By Dr. Brian Russell
As you may have heard, {then} presidential candidate Barack Obama endorsed guidelines published by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) for “age-appropriate” sex education in public schools, while some media outlets reported that vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin opposed,  “sex education” in public schools. (And by the way, when reporting Palin’s stance on sex ed, they liked to throw in the fact of her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy, suggesting that sex ed would’ve prevented the pregnancy, but there’s no good data to support that conclusion.) I think that some reporters and commentators didn’t pay enough attention to the particulars of either candidate’s stance. It’s one thing to be against any sex ed, but it’s something else entirely to be concerned about sex ed being administered to your kids by a public school teacher who may not share your values, let alone your beliefs about what’s “age appropriate.” Let me give you a few examples from the SIECUS guidelines. They say that it’s appropriate for a public school teacher to tell children aged 5-8: that certain body parts feel good when touched, that people rub their own genitals to feel good, which is called masturbation, and that some people are homosexual, which means they fall in love with people of the same gender. Now if you want your 5-8-year-old to be told those things, that’s your right as an American parent, but if you’re concerned about your child hearing those things at those ages, that’s your right as well, and I agree with you. I’m not opposed to “don’t talk to strangers,” “good touch vs. bad touch,” “tell a trusted adult if anyone tries to give you a bad touch” messages in the elementary school years. I’m also not opposed to scientific discussion during the teenage years of how humans develop sexually (including theories of how sexual orientation develops, and I’m more than fine with making strong mention of the unacceptability of treating anyone in a cruel manner), how the body normally functions with respect to reproduction, how the body can malfunction and be harmed with respect to reproduction (STDs), and how reproduction is aided (fertility procedures) and inhibited (contraceptives). I’m not opposed to high school students getting those facts from public school teachers, so long as there’s absolutely zero tolerance for any teacher condoning the students having sex, because I think people need the information in order to be educated Americans, but I want parents to be responsible for teaching their children values. (September 11, 2008)

Dr. Brian Russell is a licensed psychologist, attorney at law and familiar national television pundit on psychological, legal and cultural issues.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Should We Teach Our Kids about SEX? (time.com)

By Alexa Shrugged

Pro-”choicers” like to say that if only there was more access to contraceptives there wouldn’t be so many pregnancies and abortions. However, a peek at Great Britain where they do provide access more freely shows they have seen an increase in pregnancy and abortion.

In the UK Daily Mail article entitled Most teenage pregnancies now end with an abortion, we see this phenomenon:

Out of around 40,000 pregnancies more than 20,000 were terminated – the first time more had chosen this option than become mothers.

The figure is higher than 2007, when it just hit 50 per cent, and consistent with a steady upwards trend since the Government started its controversial Teenage Pregnancy Strategy in 1999.

Figures out on May 21 will also show that for the first time the number of abortions performed on women living in England and Wales topped 200,000.

The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010.

Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education.

But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose.

Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 – below the age of consent – are also at the highest level since 1998.

So the numbers went up at precisely the time they were working to reduce them. What was the government doing all this time to prevent teen pregnancy as the rates rose?

A Department of Health spokesman said: ‘One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception.

‘Prescribed contraception is available free of charge under NHS arrangements, and the Department of Health has recently invested additional funds to allow for improvements in contraception services.’

Did you read that? “Prescribed contraception is available free of charge!” Contraception is literally freely available and yet pregnancy and abortion rates have gone through the roof! Perhaps it is more of a cultural problem.

Abortion proponents are pleased with this result:

Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, has claimed: ‘The fact that teenagers felt able to end their pregnancy in abortion is actually a positive sign.

‘If they have other plans for their teenage years aside from motherhood, they felt more able to make that choice.’

Great, so throwing money and birth control at the problem not only is useless and counterproductive, it also leads to a greater acceptance and celebration of choosing abortion, which I guess is what the pro-”choicers” wanted all along. Funny how that works.

Crossposted at http://www.AlexaShrugged.com