CNN Continues to Push Line that McCain Lied about Sex Ed

Photo of Robert Knight.
  • Bookmark and Share

On last night's Election Center, CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger and CNN Anchor Campbell Brown continued to promote the Obama talking point that John McCain had lied in an ad about Barack Obama's record on a sex education bill in the Illinois state Senate.

McCain's ad says Barack Obama's "one accomplishment" as a state senator was "legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."

Toobin listed it among several "outright falsehoods" from McCain, and Borger claimed the Obama-backed bill was "about teaching children to recognize sexual predators."

The Obama camp and many media have repeated the line that the bill was only about protecting kids from sexual predators. But the McCain ad is correct. The bill, SB 99, is a radical expansion of sex education, ratcheting down the initiation age from sixth grade to kindergarten, and eliminating moral language that supports marriage and abstinence. Only a tiny portion of the bill addresses how kids can be protected from unwanted sexual advances.

As NRO's Byron York reports in his article "On Sex Ed Ad, McCain Is Right," the groups that pushed the sex ed bill issued a press release describing as "comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education" and did not mention anything about protecting kids from sexual predators. If that had been the main focus of the bill, surely it would have been in the release from the bill's major backers, which include Planned Parenthood, NOW and the Illinois chapter of the National Education Association.

Toobin and Borger are not alone. A survey by CMI's Colleen Raezler of the last week's media reaction has turned up more than a dozen instances in which journalists repeat the idea that the bill was only about sex predators.

CBS, MSNBC, PBS, TIME magazine, the New York Times and the Washington Post accused John McCain of "sleazy" tactics, "flat-out lies" and being "dishonest" and "deceptive."

Here are some examples:

• Sept. 15, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "Obama supported legislation to help keep kindergarteners safe from sexual predators, and turning that into some creepy, anti-sex ed ad, it's not just a McCain lie, it is a prevarication miracle, totally unknowable through rational means."
• Sept. 12, PBS' Judy Woodruff on NewsHour: "Obama supported a law to educate children on the dangers of sexual predators."
• Sept. 12: A New York Times editorial: "The kindergarten ad flat out lies. ...at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.

Here is a partial transcript from CNN's Election Center on Sept. 16:
JEFFREY TOOBIN: We do a lot of parity here at CNN, and we match things up, but there is no comparison. John McCain has told outright falsehoods about Obama and sex education, about the bridge to nowhere, about earmarks, about taxes, and the examples we cited in those Obama ads are not even close to the falsehoods that have been said about Obama by the McCain campaign.

CAMPBELL BROWN: And, Kevin, even some conservatives essentially last week, especially after that sex education ad, I think came forward and said, whoa, we are really crossing a line here. But I know you think this is just politics to a certain extent.

KEVIN MADDEN [GOP strategist]: Well, you know, look, remember in 1988 where there was a big moment where Bob Dole said, stop lying about my record. I feel like we have three moments like that a day here on this campaign. But look, you know, John McCain campaign, well, they documented every single charge that they've made against Barack Obama. And at the end of the day, they still have the truth on their side, they believe, with all of these, and they continue to document them and make sure that reporters know about those charges.

BROWN: McCain?

MADDEN: Yes.

GLORIA BORGER: Well, I don't think they did that really on the ad that Jeff Toobin was referring to on sexual -- on sex education because that legislation was about teaching children to recognize sexual predators.

MADDEN: Well, the first thing you have to remember about that charge is that I think it even came up during the Democrat primary. And secondly, Byron York had a very lengthy examination of that charge today in the National Review that documents entirely what is in that bill, and it would be troubling to a lot of Americans to see that Barack Obama supported that.

TOOBIN: It was a bipartisan, non-controversial program. Look, this last week, since Sarah Palin has been on the campaign, they brought out Sarah Palin saying, she was the woman who fought the bridge to nowhere. And we now know that she is someone who embraced the bridge to nowhere, who has sought out earmarks, that kind of thing. The focus that the McCain campaign has put on something that turns out not to be true is simply unprecedented in this campaign and frankly, in any recent campaign.

If the bill was "a bipartisan, non-controversial program," as Toobin asserts, then why did the Illinois senate reject it? SB 99 passed the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama, who voted with the 7-4 majority to send the bill in March 2003 to the full Senate, where it was shelved.

Bill sponsor Carol Ronen (D-Chicago) said in the press release that the bill mandates that any school that has sex education must provide "comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education." And what would that consist of for kindergarteners? The groups listed in the release support the definitions provided in the SIECUS Guidelines used and promoted by Planned Parenthood nationally. Here are the SIECUS guidelines for kindergartners through third grade, as excerpted from a report by Fran Eaton in the Illinois Review:
"In Illinois circles, those groups promoting comprehensive sex ed often referred to the standards set up by SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). SIECUS standards for comprehensive sex ed are available online here in the 2004 form. The legislation and standards set the year before on SB 99 were the same as these:
Developmental Messages: Level 1 (ages 5-8)
• Each body part has a correct name and a specific function.
• A person's genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female.
• A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
• A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.
• Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of
the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body.
• Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.
• Vaginal intercourse - when a penis is placed inside a vagina - is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join.
(Page 26)
Developmental Messages, Level 1 (ages 5-8)
• Most children are curious about their bodies.
• Bodies can feel good when touched.
(Page 51. Interesting language, "Most children are...." Wouldn't be any peer pressure there, now would there?)
Topic 2:Masturbation
Subconcept: Masturbation is one way human beings express their sexuality.
Developmental Messages:
Level 1
• Touching and rubbing one's own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
• Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
• Masturbation should be done in a private place.
(Pages 51-52)
Topic 3:Shared Sexual Behavior
Subconcept: Individuals express their sexuality with a partner in diverse ways.
Developmental Messages:
Level 1
• People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good.
(Page 52)
Topic 5:Human Sexual Response
Subconcept: Female and male bodies respond both similarly and differently to sexual stimulation.
Developmental Messages:
Level 1
• Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched.
(Page 54)
*********
Illinois Review gives a hat tip to Wisconsin's Arlen Williams for helping locate this information.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That is pretty comprehensive

That is pretty comprehensive sex ed. I think I just learned a few things myself.

This just chaps my a$$.

This just chaps my a$$. Obama camp lies constantly about what Obama supports or denies and the media then repeats the lies to the rest of us. Does the media realy want this lier as CiC? I just cannot comprehend how it benifits our media to tell these lies in order to get a lier elected? What do they exspect to gain out of this, other then unemployment?

These are kids for crying out loud, is there no line to they wont cross

 

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

When reading the actual language that is mandated

Most people in this country would feel that it is completely inappropriate for 5, 6 and probably 7 year-olds. Some of that might be appropriate for older children in middle school - 6-8 grades or 10-12 year olds.

But one thing is indisputable: McCain did not lie about anything at all. In fact he may have understated the issue completely.

You want change? Give me a dollar.

Unfortunately...

...BOR gave CNN cover a couple of evenings ago when he dismissed the McCain ad as a distortion just like one of the Messiah's ad (can't remember which one).

PJ, Didn't O'Reilly say that

PJ,
Didn't O'Reilly say that because there was supposedly an "opt out" clause, that made the claim unfair - or am I thinking of someone else. That O'Reilly - he's like the John McCain of "conservative" commentators...

McNotObama '08

Chris,

Good point about BOR, I am still laughing about the damn near two nights in a row BOR demanded the US gooberment require the "Sugarcane Car" like Brazil. Seems he hasn't brought it up since...

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Mighty Mouth... Hey long

Mighty Mouth...

Hey long time no see!

Now lets see...what was your post about...lol....

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Hey BT,

...was just chuckle at BOR. Great to see you an my NB buddies again!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

There was an "opt out"

There was an "opt out" clause, and I can imagine BOR making that argument.

But the opt out does NOT make the claim about what Obama supported unfair.  The statute DID provide for teaching sex ed to students starting in Kindergarden.  The fact that parents could theoretically opt out does not alter this fact.

BOR is soooooo obsessed with the idea of being "fair" that he consistently goes too far the other way, in derogation of what actually is true or makes sense.

Here's a new syndrome just for Bill:  FDR: "Fairness Derangement Syndrome" - when someone tries sooooo hard to be seen as "Fair" that he loses all sense of reality.  That's BOR.

sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com

The Obamaites are shameless

The Obamaites are shameless in their lies.  You know the saying, the bigger the lie . . .

Here is one excerpt from SB99 that is telling:

- - - - - - - - - -

Sec. 27-9.2.  Family Life.
        (a)  If   any   school   district   provides  courses  of instruction designed to promote wholesome  and  comprehensive understanding of the emotional, psychological, physiological, hygienic  and  social  responsibility aspects of family life, then such courses of instruction shall include  the  teaching  of prevention of unintended pregnancy and all options related to  unintended  pregnancy,  as  appropriate to the various grade levels;  and  whenever  such courses  of  instruction  are  provided  in any of grades K through  12,  then  such  courses  also  shall  include   age  appropriate   instruction   on  the  prevention  of  sexually transmitted    infections,  including    the    prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

- - - - - - - - - -

The above is the paragraph incorporating the proposed changes as supported by Obama.  Significant is the addition to the previously exisiting requirements for the teaching of "hygiene" and "social responsibility aspects of family life" of the requirement that students also be taught about the "prevention of unwanted pregnancy" - okay, not so bad, but ALSO: "and all options related to unintended pregnancies."  This is a cheap attempt to hide the requirement that the students be taught that abortion is an option, rather than the statutes previous teach of "ALTERNATIVES to abortion," which is deleted in the proposed revision.

But most significant is the requirement that whenever these course are taught in ANY of the grades K through 12, that teaching must include "age appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

Now, someone please explain to me how there is such a thing as "age appropriate" instruction in these matters for 5-year-olds in Kindergarden, 6-year-olds in 1st grade, etc.  Do we use pictures of Fluffy and Fuzzy Bunny by Matt Groening (a la Simpsons) to explain the use of a condom, and possibly the avoidance (if at all possible) of anal sex?

Make no mistake about it - these subjects constitute keys aspects of sex education in school, and are NEVER age appropriate in Kindergarden, or 1st grade, or 2nd grade . . .  (Where the line should be drawn ought to be left to parents, of course, and the statude permits opt out....)

However, for the Obamaites to continue to claim that McCain is lying about his having supported legislation in Illinois which would have mandated the teaching of sex education to Kindergardeners, is in itself the biggest lie of all. 

People need to understand just how dishonest this guy is.  And McCain needs to stand firm on this.

Judging fromt he polls, people are gradually starting to see the light.

 

 

sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com

More

As in the previous sections, this section expands instruction to K-5. Aslo, there is the "age appropriate" phrase, but no definition in the bill, so it could mean anything.  If based on SEICUS, then it really is more of a total sham to claim that McCain is lying.

The news media is too busy being the Democrats lapdog to actually perform the "watchdog" function they so readily tout.

--------------------

22        Sec. 3.  Comprehensive Health Education Program.
23        (a)  The   program   established  under  this  Act  shall
24    include,  but  not  be  limited  to,  the   following   major
25    educational  areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary
26    and secondary  schools  in  this  State:  human  ecology  and
27    health,   human   growth   and  development,  the  emotional,
28    psychological,    physiological,    hygienic    and    social
29    responsibilities of family life, including sexual  abstinence
30    and   prevention  of  unintended  pregnancy  until  marriage,
31    prevention and control of disease, including age  appropriate
32    instruction  in  grades  K  through 12 on the prevention of
33    sexually transmitted infections,  including  the  prevention,

                            -10-     LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
1    transmission and spread of HIV AIDS, public and environmental
2    health,   consumer  health,  safety  education  and  disaster
3    survival, mental health and illness, personal health  habits,
4    alcohol,  drug use, and abuse including the medical and legal
5    ramifications of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, abuse during
6    pregnancy,  sexual  abstinence   until   marriage,   tobacco,
7    nutrition, and dental health.

 

I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - J.B. Books (John Wayne)

My ears are burning

I just can't believe what these guys are saying in defense of Obama's position. I SAW AND HEARD THE TAPE MYSELF!!!

Based on Obie's own words, he did support teaching 5 year olds being taught sex ed. in Chicago.

If the bill was only about protecting

children from predators, why was it so controversial and why didn't it pass?

Noticed that the DNC

Noticed that the DNC tallking heads (aka CNN) while lying for bambi (aka 56 states) didn't try to disprove the contentiont that was the only substantive legislation that he passed.

bambi is an empty suit.  He shouldn't be a US senator much less a presidential candidate.  Where do the dimocrats get these nincompoops?

To Be Fair, The McCain Ads Didn't Mention The Bill Failed...

...At least that's what I heard on the Michael Medved Show, though he was somewhat outraged about the language of the bill, just not as much as everyone else.

Personally, I don't think the government, whether it's Obama or McCain, should be in the business of warning children about sex offenders because I don't believe there is a sex offender epidemic as the media claims there is. I've checked these so-called sex-tracking websites, and I found out, that at worst, there were about 9-to-10 offenders of various degrees (rape, exposure, harassment, etc.) within a square mile of my house, and I live in a densely-populated area.

I just think that if someone commits rape or incest, they should be put in prison for the rest of their lives. That only seems fair and it would reduce the spending done for so many of these Mickey Mouse sex offender boondoggles.you see nowadays.

Pardon

Pardon my anger, but NB is absolutely wrong on this piece.

The ad itself contains multiple lies independent of York's piece (who only looked at McCain's characterization of the bill... and even that was flawed), including saying the bill was Obama's "one" education accomplishment (which he didn't cosponsor... but it seems he did cosponsor the Chicago Education Reform Act of '03... hmm...).

The bill itself NOWHERE calls for the implementation of Planned Parenthood's SIECUS standards, which everyone seems to be railing about here. How about you actually read the bill yourselves and see what it says? The bill is explicitly contradictory, mandating HIV instruction for all classes and also mandating "age-appropriate" education. If you read York's piece, he notes that all discussion around this conflict was to be delegated to the schools, with NO decisions on that front being made by the policy itself.

So to characterize the bill as a policy aimed at teaching comprehensive sex education to minors IS an outright falsehood.

Bias is often a grey area, but this mischaracterization is not.

remixer96

Possibly but you could see where their could easily be confusion. 

From S&L - edited to remove the language removed from the code.

 

Section 5. The School Code is amended by changing Sections 27-9.1 and 27-9.2 as follows:

(105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1) Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.

(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s 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. Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.  (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.

Confusion? Sure

I agree that confusion could occur, but repeated mischaracterization? Not acceptable.

--Starting from section 2 of the Ammendmant--
All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Factual information presented in course material and instruction shall be medically accurate and objective.
(2) All (1) course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.
(3) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Liberal Media FOS, UPSET on this!

It very clearly says through grade K and he promoted this; that is the point. It is SARCASTIC as being an acheivement. As IN NOT LITERAL. Should be ashamed not proud! Who says these Libs don't think sex talk with 5 yr. olds is not age appropriate? That would be ok as it states in the law! Is that somehow protecting the kids?

And what the heck is this cr*p on "Subconcept: Masturbation is one way human beings express their sexuality." What the heck are they doing with that? Is that appropriate? Gee lets encourage them to be sexually aggresive and active as soon as possible. That is exactly what it is encouraging. They should teach KIDS to "respect YOURSELF" and save this activity and enjoyment for marriage where your joy will be meaningful and multiplied. Not end in short lived pleasure, self shame, and misplaced priorities in LIFE.

who decides?

"course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate" - according to whom? 

The instructor?  No thanks.

The legislative body? H*ll No!