No, McCain ad said that his problem was the bill taught comprehensive sex education to Kindergarteners.
However, he fails to take into consideration this line from the bill course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
As to the other parts of the bill that have nothing to do with Kindergarteners, I find preventing HIV, sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies a worthy cause.
As to the other parts of the bill that have nothing to do with Kindergarteners, I find preventing HIV, sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies a worthy cause.
Read section 1 again, because you're missing a key piece:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
(had to manually take out crossed out words)
It goes on to say:
19 (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high
20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual
21 activity or behavior shall emphasize that
22 abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is
(25) pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases,
26 and HIV when
27 transmitted sexually.
Note lines 23-24 were all crossed out.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true)
12 All course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate. :rolleyes:
mimartin does this legislation define what is developmentally appropriate for a kindergartner or any of the grade levels concerning this stuff.
No, that is left up to the local school board. I thought that someone that believed in the Conservative Agenda would think that was the best part of the bill. Shouldn’t deciding that locally be more appropriate than the state government dictating it?
No, that is left up to the local school board. I thought that someone that believed in the Conservative Agenda would think that was the best part of the bill. Shouldn’t deciding that locally be more appropriate than the state government dictating it?
Not when the decisions are arbitrary based on people's whims. If you're going to make a law like this you need to be specific.
Not when the decisions are arbitrary based on people's whims. If you're going to make a law like this you need to be specific.
That's the double-edged sword though. Too specific and people will complain it's too much, and too vague and people will complain it's not detailed enough.
That's the double-edged sword though. Too specific and people will complain it's too much, and too vague and people will complain it's not detailed enough.
Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids.
However, reason I'm saying local government is not a good idea, see a certain city in California as an example of potential abuse.
Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids.
However, reason I'm saying local government is not a good idea, see a certain city in California as an example of potential abuse.
As of this month, there are 480 cities in California. Be more specific.
Wait a minute; you don’t want the control coming from the local school district? You know the government entity that has the ability to listen to the concerns of the parents that have children in that district.
Just use your California example: Would you really want the state setting the details or you local school district? Personally, I’d rather the local school district make the decision. If I don’t like their decision I can make me feeling known to them and the community. I can actually run against them in the next election or I can move my child to a different district. Sure, I can move to a different state, but it is a little easier just moving the child.
Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids. I agree, but since teen pregnancy, sexual transmitted dieses and HIV are still an issue we should make this education available in schools. If the parents want to teach the child themselves they can always opt their child out of the class.
Wait a minute; you don’t want the control coming from the local school district? You know the government entity that has the ability to listen to the concerns of the parents that have children in that district.
Depends, some of it should be handled by the state, some on the Federal Level and some at the city level.
Just use your California example: Would you really want the state setting the details or you local school district? Personally, I’d rather the local school district make the decision. If I don’t like their decision I can make me feeling known to them and the community. I can actually run against them in the next election or I can move my child to a different district. Sure, I can move to a different state, but it is a little easier just moving the child.
Granted, I was pointing out Nancy Pelosi's district San Fransisco (sp?) as an example of how wacko a local government can be.
I agree, but since teen pregnancy, sexual transmitted dieses and HIV are still an issue we should make this education available in schools. If the parents want to teach the child themselves they can always opt their child out of the class.
Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff.
Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff.
I do believe that it has been mentioned a number of times that the plan would only teach things "age appropriate."
It's been mentioned a thousand times and ignored a thousand times by people who want to smear Obama. Are you surprised, though?
It's been mentioned a thousand times and ignored a thousand times by people who want to smear Obama. Are you surprised, though?
Not in the least, Inyri. Not in the least.
So, why do said 'people' continue to ignore this information?
It's been stated many times that, as far as young children go, things like "what is inappropriate touching" would be taught so that children would be aware they were being abused instead of thinking it was acceptable. They're not going to be taught how to fit the condom onto the banana.
But circulating smear press about Obama is much more effective, so ignoring the facts for the sake of press is easier and more productive.
Not in the least, Inyri. Not in the least.
So, why do said 'people' continue to ignore this information?
Because when we do our own research we've found a lot of the media is outright lieing.
You know the mainstream press is in the tank for Obama when Sean Hannity (whom hates Hillary Clinton with a passion) has to defend Hillary because the media is crossing the line.
Because when we do our own research we've found a lot of the media is outright lieing.
And are these sources credible? And not in your opinion alone- do multiple people of different beliefs acknowledge its credibility?
Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff.
Since they are not teaching kindergartners "this stuff" I have to disagree with you. I believe teaching kindergartners it isn't right for Mr. or Mrs. Pedophile to touch them there is appropriate , but I'm liberal like that thinking it is alright to protect our children from sexual predators.
I like how during the Larry Craig sex scandal quite a few Republican news stations thought it would be appropriate to put a little (D) by his name. What were you saying about 'doing your own research' and 'lying,' Garfield?
One of the funniest thing I’ve found about this bill is Obama name is not on it. Senate Sponsors: Sen. Carol Ronen - M. Maggie Crotty - Susan Garrett - Iris Y. Martinez - Jeffrey M. Schoenberg He voted for it, but wasn’t even added a co-sponsor. Even Conservative Republicans such as Alan Keyes supported this bill because it attempts to help protect children. However, now some are out to make that a bad thing.
How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'?
How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'?
That's what I'm wondering...
That's what I'm wondering...
Perhaps you don't teach it until the students are at a certain age? For the thousandth time, the bill wasn't even sponsored by Obama (provided by mimartin), and even still, it advocates teaching age appropriate material. They're not going to tell a first grader how AIDS is transmitted.
One of the funniest thing I’ve found about this bill is Obama name is not on it.
Then why does he name it as one of his key accomplishments then?
He voted for it, but wasn’t even added a co-sponsor. Even Conservative Republicans such as Alan Keyes supported this bill because it attempts to help protect children. However, now some are out to make that a bad thing.
And they need to be held accountable too, I really don't hold government in Illinois in high regard though, they are well known for corruption.
Perhaps you don't teach it until the students are at a certain age? For the thousandth time, the bill wasn't even sponsored by Obama (provided by mimartin), and even still, it advocates teaching age appropriate material. They're not going to tell a first grader how AIDS is transmitted.
So then why is it mandatory then according to the bill it's required to be taught in an age appropriate manner but they still have to teach it to that grade level.
So then why is it mandatory then according to the bill it's required to be taught in an age appropriate manner but they still have to teach it to that grade level.
I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what you said. Would you rephrase your question, please?
How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'?
You don't. You only teach what is appropriate at any given level. I really don’t understand what is so difficult to understand or so awful about that.
I should be outraged that the bill puts too much emphasis on abstinences. We all know how well only teaching that works with some children.
I should be outraged that the bill puts too much emphasis on abstinences. We all know how well only teaching that works with some children.
I nearly started an uprising in my class when I learned that the sex-ed course would be abstinence-based, if that gives you guys any idea of its effectiveness. ;)
Aww, how incredibly ludicrous.
I nearly started an uprising in my class when I learned that the sex-ed course would be abstinence-based, if that gives you guys any idea of its effectiveness. ;)
We needed to know that why?
Aww, how incredibly ludicrous.
Please, tell me how this is ludicrous.
We needed to know that why?
I felt that it was pertinent to the discussion at hand (It was supporting the idea that abstinence-based sex-education isn't the proper way to teach, in my opinion).
I believe teaching kindergartners it isn't right for Mr. or Mrs. Pedophile to touch them there is appropriate , but I'm liberal like that thinking it is alright to protect our children from sexual predators.
Unfortunately, I'm liberal like that too :rolleyes:
We needed to know that why?
Wow, how personally offensive and uncalled for.
Uh my problem with the bill has to do with sections 1-3.
If it was restricted to only the stuff about people trying to sexually abuse them and how to recognize it, then it wouldn't be a problem. The other stuff in the bill is a bit a much, and that's what McCain is referring to.
So at first you said the bill didn't contain those parts, then ChAiNz showed you and quoted it (twice), and now we're just disregarding it because you don't want to talk about it?
_EW_
I felt that it was pertinent to the discussion at hand (It was supporting the idea that abstinence-based sex-education isn't the proper way to teach, in my opinion).
It was a little over the top though Litofsky. No offense was meant, just for a lot of people it was something that one generally wouldn't talk about.
It was a little over the top though Litofsky. No offense was meant, just for a lot of people it was something that one generally wouldn't talk about.
But it's something that SHOULD be talked about. it keeps going around that "abistinence only" is the best way to teach people, now, if it comes down to the people being taught not feeling that their curriculum serves their best interests, say, having a good time without getting STDs or preggers, what recourse do they have?
None really. So, if people who do have an affect, such as voters, hear that students feel their courses aren't teaching them what the students feel they need to know, isn't it our job to listen to them to provide them with the best education?
Little kids shouldn't be practicing anything other than abistinence, seriously.
I don't think Litofsky or the members of his class were "little kids" which, if you'll recall, is what Web Rider was talking about.
Little kids shouldn't be practicing anything other than abistinence, seriously.
i'm pretty sure most of the members that partake in this forum aren't "little kids" though for all I know you could define a "little kid" as somebody 20 and younger.
It was a little over the top though Litofsky. No offense was meant, just for a lot of people it was something that one generally wouldn't talk about.
As stated, we should. This generation's education is laughable compared to most. Sure, we've got public schools galore, but many of them are trapped by a flawed system. I was merely protesting to my school say "Abstinence is the endorsed course, children!" With the AIDS problem, it's understandable, but I dislike the way in which it is enforced.
I'm also irritated by a great many laws, but that's a different conversation for a different time.
And who are you to tell anyone what they should and should not do? If two people want to practice abstinence, fine, but if they don't, meh. That's their choice.