Barack Obama is in trouble for daring to suggest that maybe we don’t need to hide the truth from our children:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is “age-appropriate,” is “the right thing to do.”
“I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me,” Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
“‘Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'” said Obama mimicking Keyes’ distinctive style of speech. “Which — I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter).”
“But it’s the right thing to do,” Obama continued, “to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.”
Oh noes! Barack Obama is in ur schools, teachin ur childrin about teh sex!
Of course, you, being a person capable of comprehending English, may have noticed the “age-appropriate” in the above story, which might just suggest that Barack Obama is not suggesting that we bring in Mr. Humphrey for a sex education demonstration.
No, he’s suggesting something a bit more prosaic: that we do not actively lie to our children about sex, and possibly arm them with information to prevent them from being abused:
When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with ‘medically accurate’ information . . . ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'”
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an “opt out” provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about “inappropriate touching,” according to Obama’s presidential campaign.
So Barack Obama’s evil suggestion amounts to:
- Warning kids about what constitutes a “bad touch”
- Telling kids that babies grow inside mommies, and are made by mommies and daddies — but not explaining exactly how they’re made, since that’s not really relevant
- Allowing parents to determine that their kids should too think the stork brings children
So that’s…really pretty reasonable, as far as I can tell. Frankly, there’d be nothing there that my daughter wouldn’t know other than the unwanted touching part, and I’m not averse to her learning it. I don’t think anyone’s in favor of teaching kids the mechanics of sex at age five, but I think completely lying or misdirecting children is insulting to our children.
(Via Steve Benen, who asks rhetorically, “It’s going to be a long campaign, isn’t it?”)