It’s Your Child. It’s Your Dime.

Stack of ResearchWhat is “medically accurate” and “age appropriate” sex education? What if Planned Parenthood and SIECUS are in charge of it? Consider this…60 years ago, we thought tobacco was safe!

Scientific knowledge often changes. True science must be tested, validated, and replicated with independent peer review to pass the test. Even then, new scientific discoveries or questions may change, add to, or discredit even the most accepted “scientific facts.”

In The Top 10 Retractions of 2014, A look at this year’s most memorable retractions by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky (12/23/14), we find that shoddy scientific reports happen every day. If it were not for true scientific skeptics, who investigate and scrutinize research, we would all be duped.

Peer review does not always mean independent and unbiased peer review. The Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher, and SIECUS Sex Networks have plenty of “peers” to “review” their “science!” Most of the Planned Parenthood sex-only curricula in our schools today were “evaluated” and “peer reviewed” by the authors or their colleagues who hold to similar Alfred Kinsey ideology.

The late Sex Ed guru, Doug Kirby, is a good example of a researcher who developed and evaluated his own programs. Kirby and his PhD colleagues at Education Training Resources (ETR) have made millions using taxpayer dollars (Federal HIV funding through the CDC) to write sex ed curricula aligned with their ideology, and to package and disseminate (sell) them with government funding to countless school districts in the US and globally. Safer Choices is a “protected sex-only” program developed at ETR and evaluated by Kirby.

So, don’t believe it when schools send out notices to inform you that your child is to be taught “medically accurate” and “age appropriate” sex education. You must become the ‘scientist’ for your child. You must dig deep to find out what is being taught and whether it aligns with your values. The Planned Parenthood Network is counting on you to NOT take the time and effort to do that.

Many state legislators and public school districts are mandating that minors, who cannot legally consent to sex, be taught how to have sex. Is this how we teach alcohol, drugs and tobacco prevention?

Minor students are being taught how to engage in sexual foreplay and sexual intercourse. Activities that would get them suspended or expelled from school if it happened on school property or at a school event.

2015 will usher in more legislation seeking to mandate PP Sex-only Ed in all schools. Beware of any sex ed that does not promote marriage as the best context for sex and/or says that it is “abstinence-only.” They leave off the “until-marriage” hoping you will not notice or care. Marriage does matter!

Advocates of Making a Difference! and Draw the Line/Respect the Line often claim that they are abstinence-only programs, but fail to tell you that these curricula do not teach students how long to be abstinent or in what relationship context sex is healthiest. By omitting marriage they are really saying, wait until you “feel” ready. And, when you are ready…this is how to have sex… This is grooming your child for sex.

We have over 50 years of evidence to show that sex outside of marriage does not end well.

It’s your child. It’s your dime.

ACORN vs. Abstinence Education Programs

The following Op Ed, entitled Abstinence Ed, first appeared in The Post and Courier, in Charleston, SC, July 31, 2014.

ACORN sting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people are aware that Congress cut off funds for ACORN after the organization was filmed undercover, advising potential clients on how to start a brothel.

I am sure the public is not aware, however, that President Obama and Congress defunded 169 contracted abstinence education providers across the country, effectively putting most out of business in 2010.

Heritage Keepers, a program I am familiar with in South Carolina, had to let 50 teachers go, even though Health and Human Services later put their curriculum on its approved list for middle and high schools as an evidence-based pregnancy prevention program.

For over a decade, anti-abstinence organizations have systematically portrayed abstinence education as an application of Bible-belt reactionary sentiment and as being rooted in ignorance.

However, the program above is based on a Utah statistician’s study of risk factors for teen sex on five continents.

As an example, he identified a child’s future orientation – whether he had aspirations beyond high school – as a risk factor for early sex. Those factors that could be impacted in a classroom setting were included in the syllabus.

Teachers were trained in medical accuracy and periodically evaluated on how well they impacted the attitudes and behavior of their students after the classes.

The South Carolina program served over 200,000 students before funding was cut. After one year, students receiving this program abstained at a rate three times greater than comparable non-program students.

The program was proven effective across age, gender and racial lines, regardless of a student’s sexual history. It was evaluated by Mathematica Policy Research, a Princeton, N.J., independent contractor.

The evidence against ACORN was anecdotal, with only a handful of observations. The evidence for good abstinence programs in our state is empirical, and is based on extensive documentation.

William McLellan

Charleston, South Carolina