I understand that the bill didn’t get specific, and that’s a valid point. Even still, it shows an example where a LACK of specificity can be a huge problem. State law mandating sex education is simply not-a-good-idea. Because liberal whackos will use it as an excuse to teach all kinds of things as early as they can get away with – as the SIECUS document illustrates.

In any case, the SIECUS document was provided by HIS campaign as an idea of what he envisioned as age-appropriate. And it’s contents are pretty disturbing to me. I still think he has a lot to answer for.

Huge, huge difference.

Obama voted to support a bill teaching comprehensive sex education from K-12.

There were no specifics on Puberty, Intercourse, Sexual Orientation, Masturbation, Abortion, or STDs in the full text of the bill.

The “Level 1″ curriculum that you’re citing come from the SIECUS curriculum that Obama spokesman Bill Burton used as an example of age-specific education that exists, NOT as an endorsement of everything it stands for. So, instead of the SIECUS curriculum being the standard that Obama endorsed, it was an example cited by a staffer of a curriculum that’s out there already…not to mention he quoted the SIECUS curriculum and an Oregon curriculum in the context of confirming Obama’s position, which includes helping children “know the difference between a good touch and a bad touch.”

Here’s the link: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/19/277886.aspx

Either you didn’t read closely enough into the details, Derek, or you’re engaging in intentional obfuscation of the full truth to incite outrage. For the sake of your integrity, I hope it’s the former. Though that position is naive, we all fall into that place from time to time.