US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8

[deep]

The details of that legislation (the part about sex ed):



What a perverse ad McCain approved.

I know this is not your best legal research.



(but, then again - you are not billing)

 

[anitram]

Wording of the sexual abuse provision:

11) (8) Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one's judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.

I do nothing but read legislation pretty much all day every day.

Obama exactly correctly explained these provisions.

John McCain lied. Period.

 

[diamond]

let's get some good goutrage going over a conservative site twisting words, starting rumors, and misleading readers!! yes!!

well, metioning the word "lipstick" is fair game, after all sarah brought it up at the convention.

post gop convention biden used it first, now obama-i think they were advised to-obama in a meaner way than joe.

at the end of the day, these guys look like they are picking on a woman, and that is not smart-plus they're losing.

if this behavior continues in a few more days they'll be putting on lipstick on their train wreck of a campaign as they continue to slide in the polls.

<>

 

[anitram]

I know this is not your best legal research.

Enjoy the legal research, deep.

Maybe you'll surprise me and actually call McCain out on this. Anybody who does not after reading that statutory language is really out in la-la land.

 

[BVS]

NY Gov. Patterson is now claiming the McCain campaign of using racism because "community organizer" is supposedly interchangeable with the word "black."



I know he's not a part of the Obama campaign, but they're having a really bad few days. I think the wheels are coming off the bus. I sense desperation, and they have yet to figure out how to go after Palin.

Well the majority of community organizers are inner-city, poor, and minority groups.

We're in the wake of a convention bump, it would be pre-mature to start predicting the coming off of wheels, especially based on this.

 

[Vincent Vega]

It is a very poor ad that they should pull ASAP.

I did read some of the legislation he signed. There was a discussion in one of these threads about teaching abstinence in schools. It was referred to as backwards thinking, however it is part of the legislation that Obama signed.

As far as I understood it, it wasn't "teaching abstinence in school is backwards", but "teaching abstinence only in school is backwards", which is an important difference.

I would clearly say schools should teach sex ed in a way that conveys the message "Sex at a young age is absolutely not necessary, and no contraceptive is as safe as not doing it at all."

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

Is your information correct?

is that the language from the bill that Obama got passed?


Obama has said it was a bill to inform kindergardeners about sexual abuse so they would be protected?

Why would anyone be against that?

Did it receive an unanimous vote when it passed?

Yes it is correct. He is a link to the info. Regarding sex ed....it does say K-12, so according to the legislation, they could teach sex ed to kids in Kindergarten. Not that the ad was really fair but it does bring up a good point. I also dont agree with the language of K-12 for sex ed. It should have been age appropriate. If you look at the link, it appears that the bill originally had it as 6 -12 but it was changed to K. That makes even less sense.

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 HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.


Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB0099

 

[anitram]

Not that the ad was really fair but it does bring up a good point. I also dont agree with the language of K-12 for sex ed. It should have been age appropriate.

IT SAYS AGE APPROPRIATE RIGHT THERE IN THE PROVISION.

This is seriously maddening.

I give up.

Section 27-9.2(a)

whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on ....

 

[flybabe]

Wording of the sexual abuse provision:



I do nothing but read legislation pretty much all day every day.

Obama exactly correctly explained these provisions.

John McCain lied. Period.

Yeah right,Obama will say all that until he gets voted in...

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

The actual wording of the age-appropriate sex ed provision:

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

 

[anitram]

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

Well then lucky for you the legislation included an opt-out clause for parents like yourself.

But of course that would not be mentioned by McCain either, because apparently he's into truthiness.

 

[VintagePunk]

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

For god's sake, use some common sense. Do you really thing they're going to teach those things specifically to kindergarten age kids? How many more times do you need Anitram to explain it to you?

 

[Vincent Vega]

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

Only because these points come up in the statute doesn't mean each one of the points is meant to be taught in every single year.
When one of the points isn't "age appropriate", it doesn't get taught.

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

Well then lucky for you the legislation included an opt-out clause for parents like yourself.

But of course that would not be mentioned by McCain either, because apparently he's into truthiness.

You're missing or just ignoring the point. It was either poorly written or poorly thought out...or, most likely, both.

 

[BVS]

Yeah right,Obama will say all that until he gets voted in...

Wow, someone thoughtfully pointed out the exact text, someone who knows what they are talking about, and this all you bring to the table?

Just wow...

 

[namkcuR]

I have a son in Kindergarten and another in 1st grade. There is NO sex Education, IMO, as defined in the paragraph listed that is age appropriate for either of my boys. HIV? Alcohol? Drug Use? I know is says, "age appropriate" but I think that this is something that should have been very specific in the ages where this is to be taught and it should be a hell of a lot older that a 5 year old child in Kindergarten.

You don't get it. The phrase "age appropriate" is up to interpretation, and you are interpreting it in the way that allows you be against it. "Age appropriate" will mean something different when dealing with kindergardeners than it will when dealing with third graders than when dealing with sixth graders than when dealing with freshman than with dealing with seniors. I thought this was self-explanatory. No one is saying show condoms to kindergardeners. It's already been said that the only likely 'sex-ed' thing to be taught to kindergardeners is simple protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help. That's it. And, in all likelihood, you know it.

 

[anitram]

No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil.

I am NOT missing or ignoring any point.

Your wrong and wrong. First you insisted that you disagree with the bill because it had no age appropriate provision. I show you that it did. Then you say that there is no age appropriate sex ed for kindergarteners and I show you that your kid wouldn't be taught that if you basically signed a form.

So please tell me where I'm uninformed?

I honestly don't even know why I bother.

 

[Lila64]

my head hurts


anitram

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

Only because these points come up in the statute doesn't mean each one of the points is meant to be taught in every single year.
When one of the points isn't "age appropriate", it doesn't get taught.

Come on, what ever happened to common sense? Write legislation with how is supposed to be implemented. There is no reason for it to be that vague and no for there to be a range of K-12 for sex ed.

 

[deep]

IT SAYS AGE APPROPRIATE RIGHT THERE IN THE PROVISION.

This is seriously maddening.

I give up.

Section 27-9.2(a)

Obama did not even let it go to a vote

he gave up, too.

7/1/2003 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Tabled Pursuant to Rule 5-4(a)

It really is a bad idea, to let different people
use their judgment on what is age appropriate with sexual behavior and 5 year olds



Obama = bad judgment ?




Is McCain as wrong as everyone thinks on this issue?

Are the Obama people spinning themselves into the ground?

 

[anitram]

There is no reason for it to be that vague and no for there to be a range of K-12 for sex ed.

This legislation is not vague.

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

You don't get it. The phrase "age appropriate" is up to interpretation, and you are interpreting it in the way that allows you be against it. "Age appropriate" will mean something different when dealing with kindergardeners than it will when dealing with third graders than when dealing with sixth graders than when dealing with freshman than with dealing with seniors. I thought this was self-explanatory. No one is saying show condoms to kindergardeners. It's already been said that the only likely 'sex-ed' thing to be taught to kindergardeners is simple protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help. That's it. And, in all likelihood, you know it.

Thanks, you are making my point. "age appropriate" is open to anyones interpretation. Thats why I feel things like this should be more specific.

There was nothing in that section about "protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help." I also dont see that as "Sex Ed" either.

 

[anitram]

There was nothing in that section about "protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help." I also dont see that as "Sex Ed" either.

No, generally when you write legislation you don't stick apples and oranges into the same section.

Henceforth, that was present in the other section which I laid out for you.

Again, I don't know why I bother.

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

This legislation is not vague.

"age appropriate" is vague. I guarantee if we took a survey of the people in this forum as to the time it is "age appropriate" to teach Sex Ed or about contraception, there will be several different ages given.

That's because it is VAGUE. If the government is going to dictate policy like this it needs to be specific.

 

[deep]

Again if Obama stands by the legislation

why did it get tabled (killed) in the Ill State Senate?

and not even come up for a vote?

 

[namkcuR]

Thanks, you are making my point. "age appropriate" is open to anyones interpretation. Thats why I feel things like this should be more specific.

There was nothing in that section about "protective measures so that if someone tries to molest them they can scream for help." I also dont see that as "Sex Ed" either.

You're the one asking about common sense. It would be interpreted by school boards, people who run school districts. Do you honestly think that any school board in America is going to give the ok to show kindergardeners condoms and diagrams of sexual organs and all that? Do you? Of course you don't because the first school board to do so would be the subject of outrage and maybe even legal action brought about by angry parents.

 

[TheEdge U2JT]

No, generally when you write legislation you don't stick apples and oranges into the same section.

Henceforth, that was present in the other section which I laid out for you.

Again, I don't know why I bother.

So you cannot have different age ranges for the different section and material that is being covered?

 

[BVS]

You're missing or just ignoring the point. It was either poorly written or poorly thought out...or, most likely, both.

I think you're missing the point. The reason for the vagueness is that every community is different. Some communities in this country have higher rates of sexual abuse than others, the exposure is different as well for age groups, some communities are exposed earlier than others...

There was a case recently where sexual abuse occured within a small community of several young children. The school had to come in and teach the children to speak out if this happen to you, this is inappropriate, etc... Well guess what, in this highly letigious society some folks got upset. I bet some wish they had something like this now...

 

[deep]

You're the one asking about common sense. It would be interpreted by school boards, people who run school districts. Do you honestly think that any school board in America is going to give the ok to show kindergardeners condoms and diagrams of sexual organs and all that? Do you? Of course you don't because the first school board to do so would be the subject of outrage and maybe even legal action brought about by angry parents.

Why push it down to 5 year olds??


why not at least 5th or 6th grade ?

 

[anitram]

So you cannot have different age ranges for the different section and material that is being covered?

Including set age ranges would likely expose the legislation to possible constitutional issues (arbitrariness).