Planned Parenthood-Endorsed Book for Young Children too “Sexually Explicit” for Prisoners

LifeSiteNews ^ | 11/28/07 | Hilary White

[wagglebee]

WASHINGTON, November 28, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Excerpts from a sexually explicit book published for children aged eight to thirteen have been banned from Internet sites and from a Washington state prison for its “inappropriate content”. The book includes graphic depictions of genitalia, different forms of contraception, tampons and menstrual pads, and depicts people engaged in sex. It explains non-vaginal sex such as oral and anal sex. It has little to say about virginity (the word does not appear in the index), abstinence or chastity.
 
As a tool of the homosexual movement, it has been endorsed for its usefulness in that it describes homosexuality and bisexuality as simply other ways of being and goes on to explain that although some people feel hate towards homosexuals, such opinions are based on misinformation. The book attacks the religious objection to masturbation, saying, “Some religions call masturbation a sin, but masturbating cannot hurt you.” This is followed by illustrations and instructions.
 
The book is “It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health”, was published in 1996 for children aged eight to thirteen and is under fire again from pro-life and pro-family advocates. It is strongly endorsed by Planned Parenthood as a means of teaching children that whatever sexual activity they would like to engage in is “perfectly normal”. It explains how to use contraception and endorses abortion and the medically discredited “safe sex” propaganda to avoid sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. Its author, Robie Harris, was on Planned Parenthood’s national board of advocates.
 
“It's Perfectly Normal” was included in the American Library Association's list of “most frequently challenged books of 2005” for “homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, abortion and being unsuited to age group.”  It ranked #15 in the Association’s list of “100 most frequently challenged books 1990-2000”.
 
“How can anyone claim that this book is appropriate for 10 year olds?” asked Jim Sedlak, vice-president for American Life League.
 
The comments follow revelations a few months ago that a Washington State prison rejected a letter that included images from the book on the grounds that they are too “sexually explicit” and “obscene” to be allowed in the prison.
 
Last week American Life League posted a video report about the book on several Internet sites. That report was removed from three of these sites vidilife.com, sharkle.com, and hi5.com for "inappropriate content," and flagged on metacafe.com for viewers over 18.
 
The video report asks, “If these images are too obscene for adult prisoners, why are they good for ten year-old children?”
 
“We are calling for libraries, schools and parents all across the country to take similar action," Sedlak concluded. "Planned Parenthood should be denied access to our children at all times. The material it promotes is totally inappropriate and could be harmful."
 
View a report by American Life League:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuUmsZYWnrs

[Darksheare]

Oh, and explain how that book is in ANY way appropriate for children.
You DID watch teh video, didn’t you?

[mrhansen]

And this article references this book as somehow being ‘extra bad’ because it was on the ALA’s ‘100 Most Frequently Challenged Books’.

You know what other books are on there? Let us take a look at all of the other naughty, dangerous, and disgusting books us vigilant parents should be on the look for:

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
The Dead Zone by Stephen King
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain

[Darksheare]

Explain how the book is in ANY way appropriate for children.

[Darksheare]

You can’t explain how the book of subject is in any way appropriate for 10 year olds, can you.

[wagglebee]

Oh, an article from the non-biased, scientific group known as ‘Concerned Women For America’ definitely changed my mind.

Well, then let's take a look at what has happened over the past generation. The self-proclaimed "safe sex" movement has been pushing condoms as the panacea for STDs since the mid-1980s. And during this timeframe, use of condoms among teenagers has skyrocketed, age of first sexual intercourse and frequency among teenagers has stayed fairly consistent though the number of partners has increased. However, STD rates have also skyrocketed and teen pregnancy rates have not really dropped. So, please explain what the benefit of condoms has been.

[mrhansen]

Defeatist attitude? Hardly. Realist? Most definitely.

[Darksheare]

Mr Hansen cannot explain how the book is in any way appropriate for children.
And he equates the book, somehow, with Mark Twain’s writing.

[Darksheare]

Explain how the book is in ANY way appropriate for CHILDREN.

[mrhansen]

I haven’t watched the video (Youtube is blocked on this network, much to my dismay), nor have I read the book.

So, rather than making rash decisions and snap judgements based on the opinion of a group of fanatics, I will choose not to comment on it, until I, an objective person, has had a chance to read it, rather than simply basing my uninformed opinions on someone else’s.

Have you read the book? If not, how do you know it is so bad? Because someone told you?

[Nathan Zachary]

"Why do I say that? Because most kids are going to be having sex despite our best efforts."

And they are most likely NOT going to use a condom either. But despite these facts, perverted sexual behavior in which maximum exposure to sexualy transmitted disease is likely, deviant sexual behavior is being promoted as "normal" when in fact it is anything but. It is far less likely for these kids, having sex for the first time with someone of the opposite sex who is also having sex for the first time, to catch a sexually transmitted disease. These diseases begin to appear when these same "children" engage in sexual promiscuity and deviant sexual behavior, which is what this literature is promoting instead of normal, natural sexual relations as nature intended. behavior.

[Darksheare]

Then go watch the video.
The book is NOT appropriate for children, yet you comment as if you looked it over.

If you watched the video, you’d know it isn’t appropriate.

[mrhansen]

Again...Who made the video? A non-biased group/person or a group with a political bent or agenda?

Have you read the actual book?

[Darksheare]

The video shows images out of the book.
Kinda hard to be biased when the images are straight from the book itself.
But hey, you seem to think drawn depictions of intercourse are perfectly okay for ten year olds.
(That’s one of the images in there, if you’d seen the video you’d know that.)

[wagglebee]

Ah yes, the “all books must be considered appropriate because otherwise books like ‘Tom Sawyer’ and ‘Huckleberry Finn’ wouldn’t exist” argument. By this logic, we should have never gone to war against Hitler because of the Volkswagen.

[Darksheare]

By the way, the book isn’t available in my area.
Local library won’t carry it, book store won’t stock it.
Strange for the People’s Republic of New York.

“Have you read the actual book?”

Ah, move the goal posts.
We’ve gone from, ‘have you seen it’ to ‘have you read it’.

Again, explain how it is in ANY way appropriate for children.
You can’t, because you don’t know anything AT ALL about what is in it.

[Darksheare]

I like how he’s moved the goal posts.
Follow his posts, he’s moving the goal posts.

[darkangel82]

Don’t waste your time, facts don’t matter to some people.

[Darksheare]

I noticed.
He hasn’t seen or read the book himself, but he’s absolutely sure that everyone is biased against it.

[Nathan Zachary]

I guess you shouldn’t read anything because no matter who wrote the book or made the video, they are going to be biased is someones opinion in one way or another.

[wagglebee]

Again...Who made the video? A non-biased group/person or a group with a political bent or agenda?

Have you read the actual book?

It is axiomatic that a video exposing the evils of an agenda-driven book is going to be done by a group with an agenda of their own.

Agendas are neither good nor bad. We ALL have agendas and anyone who claims otherwise is lying. And there is certainly no way to have an unbiased subjective sex education program for schoolchildren. Promoters of abstinence and chastity will openly admit to their agenda, the danger is from groups like Planned Parenthood who claim to be unbiased. Do you honestly believe that a group that has murdered over 4 MILLION children in the past 35 years does not have an agenda?