They don’t observe any pretense of objectivity at the Daily Beast with a headline like “Hero Judge Rules Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Is Illegal.” The sexual revolution was the one of the foundational layers of 1960’s leftism. But “national reporter” Kate Briquelet came along much later.
In the course of her celebration of this “groundbreaking decision,” Briquelet showcased the shouts of joy from other leftist groups, such as the ACLU, who called the ruling a “huge victory for students.”
Abstinence-only programs don’t qualify as sex education and are in violation of California law, a Fresno County Superior Court judge has ruled.
In his groundbreaking decision, Judge Donald Black said “access to medically and socially appropriate sexual education is an important public right,” and that one district in particular was out of compliance for promoting “medically inaccurate information.”
“This is the first time that abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula have been found to be medically inaccurate,” Phyllida Burlingame, reproductive justice policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told SFGate [the San Francisco Chronicle].
The SFGate story began: “California’s sex-education law prohibits school districts from indoctrinating students on the need to remain celibate before marriage or teaching them that abstinence is the only safe way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, a judge has ruled.”
As if California liberals oppose “indoctrinating students” on any sexual ideology. How, on the basis of “science,” is it “medically inaccurate” to argue that celibacy prevents pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases? Sex education isn’t only about “science,” no matter how much liberals pretend it is.
Missing from the piece, however, is any critical analysis of the judge’s decision. Is there ever an age too young for sex education? Is there ever a danger that promoting “safe sex” to teenagers simply promotes earlier sexual experimentation? Is promoting liberal values on contraception, masturbation, and sexual orientation really just promoting “science” and “medically accurate information,” or is it pushing ideology?
At one point, Briquelet notes that the San Francisco paper reported that the abstinence-only material “likened a sexually-experienced woman to a dirty shoe and promoted sexual-orientation bias with a ‘One man, one woman, one life’ mantra.”
The Daily Beast shares in the horror that any sex-ed program would “perpetuate sexual-orientation bias.” Since they’ve never shown any bias on sexual orientation?
