deep
Blue Crack Addict
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)
The details of that legislation (the part about sex ed):
What a perverse ad McCain approved.
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.
let's get some good goutrage going over a conservative site twisting words, starting rumors, and misleading readers!! yes!!
I know this is not your best legal research.
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.
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.
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?
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.
whenever such courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K through 12, then such courses also shall include age appropriate instruction on ....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah right,Obama will say all that until he gets voted in...
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.
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.
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.
IT SAYS AGE APPROPRIATE RIGHT THERE IN THE PROVISION.
This is seriously maddening.
I give up.
Section 27-9.2(a)
7/1/2003 Senate Senate Floor Amendment No. 1 Tabled Pursuant to Rule 5-4(a)
There is no reason for it to be that vague and no for there to be a range of K-12 for sex ed.
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.
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.
This legislation is not vague.
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.
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.
You're missing or just ignoring the point. It was either poorly written or poorly thought out...or, most likely, both.
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.
So you cannot have different age ranges for the different section and material that is being covered?