esteem and sexual promiscuity more effectively than science and civics

Hardly a day goes by that you don’t hear the question: How did we get in this mess?

Where did this lunacy come from, and how did it all happen so quickly?

Well, let’s play a game. Let’s play “imagine.”

Imagine that we live in a day where we intentionally sever a man’s arm from his body and then expect him to win a fight.

Imagine that we live in a country where it’s common practice to remove a woman’s eyes from her head and then ask her to paint her portrait.

Imagine that ours is a time where we surgically alter a child’s frontal lobe and then demand he explain an algebraic formula.

Imagine that we live in such a world; a world where, as C.S. Lewis warned, the elite among us claim it makes sense to “remove the organ and demand the function;” a time and a place where we “geld the stallion and then “bid him be fruitful.”

Just imagine. As John Lennon said, “it’s easy if you try,”

How did we get in this mess?

One answer: As Richard Weaver said, “Ideas have consequences.” Education matters.

Why would we expect decades of teaching sexual promiscuity in our schools to result in sexual restraint in our students? Why are we surprised at the selfishness of our culture when we have immersed several generations of our children in a curriculum that teaches self-esteem more effectively than it does science and civics? How can we possibly think that teaching values clarification rather than moral absolutes will result in virtuous people?

Where is there any evidence in all of human history that the subordination of a child’s right to be born to an adult’s right to choose ever resulted in the protection of any individual’s unalienable right to life? And why would any culture ever think that after decades of diminishing the value of marital fidelity that the same culture would then be able to mount a vigorous defense for the meaning of marriage and morality, or anything else for that matter?

This list could go on and on. The evidence is clear. All you need to do is Google the daily news to see the proof. When you have schools that revel in separating fact from the faith, head from heart, belief from behavior and religion from reason, the result will never be liberty. It will always be licentiousness.

Severing things that should be united has a very predictable result. “Removing the organ while demanding the function” gives us “men without chests,” an electorate of those who have nothing but a gaping cavity in the center of their being; a callousness of mind; an emptiness of conscience; vacuity where there should be virtue. As the wisdom of Solomon tells, cutting babies in half always results in dead babies.

Ours is a day of delusion. We destroy ourselves by our dishonesty. We boast of freedom and yet live in bondage to deception. We champion human rights, yet we ignore the rights promised to us by reason, revelation and our own Constitution. We march for women while denying that women are even real.

We claim to stand for the dignity of children but remain silent while their dignity is mocked in the ivory tower’s grisly game of sexual nihilism. We are what M. Scott Peck called “people of the lie.” The road to hell is before us, and we enter its gates strutting with the confidence of an emperor with no clothes. And, when we are challenged, we belittle the “incredulous rubes” and the “deplorables” who dared shout out of our nakedness.

Santayana once said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Well, here is one irrefutable lesson of the past: Ideas always have consequences. Education matters. It will always lead somewhere. Our schools will either take us toward the liberty found in that which is right and just and true and real or toward the slavery made of our own dysfunction and lies.

Why are we in this mess? It is because of our local schools, colleges and universities. When you relentlessly work to remove the next generation’s soul, you should not expect your culture to stay out of hell.

“All your life long you are slowly turning … either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, and rage … Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other.” — C.S. Lewis “Mere Christianity”

Dr. Everett Piper, former president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, is a columnist for The Washington Times and author of “Not A Day Care: The Devastating Consequences of Abandoning Truth” (Regnery 2017). This article was originally published at the WashintonTimes.com.

A new study has found that government cuts to spending for sex education courses and contraception have contributed to Britain’s lowest teen pregnancy rate in nearly 50 years, the Catholic Herald reported.

Researchers David Paton of the Nottingham University Business School and Liam Wright of the University of Sheffield discovered that pregnancy rates for women under 16 have seen the sharpest decline in local authority areas that drastically cut funding for “preventative” programs.

After observing trends in 149 local authorities between 2009 and 2014, Paton and Wright concluded that central and local government cuts to sex education and contraceptive services coincided with teenage pregnancy rates falling by 42.6 percent between 2008 and 2013 — the lowest they’ve been since 1969. And by 2014, 4,160 girls under 16 became pregnant, marking a 10 percent decrease from the previous year.

Speaking with The Times, Wright said that he and his colleagues were surprised by their initial findings, and decided to test for possible alternative explanations before concluding that decades of sex education and easy access to contraception have led to an increase in teen pregnancies.

After doing so, however, the researchers deduced that these methods — which took off during the Sexual Revolution of the 1970s, gained even more traction with the AIDS epidemic of the 80s, and have continued into the present day — have not only failed to reduce teen pregnancies, but have in fact led to even more unwanted pregnancies, and subsequently more abortions and teenage parenthood.

“There are arguments to suggest that the impact [of the budget cuts] on teenage pregnancy may be not as bad as feared and, indeed, that spending on projects relating to teenage pregnancy [i.e. sex education and contraception] may even be counterproductive,” Wright and Paton wrote in the Journal of Health Economics.

These recent findings are deserving of the descriptor “groundbreaking,” especially when one considers the seemingly universal, half-century-long consensus among researchers and policymakers regarding sexual health. By contrast, programs and policies that promote chastity have been all but dismissed from the public conversation, yielding devastating consequences.

In our secular society, abstinence education carries the same connotations as so-called “gay conversion therapy”: cruel, ineffective, and contrary to “nature.” Programs that encourage youths to not act on certain desires for the sake of preserving their own moral and physical health have earned the labels “bigoted” and “antiquated.”

But what if every human’s true nature is to live virtuously and not to entertain our every passion and appetite? The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle based the bulk of his career on a single ethical question: “What is the good life?” In asking this, he wasn’t trying to discern which acts or material goods bring immediate satisfaction to humans, but rather, which practices and habits are capable of rendering lasting joy, health, and flourishing for society as a whole.

If the social scientists of the 1970s and beyond had applied that basic question to the study of sexual practices, they would have learned exactly what we are learning 50 years hence.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report on teen health and sexuality released last year found that teens who abstain from sexual intercourse are much less likely to engage in “risky” or unhealthy behavior (e.g. get into a car with a drunk driver, experience physical abuse from someone they are dating, smoke, binge drink, inject illegal drugs, be depressed or suicidal, try tanning beds, etc.) than their sexually active peers.

Based on this report and others like it, it would seem as though the “best life” is that in which teens are made to confront the destructive consequences of premarital sex and weigh the costs on their own. Instead, however, sex-ed programs that teach “safe sex” have grossly underestimated the moral faculties of youths, lowering their standards and normalizing deviant behavior.

Thankfully, despite the deliberate spread of misinformation regarding abstinence, modern teens have successfully employed their trademark tactic: rebellion. Since 1991, the percentage of teens in the U.S. who are sexually active has decreased by 8 percent. The truth about abstinence is resonating with young people, whether the public acknowledges it or not.

Studies like the one recently released by the Journal of Health Economics are further reminders that educators and public officials who truly care about the sexual health of teens need to seriously consider replacing failed sexual education policies with ones that truly contribute to societal flourishing.

This article was originally posted at FaithWire.com

According to a recent study in the American Public Health Journal, kids who identify as “LGBTQ” are not only getting pregnant, even though they claim to identify with sexual behaviors which are non-procreative same-sex interactions, they are getting pregnant at MORE THAN TWICE the rate of their heterosexual peers!

The study comes out of New York. Liberals have been quick to blame abstinence education. However, according the Guttmacher Institute, New York doesn’t even require abstinence as a part of their sex education, nor are parents required to give consent regarding their child’s sex education instruction.

Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control has reported that LGBTQ youth are much more likely to engage in unsafe sexual behaviors than heterosexual youth.  So abstinence messages might be extremely beneficial to youth claiming to be homosexual.

This higher incidence of pregnancy raises the question of sexual desire and the idea of unchangeable or exclusive homosexuality.  It would seem that many young people who externally identify with homosexuality are betraying the group with which they choose to identify.  In other words, they identified as a certain lifestyle for reasons that may not have been due to their real sexual attractions, but because society is so intent upon embracing LGBTQ causes as the vogue rage of our age.

And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. –Mark 9:42 

There are numerous problems affecting public education, problems so serious that many families are choosing either to homeschool their children or send them to private schools—options which very few families are able to implement or afford.

The most serious problems affecting public education emerge from the stranglehold that disciples of the “teaching for social justice” movement and the related social and political movement to normalize homosexual practice and Gender Identity Disorder (GID) have on academia.

These subversive ideologies, fallaciously promoted as fact, infect public education at all levels, and contribute to the undermining of biblical truth, the natural family, and love of America.

The efforts to promote these partisan political theories and the simultaneous censorship of conservative resources reveal the hypocrisy of the commitments of public educators to diversity, critical thinking, and intellectual inquiry.

Problems: Homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder

The problem of the presence of homosexuality-affirming resources is underestimated by far too many parents and other taxpayers. If we do not muster the courage to oppose these resources with the same conviction, vigor, and tenacity that radical activist ideologues use to promote them, we become complicit in the loss of First Amendment speech and religious liberties that will soon follow. Our continued silence will bequeath to our children and grandchildren even greater oppression than we experience today—oppression, that is, for those students who are not deceived by the specious arguments to which they are relentlessly exposed.

The ubiquitous propaganda from activist public educators, and organizations such as Illinois Safe Schools Alliance, the National Education Association, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s educational division’s, “Teaching Tolerance”, and the American Library Association compel Illinois Family Institute to spend a considerable amount of time addressing the problem of pro-homosexual advocacy in public education.

Students are exposed to “progressive” views of homosexuality and GID (euphemistically referred to as “gender identity”) and cross-dressing (euphemistically referred to as “gender expression”) in many school contexts. The resources and activities to which students are exposed implicitly or explicitly espouse unproven, non-factual, subjective liberal assumptions on the nature and morality of homosexuality and GID. Some of the numerous contexts in which students are exposed to these ideas include: English, social studies, foreign language, theater/drama, and health/sex ed classes; assemblies; anti-bullying programs, and teacher advocacy in the classroom setting.

In addition, extracurricular clubs such as gay-straight alliances and political action clubs (e.g. AWARE) organize activities in support of the Day of Silence, make announcements, hold fundraisers, and put up posters that promote the normalization of homosexuality during the school day.

The kinds of resources that activist teachers use in their efforts to use public education to change the moral and political views of other people’s children include newspaper and magazine articles, essays, plays (both read and performed), novels, picture books, films, guest speakers, and games.

To make matters worse, public educators engage in pervasive censorship of all resources that espouse conservative views of homosexual practice and GID. In so doing, they undermine the legitimacy of public education and transform education into indoctrination by routinely violating school commitments to diversity, critical thinking, and intellectual inquiry.

Parents should be especially wary of anti-bullying activities, programs, resources, or curricula, no matter where they emerge. “Anti-bullying” resources and policies are the Trojan Horses for secreting affirmative ideas about homosexuality and GID into public schools, including elementary schools.

Teaching for “Social Justice”

The second serious problem in public schools is commonly referred to as “teaching for social justice,” which shares some of the philosophical features of “Critical Theory,” “Critical Education Theory,“ Critical Pedagogy,” “Critical Race Theory,” and, within theological circles, “Black Liberation Theology.”

In the broadest of outlines, “teaching for social justice” is essentially repackaged socialism with its focus on economic redistribution. Social justice theory emphasizes redistribution of wealth and values uniformity of economic and social position over liberty. Social justice advocates seek to use the force of government to establish economic uniformity.

Its other dominant features pertain to race, gender, class, homosexuality, “gender identity” and “gender expression.” Social justice theory encourages people to view the world through the divisive lens of identity politics that demarcates groups according to which group constitutes the “oppressors” and which the “oppressed.” Those who are identified as the “oppressors” need not have committed any acts of actual persecution or oppression, nor feel any sense of superiority toward or dislike of the supposed “oppressed” class. The theory illogically promotes the idea that “institutional racism,” as opposed to actual acts of mistreatment of individuals by other individuals, is the cause of differing lots in life. Social justice theorists cultivate the racist, sexist, heterophobic stereotype that whites, males, and heterosexuals are automatically oppressors.

Former Marxist David Horowitz warns that,

“Today the gravest threat to American public education comes from educators who would use the classroom to indoctrinate students from kindergarten through the 12th grade in radical ideology and political agendas.

Much of this indoctrination takes place under the banner of “social justice,” which is a short-hand for opposition to American traditions of individual justice and free market economics. Proponents of social justice teaching argue that American society is an inherently “oppressive” society that is “systemically” racist, “sexist” and “classist” and thus discriminates institutionally against women, non-whites, working Americans and the poor…. In recent years teaching for social justice has become a powerful movement in American schools of education…”

Some of the influential Critical Theorists are Paulo Freire, Maxine Greene, William (Bill) Ayers, Peter McLaren, Bell Hooks, Henry Giroux, Jonathan Kozol, Lisa Delpit, Peggy McIntosh, Herbert Kohl, James Banks, Cornel West, and Howard Zinn.

Solutions:

The solution begins with us—with a spiritual transformation. Our own self-indulgence—indulging our laziness and fear—has resulted in vulnerable, impressionable young children being exposed to positive views about the sins of homosexuality and cross-dressing. Our passivity has allowed those who hold distorted views of America to cultivate anti-American sentiments in our nation’s children.

Everyone who remains silent in the face of this unconscionable educational travesty bears some measure of guilt.

Character Changes:

We must start with the willful cultivation of those character traits required for the task at hand: courage, boldness, perseverance, and a willingness to endure persecution.

Scripture teaches that “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5: 10, 11). Despite this clear teaching of Christ, many Christians retreat from even the mildest manifestations of persecution.

Informed Minds:

• Taxpayers need to research the authors whose writing students are reading, and research the organizations that are publishing materials used in class and professional development activities.
• Taxpayers need to request and study the content of professional development opportunities that school districts provide to teachers at taxpayer expense (e.g. Late Arrival and Institute Day activities, conferences, seminars, and summer workshops).
• Taxpayers need to be able to refute the deceptive secular arguments used to normalize homosexuality. To that end, churches should offer classes or workshops that educate their members. If church leaders are themselves ill-equipped, we need to urge them to invite guest speakers to teach such workshops.

Policy Changes:

• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that requires teachers who present resources that address controversial issues to spend equal time on and present equivalent resources from all perspectives. So, if an English teacher assigns The Laramie Project, he should be required to also assign essays, commentaries, or journal articles written by conservative scholars on the issue of homosexuality.
• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that prohibits ideological litmus tests in hiring. Some school districts are attempting to ensure ideological uniformity among faculty and administrators via the interview process for new hires.
• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that requires “opt-in” options for highly controversial resources, including any that address homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder.
• Taxpayers should urge their schools to create policy that requires ideological balance in the content of professional development opportunities. For example, if a district offers an Institute Day workshop on “teaching for social justice,” they should be required to offer a workshop in which teachers read and analyze criticism of “teaching for social justice.”
• Taxpayers should oppose the inclusion of the terms “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” in anti-discrimination and/or anti-bullying policies.

Community Awareness:

• Taxpayers should attend school board meetings, and make statements to, ask questions of, and run for election to school boards.
• Taxpayers should write letters to their local newspapers when a curricular or policy problem is discovered.
• Christians need to urge their church leaders to be involved in the schools in the communities in which they live.
• As citizens, they have both a right and an obligation to participate in shaping a godly community, and they have an obligation to set examples for the men and women whom they lead.

Specific Suggestions for Parents:

• Notify K-8 teachers that under no circumstance is your child to be exposed to any resources or activities that mention homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder. Ask them to agree in writing to your expectation, and if they won’t, ask for a change of teachers.
• Notify high school teachers that your child is not to be exposed to resources that address homosexuality or Gender Identity Disorder unless equal time is spent studying resources that articulate conservative views on the subject.
• Call your children out of school on the Day of Silence if your school is permitting children to remain silent during class.
• Homeschool high school kids for health class.

Homosexuality-Affirming Resources

Books taught in many schools:

The Laramie Project by Moises Kaufman

Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes by Tony Kushner

Athletic Shorts by Chris Crutcher

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood

The Misfits by James Howe

The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Rainbow Boys, Rainbow High, Rainbow Road, The God Box, all by Alex Sanchez

It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health by Robie H. Harris

Additional books are listed at:

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-books_elementary.html

http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-books_secondary.html

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/K-6.html

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/7-12.html

http://rainbowlist.wordpress.com/rl-2008/

http://rainbowlist.wordpress.com/rl-2009/

http://rainbowlist.wordpress.com/rl-2010/

Films:

Films recommended by the Safe Schools Coalition: http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/RG-videos.html

Film recommended by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s educational division’s, “Teaching Tolerance”: Bullied: A Student, a School and a Case that Made History.

We need to insist that our public schools fulfill their commitments to honor diversity, to challenge assumptions and beliefs, to pursue intellectual inquiry, and to cultivate critical thinking skills.

If educators define “safety” as making kids feel comfortable, as many schools do, then they must censor resources that make any students uncomfortable, rather than censoring only those that make homosexual students uncomfortable.

If, on the other hand, schools oppose censorship, then they must not censor the writing of scholars who articulate conservative views of homosexuality and Gender Identity Disorder or those who criticize “social justice” theory.

All concerned taxpayers should be involved in the effort to effect change in public schools. Our taxes are paying the salaries of educators and are used to purchase materials that disseminate destructive ideas to children. We must assume responsibility for the ways in which our money is spent.

Concern for both the temporal and eternal lives of children—for their hearts, and minds, and bodies—should compel us to work tirelessly for truth.

We must remember that the children in public schools today will very shortly be our culture-makers. If we care about the future health of America, we should participate in the effort to restore a proper understanding of the role of public educators and the scope of public education.

For PDF version of this article, CLICK HERE.

From LifeSiteNews.com

“How do you sell an abortion? In the US it’s very simple: You do it through sex education,” former abortion clinic owner Carol Everett told participants at the Rose Dinner following the National March for Life on Thursday in Ottawa.

Everett, who ran a chain of four abortion clinics in Texas from 1977-1983 — where an estimated 35,000 unborn children were aborted before her dramatic conversion and departure from the industry — told about 430 participants at the dinner that she had a goal of becoming a millionaire by selling abortions to teenage girls.

“We had a goal of 3-5 abortions from every girl between the ages of 13 and 18, because we all work on a straight commission inside the abortion industry,” she said. With every customer, Everett became a little richer.

But in order to reach her financial goal, Everett said she first had to create a “market for abortions.” That meant convincing young people from the earliest age possible to see sexuality in an entirely different way than previous generations.

“We started in kindergarten. In kindergarten you put the children in a circle and you go around the room and you ask them all the same question: ‘What do your parents call your private parts?’”

“You know and I know that every family in this room has a different name for the private parts. So by the time you reach the third or fourth child it is clear to those children that parents simply do not know what they have. But we did. We said: ‘Boys this is what you have and girls this is what you have and don’t be ashamed of your private parts.’”

Everett explained how sex education at the earliest ages aimed at eroding in the children what she called “natural modesty.” Everything was calculated to “separate the children from their values and their parents.”

By third grade, children were shown explicit ‘how to’ diagrams of intercourse. By fourth grade, children were encouraged to masturbate, either alone or in groups of the same sex.

It was during the fifth and sixth grade that Everett herself supplied the missing link between sex-ed and abortion.

“My goal was to get them sexually active on a low dose birth control pill that we knew they would get pregnant on. How do you do that? You give them a low dose birth control pill that, in order to provide any level of protection, has to be taken accurately at the same time every single day. And you know and I know, there’s not a teen in the world who does everything the same time every day.”

Everett said that a girl on the pill who thought she was ‘safe’ typically had sex more frequently than those not on the pill.

“That pill did not work, and we could accomplish our goal of 3-5 abortions between the ages of 13 and 18,” she said.

Everett said that if the sex-education was done correctly, then when the girl becomes pregnant, she believes she has only one real choice.

“She’s going to call our clinic because she’s been told we’re ‘pro-choice.’”

In order to sell as many abortions as possible, Everett trained her employees to lead the distraught callers towards abortion as the only possible solution.

“When our telephone rang, we were ready. You see, we had trained the people to answer our telephones as telemarketers. They sold over the telephone. But we couldn’t call them telemarketers, that’s far too harsh. We called them telephone counselors. We trained them with a script designed to overcome every single objection. That’s what sales is, isn’t it? Overcoming the objection and filling the order, in this case the abortion,” she said.

The former abortion provider said she knew the sex-ed strategy was more than a success when a young woman visited one of her clinics for her ninth abortion.

“Abortion is a method of birth control in my country, a 45 percent repeat rate. And I dare say it’s also a birth control measure in your country,” she said.

Everett went on to describe what she called her miraculous journey of leaving the abortion industry and giving her life to God. In 1995 she founded the Heidi Group, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping women experiencing a crisis pregnancy – named after one of Everett’s own children whom she aborted in 1973.

Everett warned parents not to ignore what their children are being taught in school regarding sex-education.

“Find out what they’re using to teach your children and grandchildren. For it is critical that we know because they shame those children and if those children are shamed by what they hear, they will not come home and tell you what they heard.”

“I would encourage you to go to your public library and to your schools and ask what they’re using for sex education,” she said.

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.

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.

Using the presumptuous title “National Sexuality Education Standards,” a group of anti-abstinence “experts” have offered a questionable version of what, when, and how, topics regarding sexuality should be taught in American schools. The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) challenges these so-called “standards” that ignore the optimal health message for students, and instead place a priority on a simple risk reduction message. “When we set standards, we should communicate the ideal, the best message to achieve optimal health,” stated Valerie Huber, Executive Director of NAEA. “When a set of guidelines fails to provide any meaningful emphasis on optimal health but instead gives priority to ‘condom negotiation’ skills, we have not set standards; we have lowered them and put our children at increased risk” added Huber.

In addition, NAEA disputes the appropriateness of introducing sensitive and often controversial topics into the K-12 classroom, essentially using sex education guidelines as a vehicle for promoting ideological agendas rather than health and well-being. “Standards claiming national influence should maintain an objectivity that is devoid of special-interest agendas,” added Huber.

NAEA advocates for strong, clear Sexual Risk Avoidance programs as the best standard for educating youth regarding sexuality.

By Leigh Jones, World Magazine

Sexual activity and pregnancy among teens is declining

Two reports recently released by the Centers for Disease Control show teens are embracing abstinence, despite the prevalence of promiscuity portrayed in music, movies and on television.

Abstinence advocates say the new statistics on sexual activity and birth rates among teens are an encouraging sign that young people understand the risks associated with having sex, even though most of them have been taught that taking the right precautions makes it safe. The new numbers also disprove one of the main arguments used by advocates of sex education, said Cindy Hopkins, vice president for center services at Care Net, which operates pro-life pregnancy centers across the country.

“The message we hear from the other side is that teenagers cannot control their hormones, so they need to be taught about safe or safer sex,” she said. “It’s encouraging to know they can control themselves. When they hear the truth, they can assess it and make wise decisions.”

The increasing rates of abstinence also show teens are capable of making wise decisions even though many of the adults around them are sending them messages that normalize teen sex, said Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Association.

According to a report on teen sexual activity released in October, the number of girls having sex between the ages of 15 and 19 dropped 8 percent between 1988 and 2010, from 51 percent to 43 percent. The number of boys having sex dropped 18 percent, from 60 percent to 42 percent.

The rates of abstinence were highest among 15- to 17-year-olds, with only 27 percent of girls and 28 percent of boys reporting sexual activity. In 1988, 37 percent of girls and 50 percent of boys in the same age range told researchers they already had started having sex.

Huber called the declines good news, especially for parents and mentors who encourage teens to wait.

“Abstinence is a life choice that is resonating with teens,” she said. “They are not ashamed of it. They are embracing it.”

Another report released earlier this month showed birth rates for teens also are declining. In 2010, the number of babies born to mothers between 15 and 19 years old dropped to the lowest level ever recorded in the United States, a 9 percent decrease from the previous year. Births to teens younger than 20 declined 10 percent, reaching the lowest level recorded since 1946.

Statistics released by the liberal Guttmacher Institute show a corresponding decline in abortions.

According to a report released last year, the number of teens who chose to terminate their pregnancies dropped 55 percent between 1988 and 2006, from 45 to 20 abortions per 1,000 women. But Hopkins warned those numbers might not show the full picture. More women are choosing medical abortions in the early stages of pregnancy, taking a pill to induce an abortion instead of going to a clinic for a surgical procedure, she said. Because medical abortions are universally acknowledged to be underreported, it’s hard to know for sure how many pregnancies are being terminated, she said.

Huber, who will spend Friday briefing lawmakers on a bill that would bring renewed emphasis and funding to abstinence education efforts, said the government’s own research proves that the current messaging about safe sex isn’t working. And the choices teens are making prove the message isn’t even relevant, Huber said.

“The current messaging, culturally and in sex ed classes, is one that normalizes teen sex,” she said. “It’s communicating that if everyone isn’t doing it, everyone will soon. But that’s not necessarily the case.”

Warning: The following article includes offensive and graphic content.

A recent New York Times article titled “Teaching Good Sex,”  fawns over comprehensive sex educator Al Vernacchio, a 47-year-old homosexual Catholic “Sex Scholar” who teaches English and human sexuality at a private high school near Philadelphia. In light of the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts constitute violations of divine and natural law, Vernacchio’s affirmation and embrace of homosexuality reveal that he affirms heresy and embraces sin.

Read the following excerpts to learn what Vernacchio talks about with high school students and to learn what many “comprehensive sex educators” would like to see in public schools:

“First base, second base, third base, home run,” Al Vernacchio ticked off the classic baseball terms for sex acts….”Give me some more,” urged the fast-talking 47-year-old, who teaches 9th- and 12th-grade English as well as human sexuality. Arrayed before Vernacchio was a circle of small desks occupied by 22 teenagers, six male and the rest female….

“Grand slam,” called out a boy (who’d later tell me with disarming matter-of-factness that “the one thing Mr. V. talked about that made me feel really good was that penis size doesn’t matter”).

“Now, ‘grand slam’ has a bunch of different meanings,” replied Vernacchio, who has a master’s degree in human sexuality. “Some people say it’s an orgy, some people say grand slam is a one-night stand. Other stuff?”

“Grass,” a girl, a cheerleader, offered.

“If there’s grass on the field, play ball, right, right,” Vernacchio agreed, “which is interesting in this rather hair-phobic society where a lot of people are shaving their pubic hair – “

“You know there’s grass, and then it got mowed, a landing strip,” one boy deadpanned, instigating a round of laughter. While these kids will sit poker-faced as Vernacchio expounds on quite graphic matters, class discussions are a spirited call and response, punctuated with guffaws, jokey patter and whispered asides….

[Vernacchio’s class] Sexuality and Society begins in the fall with a discussion of how to recognize and form your own values, then moves through topics like sexual orientation (occasionally students identify as gay or transgender, Vernacchio said…) safer sex; relationships; sexual health; and the emotional and physical terrain of sexual activity….

The lessons that tend to raise eyebrows outside the school, according to Vernacchio, are a medical research video he shows of a woman ejaculating – students are allowed to excuse themselves if they prefer not to watch – and a couple of dozen up-close photographs of vulvas and penises. The photos, Vernacchio said, are intended to show his charges the broad range of what’s out there. “It’s really a process of desensitizing them to what real genitals look like so they’ll be less freaked out by their own and, one day, their partner’s,” he said….

It was drummed into him as a human-sexuality master’s student, Vernacchio said, to never be explicit merely for the sake of being explicit: have a rationale for every last thing you say. Which occurred to me one day listening to him answer an anonymous question – there’s a box on the bookshelf where students can drop them – about whether a girl’s urge to urinate during intercourse might be a precursor to female ejaculation. He laid out a plethora of explanations for the feeling, everything from anxiety about having sex to a bladder infection to the possibility that the young woman was getting “some really good G-spot stimulation” and in fact verging on ejaculation.

“If kids are starting to use their bodies sexually, they should know about their potentialities,” Vernacchio told me later. “It’s O.K. that boys ejaculate, that’s totally normalized” – wet dreams have been standard fare for middle-school health class for decades – “but girls, gross! Girls will think they’re peeing themselves, and it’s really shameful.”…

As to whether his class encourages teenagers to have sex – a protest perennially lodged against even basic sex ed (though pretty firmly disproved by research) – Vernacchio said that he portrays sex in all its glory and complications. “As much as I say, ‘This is how orgasms work, and they’re really cool,’ I say there’s a lot of work to being in a relationship and having sex. I don’t think I have the power to make sex sound so enticing that kids are going to break through their self-esteem issues or body stuff or parental pressures or whatever to just go do it.” And anyway, Vernacchio went on, “I don’t necessarily see the decision to become sexually active when you’re 17 as an unhealthy one.” His goal is for young people to know their own minds, be clear about what they do and don’t want and use their self-knowledge to make choices….

To that end, he spends one class leading the students through a kind of cost-benefit analysis of various types of relationships, from friendship to old-school dating to hookups. When he asked his students about the benefits of hookups, the kids volunteered: “No expected commitment,” “Sexual pleasure” and “Guarding emotions,” meaning you can enjoy yourself without the messiness of attachment.

“Yep,” Vernacchio said, “sometimes a hookup is all you want.” Then he pressed them for drawbacks.

“You may not be able to control your emotions,” someone called out.

“O.K.,” Vernacchio said approvingly. “What else?”

“It’s confusing,” said the student-council vice president.

“Yeah,” Vernacchio said, explaining that two people may have different ideas about what it means to hook up, which is why communication is so important. (“If you can’t talk about it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it,” he says.)

“People saying, ‘Oh, she’s a slut,’ ‘Oh, he’s a man-whore,’ ” floated a boy who described himself to me as a “lonesome outcast” until 11th grade, when he finally started to make friends. “I guess for women it’s usually seen as more of a bad thing.”

“Right,” Vernacchio agreed, “but there’s pressure on guys too. Guys get the, ‘Oh, yeah, he’s a player,’ but what if you’re really not? And then you feel pressure to maintain that.”

Vernacchio rarely misses a chance to ask his students to examine gender bias in their sexual attitudes or behavior. The girl who “admitted” to liking sex as much as boys did said that Vernacchio’s consistent affirmation of the variety of sexual preferences (“Guys aren’t necessarily naturally hornier than girls – there’s a huge social piece of this,” he told the class) helped her shake her sense of deviance and shame….

During one class, he handed out a worksheet with the five senses printed along the top and asked the students to try and list sexual activities that optimized each. (There were examples to prod their thinking: under hearing, for instance, was “listening to your partner read an erotic story.”) [The purpose of the exercise] purpose was to open their minds to a broader sexuality.

Regarding the statistic that Vernacchio alluded to earlier – that 70 percent of women do not orgasm through vaginal penetration alone – one boy exclaimed when we talked, “That shocked me, a lot.” The other boys also told me they’d been in the dark about the mysteries of female sexual satisfaction. “I think I sort of knew where the clitoris was, but I didn’t know it was, like, under something,” one said. Another declared, “It’s almost like a wake-up call.” He paused. “To not just please yourself.”

The female students were nearly equally surprised. “I always thought, Is it weird that I don’t get an orgasm from, you know, just like vaginal penetration?” said a girl who’d had intercourse with one boy, though she’d had orgasms before that from being touched genitally. “It was comforting to hear that for most people it doesn’t happen. I mean, I’d heard it, but it was nice hearing it from Mr. V., who knows so much about it, and other people saying, ‘Yeah, yeah, that’s right.’ “

Not that information was always power for these young women. One girl said that while she could advise her boyfriend on how to increase her pleasure, she wouldn’t, because he’s “very insecure” about his lack of experience. Another estimated she’d had only two orgasms with her boyfriend of longstanding, each during intercourse, though she climaxes on her own through masturbation. Somehow, when she and her boyfriend “do anything, we just end up having sex,” she said, seeming both a little perplexed by the situation, and a little afraid to make waves.

Who gives oral sex to whom is common fodder for Vernacchio’s gender-parity conversations. All but one of the students told me they’d had it, but sometimes only once or twice, and the vast majority within monogamous relationships.

Although Vernacchio encourages students to think about fairness, he certainly doesn’t encourage a direct quid pro quo for oral sex – and the girls, the main givers, were not terribly enthused about being the recipients. “[My boyfriend] completely offered, and I did not want that,” one said. Another agreed: “It just creeps me out.” None were thrilled about performing it, either, and they seemed to be wrestling – in thought and deed – with why they continued to do so. “I do think girls like to take care of people,” the student-council V.P. mused, “and I know that just sounds horrible, like you should send me right back to the ’50s, but my mom is like the most liberal woman I know and still is so happy to make food for people. To some extent, women are just more people-pleasers than men.” One girl said she’d come up with “tricks” to make giving oral sex more enjoyable for her, and that she’d set “strict rules” for herself: “I only do it if they do something on me first, and it has to be below the belt.” And another said she doesn’t enjoy cunnilingus, but taking the personal is political to heart, she asked her boyfriend to do it anyway: if she was expected to service him orally, he should have to return the favor.

All the boys said that Vernacchio had increased their sensitivity to the girls. One recounted how in an effort to consider his girlfriend’s feelings he’d asked her if she was willing to give him oral sex – none of that pushing her head down in the heat of the moment – and she’d considered it for an excruciating hour. Or maybe it just felt like that. “Do you have to think about it this long?” he finally pleaded. Eventually, she agreed.

Pleasure in sex ed was a major topic last November at one of the largest sex-education conferences in the country, sponsored by the education arm of Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New Jersey. One of sex educators’ big problems, [keynote speaker and sex educator Paul Joannides] told the New Jersey audience, is that they define their role as the “messengers of all the things that can go wrong with sex.”…

As much as Joannides criticizes his opponents on the right, [Joannides]also tweaks the orthodoxies of his friends on the left, hoping to spur them to contemplate how they themselves dismiss pleasure….

For instance, in addition to pulling condoms over bananas – which has become a de rigueur contraception lesson among “liberal” educators – young people need to hear specifics about making the method work for them. “We don’t tell them: ‘Look, there are different shapes of condoms. Get sampler packs, experiment.’ That would be entering pleasure into the conversation, and we don’t want that.”

While the conference attendees couldn’t have agreed more with Joannides about what should be taught in schools, much of the crowd thought he was deluded to imagine they could ever get away with it. Back in 1988, Michelle Fine, a professor of social psychology at the City University of New York, wrote an article in The Harvard Educational Review called “Sexuality, Schooling and Adolescent Females: The Missing Discourse of Desire.” In it, she included the comments of a teacher who discouraged community advocates from lobbying for change in the formal curriculum. If outsiders actually discovered the liberties some teachers take, Fine was told, they’d be shut down….

That more expansive sex education has to be done in code was something I came across repeatedly. A veteran advocate in the field gave me a short list of teachers to contact who might be willing to talk to me but then warned, “I don’t know if any of them are going to want to have what they’re doing out there.”

There you have it, friends. These are the kinds of ideas that typical comprehensive sex educators want to teach our children. They focus obsessively on affirming and facilitating unfettered teen sexual autonomy and pleasure. Comprehensive sex educators fervently seek to sever sex from any fixed moral system. They never explain precisely how explicit conversations with teens about sexual autonomy and pleasure will reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, nor do they provide proof that such conversations will reduce the numbers of teen pregnancies or STIs. What these kinds of conversations reveal is that the perverted legacy of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, who “worked tirelessly to promote sexual liberation,” “undermine traditional morality,” and “soften the rules of restraint,” lives on in comprehensive sexuality education.

The sexual worldview of “Sex Scholars” like Al Vernacchio should provide sufficient justification for every Illinois lawmaker to oppose any bill that compels every school district to use comprehensive sex ed curricula.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

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

Your child goes to class and the teacher opens discussion by saying, “I want you all to think about the things that turn you on.” Then she distributes a handout entitled Activity E: “What Turns You On???”

Some students start working right away, and others give the teacher a blank stare. She then gives clear directions from her Horizons curriculum guide: “If the participants have a hard time thinking of something that turn them on some, here are some probes you can use.” The teacher is then told to suggest body rubbing, earlobe kissing, watching erotic movies and several more explicit turn-ons.

Then the guide instructs the teacher to give a warning: “You really can still do all the things you listed that turn you on as long as you are clear about setting boundaries with your partner prior to having sex.”

These are directions for sex education material that will meet new curriculum standards that Illinois lawmakers could vote on this week. Legislators could decide whether comprehensive sex education such as the classroom activity described above will be the standard for Illinois schools – at the same time they’re deciding what to do about expanding gambling, fixing the pension problems and digging Illinois out of its worst budget crisis ever.

But that’s exactly when things like this happen, while the media spotlight is elsewhere.

The Mokena-based Illinois Family Institute sounded the alarm this week on HB 3027, the bill that would require all public schools to teach comprehensive sex education like that in the Horizons curriculum.

The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Heather Steans (D-Chicago), points to the teen pregnancy rate increase as proof abstinence education doesn’t work. Currently, schools may choose between comprehensive sex ed or abstinence ed, or a combination of both. Steans is ready to eliminate the abstinence option.

For years, more federal funding has gone to comprehensive sex ed than to abstinence education. In fiscal 2008, the feds spent $176.5 million on abstinence ed for teens and $609.3 million on pregnancy, prevention programs for sexually transmitted disease and family planning services.

But since 2008, the Obama administration and Congress have eliminated all federal spending on abstinence ed and dumped more funding into comprehensive sex ed.

Steans’ idea to remove the choice of teaching students to wait for marriage to be sexually intimate reflects the current cultural groupthink that “they’re going to do it anyway” and throws in the towel on promoting the confidence that learning to say “no” instills.

With HB 3027, not only will parents be bullied by a state-mandated curriculum to allow their teens to be sexually active, they’ll be forced to pay for the end results in taxes to local high schools and medical bills for their sons’ and daughters’ sexual experiments.

The whole thing is embarrassing, outrageous and ridiculous.

On one hand, American parents are shocked and appalled when they hear presidential candidates accused of past inappropriate sexual advances. In the 1980s, sexual harassment charges were common, and millions of dollars exchanged hands in settling lawsuits from “unwanted touching” between workplace superiors and underlings.

Ethics and workplace training reprogrammed workers’ thinking about the legal and financial ramifications of inappropriate and illegal behavior, and most learned not to mention sex or sexual topics around colleagues.

Now our immature and socially inexperienced students are learning the opposite. They are being encouraged to speak openly about sex and explicitly about what makes them feel good.

The Horizons sex ed materials instruct teachers to tell their students to be clearly set boundaries with their partners prior to having sex. The message is that there are no limitations when it comes to sex, as long as its mutually agreeable. That’s a dangerous concept for minors to absorb.

Nowhere in Horizons’ lesson plan is the warning that adults over 18 who engage in sexual intercourse with underage partners are committing statutory rape. Nowhere in the lesson plan are they reminded about the danger of sexually transmitted diseases or the ramifications of pregnancy.

Only in subsequent lessons do students learn how to apply condoms with the “Open, Pinch, Roll and Hold – OPRaH” method to ward off STDs and HIV-AIDS while doing what turns them on.

After decades of this form of sex education, there are two things we’ll see disappear from the American scene – sexual innocence and cultural shock, especially when a presidential candidate is accused of sexual harassment.

This generation of students is learning that expressing a desire for, or being involved in, immoral behavior is socially acceptable. They’re learning it’s all about how and where boundaries are mutually agreed upon and drawn.

And, yes, they’re learning all about what turns them on.

The problematic and completely unnecessary Comprehensive Sex Ed bill, HB 3027 (Amendments 1 and 3), may be voted on in the Illinois State House this week. This bill is unnecessary because any school district that wants to use a comprehensive sex ed curriculum is currently free to do so. If passed, this law will be used to get increasingly graphic and controversial information into middle and high schools.

Once again, liberal lawmakers are attempting to usurp local control in their quest to impose their moral views about sexuality — including homosexuality — on other people’s children through mandated comprehensive sex ed. To compound the outrage, they have no evidence proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than authentic abstinence curricula. Despite mainstream media accounts to the contrary, there is substantial evidence that abstinence curricula are at least as effective and often more effective than comprehensive sex ed curricula.

Using sex ed research is a tricky, complex, and confusing business, made all the more challenging by the indefensible bias of the mainstream media and the problematic claims of comprehensive sex educators. Here’s just one example:

Critics of abstinence programs point to a Mathematica Policy Research report released in April 2007 that compared the behavior of students in abstinence programs with that of students who were in comprehensive sex ed programs as evidence of the failure of abstinence programs. That study revealed the following:

• Kids in both groups (abstinence and control groups) were knowledgeable about the risks of having sex without using a condom or other form of protection.
• Condom use was not high in either group.
• By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent.
• The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15.
• More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.

This study, however, also found this:

• A greater number of students in abstinence programs correctly identified STDs than did students in control groups.
• A greater number of students in abstinence programs reported correctly that birth control pills do not prevent STDs than did students in control groups.

After reading this report, Martha Kempner of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States declared that, “Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed.” Curiously, Ms. Kempner looked at the abstinence programs analyzed in this study, which have largely the same results as comprehensive sex ed programs–except that they better prepare students with a knowledge of STD-prevention–and she declares that only abstinence programs are failures.

I would argue that if abstinence programs are deemed a failure and worthy of defunding, then comprehensive sex ed programs, which in some studies have virtually the same results, should also be deemed a failure and defunded.

Some state lawmakers need to ask State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) and State Representative Karen Yarbrough (D-Chicago) — the bill’s chief sponsors — or any of the co-sponsors of the bill the following questions:

• Precisely why do you believe this legislation is necessary?
• Do you have research that proves typical comprehensive sex ed curricula solve the problem or problems you see within the adolescent population?
• Is there research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in delaying age of initial sexual encounter (i.e., intercourse)?
• Is there research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the numbers of sexual partners during adolescence?
• Is there research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the number of STDs and STIs?
• Is there research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the numbers of teen pregnancies?
• Is there research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the numbers of teen abortions?
• Is there research proving that students who have been taught in classes that use comprehensive sex ed curricula are more knowledgeable about STDs and STIs than students who have been taught in classes that use abstinence curricula?

No lawmaker should sponsor or vote for this bill unless they can provide strong, unchallenged research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are significantly more effective in achieving these goals.

And no lawmaker should sponsor or vote for this bill if they haven’t read the following articles that put the lie to claims that abstinence curricula are ineffective:

Abstinence Education Effective in Reducing Teen Sex, Comprehensive Sex Ed Not (Heritage Foundation)

Evidence on the Effectiveness of Abstinence Education: An Update (Heritage Foundation)

The Whole Truth about Comprehensive Sex Education (Heritage Foundation)

The Case for Maintaining Abstinence Education Funding (Heritage Foundation)

“Another Look at the Evidence: Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex Education in America’s Schools” and ‘Abstinence’ or ‘Comprehensive’ Sex Education?” (Institute for Research and Evaluation)

Governor Quinn in the Minority in Rejecting Title V Abstinence Education Funds (Illinois Family Institute)

Abstinence Education Works (Illinois Family Institute)

An Oct. 18, 2011 New York Times article co-written by Princeton University law professor, Robert P. George, exposes another dimension to the problem of mandated comprehensive sex ed curricula. He exposes how such laws usurp parental rights and authority.

Please click HERE to read this article, and then email and call your legislators urging them to oppose 3027.