Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

McCain right about sex ed ad?
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Byron York takes a look at the ad that supposedly brands McCain as a "liar" and finds it - despite the developing conventional wisdom - to be true.

It's a long article that goes into some interesting detail. Perhaps the most telling point, however, is a discussion York had with one of the five primary sponsors of the bill - State Sen. Iris Martinez:
That leaves Sen. Martinez, who was kind enough to speak to me by phone Monday afternoon. Martinez began by saying that the bill was indeed about inappropriate touching. “We know that young children, very, very young, have things happen to them that they don’t speak about,” Martinez told me. “It’s important that we teach our young kids very, very young to speak up.”

When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health — both major contributors to the bill — “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.” When I asked about the elimination of references to marriage and the contraception passages, Martinez said that the changes were “based on some of the information we got from Planned Parenthood.”

After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”

So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

Absolutely not.”
So now we have one of the primary sponsors agreeing with McCain.

York concludes:
Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Setting aside the vile of the vile, it found it interesting that Sen. Martinez (indirectly or direct Obama) seemed perfectly content to take changes to the proposed legislation (be lobbied) by Planned Parenthood almost without really reading them.

In effect, Planned Parenthood was writing the bill with Martinez’s and Obama’s name on it.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I get the impression, from this and other instances, that Obama doesn’t really know what he votes for, when he bothers to vote at all.
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I get the impression, from this and other instances, that Obama doesn’t really know what he votes for, when he bothers to vote at all.
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!! Let’s make him President!
Written By: looker
URL: http://
timactual - I get the impression, from this and other instances, that Obama doesn’t really know what he votes for, when he bothers to vote at all.

I would wager that this is - and has long been - true of most members of Congress. D’you remember Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Sen. Payne (Claude Raines) - "These bills are written by legal minds after long study. I-I-I don’t know half of what’s in ’em myself, and I used to be a lawyer."
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
"Byron York takes a look at the ad that supposedly brands McCain as a "liar" and finds it, despite the developing conventional wisdom, to be true."
McQ - finds what to be true? That the ad is true - McCain is a liar? That’s how your sentence reads but I think you mean something else.

Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
What no one seems to mention is that the bill would pave the way for a change in the curriculum that was being taught. The Obama campaign itself referred to SIECUS which does spell out in detail what is considered "age-appropriate", even for children as young as 5. No matter how you vote or how much you despise the other side of the political coin, please check out the rest of the story at the SIECUS link below and read it in its entirety. Is this curriculum only about protecting young children from inappropriate touching? Is some of this information really appropriate for the age group indicated? If it were YOUR child in the Illinois school system, how would you want your Senator to vote?
Written By: USAmomof4
URL: http://
How do you tell a 5 year old about a condom without explaining the rest.

And if the above link is valid....yeah...heh....there’s all kinds of stuff there in level 1 that 5 year olds just OUGHT to know!

Yeah buddy....intercourse, homosexuality, how kids are ACTUALLY born (no nightmare potentials there...but they’ll get over it....)

yeah....they need to know that stuff at age 5, not based on what their parents may think, but based on what’s on the agenda to teach for that day.

And the more ya read, the better it gets!

Yeah buddy.
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Without a doubt, when my daughter is in school, I will yank her from any sex education prior to high school.
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Yeah that would be the definition for the people who drafted up these guidelines for OTHER people’s children.
Written By: looker
URL: http://
If the Dems want Sex Ed for kids starting in kindergarten, why are they saying the ad is perverse?
It seems to me it would be an either/or thing. Either you agree with Sex Ed in kindergarten or you don’t. The Dems seem like they agree, so why call the ad pointing out the fact that Obama supported it perverse?
Written By: Theron
URL: http://
SIGgg3 njiixblwyont, [url=]dzkaqrgmdfmd[/url], [link=]tytyngoleyfc[/link],
Written By: mxjhtovuzop
V8djnZ qpvyojzpummg, [url=]sdjpxqyvesgy[/url], [link=]tplsmprswuoi[/link],
Written By: 7
3fLJp0 geeyqfnrarpt, [url=]lymxdtrwljbe[/url], [link=]pubgjgrefbvs[/link],
Written By: 9
7MJ7FG kjlqfmemfdfk, [url=]niirnnqeaxwv[/url], [link=]uwyancbhaxrv[/link],
Written By: 7
LJnjPF gztjnsunvknr, [url=]wlcijxmtrvjj[/url], [link=]dvkqlnbmyvlt[/link],
Written By: 7

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks