file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1992: pln-0219s.txt ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 2, No. 19 Special Issue November, 1992 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life Issues. This is a special issue on sex education, and only vaguely follows the normal format for an issue. Sex education is an important issue to prolife advocates, as many see the promiscuity that is encouraged in the schools to be the root cause of abortion in the US. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve (frezza@ee.pitt.edu). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SEX EDUCATION IN AMERICA: BIRDS AND THE BEES... AND MORE summary by Dean Schulze original article by Elena Neuman "Summary: American children today are barraged with explicit information about sex. From nursery school up, children are taught about reproduction, AIDS, homosexuality - and parents have little or no say about the curricula. It may be too much too soon." Lynne S. Dumas, teacher and author of __Talking with Your Child About a Troubled World__ says "You can't shield your child anymore, try as you might. The media is so pervasive and kids are hearing about these issues so early. Given this situation, parents and teachers had best provide their children with the kind of information that they need, but at a level that is emotionally and cognitively acceptable to that child." "The age of innocence - an extended period of childhood when a youngster enjoys protection from the rougher aspects of the adult world - is in the process of being undone. For centuries, parents and society as a whole have sought to shield children from 'adult' realities like death, sex, disease and violence as well as to legislate against their exploitation by adults, as laborers or sexual victims." "Several phenomena are contributing to the trend: the growing potency of the children's rights movement, the introduction of AIDS and sex education in nursery and elementary schools, condom distribution in response to the AIDS scare and the appearance of autonomous health clinics in public high schools." "There also has been a subtle but significant revolution in parenting over the past two decades. Instead of shielding children, parents are actually prepping their offspring at early ages for the harsher elements of American life in the 1990s." Parental rights challenged: "Parents are frequently left in the dark about the specifics of these instructional programs. Indeed, children in some cases are instructed not to tell their parents what they are being taught. "One widely used program for 13 and 14 year old junior high school students, __About Your Sexuality: Lovemaking, Heterosexual, Bisexual and Homosexual__ includes a film strip showing four naked couples - two heterosexual and two homosexual - performing intercourse and a wide spectrum of other sexual acts. It also include a warning to teachers: 'Caution: Participants should not be given extra copies [of program materials] to show to their parents or friends. Many of the materials of this program shown to people outside the context of the program itself can evoke misunderstanding and difficulties.'" When the parents of a Westport, Conn. 7th grader complained to their school board after "About Your Sexuality" was shown to their child they were ostracized by the school board and ridiculed in the local newspaper. "After the superintendent of schools in Washington, D.C. said this fall that parents could request that their children be excluded from a comprehensive AIDS education and condom distribution program in public high schools, the public health commissioner quickly overruled him with respect to condoms. As public health workers, the nurses in school-based clinics would honor all requests for condoms and keep them confidential, he said, even if parents asked otherwise." "...What are the proper boundaries between parental and public authority? To what extent should minors be allowed to make their own decisions and who should make the decisions they don't make for themselves? Perhaps most important and hardest to answer is the question of what effect rolling back the age of innocence will have on children today and on their children in the future." ( In a related article, John Leo's column "On Society" in "U.S. News and World Report" (10-5-92) reported on "stealth" programs in schools, especially sex education, in which the schools try to keep parents from knowing what exactly is being taught. ) Children's Rights Advocates Those who advocate privacy/confidentiality (deception/secrecy) say that it is needed to ensure the health, well being, and even the life of the child. Some parents would fail to inform their children of the risks of sexual activity or would prevent their children from obtaining protection (condoms). The intertwined personal liberation movements of the sixties and seventies - the sexual revolution, women's liberation and counterculture are the source of this pessimistic view of parental authority; not the search for solutions to rising teen pregnancy or AIDS. "After a high-water mark in the seventies, widespread interest in the field of children's rights faded until its recent revival in the scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's writings on the subject... Clinton advocated children having recourse to courts on 'issues that could have long-term and possible irreparable effects'...' Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease or employment and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child's future should not be made unilaterally by parents.'" [Hillary Rodham, "Childrens Rights: A Legal Perspective", in __Childrens Rights: Contemporary Perspectives__, Patricia A. Vardin and Ilene N. Brody, eds., Teachers College Press, 1979]. (The goals of radical children's rights advocates can be found in the book __Escape From Childhood__ by John Holt.) "Though no 'right' to sex education has been established, the literature of the sex education establishment is filled with the language of 'rights'. For instance, in a recent newsletter of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), a clearinghouse of information and ideas for sex education and its teachers, Executive Director Debra Haffner writes that all individuals in the United States have the right to make responsible sexual choices. 'These rights include the right to information, the right to sexual health services, the right to engage in sexual behaviors with consenting adults, the right to live according to one's sexual orientation and the right to obtain and use sexually explicit materials.' (Only the last right is explicitly applied to adults only.)" Sex education in public schools as it was first introduced was grounded in biology and was intended to correct myths about sex that are often the result of children learning about sex from other children. A child's parents should preferably be the ones to dispel those myths, but some parents don't because, for example, they are too embarrassed. This instruction was understood to be in loco parentis, that is it was what parents themselves would teach their children if they were not the products of a repressive upbringing. David Fassler, child and adolescent psychiatrist and author of __What's a Virus Anyway? The Kids Book About AIDS__, says that while AIDS education is necessary, the sexual transmission aspect of it shouldn't be overemphasized to young children. He says that a child's first introduction to sex shouldn't be in the context of spreading diseases. "Few parents disagree with such thinking. This type of sex and AIDS education is not what leads to Larry King Live debates and congressional hearings. The fact is, however, that many of the sex and AIDS education curricula in this country are not necessarily geared to the developmental and emotional level of children; not, in any case, as many parents would interpret those terms. Instead, they have become value-laden vehicles for advocacy groups to teach a particular set of attitudes toward sex - most often a nonjudgmental appreciation of the pleasure that can be derived from a wide variety of sexual practices, if the risks and rewards are properly understood." Such sex and AIDS curricula have been designed by psychologists, sexologists, and private organizations such as SIECUS and Planned Parenthood. These courses, which begin in kindergarten and continue through the 12th grade, deal with contraception, abortion, homosexuality, bisexuality, masturbation, venereal diseases, and sexual techniques. One such book, __Learning About Sex: The Contemporary Guide for Young Adults__ by Gary Kelly received enthusiastic reviews and awards from The American Library Association, SIECUS Report "the Journal of Sex Education & Therapy", and the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists. It contains the following passage: "A few research studies have indicated that a fair percentage of people probably have some sort of sexual contact with animals during their lifetimes, particularly boys who live on farms. There are no indications that such animal contacts are harmful, except for the obvious dangers of poor hygiene, injury by the animal or to the animal, or guilt on the part of the human." Another book, __For Kids Only__ by William A. Block, urges students to draw a picture of "mother and father making love." Still another book, __Risky Times__, explains in detail how to have oral and anal sex. Advocates of such explicitness say that it will promote safer sexual practices while easing guilt. This is the educational establishment's approach to dealing with problems like STDs and teen pregnancy and suicide rates. What are the results? A Gallup Poll taken in 1987 found overwhelming support from parents for sex education in high schools, and a majority believed that such courses should teach about premarital sex, sexual intercourse, abortion, and homosexuality. 94% favor AIDS education in schools. Unfortunately, there is no data suggesting that sex education reduces sexual activity or pregnancy among teenagers, but one study suggested the opposite. A study written by William Marsiglio and Frank Mott and published in Family Planning Perspectives (1986) said "Prior exposure to a sex education course is positively and significantly associated with the initiation of sexual activity at ages 15 and 16." "'There's quite a bit of literature that demonstrates that [the Planned Parenthood] approach doesn't make any difference, doesn't reduce pregnancy, sexual activity or STD rates', says Stan Weed director of the Utah-based Institute for Research and Evaluation, which specializes in sex education studies. 'Their underlying goal is not to reduce pregnancy and STD rates. That's simply their leverage point to get a program introduced. Their basic agenda is essentially to help all of us get rid of out inhibitions and hang-ups.' Planned Parenthood refused to be interviewed for this article." A small but growing number of parents and experts have begun promoting abstinence-based sex education because there is no evidence to show that the current sex education curricula are working. These courses stress anatomy, modesty, and abstinence; abortion and contraception are sometimes not mentioned. Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, says "Sexuality education has been more and more explicit each year for 30 years, and the teenage pregnancy rate continues to go up. So what they're claiming isn't working. It hasn't brought the results that they told us we would get. Why not try something new and see if it works?" Three abstinence-based sex education programs, Sex Respect (Chicago), Teen-Aid (Washington state) and Values and Choices (Minnesota) were studied by Weed's organization. Children who had taken one of these programs were found to be 40% less likely to have sex than the members of a control group of other children who hadn't. The programs were found to have the greatest impact upon those children who, going into the program, were most likely to engage in sexual activity. "'That's where the 40 percent reduction occurred: with the kids that needed it the most' says Weed." Groups such as SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, The National Education Association, and the Center for Population Options (condom distribution advocates) have been critical of abstinence-based sex education programs for teaching values they disapprove of, the same reason that others criticize the more explicit programs. The ACLU tried to ban the book __Sex Respect__, by Project Respect in Chicago, from use by schools in Wisconsin. They claimed that it was sexist because it stated that there are psychological differences between girls and boys (Wall Street Journal, 6-13-91, pg. A18). The suit was dropped because of the negative publicity it created for the ACLU. In Jacksonville, Florida Planned Parenthood is trying to ban schools from using __Teen-Aid__ for a part of their sex education curriculum. PP claims that their book for 7th graders is inaccurate, biased, sexist, and racist because it does not have enough illustrations of minorities and working women. PP also claims that privacy and free speech rights are violated by the program. Abstinence-based sex education programs comprise only about 1% of the nation's sex education programs, and receive $1.6 million in annual funding. The Psychological Perspective: Sigmund Freud claimed that children go through a latency period from about ages 6 to 12 during which time sexual curiosity decreases and their receptiveness to education increases. Some child psychiatrists are consequently opposed to sex education that is too early and too explicit out of concern for mental health rather than for moral reasons. The leading opponent of the Freudian latency period was Alfred Kinsey, the founder of modern sexology, whose work is the foundation for contemporary comprehensive sex education curricula. Kinsey's work can be found in __Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female__. In it, he concludes that all forms of sexual expression were natural and should be promoted. Children, he claimed, are sexual from infancy throughout adulthood and don't go through a latency period. Some scholars, however, have examined Kinsey's work and data closely, and have come to the conclusion that it is fraudulent. They claim that Kinsey used inhumane and fraudulent experiments in which children as young as two were subject to masturbation. The case against Kinsey is made by Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel in __Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud: The Indoctrination of A People__ (Lochinvar, 1990). Karl Zinsmeister, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of a forthcoming book on the family, emphasizes that parents must make sacrifices in their lifestyles and goals to allow children to experience an age of innocence. Healthy parenting, he says, involves more direct parental care and supervision when children are young which will in turn lead to different attitudes as they become older. Parents must put in much effort to be an advocate for an individual child. Others say that it is doubtful that many parents are willing to make this kind of sacrifice. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- The original article is balanced and broad in scope, and consequently my summary is rather long. I encourage anyone who is interested to obtain and read the entire article because of its comprehensive analysis of sex education. The aspect of the article that was most intriguing to me was Kinseyan sexology, how it has shaped our society, and allegations that it is fraudulent. I think I begin to understand the basis for the bizarre attitudes held by advocates of value-free sex education. Clearly conventional sex education has failed, and, if Kinsey's work is indeed fraudulent, its failure can be traced to Kinsey. As a scientist it disturbs me greatly that work that is probably fraudulent has been embraced by the educational establishment without any critical review, even when it is obviously failing with devastating consequences. It is chilling to think that one scholar who cooked his numbers could have planted [or nourished] the seeds of the devastating consequences of the prevailing attitudes towards sex. -Dean Schulze ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child's future should not be made unilaterally by parents. " - Hillary Rodham (now Hillary Clinton) +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | This issue is based on a summary of the October 12 issue of "Insight| | on the News" containing the article "Birds and the Bees and More" | | Elena Neuman. "Insight on the News" is a weekly devoted to analysis | | of current events and trends. Their format is usually 2 feature | | articles, several pages of commentary by their staff of several | | (mostly conservative) commentators, a tabulation of votes for the | | previous week in the congress, and an editorial. | | Insight can be contacted at 1-800-356-3588. Back-issues cost $3.00.| | Insight is published by the Washington Times Corp., 3600 New York | | Ave. N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002 | | | | Many thanks to reader Dean Schulze (schulze@argus.lpl.arizona.edu) | | for this valuable summary. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.