Parents protest sex ed change

sacbee.com ^ | Thursday, May 23, 2002 | J.D. Sparks -- Neighbors Staff Writer

[yoe]

I would withdraw my child in a heart beat, your child doesn't have to attend these classes. Get informed! Parents teach your children abstinence, all high school children who care say it is the only way and that is boys as well as girls.

Abstinence is a choice and with choice comes responsibility and respectability to self. No one can force your child to attend if they don't want to. Health and Safety can only be a required course as long as it does not offend in anyway the person required to take the course. Exercise your rights as a parent and make them dump this program...it is Clinton tacky and unnecessary to expose young people to this sort of not-as-common-as-you-think problem, it is your job as a parent to answer all questions about sex. Liberal activist want this instead of some true education. You have rights Parents! Use Them!!

[joathome]

It is still a crisis. And where are the abortion statistics factored into this?

[joathome]

TEXAS parents--If your children go to public high school, they may take health (with the sex ed component) as a correspondence course. It is a no-brainer, easy class, and leaves room in the schedule for other courses.

[okie01]

"Somebody please store this post somewhere so I don't have to keep looking up these data and typing out charts."

Just bookmark the thread (as I just did), up there just below the posted article ("Bookmark Discussion").

Then, when you need to re-post the data, just go to the bookmarked thread, copy and paste it.

[pray4liberty]

Lorna Sheveland, assistant superintendent of curriculum and professional development, said information that is in the review process generally is available only to members of the committee, which includes members of the public.

I'm willing to bet they didn't send a Press Release to the local paper informing parents of this fact.

[let freedom sing]

I'm willing to bet they didn't send a Press Release to the local paper informing parents of this fact.

As a matter of fact, SJUSD publishes its own monthly PR rag-- you can bet that it says nothing about the embroiled controversy. The local paper could follow the story if there is enough interest shown from the community of Sodomento. Gov. Gray and his sodomites control the town.

[let freedom sing]

Made a believer out of me-- that was TOO funny.

[let freedom sing]

NBC KCRA-3 just gave the most biased report on proposed sex-ed changes in the SJUSD. They said it was approved by committee, and did NOT mention there were objections by two committee members and growing dissent from parents in the district. EVERYONE they showed in the interview, from adults to STUDENTS, gave approval for teaching explicit condom use. I've never seen a more biased report. They interviewed Deidre Powell-- SJUSD public affairs, who said kids need this. Kids need a fair abstinance education-- not the Making Safer Choices full-of holes theory that Planned Parenthood and its shadow organizations foist on unwary youth. The spin is IN-- Channel 3 spun this story in one direction.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Due to outdated information, the district began the process of updating its Family Life-Sex Education curriculum in spring 2001 for middle schools and in April for high schools, Sheveland said.

Has something changed in baby-making methodologies since the last textbook update (or since we were kids in the 70's for that matter)??

[let freedom sing]

Has something changed in baby-making methodologies since the last textbook update (or since we were kids in the 70's for that matter)??

Something changed-- a generation abdicated its responsiblity to the public schools' urban legend smokescreen-- that parents and offspring can't discuss sex, properly. Public schools taught students for the last 30-40 years to believe in reproductive rites. The bored of education is composed by yesterdays' seventies generation, who fight for the reproductive rites of children-- the rites of children to have unsafe, safe-usafe-sex with whoever they are chosen or choose to have it with. </sarcasm off>

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

Good for you, Darth S.! I hope that my children will have the same testimony on their wedding day!

[pray4liberty]

Finally, Ms. Sheveland said, helpful instructors from the local Gay Teacher Alliance had to take some of the boys aside and privately show them how to put on their condoms in the correct manner.

You win!

Good golly, if I lived out there, that school would not be standing.

[stands2reason]

As someone who waited to have sex until I was an adult (and glad I did so!) I would have been most uncomfortable rolling condoms onto my finger in class, and it most likely would have only added to the peer pressure message-"What are you waiting for?"-that was all-pervasive when I was in school.

[Sabertooth]

The inescapable flaw in all sex ed programs is that the discussion takes place in a peer context to the deliberate exclusion of parents.

[Libertina]

Bev Eakman, "Cloning of the American Mind" READ THIS BOOK!
Learn how to STOP these immoral NEA agents.
1.What is the source of the survery? How local is it?
2. How was the survery conducted?
3. What organization(s) most likely orchestrated the policy change?
4. What was the fall-back position of the administration?
Ms. Eakman says that in some situations, an UPSET public is WANTED because it is leveraged to show "intolerance" and therefore the need for more "gay-tolerance" (pro-gay) programs. IN this case, it is a titilating boy/girl sex class.

Eakman says many times Change Agents are hired by the NEA etc to manipulate the comittees, boards to arrive at the desired "outcome.".

In addition, the so-called "textbook" approved by the Department of Health Services (big deal) was no doubt written by a special interest group with a radical left-wing agenda: Planned Parenthood, CDC Division of Adolescent School Health, NEA, CCSSO, NaSHEC, SIECUS etc.

Good luck parents! Keep fighting. Eakman suggests in some cases we should come in quietly with LAWYERS from a different direction, rather than "attacking" the school board.

[let freedom sing]

Eakman suggests in some cases we should come in quietly with LAWYERS from a different direction, rather than "attacking" the school board.

A different direction?-- the board is innocent, until it proves itself guilty.

[Libertina]

Pardon, I refer to instances where it is the school board promoting the policies, which often happens hand-in-hand with the school administration. In this specific case the San Juan district proposal may be with the board or not. That being said, I think you are missing the point, possibly I did not write clearly enough - the point is that there are cases where an active, vocal rebuttal is used to advantage for the left's agenda. This is NOT a game and strategic planning is needed. I don't believe that an assumption of honest good will on the part of the school/NEA can be assumed by concerned parents.