Two weeks after seeming to take the side of a "sexual educator" who advocated giving birth control to middle school children, "Good Morning America" co-anchor Diane Sawyer exhorted the same position on Monday's show. Sawyer discussed the case of a Maine school system voting to allow contraceptives to be given to children as young as 11 with Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. The GMA journalist operated from the assumption that such activity can't be stopped. She asked O'Reilly, "Yes, but if they're sexually active anyway, at some point, don't you have to address the reality of what is going on in the schools?"
The ABC co-host tried to minimize the fact that parents won't be told specifically when birth control is given by claiming, "Well, but they've told the parents birth control pills may be given as part as the overall health." O'Reilly mocked that justification as "insane." On October 17, Sawyer discussed the issue with conservative commentator Glenn Beck and lectured, "You may not like it. You may want parents to go in and take care of their own children and make sure that they're not sexually active that young, but it's happening. It's happening."
On another topic, Sawyer quizzed O'Reilly, who was appearing to promote his new book, "Kids are Americans Too," about the 2008 presidential race. She prefaced a question about Obama and Edwards getting tough on Hillary Clinton by asserting, "All right. This is 'take down Hillary' week, I believe, isn't it, George?" The reference to "George" apparently meant GMA guest-co-host George Stephanopoulos, who, one assumes was standing just off camera. (Sawyer looked in that direction.) O'Reilly couldn't resist mocking the obvious affection that the former Clinton operative-turned journalist still has for his former bosses. He quipped, "Who's taking down Hillary? You doing that, Stephanopoulos? You traitor." Sawyer could only frantically indicate that she meant other Democrats are trying to attack Mrs. Clinton. (As an example of Stephanopoulos's continuing ties with the Clintons, GMA audiences will remember that in late September he mentioned, on-air, the talking points e-mails that Hillary Clinton's camp sent him during a debate.
A transcript of the October 29 segment, which aired at 7:40am, follows:
[Brief clip of O'Reilly Factor]
DIANE SAWYER: That's Bill O'Reilly doing what all of his viewers love, taking on the powerful, the former president of Mexico there. But now he is taking on a new constituency. His new book is called "Kids are Americans Too." And he is hauling some teens into the "No Spin Zone." Bill O'Reilly, examining the rights teenagers have in the Constitution. When do they have more right than adults? What about against their parents? What about against their schools, particularly on things like dress codes? Here he is, Emmy winner, best selling author, host of the "O'Reilly Factor," Bill O'Reilly."
BILL O'REILLY: Diane, thanks for having me in.
SAWYER: Good to have you here. So, I want to put up a picture. I want to put up a picture. Can we see it there? At the age of what?
O'REILLY: 12. [Laughs] No, that is my high school. I don't think it was a graduation picture, around there, yeah.
SAWYER: Yeah. So, what kind of kid were you? Crossing the line?
O'REILLY: I was a little, little thug. And my father, recognizing the fact that I was headed to the penitentiary, put me in a very strict private school in Long Island called Chaminade. And, you know, they whipped me into shape there, a lot of discipline there, gotta wear a jacket and tie everyday. And for a kid like me, that's what I needed. And so, then I had to have the hair that looked like Paul Anka. That's what that picture is.
SAWYER: That's your idol there. All right. And you were a high school teacher for a couple years.
O'REILLY: Yes, I was.
SAWYER: Worked around teens for a lot. So your premise really seems to be that kids should know when they have fewer rights than adults, when they have more rights, and what they are.
O'REILLY: It's brutal in public schools today, Diane. There's a culture war in the class room. For example, a teacher can walk in and can say, "You pray right now." The teacher gets fired. Teacher can walk in and say, "Your country is evil. America is evil." Nothing will happen to the teacher. And kids from traditional, conservative homes are going, "whoa." Kid can walk in with the pants down to the thighs, all right, and everybody is going, what is this? "I can dress the way I want." No, you can't.
SAWYER: Well, let me ask you about that, because a number of communities have been trying to combat this. Some of them have even passed, sort of, community statutes. I think there are billboards up that say, "Pull 'em up. Pull 'em up." Do these communities have the right under the law, how are the courts ruling to make kids pull up their pants?
O'REILLY: But that's just so dumb. Of course they do. I mean, the parents have a right to make the kid pull up the pants, and then when the kids going to school, the principal goes, "Hey! You! That's inappropriate dress. Either knock it off or you're suspended." Where did we lose control of the children?
SAWYER: Well, the general premise under which they're acting though is disrupting the classroom, disrupting the school.
O'REILLY: That's right. They're there to learn.
SAWYER: Let me ask you this. If a girl shows up in a full abaya, because it's her religious belief to show up in a full abaya.
O'REILLY: You can't do that because you're intruding your religion on everybody else. You can't do that.
SAWYER: You can't show up in the full abaya? Even if it's your religious practice?
O'REILLY: Not if the principal deems that it's distraction and its causing all kinds of chaos in the classroom. It depends on-- Look, the school board and the principals have authority. They can make the rules. So, if they say you can have a burqa, then it's okay. Look what's going on in Maine. Do you know what's going on in Maine, in Portland, Maine? They're giving 11-year-old girls birth control pills and not telling the parents. The school board voted 7-2 to do that. Now whose rights are being violated there? Well, it's not the kids' rights.
SAWYER: Well, but they've told the parents birth control pills may be given as part as the overall health.
O'REILLY: So, maybe we'll do it and maybe we won't. And maybe your kid will get it and maybe your kid won't. That's insane. It's insane. Look, all of these rights are interconnected. The kids rights, the parents rights and the school's rights. That's why its so confusing.
SAWYER: But these children, if these girls, and I think most of them are older then 11, are sexually active anyway--
O'REILLY: Yeah, but they can get it at 11. They can get it at 11.
SAWYER: Yes, but if they're sexually active anyway, at some point, don't you have to address the reality of what is going on in the schools?
O'REILLY: Yeah. You have to address the reality, but you have to keep the parents in the loop. Because if you don't, what about parental rights to supervise your child? And what's the message is sends, Diane, to 11-year-olds? What's the message the public school is sending to 11-year-olds? "Hey, you want to have sex? Come down see the nurse. We'll make it happen." That's the message. So, look, this is a complicated issue for both parents, teachers, and kids. And that's why I wrote the darned book. You know, I gotta stay up to the middle of the night to write these things. I don't need the money, but I'm so, I'm so crazed about it because, as you pointed out, I used to be a teacher. But now, you go into the public schools and it's just crazy. It's just a wild zone where nobody knows what the rules are. How did that happen?
SAWYER: All right. It's a real-- It's a real education, I've gotta say.
O'REILLY: Thank you for reading it, Diane. You're one of the few that actually reads the books. I want everyone to know that. Not just a pretty face here, ladies and gentlemen.
SAWYER: And thanks for the pretty face, too. I gotta ask about politics before you go here.
O'REILLY: Sure.
SAWYER: All right. This is take down Hillary week, I believe, isn't it, George? [Turns to an apparent off camera Stephanopoulos]
O'REILLY: Who's taking down Hillary? You doing that, Stephanopoulos? You traitor. Is he doing that? I'll slap him.
SAWYER: No! Out there-- Out there on campaign trail, all of the --
O'REILLY: Who's taking down Hillary? I'm outraged!
SAWYER: Obama, Edwards all going after--
O'REILLY: Oh, the Democrats!
SAWYER: So, can Obama, this week, turn it around? Does he have another round in him?
O'REILLY: Of course not. This is ridiculous. What is his poll, 18 percent? Look, Obama, and I told him this, face-to-face, Tyra Banks ain't going to get you elected. Okay? You gotta go on "The Factor." You gotta go on GMA and answer the questions. What has he been doing for six months? I guess he's been at Club Med? I haven't seen him. Have you seen him?
SAWYER: Let me ask you a about the Republicans. 41 percent, you quote this, of the Americans can't name a Republican.
O'REILLY: I know, 41 percent of Americans can't name a Republican, because they're so exciting, Diane. These guys are so exciting, aren't they? Of course, they can't name them. I mean, they're like B-characters out of "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave."
SAWYER: But who they can name, and right now it looks if he keeps gaining at the rate he's gaining, Stephen Colbert by the end of November could be the leading candidate.
O'REILLY: First of all, first of all, Colbert should sending a huge check to Pat Paulson's estate. You remember Pat Paulson of the "Smothers Brothers?" He steals this thing. He's selling his dopey book. Don't have him on, by the way. Don't have him on.
SAWYER: Too late.
O'REILLY: And this is just a publicity stunt to mock the country. And Colbert doesn't have the cajones to face me. That's all I'm telling Colbert right now.
SAWYER: You were on his show.
O'REILLY: I was on his show, but we invited him on for his stupid book, you know? But he knows the book is dumb. So, he's not going to come in. Instead, he runs for president. He's not winning anything. The guy's a great promoter. He is. He's a great promoter.
SAWYER: All right. Bill O'Reilly, a book here, "Kids Are Americans Too." And he stayed up all night writing this.
O'REILLY: I did.
SAWYER: You have got to buy it. But it really is interesting. Make sure you--
O'REILLY: Thank you, Diane. I appreciate it.
SAWYER: An excerpt of his book is on ABCNews.com.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Tough guy O'Reilly still
October 29, 2007 - 16:19 ET by Chris NormanTough guy O'Reilly still gets giddy when with glamorous big shot MSMer...
Priceless
October 29, 2007 - 16:41 ET by allanfOh I don't know, I thought the line
was priceless
But said in a giddy manner.
October 29, 2007 - 17:12 ET by Chris NormanBut said in a giddy manner. :)
And this is just a
October 29, 2007 - 16:58 ET by balboaAnd this is just a publicity stunt to mock the country. And Colbert
doesn't have the cajones to face me. That's all I'm telling Colbert
right now.
Was Bill serious when he said this?
Balboa, No, he had a bit
October 29, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Scott WhitlockBalboa,
No, he had a bit of a grin on his face. I think O'Reilly is just playing along with what he considers the silly back and forth between him and Colbert.
That's what I figured.
October 29, 2007 - 17:57 ET by balboaThat's what I figured. Seemed a little out there, even for BO.
Child Abuse
October 29, 2007 - 17:37 ET by kiwikitIt is increasingly clear that allowing our children to attend these secular anti-religious schools is real child abuse. First they push sex on TV shows, movies and crude songs and then say child sexuality can not be avoided. Buloney!!! How many chidlren even twenty years ago were acitive sexually in high school. The teachers push it and then use this activity as justification for pushing condoms/pills. Parents don't even have full knowledge when asked by Doctors what meds are being taken by their kids!
Avoid child abuse. . . if you can't home school, do whatever it takes to be able to do it. You love your children, their teachers love to use them as pawns.
Sawyer's got a point there, Scott !
October 29, 2007 - 17:03 ET by Gary HallSawyer's got a point there, Scott !
"Yes, but if they're sexually active anyway, at some point, don't you have to address the reality of what is going on in the schools?"
Let's apply it to another possible situation in the schools. Oh, let's just imagine that kids are running around in schools shooting other kids, i.e., "if they are shootingly active anyway," than at some point, don't you just have to address the reality of what is going on in the schools and give them guns, or at least bullet proof vests to wear in class. You certainly would not want to council them against have gun fights or ban shootings at schools - that would be, well over reacting, would it not?
Now let's imagine that Islamofascists are wandering the school hallways slashing other kid's throats. Same thing you see. You would not want to infringe on the rights of the slashers, you'd want to provide neck guards for the unprotected kids, sorta like birth control [life control].
They're sexually active in
October 29, 2007 - 17:07 ET by candanceThey're sexually active in the first place because schools don't really keep an eye on them. Teen sex has always happened, but in this day and age it's the popular thing to do, and teachers don't even have the right to tell them it's wrong.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
candance, thank you for
October 29, 2007 - 17:41 ET by motherbeltcandance, thank you for saying that...I started to comment earlier, along those lines, but got called away.
I don't know how old you are, but my youngest is 18. That means I'm in the "old school"....when it comes to sex, drugs, and alcohol, kids don't need more education; they need more supervision.
Most sex among the very young happens in their own homes, after school, while both parents are at work. But heaven forbid one of them should arrange to be home to "supervise" them. Just give them sex-ed class, condoms, and birth-control pills.
And that's all I'm gonna say about that, because if I keep going my head might explode.
Actually, sex education in
October 29, 2007 - 19:19 ET by robert108Actually, sex education in schools(sexualizing young children) is a perfect example of the term "slippery slope". Once you start, you just keep sliding into the abyss.
That was spot-on
October 29, 2007 - 19:27 ET by BlondeI"m going to have to remember that example, Robert.
It is perfect.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
and even if someone should
October 29, 2007 - 17:15 ET by Chris Normanand even if someone should be giving pills out (and they shouldn't)it all begs the question, why the schools?
guys and gals
October 29, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Gary Hallguys and gals. Surely you know I was yoking around, right? And I couldn't more with your comments. (;~> gary
Oh, I know you were just
October 29, 2007 - 17:58 ET by Chris NormanOh, I know you were just joking. Still, the question stands, why are the schools expected to be the parent? Communism has come - it's just for kids...
Exactly. Good point, Gary.
October 29, 2007 - 18:12 ET by Scott WhitlockExactly. Good point, Gary. Liberals would never have such a fatalistic attitude for the scenario you just described.
LOL
October 30, 2007 - 01:31 ET by KC MulvilleIf you want to make it morally neutral that kids today are going to have sex anyway, it must have been morally neutral when I was a kid. But for the life of me, I can't recall my teachers (the Sisters of Mercy) pointing at me and concluding, "this kid is going to have sex anyway, so we might as well help him." Hell ... let me tell ya ... them nuns weren't in any dang hurry to get me laid when I was a kid ...
Because if they did, I'd have had two questions:
I wonder if Ms. Sawyer has
October 29, 2007 - 17:17 ET by mattmI wonder if Ms. Sawyer has a granddaughter that would like to meet my nephew....
I wonder how she'd like that....
Sick b$#*^rds!
matt, I don't believe La
October 29, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Chris Normanmatt,
I don't believe La Sawyer has kids - at least, of her own. She knows all of this from reports.
she has no kids... v
October 29, 2007 - 17:35 ET by vrwc13she has no kids...
v
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
October 29, 2007 - 18:13 ET by wiwfWE'RE TALKING ABOUT FREAKIN' 11 YEAR OLDS, PEOPLE!!!!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
What was said that would
October 29, 2007 - 18:15 ET by Chris NormanWhat was said that would indicate we didn't know that?
Pedophiles and child rapists
October 29, 2007 - 19:02 ET by Sonny LykosPedophiles and child rapists are also "sexually active" as well.
Perhaps we should allow them to be "sexually active" with girls that are living in adoption homes. That "service" should reduce the children who get kidnapped, raped, and then killed. Let's reduce the killings, "for the children" and have "sexually active" men and non sexually active girls "explore their sexuality" - the phrase that gays and lesbians like to use to further their agenda.
I've said it before...this
October 29, 2007 - 19:24 ET by motherbeltI've said it before...this is just a "camel's nose in the tent" thing, with OK'ing 11 year olds having sex. How long do you think it will take for it to progress to: If it's OK for an 11 year old to have sex with another 11, or 12 year old, what's so wrong about them having sex with a 20 year old?
We sexualize our children from an early age..."Hello Kitty" thongs for 6 year-olds....lacy lingerie-looking clothing...pretend "bras"....and don't see it as a playround for pedophiles.
What's wrong with this picture??
Everything.
October 29, 2007 - 19:29 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
And murderers are
October 30, 2007 - 09:47 ET by rwestAnd murderers are just "responsible gun owners". Maybe when someone kills someone, we should give them more and better guns to reward their marksmanship. They are simply exercising their god-given second amendment rights, and no one should be allowed to put them in prison.
What I don't understand
October 29, 2007 - 19:29 ET by ckc1227What I don't understand about this birth control nonsense is how they can dispense birth control pills to the kids in the first place. Aren't birth control pills by prescription only? If so, who is writing and dispensing the prescription? Surely there isn't a doctor and a pharmacist on staff at each school in Maine to handle this. And, who actually pays for the monthly meds? Since parents are kept in the dark, I'm assuming they aren't paying for it, at least not directly.
What's really crazy(other than the obvious, of course) is these same 11 year olds probably can't get their ears pierced, get a tattoo, or see a PG-13/R-rated movie without parental consent. But sex at 11, medicating in secret, and abortion at will without parental consent is A OK.
Tax payers pay for all
October 29, 2007 - 22:22 ET by candanceTax payers pay for all school nurses and their supplies.
card holding member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
OH WOW! DIANE SAWYR IZ
October 29, 2007 - 19:42 ET by bretzysdudeOH WOW! DIANE SAWYR IZ GENIUS! TEH KIDZ R GOIN 2 DO IT ANYWAY! AS PARENT IM GONNA OFFICIALLY GIV UP MAH RESPONSIBILITIEZ IN TEACHIN MAH KIDZ RITE FRUM WRONG AN WILL LET TEH SCHOOLS DO WHATEVR THEY WANTS, SINCE THEY R GOIN 2 DO IT ANYWAY. ALL HAIL DIANE, QUEEN OV TEH MEDIA!
bretzys
October 29, 2007 - 19:57 ET by BlondeWe've all seen you post normally here, so what's up with this childish stuff? It's annoying.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Sorry, just bringing out my
October 29, 2007 - 20:22 ET by bretzysdudeSorry, just bringing out my "stupid lolcat" translator on things like this. I guess I feel annoyed that 1) people are saying garbage like this, even though it really shouldn't be no surprise that it is coming from the media, and 2) that no one else truly challenges them on this except on our side. I'm just sick of it sometimes. Is it okay if I can occasionally bring this out, or do you want me to put a lid on it?
Hey bretzy
October 29, 2007 - 20:25 ET by BlondeWhatever floats your boat.
I, personally, think your "regular" comments make alot more impact....I see the childish CAPS & CRAP....and just ignore it. But, hey...that's just me.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Seriously, you think my
October 29, 2007 - 20:32 ET by bretzysdudeSeriously, you think my regular comments have more impact? I'll take that as a compliment. Honestly, I don't know what else to say when other people have said it before. I feel less knowledgeable about some things than others on here. By all means, I'll try to speak more regularly. Thanks for your feedback.
Yes, Bretz, I do.
October 29, 2007 - 20:39 ET by BlondeWe all get wrapped around the axle about the MsM's lunacy....but I don't think the caps thing...acting like a teen...adds one iota to the discussion.
Just say what you feel like saying....if someone else has said it before, just try to make your post a tad more clever or funny...It works.
Glad you're posting here...I've read some of your stuff...it's mighty fine.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Might as well give up???
October 29, 2007 - 19:51 ET by timzankWell, Diane, I HAVE an 11 year old daughter and I'll be dam$ed if her middle school nurse is going to supply her with birth control. The reality is, a few kids are promiscuous, but just throwing up your hands and accepting the "reality" that all kids are having sex is just freakin' stoopid!
What's next, porn flicks and popcorn to help them understand?????
For the love of God, it's bad enough to ignore dangerous behavior in kids, but to actually promote it and sanction it is ridiculous! What have we allowed this country to become???
Sending a child to a government school is child abuse.
October 29, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Dave RAnd Diane Sawyer is an idiot
Good Grief! Next
October 29, 2007 - 22:48 ET by SvenGood Grief! Next time...please send Ms. Ingraham in! She has more BA!!S than most of these men! I would've loved watching her feed Mrs. Sawyer her lunch!
Why would Ms. Ingraham go in
October 29, 2007 - 23:12 ET by ckc1227Why would Ms. Ingraham go in there to promote Bill's book? :)
ckc, I realize Bill was
October 30, 2007 - 00:25 ET by Svenckc, I realize Bill was promoting his book, but I was simply speaking to the larger matter of her (Laura) having more fortitude to take these reporters and their bogus assertions on. But I think you know what i meant already ;-)
I've said i
October 30, 2007 - 00:08 ET by Sonny Lykos"October 29, 2007 - 19:24 ET by motherbelt
I've said it before...this is just a "camel's nose in the tent" thing, with OK'ing 11 year olds having sex. How long do you think it will take for it to progress to: If it's OK for an 11 year old to have sex with another 11, or 12 year old, what's so wrong about them having sex with a 20 year old?
We sexualize our children from an early age..."Hello Kitty" thongs for 6 year-olds....lacy lingerie-looking clothing...pretend "bras"....and don't see it as a playround for pedophiles.
What's wrong with this picture??"
Absolutely nothing if your a lefty. In fact, that is exactly their goal. Sex for everyone at any age. After all, it's just one more form of entertainment, and IMO, those people feel that children are just sex toys for adults anyway.
motherbelt, Good
October 30, 2007 - 08:52 ET by msh1973motherbelt,
Good morning...I couldn't agree more. As the mom of two girls, 12 and 13, it is tough out here. We try to protect our girls from all things sexual by limiting tv, movies and the internet, but it is getting increasingly more difficult. All the shows that are geared toward teens dealing in sexual topics. All the kids on these shows are having sex like there is no tomorrow. Especially the shows on the CW. We have banned that network from our house.
}}---> Famous school nurses
October 30, 2007 - 01:48 ET by Cool ArrowDidn't Heidi Fleiss and Maya Angelou start their careers as school nurses?
Watch Katie Couric's mom's portfolio activity. Expect a big shift in her holdings from rubbers to pills.