WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SEX EDUCATION?

This will be a most unpleasant experience. First, it's a little long. Second, it's been sanitized to the point it feels disjointed to me. Third, it's a volatile topic. Fourth, I fear your reactions. However, I believe so strongly in the sanctity of human life that I'm willing to alienate all of you in order to bring light to this issue. My material and research is a little dated. This article was written a few years ago, and I don't have the time to provide fresh figures. But at one time, the information I'm presenting was hard fact. I pray that you will each prove me wrong and that I've sounded the alarm for no cause. I'm especially interested in what our professional educators (Gwen, Rosslyn, and so forth) will have to say about my assertions. Sex Ed is different with each locality. Most of my research reflects what was happening in Dallas, Texas in the late 90's and early 2000's. With no further disclaimers, I present:

WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SEX EDUCATION?

“Our presence in schools guaranteed a 50% increase in pregnancy,” said Carol Everett, former sexual education teacher and abortion clinic owner. “We had a strategy that changed with every class; our ultimate goal was to generate a market for abortions”. Many schools in our nation have implemented a sexual education program. What are they teaching? What agenda does a woman like Carol Everett support, and what is she teaching in a sexual education program?

There are two basic thoughts on sex education. The first is an abstinence only program teaching that sexual relationships and activities are solely for after marriage. The second school of thought teaches sexual awareness and safe sex measures, including abortion.

SEX EDUCATION BEGAN AT HOME

Historically, sex education began at home. Children successfully learned about relationships and family life in general by observing their own families. They learned about affections and responsibilities on a personal level by interacting with their parents and siblings.
According to Microsoft Encarta, modern public sexual education essentially began in the post-World War II era and was known as “social hygiene.” At first, the programs only included the physical process, workings of sex organs, venereal diseases, family roles, and the psychological and emotional causes and consequences of sex. As the years passed, the public schools began to adopt a less factual approach and began to teach sex as a philosophy. The modern driving force behind today’s sexual education is a government organization called SIECUS, which stands for, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. SIECUS works hand in hand with Planned Parenthood.

According to the SIECUS web site, their primary goal is the promotion of adult sexual health. They “provide accurate information about human sexuality, including growth and development, human reproduction, anatomy, physiology, masturbation, family life, pregnancy, childbirth, parenthood, sexual response, sexual orientation, contraception, abortion, sexual abuse, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases, … as well as the ability to create satisfying relationships…. This would include helping young people develop the capacity for caring, supportive, non-coercive, and mutually pleasurable intimate and sexual relationships.”

TITLE V

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Act (P.L. 104-193) that directly conflicts with the philosophy adopted by SIECUS. The law created an abstinence only program in Section 510, Title V of the Social Security Act. Congress allocated matching funds with the states to enable the implementation of abstinence-only-until-marriage education.

Many states were eager to begin teaching the more moderate and conservative method in hopes of lowering their teen pregnancy rates. Abstinence programs began demonstrating satisfying results. The Pro-life community eagerly rejoiced that teen pregnancy was going down and that the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) was declining. Yet, the liberal factions were furious at the success of the abstinence message.

TITLE V UNDER ATTACK

Citizen Link website remarks that “the safe-sex cartel (Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and their ideological allies in the public health community) have pulled out all stops to sabotage Title V. Initially, SIECUS lobbied for governors not to apply for the block grant funds. After all 50 states applied for the money, SIECUS began promoting ways to spend the money wastefully.

“Unfortunately, many states have adopted the SIECUS template and have created programs that: [1.] Aim the abstinence programs almost exclusively at pre-teens. [2.] Strip the “marriage” aspect from the abstinence message. [3.] Promote oral sex and mutual masturbation as an alternative to sexual intercourse. [4.] Contain unrealistic evaluation requirements to set abstinence up for failure. [5.] Stack review panels with condom advocates. [6.] Concentrate spending in non-targeted and expensive mass media. [7.] Exclude the abstinence message from classrooms. It is likely that the abstinence message will be wasted in many of these states”.

The attempts to undermine Title V became increasingly apparent with each state’s reaction. In Minnesota, the message was focused on children 14 and under, about 2% of the total teen pregnancies. In Montana 42% of the funding was spent on salaries, overhead, and janitorial services. (Federal law restricts spending more than 10% on administrative costs.) In Washington, Christine Charbonneau, a state official on sexuality, taped her presentation of how to sabotage Title V. In Tennessee, the state plan spent Title V money on soccer and basketball leagues. Gov. Angus King of Maine proclaimed his opposition to Title V while he proclaimed his intention to take the money. In Nebraska, a draft identified parental opposition to comprehensive sex education (a non-abstinence program) as a major problem.
The opposition was not limited only to states. The safe-sex cartel resurrected the Douglas Kirby study of abstinence education in California, a condom use study, and presented it as a new study to raise questions about Title V. On a CNN live debate, Debra Hafner said that SIECUS had never received any taxpayer money. SIECUS deleted the listing of the grant they received off of their Web site the next day. The Durex Condom Company conducted a confusing telephone survey and used loaded questions to inflate their position. (The FCC slapped Durex with sanctions after the study revealed its findings.) Jane Fonda made a series of inaccurate statements on an appearance on Good Morning America. Project Director Dave Poehler, of the Centers for Disease Control, used his position to lobby against Title V during business hours. The list of ridiculous attempts to subvert Title V went on and on. If the safe-sex cartel was truly interested in banishing teen pregnancies and stopping STDs, then why do they fight so hard to stop a positive approach? Watch as the conspiracy unfolds:

DEFECTORS REVEAL TRUE STRATEGIES

Carol Everett owned one-third interest in two abortion clinics in Dallas, Texas, and was very closely associated with SIECUS. She stated on Focus on the Family Daily Broadcast, originally aired in 1998, and in a personal interview with this author, that they had two marketing plans for her abortion clinics. The first plan was to use the Yellow Pages. The second marketing plan involved sex education. Her business goal was three to five abortions per girl between the ages of 13 and 18. Their program began with Kindergarten. They place the children in a circle, alternating them boy, girl, and talked to them about their private parts. They would then ask each child what their parents called their private parts. The sex educator (trained by Planned Parenthood) would then laugh at the terms their parents used, in an attempt to make the parents look foolish and discredit them. Everett stated that they were attempting to undermine parental influence and cause the children to trust what they said as ultimate truth. The Planned Parenthood instructor urged the children to share information with each other, taking turns at recess revealing their private parts to each other. This strategy changed with every class. In the first, second, and third grade, the curriculum included using nude models of children in a book titled, It’s Perfectly Normal by Robie H. Harris. This book has demonstrations and diagrams of intercourse, and was available in almost every school library and in most beginning year classes. In addition to sexual intercourse, It’s Perfectly Normal encourages children to explore masturbation, abortion, and homosexual practices.

In the fourth grade, they taught masturbation. The instructor urged the children to experience masturbation by themselves at first. Then as they became more comfortable with it, to share masturbation as a group activity. In doing so, they introduce the homosexual agenda and alternate lifestyles.

Each year the goal was to devalue parents and break down natural modesty. Starting in the fifth grade and continuing through high school, they taught sexual contact and intercourse.
In High School, life sized sex models of the human body are brought to the classroom and used for their demonstrations. The children are so hormonally energized by the classes that they often experience sexual behavior before they get home from school. The school pregnancy rate increased by fifty percent with the presence of Planned Parenthood and SIECUS materials. Carol Everett said that they developed “A skillfully marketed product sold to a frightened young woman.” She was so successful in marketing abortions that she had first hand experience with performing over 35,000 abortions within 6 years. And this was occurring in the heart of the Bible Belt, Dallas, Texas.

Amy Stephens had multiple abortions during her teen years. While attending college in California, she started working with Family Planning and was closely associated with Doctor Allride, a famous abortion doctor in Southern California. “There is a savior mentality in abortions,” she confided, to Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family radio broadcast. After a few years, Amy became morally conflicted with the greed driven abortion industry. Before she abandoned her pro-choice platform, she worked closely with SIECUS and the National Education Administration.

In a taped interview with Dr. Dobson, she revealed that SIECUS and the National Education Administration shared common goals. They wanted to produce comprehensive, sexually healthy kids. During a child’s developmental years, they taught that homosexuals could have partners and alternate lifestyles. They asserted that abortion is an option and that masturbation and fantasies are acceptable behavior.

WHY DON’T PARENTS KNOW?

Many parents are concerned throughout the US. If the information provided here is accurate, then why is there so much support for a liberal sex education program? Planned Parenthood teaches their instructors how to avoid concerned parents and divert their attention. We would have no knowledge of the diversion practice if it weren’t for women like Carol Everett and Amy Stephens. In the Focus on the Family broadcast entitled “Sex Education and Our Children,” Carol and Amy reveal many of the strategies used by Planned Parenthood to thwart attempts to evaluate or stop liberal sex education techniques. Many of the concerned parents were either lied to or made to look and feel foolish. The parents were not aware that the instructors had undertaken specific classes on confrontational parents.

A strong misinformation campaign is hard at work to establish the illusion that there is a broad resistance to the abstinence program. The truth is that most parents support and strongly approve of the abstinence message. “A major study of 28,000 adults taken by USA Today in 1997 found that 56 percent thought the best way to reduce pregnancy is to teach abstinence while only 31 percent thought that the best way is to promote safe sex”.

HOW SUCCESSFUL IS THE ABSTINENCE PROGRAM?

“It is entirely possible for adolescents to remain abstinent. In fact, the majority of females ages 12 to 19 have never had sex. Health professionals agree that abstinence is, far and away, the single most healthy choice. But, to remain abstinent, teens need to be encouraged and equipped with medically and socially accurate information on the consequences of sexual promiscuity and with knowledge, character development and skills on how to remain abstinent. And abstinence needs to be presented in a manner which unapologetically states that choosing the best alternative in sexual health is the social norm. The message of comprehensive safe-sex education: We’d prefer that you choose abstinence. But if you decide not to choose abstinence, make sure you use a condom. A parallel message to abstinence-centered education would be this: ‘Don’t smoke; it is not healthy for all the following reasons…and here are a number of skills to help you avoid smoking.’ The parallel message to comprehensive sex education would be: ‘We wish you wouldn’t smoke, but if you do, smoke filtered cigarettes…and we will provide them to you without telling your parents.’ The comprehensive safe-sex message is also known as the ‘duel message.’ It sends adolescents a compromised and confused signal”. “Evaluating Your School District’s Sex Education Program.” 26, Feb. 1998. 20 Oct. 2000. Family.org.

But aren’t the majority of students sexually active? Wrong. Not every student is active. In fact, in 1995 the Federal Centers for Disease Control found that nearly half of high school students, 48% girls, 46% boys, had never had a sexual experience. Not only that, a large percentage of those that had sex wished that they had remained virgins. In addition, they would like to acquire the skills to become abstinent.

EVALUATING YOUR SCHOOL’S SEX EDUCATION PROGRAM

What can parents do to protect their children from SIECUS and other liberal sexual education programs? The Federal Government allows, within the public schools, a program called Release Time, which congress provides and is legal in all states. Release Time allows children to leave schools for an alternative education program, to include Sexual Education. Concerned parents should approach their schools and ask what their sexual education program is teaching for the next ten years. If they are teaching an abstinence-based program, then safe sex topics are not addressed.

Citizen Link Web site gives this advice to concerned parents. “Parents should evaluate a variety of areas when examining their school’s sex education materials. They should gather information about how the material deals with the following areas: Role of Parent in the School Decision Making Process, Portrayal of Parent in the Curriculum, Moral Perspective, Sexual Development, View Toward Abstinence, Consequences of Promiscuity, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Alternative Lifestyles, Contraception, Adoption, Character & Social Development, Marriage, Family, Human Reproduction, [and] Parenting”.

Parents should find out if they can participate in the teacher training classes. One can glean much information from sitting through the course. Parents should serve on a sex education committee and become involved with special interest groups. Attending school board meetings can also prove advantageous. In short, parents should find a way to become involved in their child’s sex education. Assuming that your school is handling the subject appropriately is dangerous. Raising a child is the parent’s responsibility.

I recognize that this material is a little out dated. In fact, I would dance in the streets if you parents could prove me wrong. There is nothing that would make me happier than for you to demonstrate that I'm way off base with this article. Please do so!