The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice Of The Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

Parents criticize sex ed plans

Program material becomes issue

Text Size: A | A

Several Fonda-Fultonville school district residents on Tuesday criticized the use of a Planned Parenthood educator to conduct sex education classes for seventh- and eighth-graders beginning today. Read Mark Robarge's view as a parent of sex education in the schools in his blog, "Off the Beaten Path," by clicking here. The parents said they had collected 163 signatures of residents opposing the introduction of Planned Parenthood materials or organization-developed instruction in the school. The group developed ...

You Must or Subscribe to Continue
subscribe to the Daily Gazette
Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Enjoy this story? Share it!

Advertisement

comments

coachmike
May 21, 2008
5 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Well with this program , now you will surpass the bronx figure because of the encouragement of bringing the young news that the body can be felt good by engaging in sex. The school, why did they feel that they had the responcibility to implement this program, is it there job to bring this into play over the head of the parents? Well those who plan to opt out , im sure they will but those who do not have to prepare themselves for questions that they are to nervous to answer because there to embarassed about the subject and when you dont give answers to your kids they will find out somewhere else, hence the problem your in in the first place, whether it be sex, drugs or alcohol.

annarondac
May 21, 2008
7:42 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I suppose sex education has grown into a booming business since I have been in school. I had education in how humans reproduce and the differences between girls and boys. This is all I needed. To be taught about using one's body for pleasure is for parents. Parents, if you don't want to tackle the hard subjects and issues pertaining to children, use birth control.

Snowgrnch
May 21, 2008
12:33 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Since the early 1970's, The National Family Planning Program, had been strongly supported by all Democratic and Republican administrations, until recently. It has also received broad bi-partisan support in Congress.. Each year, publicly funded programs help avert 1.3 million pregnancies and 632,000 abortions. As far as “parental rights“, this program is optional, no one is forced to take it. The class is only given to those kids who’s parents sign to opt-in to the program. With Montgomery County having the second highest teen pregnancy rate in the state, this program is needed. It would seem that this small group is trying to keep Planned Parenthood classes from those parents who do want this program.

concernedmom20
May 21, 2008
5:35 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I am a parent of two children in FFCS and I am all for educating our children about how babies are made and what they can expect to be happening to their bodies as they go through puberty; but I am not in favor of a highly politicized organization with a definitive political agenda to be brought into the public schools to teach their version of sexuality to my very impressionable 12 year old. Before posting comments on this article you must read go to www.notinourschool.com and read what is included in Planned Parenthood's Educational Agenda. Encouraging 12 and 13 year olds not to consult with their parents on issues as serious as sexuality is reprehensible and damaging to children and families, and ultimately to our community. Leave parenting up to the parents; good or bad, parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit. As for the person who commented that parents have the right to withdraw their children, that may be true -- but then you must remember, those children also have a right to an education! FFCS is a great school system and I am confident they, along with the help of the community, can come up with a more effective plan to combat the teen pregnancy problem.

Vivavox
May 21, 2008
7:53 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Under the guise of sex or health education, Planned Parenthood sexually grooms children to need their contraception and abortion services at a later date. Visit their teenwire.com website to see what I mean. They contribute to the hyper-sexualization of our youth by encouraging such things as outer-course. What teen is going to stop there?! For heaven's sake, they have a talking vagina and penis. Heck, we got rid of a cartoon Joe Camel so kids won't be enticed to smoke. There is no attempt to shield the site from younger children who can watch condom demonstrations and other sex acts. The site is pornographic.

I support sex education because all children need appropriate factual information on reproduction, healthy relationships, how to resist sexual cons, pregnancy, fetal and child development, etc. However, Planned Parenthood's brand of sex ed goes against moral family values.

naturelover
May 22, 2008
10:46 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Vivavox: I visited the website "teenwire". There was absolutely NO PORN on the site. If you don't want a young child watching it, then monitor your child's internet activity. In fact, on the parents page, it states that PP believes parents should be the #1 educator for their children. "Teenwire" is there to provide medically accurate info for those teens who have parents that can't communicate with them about sex. PP doesn't go against moral family values. Visit the teenwire page on oral sex. Abstinence-only education leads teens to practice anal and oral sex because teens think they are technically "virgins" and can't get pregnant. But the risk for STD's is still there. Not many parents know all the different types of STD's and how they can be transmitted off the top of their head. Can you? PP can.

annarondac
May 22, 2008
10:59 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Of course I went to school a long time ago, when girls dressed in dresses and boys in jeans (pants). I'm glad I grew up then. When a child needed special education, the parents gave the help needed, not the school. When my parents thought I was ready for sex education, they sat down and explained sex in words that I could handle. We had daily family dinners and on Sundays, the now not famous "Sunday Dinner" in the early afternoon after church.

Our school budget was small, our taxes reasonable, our family tight and our morals high. The pregnancy rate was very low because we were in school or with our families. Perhaps this is too Mayberry, USA for some, but parents were responsible for their children, not the state or the school. Harsh words, yes, but a very good life.

dallas
May 22, 2008
11:10 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

It's nice that there are so many parents in the Fonda/Fultonville district who actually will talk with their children about sex. The incredibly high pregnancy rate leads me to believe that right now, parents are not having these conversations effectively; if they are having them at all.

Also, where is all of this hostility towards sexual pleasure coming from? Chances are, children around 13 years old already know that most of the world thinks sex is fun. They're not going to learn that from a sex education class. What they are going to learn is why to wait and how to protect themselves if they decide not to wait. You can't lock up your kids until they get married so why not give them the tools to stay healthy?

Rigorous, scientific studies show that abstinence-only education does not work. Studies also show that comprehensive sex ed classes do work and do NOT encourage more sexual activity as people here assume. The fact that this article only gives authority to a few dissenting voices betrays its bias.

Maybe instead of sitting on our moral high horses, we should look at the realities of our children's lives and equip them with everything they need to meet those challenges head on, without shame.

naturelover
May 22, 2008
11:32 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Amen, Dallas!
Annarondac: I miss those days, also. In our home we still have the Sunday family dinner (after church). We also all eat together, every night, at the dinner table. But I am not naive about the amount of "sex education" that bombards our children on tv, in music, on the playground, in the school bus, in gym class, etc. Nowadays, teens seem "proud" to be pregnant instead of embarrassed. I didn't grow up in the 40's folks. I grew up in the 70's. We now have kids having kids. Will they talk with their kids about sex ed? Probably not.

aguy
May 22, 2008
12:46 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Wait! Sex is fun? Where have I been? It's a good thing that PP didn't teach me sex education or I would have been having a lot more of this "fun" sex thing.

I hope our teens don't catch on to this new development.

naturelover
May 22, 2008
1:31 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

concernedmom20: I visited the "notinourschools" website. All I can say is "WOW", you people who designed or agree with your website are blind. I particularly like the parts in red on the "home" page where you twist the meanings of SIECUS statements to your liking. Here's a good one: "Sometimes the values one learns in society conflict with the values one has learned in one's family." The websites response is "[Here's the setup to undermine parental imparting of values]". How is that undermining parental values???

As a FFCS parent visiting this website for the first time, I can't believe that you think every parent out there is comfortable talking about teen sex, std's, homosexuality, anal sex, oral sex, etc.

The SADD group (STUDENTS) chose PP because they were comfortable with PP. I would think if students are comfortable with PP, that will encourage them to pay attention and learn something. Unfortunately, even after all this sex ed, some of the kids will wind up pregnant. I personally think teen pregnancy is more tied to the availability of welfare and the fact that children learn what they live. But that's for another day.

zumchak
May 22, 2008
2:17 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Boys don't need encouragement to have sex. They are continuously high on the mind-altering drug testosterone. Girls need a little help. They need to be told 1) Sex feels good 2) Everbody's doing it 3) You can do it safely. Their "sex education" uses titalation. It encourages children to have sex. PP's plan is to turn little girls into sluts at a very young age. Even if they use condoms, PP knows that promiscuous kids eventually will make a mistake and get pregnant (if not something worse) and PP is there to serve them. Killing unborn babies isn't the worst of it. The emotional damage they do to women lasts a lifetime. Last year's income approached one billion dollars. Much of it was taxpayer money. If you hate your kids, particularly your sweet little girls, go with PP. Getting kids pregnant and killing their unborn is their business! And it's now a billion dollar business. "Sex education" is what drives it.

dallas
May 22, 2008
2:52 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Zumchak: Kids certainly are not learning your three points from abstinence-only education. PP's curriculum does not encourage sex but encourages waiting and then safety.

If PP didn't exist to give women safe abortions, there would be thousands of women dying from sepsis instead of thousands of dollars spent on a safe procedure. Besides, don't let your feelings about abortion get in the way of good sex ed.

Let's all try a little pragmatism on for size. 97% of people will have sex before they get married. Should we instill shame in them and give them misinformation or should we recognize the reality and try to help people be as safe as possible? It seems like that's what the superintendent is trying to do for FFCS - we're lucky to have him.

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
3:18 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

For anyone that is curious this is what Planned Parenthood thinks the ideal comprehensive sex ed program to provide to our children would look like.

Instruct children that practically no sexual practice is wrong even urinating on one another(http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2007/as-20070712p1544-shower.php)

-Teach children to engage, guilt free, in sexual activities and even suggests seeking professional counseling if they do feel guilt(http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2006/as-20061228p1410-guilt.php)

Use sexually explicit films and images in presentations (http://www.all.org/stopp/wsr070117.htm and http://www.all.org/db_file/1050.pdf )

Oppose parents role in instructing their children about sex and even hide information from parents (http://www.all.org/stopp/wsr070124.htm and http://www.childpredators.com/ )

Distribute sex toys and coupons for pornography shops (http://all.org/article.php?id=11097&... )

And make sure to start teaching kids all of this as young as age 9(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/ask-dr-cullins/communication-5284.htm )

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
3:19 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

To the average person, a program that claims to be “comprehensive” and “medically accurate” sounds very acceptable, and in fact, probably very good. At face value it is almost understandable that school boards and city councils would be taken in by a program described like this. However, the problem is that when Planned Parenthood claims that its sex ed programs will be “comprehensive” and “medically accurate,” it is lying, plain and simple.

A very common example of Planned Parenthood’s sex ed hypocrisy is how it teaches children about “safer sex.” According to Planned Parenthood, “safer sex” is a “relative term; it is anything you decide to do to lower the risk of becoming infected or infecting someone else, especially with dangerous infections, such as HIV.” (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-... ) But it then turns around and rejects procedures such as circumcision that have been shown to drastically decrease HIV transmission. Why? According to Planned Parenthood, it is because “condom use is, by far, a superior safer sex strategy.” (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-...) Obviously, that can’t be the real reason. If that were PP’s rationale, then it would only advocate for abstinence before marriage and fidelity to one’s spouse afterward, as it is the most “superior safer sex strategy” since it is 100 percent effective. I contend that the real reason Planned Parenthood doesn’t support circumcision is simply because it isn’t one of the services PP sells.

Well, at least Planned Parenthood is giving all the facts about its products and services, right? Outrageously, the answer again is no. In fact, an article in the Austin-American Statesman reported that a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region said that “emphasizing condom failure rates confuses adolescents.” In other words, Planned Parenthood wants to teach our children to use condoms, but doesn’t feel it is appropriate to teach them the fact that condoms fail 15 percent of the time. That doesn’t sound very “comprehensive,” does it?

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
3:19 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

But that’s not all. Often in Planned Parenthood’s literature and presentations, it specifically omits the fact that nearly all contraceptive drugs and devices can contribute to the death of a developing child in their mother’s womb by preventing implantation even when trusted sources such as the Physician’s Desk Reference clearly state as such. Certainly this would prove the program to be far from “comprehensive”; but what is worse is that when Planned Parenthood is specifically asked, it still denies the abortifacient nature of its products. (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-... ) This is not just medically inaccurate but is simply an outright lie.

So in other words, for Planned Parenthood “comprehensive” simply means providing as much explicit information about deviant sexual behavior as possible never leaving out a single graphic detail, but when it comes to the science it’s ok to skimp on information a little bit. I suppose we shouldn’t be too shocked after all this is all part of Planned Parenthood's marketing program. According to its own reports, 70 percent of Planned Parenthood's customer base is composed of people 25 or younger. Planned Parenthood knows that it can't sell contraceptives or abortions unless people are engaging in uninhibited sexual activity.

naturelover
May 22, 2008
4:06 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Talk about outright lies, Deprofundis!!!

You said PP: Instruct children that practically no sexual practice is wrong even urinating on one another(http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2007/as-20070712p1544-shower.php)

PP’s real answer: There's nothing inherently wrong or hurtful about this sex practice, but it is uncommon. (This was taken from the Q & A section of teenwire. Someone wanted to know what a golden shower was. She was probably too embarrassed to ask her parents! PP does not teach this!!!)

Deprofundis says PP: (again from Q & A section)
Teach children to engage, guilt free, in sexual activities and even suggests seeking professional counseling if they do feel guilt.

PP’s real answer: Many people feel guilty about sex and masturbation, but enjoying our sexuality is a normal, natural part of life. Shame and guilt can lead to difficulties in a person's sense of self-esteem and in a person's relationships with other people. Professional counseling is often helpful to relieve unnecessary shame and guilt about sexual activity.

Deprofundis says PP:
Use sexually explicit films and images in presentations

Websites provided by Deprofundis were from the American Life League. Could not prove or disprove as nothing about these were on any PP or PP affiliated site. More than likely propaganda by ALL.

Deprofundis says PP:
Oppose parents role in instructing their children about sex and even hide information from parents.

Again websites provided by Deprofundis were not from PP or affiliates.

Deprofundis says PP:
Distribute sex toys and coupons for pornography shops

Again, from ALL. PP never said or did this.

Deprofundis says PP:
And make sure to start teaching kids all of this as young as age 9

PP does not say to teach ANY of the things Deprofundis just listed.

If you want to list facts, please do. Facts is what would change my mind about having PP in FFCS. I have made my decision base on facts, not scare tactics.

aguy
May 22, 2008
4:31 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Deprofundis is spreading misinformation in his/her posts. Imagine that! One of their favorite tactics.

naturelover
May 22, 2008
4:48 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

That is why I would encourage everyone to check out any and all information about sex ed. Ask your child's physician. Visit the PP website and their teenwire website.

Of course I want my child to wait until marriage to have sex, just like my parents wanted me to wait. But at age 17 I was "in love" and had intercourse. Luckily I didn't get pregnant or get an STD. But statistics are what they are. Chances are very good YOUR child is engaging in some sexual activity, be it intercourse or oral sex. Continue to preach abstinance and teach them your family values, but help teach them safety if they choose to go against your wishes, or "family values".

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
8:22 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

naturelover,

Lies? In my experience people don't link sources for "lies." But lets go through these one by one:
- PP has instruction on TeenWire, in fact it touts the website as an educational one which would mean that the info on it is specifically insructional. If a teachers has a question and answer period during class is it suddenly not teaching? The reason I included a link to the page is so that people can see what PP actually said, after reading it that in no way changes the fact that PP told a child that it was ok for people to urinate on one another.
- as for my comments about PP stating that people shouldn't feel guilty and instructed professional counseling, again I provided the link so people could see what PP said, and once again I don't change what I said one bit, the facts are right there in PP's own words
- As far as the link to ALL's website regarding the explicit films and imagery from PP's presentations. Feel free to contact the local PP affiliates mentioned in the ALL articles, I'm sure they'd be glad to tell people about the films that they share as educational aids. Make sure to ask specifically about the film mentioned in the ALL article to be precise. As for the other ALL link it included a picture from the book "Its Perfectly Normal" that PP endorses and distributes. The only alteration by ALL was pixelation which the newspaper running the ad required.
- No, the website that I provided regarding PP hiding information from parents and authorities was not from a PP website. Why? Because it included recorded phone conversations from PP employees. Why go to a website when you can literally hear it from PP's employee's mouths? In addition to that very strong evidence, here is a link from Teenwire regarding PP with holding health information from parents: http://www.teenwire.com/ask/2006/as-2006... and here from PP in Ohio http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppneo/a...

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
8:23 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

naturelover, (continued)

- "PP never said or did this" Well, now that is most certainly a lie, or at the very least ignorance. Why? Links aside I have seen this with my own eyes at PP sponsored "sex fairs." Here is a link to a couple of school newspapers since I would expect you choose not to believe me: http://ase.tufts.edu/tuftsvox/ check out the pictures from the 2005 sex fair, especially note the "dildo ring toss". Here http://media.www.collegian.com/media/sto... you can read about dildos given out as door prizes and how "Doctor John's sex shop" was one of the invited guests of this PP sponsored event. So yes... Planned Parenthood has, and does distribute such materials.
- and finally "PP does not say to teach any of the things De Profundis just listed". I'm not sure if PP says to, I'm just stating that PP does, plain and simple with multiple links as proof.

I agree though, decisions should be based on facts and I am always eager to point anyone curious about Planned Parenthood to the facts that it is involved in gravely scandelous behavior especially around children.

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
8:28 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

aguy,

1- If it is misinformation please point out the errors.

2- One of my favorite tactics? Do I even know you? This is the first time I've posed on this board.

dallas
May 22, 2008
8:36 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

"that is is involved in gravely scandelous (sic) behavior especially around children"

Many of the things that you've mentioned, deprofundis, are things that PP has been a part of for consenting adults ONLY. The sex fair you mention was at Tufts which last time I checked was a University, not an elementary school. PP knows the difference between what is appropriate for an 18 year old and what is appropriate for a 12 year old - as we all do. Your knee jerk reaction to things you wouldn't have wanted on your college campus doesn't mean it's wrong or inappropriate for certain people to partake of them, when they're legal adults.

It seems like what you really disagree with here is the fundamental difference between how PP views sex and how you view it. Some people feel that, as long as it is consensual and safe, most sexual activity is alright. Others feel that their own personal opinions about sex are what everyone should think, regardless of age or gender or sexual expression. If you can't be accepting of the diversity of sexual expression (even sexual expression that you happen to find disgusting) I don't think you should be allowed to dictate what other people can and can't do with their bodies.

Lastly - as for medical accuracy, I will point again to rigorous, peer reviewed, published, experimental study designs which have proven time and again that the information PP gives out is accurate and HELPS while the information deprofundis would want to give out is inaccurate and HURTS. I can cite actual, non-biased sources for these arguments, not stories pulled from clearly one-sided websites preaching to the sex-negative, shame-based choir.

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
8:55 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Some more choice links from PP:

http://www.teenwire.com/interactive/movi... Here you can watch a talking cartoon penis ooze pre-ejaculate and hear clever lies about how for some reason a woman isn't pregnant until her child has implanted (about a week after her offspring is already alive and growing inside of her.) Sounds like just the kind of things children should be learning doesn't it?

Also, its a bit strange that PP gives graphic representations on its youth website of how to use a condom (http://www.teenwire.com/interactive/movi...) but doesn't give any instruction on how to observe cervical mucus and/or temperature as a natural means of preventing a pregnancy. In fact the only info PP gives in this little animation to teens about fertility awareness methods is a big "NO." (http://www.teenwire.com/interactive/movi...) Hm. Doesn't seem very comprehensive but it does seem a bit hypocritical from an organization that touts that teens should be given ALL the information so they can make informed decisions for themselves.

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
9:09 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Dallas,

"Many of the things that you've mentioned, deprofundis, are things that PP has been a part of for consenting adults ONLY"

Really? Well, the urination thing I've already noted was on the teen site what else? This article, again on PP's youth website, talks about anal stimulation,"exploring one another's anus/rectum with hands, mouths." Here http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2005/if-... PP states that outercourse is a good "safer sex" choice. Odd, no mention of the medical dangers of the bacterial contact involved with touching one or another's anus with hands or mouth is mentioned at all.

In fact, I'm honestly confused. Exactly what sexual behavior does PP condone only for "consenting adults" and not for minors? In my searching of PP's website I havn't really found any sexual practice that PP frowns upon for kids. Please point out where I can see the behaviors PP endorses only for "consenting adults." Thanks.

"I will point again to rigorous, peer reviewed, published, experimental study designs which have proven time and again that the information PP gives out is accurate and HELPS"

I would love to see it when you are able to share, thanks.

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
9:25 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Dallas,

As an aside, please explain what you mean by, "while the information deprofundis would want to give out is inaccurate and HURTS." What information that I want to give out are you referring to exactly?

I do hope you aren't just making blind assumptions, you seem smart enough to know better than that.

deprofundis
May 22, 2008
9:32 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Dallas,

"Many of the things that you've mentioned, deprofundis, are things that PP has been a part of for consenting adults ONLY"

I'd also like to point out that when I was in middle and highschool there was a Planned Parenthood operating in my very own neighborhood. During my school years I saw first hand several of my peers getting free "flavored lubricants" and novelty "holiday colored condoms" from PP. I have even seen a package that included a small purple "butt plug" that a friend of mine picked up from a PP tabling event. There was also a program where kids would get free movie tickets for referring other kids to PP.

Don't get me wrong I completely understand where you are coming from. It is difficult to believe that Planned Parenthood would be exposing minors to this kind of stuff. I was suprised when saw it myself. Sadly, the reality is that just because it is shocking doesn't mean it isn't going on.

dallas
May 22, 2008
10:07 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

deprofundis:

1. Clearly PP differs from you in terms of when they believe a pregnancy starts - as do millions of others. It is my understanding however, that the zygote does not begin to multiply until after it has implanted. Just to let you know.

2. Taking one's temperature and measuring cervical mucous can be effective means of contraception but it is not as effective, nor is it as easy to use for anyone, let alone adolescents, especially when we're busy teaching them through abstinence-only education that their genitals are dirty things that they must never touch or let anyone else touch. In my view, PP is doing the responsible thing by pointing to one of the easiest, cheapest and most common ways of protection.

3. When I referred to consenting adults, I was speaking specifically of the things that you were asserting PP was doing to children - which they weren't because they occurred on college campuses (there are no dildo ring tosses in high schools). My guess is that PP recognizes that teens are having oral sex, vaginal sex and anal sex and instead of shaming teens for what they're already doing, they chose knowledge. Teens know how to use Google. If they want to learn about anal sex, they can learn about it from porn, or they can actually learn about it. I'd pick the latter. Even though you might think its an activity that minors shouldn't be engaging in, at some point, you need to accept that fact that some will. I've talked to hundreds of adults who know all about anal sex and decide not to do it, I believe (and studies show) that teens are capable of making the same rational decisions as adults when given all of the (correct) information.

4. By the information that you would want to give out I mean your clear stance against giving as much information as possible to teens. If you're against outercourse, I'm making the assumption that you're also against intercourse. If you support educating teens, as reputable organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics would (accurately and completely, as PP does) then please correct me.

5. As for studies: Emerging Answers, 2007. Mathematica 2006. Waxman, 2004 and anything by John Santelli. And those are just the ones I know off the top of my head. The Mathematica study was sponsored by the Bush Administration and still found that comprehensive sex ed (as taught by PP) is effective in delaying sex AND promoting safer sex.

Here's the bottom line: we can keep arguing about this on this website forever but we fundamentally disagree about what the point of sex education is, what the content of it should be, and what teens really need. I doubt that reading a study is going to change your mind but I'd certainly love it if it would.

annarondac
May 23, 2008
8:24 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

That is exactly why parents should talk to their children.

naturelover
May 23, 2008
9:21 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Thank you, Dallas, for a level-headed explanation!

Deprofundis, you may have (quote) "included a link to the page is so that people can see what PP actually said" but how many people would actually take the time to click on the link to verify it's accuracy? Most people would take what they read at face value. What if you hadn't included a link??? Only if they took the time to click on the link, would they have seen what PP actually said, not what you twisted around. Shame on you!

How may sex fairs have you been to, Deprofundis? Were you at Tufts University? Next you'll be trashing the Vagina Monologues. You claim you've been to many sex fairs. As far as recorded phone calls, anyone can make a recording of a "supposed" conversation.

dallas
May 23, 2008
9:54 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

This has been fun but I have a rule that I don't argue with anyone online for more than 24 hours so I'm done. I leave with these closing thoughts:

1. Just because people think teens shouldn't be engaging in certain activities doesn't mean that teens won't do those things.

2. If they are reading/hearing/watching/doing things some adults don't approve of, chances are that ignoring the problem or telling them it's wrong won't work. Educating them about how to be as safe as possible and think through their decisions is the most realistic way of improving teen sexual health outcomes.

3. There are two ways of looking at this problem. One is from a moral standpoint that asserts that one person's beliefs are right and should be imposed upon others because they know best (or their god knows best). The other is from the moral standpoint that people have a basic right to information and to make their own choices, free from shame or bias, even if the person giving out the information doesn't always agree with those choices.

Thanks for the debate. I commend the FFCS Superintendent and the principal for sticking to what they believe is right for teens.

aguy
May 23, 2008
11:01 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Dallas and Naturelover already seemed to have pointed out the misinformation.

"Their". Not "your". Although "you" are obviously a part of "them".

Dallas, great job here! I learned quite a bit from you.

deprofundis
May 23, 2008
8:05 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Dallas:

1. "Clearly PP differs from you in terms of when they believe a pregnancy starts - as do millions of others." True it is PP's belief, but it does not say "it is PP's opinion" it states it as though it were fact. As far as your understanding, you are mistaken, most Biology text books will point out that info.

2. "Taking one's temperature and measuring cervical mucous can be effective means of contraception but it is not as effective, nor is it as easy to use for anyone, let alone adolescents" Less effective? That is up for debate. Not as easy? Sure. But if Planned Parenthood says it believes in "comprehensive sex ed" then it should mean what it says, not pick and choose what methods get to be taught despite others.

3. "I believe (and studies show) that teens are capable of making the same rational decisions as adults" I would love for you to point to those studies, because I have seen several psychological studies that point to the fact that the rational mind of an adolescent is different than that of a fully developed adult. Please do share.

4. "If you're against outercourse, I'm making the assumption that you're also against intercourse." That doesn't logically follow at all.
"If you support educating teens..." I absolutly support educating people, teens included, about their bodies and their sexuality. However, I fail to see why I have to support PP's methods, there are other ones afterall.

5. "As for studies: Emerging Answers, 2007. Mathematica 2006. Waxman, 2004 and anything by John Santelli." John Santelli works for the Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher institute and PP are financially tied (it was explicitly spelled out in its annual reports until this year, I have a copy of last years, but can't find a link online here is an earlier one you can see though,note page 24 http://www.plannedparenthoodrx.com/annua... ) As far as the Waxman study, that was in regard to abstinence only programs, of which I do not support so its a moot point.

deprofundis
May 23, 2008
8:09 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

naturelover,

"how many people would actually take the time to click on the link to verify it's accuracy?" I have no idea, honestly what more can I do than offer the information? If people choose not to access it I can hardly be held responsible for that.

"How may sex fairs have you been to, Deprofundis?" That Planned Parenthood sponsored? 3. I wasn't at Tufts, but I was at CSU where Planned Parenthood hosted a similar sex fair with "dildo ring tosses" coupons for pornography shops and "sex toys" as door prizes.

deprofundis
May 23, 2008
8:15 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

dallas,

1. "Just because people think teens shouldn't be engaging in certain activities doesn't mean that teens won't do those things." The same argument applies for teens not using condoms etc.

2. "If they are reading/hearing/watching/doing things some adults don't approve of, chances are that ignoring the problem or telling them it's wrong won't work. Educating them about how to be as safe as possible and think through their decisions is the most realistic way of improving teen sexual health outcomes." By that logic then it is wrong to tell kids not to drink and drive, or not do heroin. But instead we should make sure to tell kids to buckle up when the get behind the wheel wasted and give the kids alcohol swabs when they shoot up.

3. "The other is from the moral standpoint that people have a basic right to information and to make their own choices, free from shame or bias, even if the person giving out the information doesn't always agree with those choices." Sure, I'm not for censorship, but just because someone has the right to seek all information doesn't mean it is the state's responsibility to provide all information, that is far from reasonable or feasible.

deprofundis
May 23, 2008
8:20 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

aguy,

""Their". Not "your". Although "you" are obviously a part of "them".

Huh? Beyond that sounding paranoid it's simply confusing. I am an individual with an understanding of Planned Parenthood's policies and practices that have come as a result of my own research and observation. Attempting to pigeonhole individuals that disagree with an opinion to discount their position is a bit intellectually irresponsible and quickly leads dangerously close to ad hominem territory.

annarondac
May 24, 2008
1:28 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Fulton and Montgomery people are the biggest posters. I think this is wonderful. If you check out other communities, no one posts. Whether we agree or disagree, we certainly get our messages out. Kudos to all you bloggers and posters.

gardengirl
May 24, 2008
7:39 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I realize I'm posting a bit late, but I believe I have something of importance to say.

While many may not like PP because of its pro-choice stance, it is an organization that looks at sexuality realistically, and does its best to help teens and women.

When I was in my early 20's, I went to PP for BC pills. I couldn't afford them elsewhere. During my examination, they found a cancerous growth on my cervix. A nurse at PP hounded me until she made sure I found a doctor to perform surgery. Here I am, nearing 50, and quite healthy, thanks to PP.

PP isn't trying to instill wild sexual values among our kids; some kids already HAVE those values. What PP is trying to do is keep them STD free and steer them away from abortion and teen pregnancy!

Also, if your child is old enough to ask sexual questions, he or she is old enough to know the answers. If you're uncomfortable discussing these things with your own children, take a deep breath and do it anyway. I was very matter of fact with my now-adult children. I'm happy to say I have no grandchildren yet, my children are in serious relationships, and have never been promiscuous.

deprofundis
May 24, 2008
2:06 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Gardengirl,

"What PP is trying to do is keep them STD free and steer them away from abortion..."

I would love to believe that, but each year Planned Parenthood commits an increasing number of surgical abortions (well over a quarter of a million last year alone)http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf (note page 6)
Not to mention the fact that this means Planned Parenthood alone is committing nearly one quarter of the total surgical abortions that occur in the U.S. each year.

That aside though you said, "many may not like PP because of its pro-choice stance" and I'm sure that may be true. Personally however, if Planned Parenthood stopped doing surgical abortions today but continued with all of the other practices it is involved in I would still be as strongly opposed to it as I am now.

I don't trust an organization that dispenses "sex toys" to youth and tells children that it is permissible to urinate on one another for sexual gratification no matter what its stance on abortion may be.

"if your child is old enough to ask sexual questions, he or she is old enough to know the answers. If you're uncomfortable discussing these things with your own children, take a deep breath and do it anyway."

I agree 100% and am glad you said it so well.

deprofundis
May 24, 2008
2:15 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

gardengirl,

As an aside, is every single thing that Planned Parenthood does reprehensible? No, I do not believe it is. Are the individual people who work for Planned Parenthood all bad? Again, no I don't believe that either.

I do however believe two important things:

1- The majority of the work Planned Parenthood is involved in contributes negativly to children and communities as a whole.

2- As a friend once said, "what if 50% of a cookie was made out of feces? Would you still want to eat it? How about 25%? 10%?" The answer is obviously, "of course not."

And that, I believe, is precisely the issue at hand. Is educating people about their bodies and their sexuality a good thing? Absolutly. But there are people much better suited to do so than Planned Parenthood.

Why swallow that bit of feces when you can go somewhere else and get all of the good parts of the cookie without having to eat poo?

Snowgrnch
May 24, 2008
2:21 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I’m glad the rants of small group didn’t prevent this necessary service from helping the community. With only 6 parents opting out of the 8th grade class, it shows a desire to move forward and educate the next generation to break this cycle of STD’s and teen pregnancy.

sezah
May 24, 2008
2:24 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

zumchak said: "Boys don't need encouragement to have sex. They are continuously high on the mind-altering drug testosterone. Girls need a little help."

Wow, you managed to state a harmful lie that is insulting to BOTH sexes! Sorry to drag you out of the 1800s, but most males are NOT sex-crazed machines, and most if not all females deeply enjoy sex and need no encouragement to seek it out.

Far as the issue itself goes, the reason PP seems like a logical choice given the circumstances: Abstinence-only education is a failure. IF parents had been giving any factual sexual education to their children, then, clearly, there wouldn't been a teen pregnancy problem.

Instead of blaming these "impressionable" youths, perhaps you should take a long hard look at the parenting that created such poor decision-making, and re-evaluate this approach.

deprofundis
May 24, 2008
3:15 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

"the reason PP seems like a logical choice given the circumstances: Abstinence-only education is a failure."

That doesn't logically follow at all, in fact its an outright logical fallacy. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/falsedi...
It's not like "abstinence only" and Planned Parenthood are the only options out there.

I for one oppose both "abstinence only" curricula as well as Planned Parenthood's programs. There are many other programs than just these two options.

sezah
May 24, 2008
5:52 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

"That doesn't logically follow at all, in fact its an outright logical fallacy...It's not like "abstinence only" and Planned Parenthood are the only options out there."

I'm against abstinence-only programs, but you made a strawman argument by suggesting that I think there's no other option except AO or PP.

IF abstinence-only education worked, then there would be NO pregnancies, right? There are other alternatives but PP is the most medically comprehensive and accurate.

... and just out of curiosity, can I ask what your alternatives are?

gardengirl
May 25, 2008
10:21 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

deprofundis,

Nice cookie story...good job! :D

What you consider "poo" will not be taught at FF, so what's the problem?

Concerning abortion - PP doesn't talk women into abortions; PP lets women make a legal CHOICE.

Speaking of choice, the parents were given a CHOICE of having their kids participate in the program. Again, where is the problem here? If a parent doesn't agree with PP's stance, they had the CHOICE to opt out!

When I grew up, I realized not everybody would agree with me. I realized the world is not all black and white; there are many shades of gray in between; that means there is good AND bad in everybody, every company, etc. I also realized I can't dictate how others live or view life. Life is much less stressful when one stops being a control freak.

deprofundis
May 25, 2008
3:21 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

sezah,

"I'm against abstinence-only programs, but you made a strawman argument by suggesting that I think there's no other option except AO or PP."

That definitely seemed to be precisely what you were suggesting, "Far as the issue itself goes, the reason PP seems like a logical choice given the circumstances: Abstinence-only education is a failure." If you had said "programs other than abstinence only seem like a logical choice..." then it wouldn't imply that the choices left are only Planned Parenthood.

"There are other alternatives but PP is the most medically comprehensive and accurate." I've already pointed out several ways that it is not: it does not endorse circumcision despite the HIV spread reducing evidence, it doesn't include fertility awareness training in its school programs etc.

"... and just out of curiosity, can I ask what your alternatives are?"

You can teach people health information regarding their bodies and their sexuality without including graphic examples as PP does. Also it seems wholely unneccesary to dispense "sex toys" when your goal is to give health information, its just a waste of time and money and is something that should be left to the individual moral teaching of parents. Ultimately I feel that a general health emphasis can be taught in schools regarding bodies and how they work and change, diseases and how to avoid them etc. but where particular details can be left to the disgression of parents. There hits a point where it is very appropriate to say "X is something you should talk with your parents about."

deprofundis
May 25, 2008
3:33 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

gardengirl,

"Speaking of choice, the parents were given a CHOICE of having their kids participate in the program. Again, where is the problem here? If a parent doesn't agree with PP's stance, they had the CHOICE to opt out!"

Pick any heavy moral issue and consider whether it should be taught as an opt-in or opt-out program. Should kids be given combat and weapons training in school by a weapons manufacturer with only the option to opt-out? etc. You, yourself, already concede the fact that many people are strongly opposed to Planned Parenthood. Many others have pointed out that sexuality instruction is something that is primarily the responsibility of parents. If that is the case but a parent does not feel up to it and they want to opt-in to a school sex ed class, so be it. But making it an opt-out option places the schools as the primary instructor regarding sexuality and the parents in a secondary roll.

The reality is that Planned Parenthood makes money on the sale of contraception and abortion, no matter whether or not you want to believe it. Last year PP cleared $77 Million in profit and its executives were paid six-figure salaries. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/A...

Why should an organization that has a vested monetary interest be allowed to indoctrinate kids in our schools? Why not have the Health Department come and teach these courses that way it can be both "medically accurate" as well as objective. What is wrong with that?

gardengirl
May 25, 2008
6:19 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Please read PP's IRS form again, deprofundis. Their net RECEIPTS were $77mil, which is NOT THEIR PROFIT. Expenses are deducted from that figure.

PP is a not-for-profit organization, which is why their web address ends in dot-org. People can make monetary contributions to support their work. They have no vested monetary interest, and yes, of course, their workers get paid. Most CEO's of major corporations make millions. CEO's of NFP's make 6 figures and do the same corporate work.

I don't know where in the world you came up with "combat weapons and training" to compare to the topic at hand.

The school district is using PP to be the supervised, primary educator. The school district feels this instruction is needed by witnessing the increase in teen pregnancy. Don't like it? Opt out. You have a voice, but you can't have your way. Deal with it.

supertia
May 25, 2008
10:17 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

deprofundis:

"I don't trust an organization that ... tells children that it is permissible to urinate on one another for sexual gratification."

So I guess you disagree with PP's statement, "There's nothing inherently wrong or hurtful about this sex practice, but it is uncommon"? If so, what, exactly is it that is inherently wrong or hurtful about the practice?

gardengirl
May 26, 2008
9:38 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Thank you, supertia.

A teen asked a question. The question was answered in a matter of fact, neutral manner. PP didn't condemn the practice or endorse it.

Perhaps an answer expressing shock and shame and threats of hell would have been pleasing to some. It also would have been a wonderful way to slam the door on further sexual discussion, which would allow the teen to find out for him or herself.

It goes to prove PP can instruct in a matter of fact, neutral manner without emotional rants.

deprofundis
May 26, 2008
11:30 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

gardengirl,

You seem to be mistaken. I just re-read PP's annual report (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/A... bottom of pg.16) and according to its own documents Planned Parenthood made $77.1 Million in "excess of revenue over expenses" in other words, profit.

"The school district is using PP to be the supervised, primary educator."

But why? Why have an outside organization come in. Beyond the fact that parents should be the "primary educator" why should a non-regulated organization be? If there are going to be such programs mandated in public schools why not bring in the Health Department to teach these things? That way it will be very closely supervised and certain to be "medically accurate" as well as completely objective.

"You have a voice, but you can't have your way. Deal with it."

Me making others aware of Planned Parenthood's actions and policies is precisely the way I'm using my voice to deal with it.

deprofundis
May 26, 2008
11:42 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

supertia,

"If so, what, exactly is it that is inherently wrong or hurtful about the practice?"

Beyond the fact that its probably not a good idea to get the acid and chemicals in any orifaces and contact with mucus membranes (which PP makes no mention of to even be remotely cautious about) The DSM-IV 4 notes that behavior like urinating on another person is a possible symptom of a mental disorder (again something PP makes not even a cautionary note about.)

Finally, if you feel that this perfectly appropriate information that is being presented to children then you should be glad I am making more people aware of it.

SaraR
May 28, 2008
7:52 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

As a student of other local sex ed programs, I can only wish we had the expertise of a Planned Parenthood trained educator.

God forbid anyone tell us our bodies can make us feel good.

Parents, if you don't like it, opt your kid out and get over it. Maybe next you'll try opt us out of Science class because our teachers dare mention evolution.

gardengirl
May 29, 2008
8:24 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Actually, deprofundis, the actual "profit", as you insist on calling it, is $114.8 million...look at the figure you mentioned, then look at the figure under the "Total" column. I was previously looking at an actual tax form that stated their receipts were $77 million.

Since PP is a NOT FOR PROFIT organization like some hospitals are, this money will no doubt be used to expand services, not build a mansion for the president of PP.

You forgot to mention that only 3% of PP services provided in the 2006-2007 fiscal year were abortion related. Yep, they sure are doing a fine job "pushing" abortion on folks. When you assume....

deprofundis
May 31, 2008
1:24 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

“the actual "profit", as you insist on calling it, is $114.8 million...look at the figure you mentioned, then look at the figure under the "Total" column”

My mistake. Yes, in fact Planned Parenthood’s profit doubled from last year.

“this money will no doubt be used to expand services”

Who’s assuming now? According to Planned Parenthood’s own documents PP has over $1 Billion of assets, a large amount of which is simply money in the bank. Planned Parenthood’s profits doubled all the while it operated 8 less clinics than the previous year, 121 fewer than 11 years ago. It makes one wonder where the money for “expansion of services” is going. The fact is that Planned Parenthood sells abortions and contraception, services that are promoted through its school programs. This is a clear conflict of interest, one that need not exist. Again I ask, why not have the Health Department provide these education programs in schools so that they can be regulated to be “medically accurate” and objective?

"You forgot to mention that only 3% of PP services provided in the 2006-2007 fiscal year were abortion related."

No, but Planned Parenthood "forgot to mention" that the 3% figure is not based on its cliental but composed of every single thing it dispenses, down to every last condom it distributes. Suffice it to say that slants figures just a tad.

However, based on Planned Parenthood’s own figures its “unduplicated clients” last year totaled 3,140,540. Based on that and the 289,750 abortions Planned Parenthood committed last year that means that PP committed abortions on over 9% of its customers. To put things in perspective adoption referrals for Planned Parenthood last year composed less than 0.0008% of its total business. In fact, Planned Parenthood commits abortions for its female customers more frequently than it tests them for HIV.

You must admit, something seems a bit odd about an organization that claims to be working to “reduce the number of abortions” and yet commits a larger and larger amount each year, almost 25,000 more last year than the previous year, a 9.4% increase in fact. That’s 5,572 abortions PP commits every single week. At this point in America, one in every four abortions is committed by Planned Parenthood. Whether it is due to an ulterior motive or simply because its programs are inept is moot. Either way it is evident that Planned Parenthood is ineffective at “reducing the number of abortions” for its customers. One doesn’t need to assume, simply look at the numbers

deprofundis
May 31, 2008
5:16 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

"To put things in perspective adoption referrals for Planned Parenthood last year composed less than 0.0008% of its total business."

I appologize, that isn't the percentage of PP's total business. It is the percentage of total unduplicated clients which it refers for adoptions. The percentage was so low for the percent of its total business (the number PP uses for the "3% abortions") that it gave me errors on my calculator.

Nassau_County_Civic_Assoc
June 3, 2008
1:57 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

We would ask that you call your Senator to oppose the Healthy Teens Act (S1342 Winner/A2856 Gottfried). There is nothing healthy about this bill. Currently, New York requires sex education and AIDS education. This bill is being pushed by Planned Parenthood which has a history of promoting all forms of sexual activity thus comprehensive sex education. The topic guidelines recommended by SIECUS (the foremost national advocate for comprehensive sex education) include masturbation, sexual intercourse, cohabitation, oral and anal sex and homosexuality. Perhaps the Senators should research the now infamous Rainbow Curriculum which was exposed in the 1990s. Here is a link from the City Journal for your consideration; http://www.city-journal.org/article01.ph...

www.nassaucivic.com

Advertisement