The new Sex Ed: Contributing to the Deliquency of a Minor

/in , , , , /by

“We’ve come a long way, baby!” Education matters little if children learn in the classroom to engage in multiple partner, “normal” as well as more “deviant” forms of sex. A massive number will be and are permanently damaged, drinking, drugging, depressed and suicidal.

So moving deviance right along, June 26, 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas the U.S. Supremes proved this besotted disconnect with reality, history, literature, religion, by legalizing same-sex sodomy. Within three short years sodomy has emerged as a schoolhouse athletic “hazing” ritual – boys sodomizing boys—but with adult coach oversight.

We really must turn off the pornography in the locker room—indeed everywhere.

ATHLETIC SODOMY SEX ED

According to press reports, Maine Township High School District 207 Cook County, Illinois was involved in the 2008 sodomy of a boy by his baseball teammates as their coach observed—the same coach oversaw a 2012 varsity soccer team sodomize other boys—allegedly called, “hazing.” One Maine local claimed, “sexual abuse has been occurring as part of rituals at the school for as long as six years.” And just where could these high school lads and their coach(s)? learn that sodomy was average ho ho macho behavior?

“Contributing to the delinquency of a minor”: “Any action by an adult that allows or encourages illegal behavior by a person under the age of 18, or that places children in situations that expose them to illegal behavior.”

And in Washington State on June 14, 2012, during a “sex education class,” the Onalaska Elementary School principal proffered graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex. The “11-year-old students were being given a lesson on HIV-AIDS” part of the “state-adopted curriculum,” facts with “no demonstrations.” “The district leader told Seattle’s Q-13 Fox News. “It’s pretty difficult to talk about STDs or sexually transmitted diseases without explaining what that is, or how it’s transmitted.” Right. Hence kiddie sodomy ed everywhere.

THE GOOD ‘OL DAYS MARRIAGE ED

In the old days (pre-Kinsey’s “sexual revolution”) most current forms of “sex education” were criminal, as “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” That is, talking about sex in front of a minor (someone, commonly under age 18) or, gracious, showing immature souls images of sex or sexy images! Who but a sex deviant would do that? Precisely.

Encouraging any kind of sex activity (lone or with others), well, that was inexcusable, immoral, egregious, shameful and yes, criminal. For, who didn’t understand that children’s brains, minds, and memories should be devoted to education, Shakespeare, mathematics, Latin, our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, learning the heritage of our past—if they would grow and govern our future wisely. Everyone recognized sex as confusing and arousing even to adults. Historically and coss-culturally, sex diverted somber thinking.

Post WWII, commonly in hygiene classes, schoolchildren learned the marital bed was where marriage was consummated, and, in single sex classes, students studied the biology of conception and for girls, the menstrual cycle. Seniors learned that a marriage license required that the boy and girl pass the state tests for the two known venereal diseases (syphilis and gonorrhea). And, oh yes, this instruction was largely normal for public school youths of all races and religions. Abortion (illegal and abhorrent) was rare enough to disdain comment, hence condoms, similarly beyond the pale, were not needed. Sodomy might appear in someone’s religious studies referencing Sodom and Gomorrah.

AND NOW, PLASTIC WRAP OR TIN FOIL SEX ED

Now, good reader, I’ll tell you a true story about children and sex and the predatory malice of what passes today for “sex education.”

It was circa 1991 and I had just finished my Education conference lecture when a youngster, about 14-years-of age, approached me with anxiety written all over her sweet face.

“Dr. Reisman,” she whispered, “could I speak to you for a moment?”

“Of course, dear” I replied, wondering exactly how I would handle the child’s question.

Moving me slightly to one side, so no one else could hear, the girl, let’s call her “Sandy,” said, “Dr. Reisman, I have a question about what you were discussing.” (I quickly thought back to my presentation and was quite sure I hadn’t said anything too advanced or graphic for anyone. I saw she was catching her breath.)

“Our teacher told us that we can use Saran Wrap in case we don’t have a condom,” she said and stopped.

“Well, sweetie, I didn’t say anything in my lecture today about condoms, but I certainly do not want you or any other unmarried youngster having sex, and that would eliminate the need for a condom,” I replied, as gently as I could.

“Well, yes, I know,” said Sandy. “But you see, I’m not asking for myself” she added quickly, “I’m asking for my friend.”

“Honey,” I murmured, “I think you misunderstood your teacher. She couldn’t have said to use Saran Wrap if you don’t have a condom. That is insane, you must have misunderstood.”

“No, I didn’t” Sandy insisted. “But that isn’t my friend’s question,” she said quickly. “I mean, if we don’t have Saran Wrap, can we use tin foil instead?”

Tin foil! Poor, mislead child.

I cannot recall the lecture I gave poor Sandy, one of millions of young victims of early pre sodomy ed. However, I thought, how clear is it that children should never hear psychotic, deviant sex tales wrapped in the mantle of bogus “education?” They haven’t the experience, the maturity, the frontal cognition, to understand the powerful significance of sex. They can only “learn” it as the teacher tells it just as they’d learn grammar, math or geography—bad sex information is processed instantly of course and it is imprinted in the young, undeveloped brain, forever.

I was sure Sandy misunderstood the foolish and toxic teacher. After all the noise about using condoms properly as “protection,” who would recommend Saran Wrap?

Returning home I found out who—sex educators. Sitting on my desk was a 1991 New York Centers for Disease Control brochure: “THE TEENAGER’S BILL OF RIGHTS” “I have the right to decide

whether to have sex and who to have it with.” This illegal and immoral claim was graced by graphic directions for the poor children who received its medically fraudulent, infection and pregnancy/abortion productive brochure. Pardon my explicit language below, but this was 1991 and middle school children are exposed to worse today:

“Use a latex condom for…oral sex (penis into the mouth) and anal sex (penis into the butt).” Sandy was correct, except there was no product name, just plastic wrap. The sex brochure pictorially demonstrated: “Use a dental dam… an unrolled condom cut down one side or plastic wrap for oral sex…[I have sanitized here re:] her fluids in your mouth.” This was produced and distributed by The Division of AIDS Services, under the auspices of the N.Y. City Department of Health. How many abortions, venereal diseases, attempted suicides, or suicides, etc., and general tragedies this little leaflet produced among the children who believed it is not data released by the CDC or the Department of Health.

DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE?

Does this brochure and the hundreds similar, constitute a case for “Depraved Indifference”? This legal violation requires that “the defendant’s conduct must be ‘so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.”

The Maine West High School habit of sodomizing young baseball and soccer players constitutes Depraved Indifference, as well as criminal child sexual abuse and a broad spectrum of similar crimes, What punishment will be meted out to the adults involved and what repairs for these emotionally, physically and “orientationally” violated boys?

THE ANSWERS?! MORE PEDO-GROOMING SEX ED AND CRIMINALIZATION OF REPARATIVE THERAPY FOR “ORIENTATIONALLY” DAMAGED CHILDREN

This brings us to a November 30 article in WorldNetDaily by my friend and colleague, Liberty university attorney Matt Barber who writes:

In recent months, “progressive” lawmakers, activist attorneys and militant homosexual pressure groups have launched a fierce campaign to ban therapeutic help for child victims of monsters like homosexual pedophile Jerry Sandusky. California has already passed such a law (SB 1172). On Friday, Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver challenged this twisted ban in federal court, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the law from taking effect on Jan. 1.

I view SB 1172 as a pederast-protection policy. This is designed to prohibit the young victims of same-sex sodomy, traumatized and often thereby homosexualized, from receiving the same therapy available to any female victim of heterosexual rape.

The Reisman-Johnson 1995 study of the leading mainstream homosexual periodical, The Advocate found their upscale reader respondents self-report (August 23, 1994) as 21% claiming they were “sexually abused by an adult, by age 15” (p. 20). These findings are confirmed, reports Barber, by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research that “gay” men are “at least three times more likely to report CSA (childhood sexual abuse),” while The Archives of Sexual Behavior determined in a 2001 study that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men were molested by a homosexual pedophile: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender” versus 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

Barber concludes, “The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable.” Legalizing same-sex sodomy clearly, and logically, will have intensified such pederast abuse leading to a backlash by pederast groups to forbid reparative therapy.

Moreover, denial is the road most taken by academicians. Rodney Erickson, Ph.D., the new president of Penn State, delivered welcoming remarks to attendees at the very first Penn State Child Sexual Abuse Conference Oct. 29-30. Erickson assumed the presidency Nov. 9, 2011, after the disgraced Graham Spanier was forced to resign as president following exposure of his foreknowledge of Coach Jerry Sandusky’s infamous pederastic rapes of young boys.

The October conference speakers ignored the infamous child sex abuse Penn State network.I never heard the names of former “Coach Sandusky” or “President Spanier” mentioned by a single carefully vetted Penn State child sex abuse speaker. Nor was there a mention of The Second Mile, the nonprofit charity founded by Sandusky & Co. –for local underprivileged and at-risk youth. The speeches are on the Internet, so if someone noted these names or events when I sneezed, kindly email those citations to me.

Before leaving pedophile and pederast perversions I want to mention what I call the state mandated pedo-grooming programs euphemistically and deliberately mistitled “sex education,” There is indeed a federal, FBI supported Anti-Grooming law that, objectively, criminalizes most of the “comprehensive sex ed” described earlier. Child molesters:

  • Lower the sexual inhibitions of children.
  • Demonstrate, teach or instruct on how to masturbate, oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
  • Desensitize children to sex. Offenders often show child pornography to their intended victims.
  • Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims.

Says Barber, “Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.”

The normalization of pederasty, the “need” to lower the age of consent and eliminate “stigma” against molesters is on the fast track to success. Remember, you read it here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Parents Stop School District from Pushing Transgender Confusion on 6-Year Olds!

Parent Preview Night Set For Sex Education Classes

Muslim migrant infectious diseases more deadly than terrorism?

/in , , , , , /by

Those refugees with latent tuberculosis are admitted to the U.S. and some who are being treated for active tuberculosis may also gain entry.

We have an entire category here at RRW on refugee and immigrant health (286 previous posts!) and I’ve maintained for years that health problems coming into the US with refugees and the cost of treating the myriad diseases and chronic conditions could ultimately be more significant to your community than a terrorist attack might be.

TB photo

That said, here is an informative article (hat tip: Joanne) from The Journal of Family Practice a few years ago which goes over the issues facing the medical community as we ‘welcome’ over 100,000 refugees and asylum seekers to America each year.

Pay special attention to the sections on Tuberculosis and HIV (there is no longer a bar to admission for HIV/AIDS and refugees are no longer even tested for it in advance of admission).  Other big medical issues include intestinal parasites and hepatitis.  And, of course mental health.

In 2012 we posted a film describing how refugees with active TB were being prepared for entry into the U.S., here.

Here is how the Journal of Family Practice article opens:

Refugees arrive in the United States with complex medical issues, including illnesses rarely seen here, mental health concerns, and chronic conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.

I encourage all of you working in ‘pockets of resistance’ to be sure to do your homework on health issues, including mental health issues.  According to Anastasia Brown of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, 75% of Iraqis entering the US have mental illness. See Journal of Migration and Human Security report, here.

The Centers for Disease Control also has important information on its website, here.

And, in the past we have noted that both Texas and Minnesota health departments have lots of good information about refugee health on their websites, and I expect some other states do as well.  If your state health department does not report on refugee medical problems that is something you should be advocating for where you live.

Again, see our ‘Health issues’ category by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Arabs in Dearborn support governor’s decision to curtail Syrian refugee resettlement

Canadian Liberal government announce how they will bring in 25,000 Syrians in next 6 weeks

Almost 15,000 Burmese Muslims brought to U.S. in last ten years

“Affordable Care”: Higher Premiums, Higher Deductibles, Worse Healthcare by Michael F. Cannon

/in , , , , /by

Aside from one necessary clarification (see far below), it would be difficult to improve on what the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the enrollees they interview have to say about ObamaCare.

First, from yesterday’s New York Times article, “Many Say High Deductibles Make Their Health Law Insurance All but Useless”:

For many consumers, the sticker shock is coming not on the front end, when they purchase the plans, but on the back end when they get sick: sky-high deductibles that are leaving some newly insured feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage.

“The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,” said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.” …

“We could not afford the deductible,” said Kevin Fanning, 59, who lives in North Texas, near Wichita Falls. “Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use.”

He dropped his policy. …

“Our deductible is so high, we practically pay for all of our medical expenses out of pocket,” said Wendy Kaplan, 50, of Evanston, Ill. “So our policy is really there for emergencies only, and basic wellness appointments.”

Her family of four pays premiums of $1,200 a month for coverage with an annual deductible of $12,700. …

Alexis C. Phillips, 29, of Houston, is the kind of consumer federal officials would like to enroll this fall. But after reviewing the available plans, she said, she concluded: “The deductibles are ridiculously high. I will never be able to go over the deductible unless something catastrophic happened to me. I’m better off not purchasing that insurance and saving the money in case something bad happens.”

“While my premiums are affordable, the out-of-pocket expenses required to meet the deductible are not,” said [Karin] Rosner, who makes about $30,000 a year. …

“When they said affordable, I thought they really meant affordable,” [Anne Cornwell of Chattanooga, Tenn.,] said.

And from today’s Boston Globe article, “High-Deductible Health Plans Make Affordable Care Act ‘Unaffordable,’ Critics Say”:

“We can’t afford the Affordable Care Act, quite honestly,” said Cassaundra Anderson, whose family canvassed for Obama in their neighborhood, a Republican stronghold outside Cincinnati. “The intention is great, but there is so much wrong. . . . I’m mad.” …

The Andersons’ experience echoes that of hundreds of thousands of newly insured Americans facing sticker shock over out-of-pocket costs. …

“This will be an issue at least one more time in the 2016 election. It could absolutely still hurt Democrats,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health. “Polls about the Affordable Care Act have a considerable amount of middle-income people who say either the program has done nothing for them or actually hurt them.” …

“Unfortunately, what we are headed toward now is universal crappy health insurance,” said Dr. Budd Shenkin, a California pediatrician. … “It’s just not a good deal for people,” he said.

“We’re in the process of looking at going without insurance,” [Cassaundra Anderson] said, calculating that the family will be better off financially just paying the $2,000 tax penalty for not abiding by the law’s mandate. “What am I even paying these insurance people for? Why should we reenroll?” …

“I cannot get anything with this insurance. Nothing,” said [Laura] Torres, who avoids seeking treatment for her thyroid condition and high blood pressure because of cost. “I just pay my monthly payments, try to take care of myself, go to work, and hope something serious doesn’t happen to me.” …

Amete Kahsay, 53, works as a temporary warehouse packer in Columbus. The Affordable Care marketplace is her only option for health insurance. She and her husband, an airport shuttle driver, pay $275 a month for a “bronze” plan with a $13,200 deductible.

Shortly after they signed up for insurance last year, her husband rushed her to the emergency room when she experienced dizziness. The visit, which included a CT scan of her brain, cost $1,700. She paid the charge from her savings, then returned to her native Ethiopia, where care is cheaper, to consult a neurologist and seek follow-up care.

“I support Obamacare. Without it, I wouldn’t have any type of insurance. But I’m not sure it’s worth the money,” said Kahsay, a US citizen who is registered as an independent voter. “Now, unless I get very, very sick, like only if it’s life-threatening, I won’t go to the doctor. I just lay down and take a rest.”

The necessary clarification is that these people are not complaining about high-deductibles in a market system. In a market system, consumers who choose high deductibles save money on their premiums and therefore have more resources to help them pay their out-of-pocket expenses.

ObamaCare, on the other hand, manages to pair high deductibles with higher premiums, stripping many people of this benefit of high-deductible plans and leaving them unable to pay their medical bills.

Cross-posted from Cato.org.

Michael F. Cannon
Michael F. Cannon

Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute’s director of health policy studies.

American Medical Association Warning: Don’t Use Pot when Pregnant!

/in , , , , /by

CBS News reports:

Warning: Marijuana use during pregnancy and breast-feeding poses potential harms.

That message would be written on medical and recreational marijuana products and posted wherever they’re sold if the nation’s most influential doctors group has its way.

The American Medical Association agreed Monday to push for regulations requiring such warnings be written on medical and recreational pot products and posted wherever they’re sold. The decision was made based on studies suggesting marijuana use may be linked with low birth weight, premature birth and behavior problems in young children.

map of marijuana use in America

RELATED ARTICLES:

Colorado: Do New Medical Marijuana Rules Improve on “Angry Tone” of First Draft?

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper Issues Executive Order to Declare Tainted Pot a Threat to Public

Marijuana in America, 2015: A Survey of Federal And States’ Responses to Marijuana Legalization and Taxation

Shelby’s Story: How Marijuana Destroyed one Young Girl’s Life [Video]

/in , , , /by

To outsiders, Shelby seemed to have the perfect life, growing up in a nice neighborhood and being part of the ‘popular crowd’ at school. But inside, Shelby couldn’t seem to manage her insecurities.

When her first boyfriend convinced her to smoke marijuana, she found that it numbed the feelings she had never been able to control.

In a short period of time, Shelby was a hard-core drug user who was kicked out of college, destroyed relationships with friends and family, and became so miserable she wanted to end it all. With her mother’s help, Shelby finally decided to go to rehab and find her sobriety.

Here is Shelby’s story as documented by Salt & Light Productions of Sarasota, Florida:

ABOUT SALT & LIGHT PRODUCTIONS

Salt & Light Productions created this short impact video to share Shelby’s story as an inspiration for people battling an addiction, as well as an warning for teens about just how fast casual drug use can take over and destroy your life.

As a non-profit organization, educational institution or governmental agency, you may be able to use this resource at no-cost during one-on-one sessions, for live presentations, on your website, on social media, or anyplace you think will help raise awareness about drug addiction. The video can also be personalized with your organization’s logo and contact information.

To find out more, and to apply to use this resource for your organization, click here.

The New Reich

/in , , , , /by

Startling headlines like this one—“Court Exonerates Mom in Newborn’s Death, Rules 6-Day-Old Baby Not a ‘Person’”—always give me a jolt.

The mother in this case, Jennifer Jorgensen, “was speeding, intoxicated, and not wearing a seatbelt when she crashed her car while she was eight months pregnant. Jorgensen’s blood alcohol level was .06 and the anti-anxiety medication Clonazepam was in her system.”

The doctors delivered her baby by caesarian section, and for six days the child clung to life, but then died. The mother was initially found guilty of manslaughter, but on appeal a five-member majority of the court of appeals overturned the conviction, arguing that “the law criminalizing such conduct is located in the statute on intentional self-abortion, where the offense is ‘no greater than a misdemeanor.’”

In other words, a chill wind has once again blown against personhood among the most vulnerable in our midst. Now this newborn child, like her countless numbers of preborn brothers and sisters, has fallen victim to judicial fiat and an official denial of her undeniable humanity.

Reading a decision like this reminds me of countless manipulations Planned Parenthood has used in courts across the land to free itself from the encumbrances of moral sanity and ethical actions. Just this past week, an Alabama judge ruled that even though the state had decided to defund Planned Parenthood, the state had to restore the funding. Why? Because just like the pronouncements made by the Obama administration, “defunding Planned Parenthood for reasons not related to the quality of care provided would violate federal law.”

Since when does killing a preborn child equate with quality health care, you might ask? Well, the answer is clear.

What was once deemed wrong is now right; what was once considered a criminal act against innocent persons is now considered business as usual.

This is the state of things in our nation today. Sadly, pro-life America is all too familiar with it. Let us count the ways.

  • Planned Parenthood’s slaughter of over six million human beings. The resulting destruction of families in every community.
  • The butchering of human beings for experimentation and profit-making off the sale of their body parts.
  • The heartless laughter of “professionals” responsible for heinous crimes against humanity and getting filthy rich off their heinous labor.
  • A relentless propaganda campaign lying about the virtues of death and tyranny against helpless victims.
  • An equally guilty news media driving to protect death and those responsible at any cost.
  • A public that is sleepy and numb and indifferent to sin, slaughter, and suffering.
  • Politicians gorged on blood money and willing to protect and promote evil for the good of the dictatorship.
  • Christian shepherds silent, invisible.

This is not 1939 Nazi Germany. This is 2015 America. The New Reich is Planned Parenthood.

The decline in morality in America today, starting with ignorance toward the humanity of the preborn child from which flows the evils of Planned Parenthood and its allies, can only lead one to conclude that, without God and His laws, demonic influences will continue to grow among us.

To prove my point, please read the responses from two well-known American exorcists on the topic of whether or not there is something diabolical about abortion.

Fr. Gary Thomas articulated, “Abortion is a doorway to the demonic because it involves the destruction of an innocent human being. . . . This decline in morality is growing rapidly and provides the opportunity for Satan to have a foothold in a family’s life. I do not believe that most people who are believers in ‘choice’ realize this. That is part of the seduction of Satan who will disguise his presence in these choices.”

Fr. Vince Lampert stated, “Anything that attacks human life has to be viewed as evil, for the human person is created in the image and likeness of God.”

And there you have it. The NEW REICH has unleashed the demons of death and destruction among us.

God alone will help us drive them out! Pray for the nation and for the strength to persevere. The babies are counting on us.

Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or Guns

/in , , , , , /by

Susan Jones from CNS News reports:

“Drug overdose deaths are the leading cause of injury death in the United States, ahead of motor vehicle deaths and firearms (deaths),” the Drug Enforcement Agency announced on Wednesday.

In 2013, the most recent year for which data is available, 46,471 people in the United States died from drug overdoses, and more than half of those deaths were caused by prescription painkillers and heroin.

That compares with the 35,369 who died in motor vehicle crashes and 33,636 who died from firearms, as tallied by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Sadly this report confirms what we’ve known for some time: drug abuse is ending too many lives while destroying families and communities,” Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg said as he released the 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment.

“We must stop drug abuse before it begins by teaching young people at an even earlier age about its many dangers and horrors.”

Read more.

Social Science and the Nuclear Family by Steven Horwitz

/in , , , , , /by

The question of the importance of family structure, specifically marriage, is back in the limelight. Conservatives are promoting three papers that provide some strong evidence that children raised by married parents do better along a number of dimensions than those raised in other household forms.

For many commentators, this makes for a strong case against those who appear to claim that family structure has either a minimal effect or doesn’t matter at all. As someone who might well fall into that group, or at least appear to, I think there are several responses to these new studies, all of which can acknowledge the empirical evidence that being raised by two loving parents is better for kids than alternative family structures.

One side note: conservatives might wish to not use the term “family structure denialists” as Wilcox does in the link above.

Comparing a legitimate disagreement over empirical evidence and public policy to those who would deny the overwhelming evidence of the Holocaust is an unacceptable rhetorical move whether it comes from leftists speaking of “climate change deniers” or conservatives speaking of “family structure deniers.” The disagreements in both case are legitimate objects of intellectual discussion and the language of “denier” indicates a refusal to engage in good faith debate.

On the substance of this issue, the conservatives cheering these recent studies don’t always note that there are differences among single-parent households formed through: 1) the choice to have and raise a child by oneself; 2) death of a spouse; and 3) divorce. Each of these presents a different set of circumstances and tradeoffs that we might wish to consider when we think about the role of family structure.

The conservative defenders of the superiority of the two-parent family (and it’s presumably not just “two parents” but two parents of the opposite sex, which raises a whole other set of questions), might wish to disentangle the multiple reasons such a family structure might not be present. For example, the children of widows do better than those of women who choose not to marry the fathers of their children, and the children of widows have outcomes that look more like those of kids from two-parent families.

The empirical evidence under discussion has to be understood with an “all else equal” condition. A healthy marriage will indeed produce better outcomes than, say, single motherhood. But there is equally strong social scientific evidence about the harm done to children who are raised in high-conflict households. Those children may well be better off if their parents get divorced and they are raised in two single-parent households with less conflict.

When parents in high-conflict marriages split up, the reduction in their stress levels, especially for women, leads to improved relationships with their children and better outcomes for the kids. In general, comparisons of different types of family structures must avoid the “Nirvana Fallacy” by not comparing an idealized vision of married parenthood with a more realistic perspective on single parenthood. The choices facing couples in the real world are always about comparing imperfect alternatives.

In addition, to say that married parents create “better” outcomes for kids does not mean that other family forms don’t produce “acceptable” outcomes for kids. It’s not as if every child raised by a single mother, whether through divorce, widowhood, or simply not marrying the father, is condemned to poverty or a life of crime.

Averages are averages. Though these three recent studies do continue to confirm the existing literature’s consensus that marriage is “better” for kids, there is still much debate over how much better those outcomes are, and especially whether other family structures are or are not sufficient to raise functional adults.

And this leads to the next point, which is that parents matter too.

The focus of the “family structure matters” crowd is almost exclusively on the outcomes for kids. That parents matter too is most obvious with divorce, where leaving a bad marriage may be extremely valuable for mom and/or dad, even if it leads to worse outcomes for the kids. The evidence from Stevenson and Wolfers that no-fault divorce has led to a decline in intimate partner violence, as well as suicides of married women, makes the importance of this point clear.

We can acknowledge that higher divorce rates have not been good for kids, but we can’t do single-entry moral bookkeeping. We have to include the effects of divorce on the married couple, because adults matter too. When we add this to the idea that conflict in marriage is bad for kids, the increased ease with which adults can get out of marriages, and the resulting single parenthood, is not so clearly a net problem when we consider the well-being of both children and adults.

These calculations are complicated and idiosyncratic, which seems to suggest that they should be left to those with the best knowledge of the situation and not artificially encouraged or discouraged by public policy.

This last point raises the final question, which is what do these studies mean for public policy?

If two-parent families are better than the alternatives, what does this imply? Are conservatives suggesting that we subsidize couples who have kids? Should that apply to only biological parents and not adoptive ones? Isn’t this a case for same-sex marriage? Should we make divorce more difficult, and if so, what about the probable result that doing so would reduce the number of marriages by increasing the cost of exit?

I would certainly agree that we should stop subsidizing single-parenthood through various government programs, but I’d make the same argument about two-parent families as well. In any case, what’s not clear is what the conservatives trumpeting these studies think they mean for public policy.

Perhaps, though, they think the solutions are cultural. If conservatives wish to argue that these studies mean that we should use moral suasion and intermediary institutions such as houses of worship to encourage people to marry and stay married if they wish to have kids, or that we should encourage young people to use contraception and think more carefully about when and with whom they have sex, that’s fine. And in fact, teen pregnancies are down.

But if intermediary institutions can do all of that, then they can also play a key role in helping single parents who make the difficult decision to divorce or continue a pregnancy in the complicated circumstances of their lives. Such institutions will also likely do that more effectively than can the state.

So if we are genuinely concerned about single parenthood, we should be asking what are the best ways to deal with it. Libertarians like me might well agree with such conservatives if they think the solutions are cultural or should rest in the hands of such intermediate institutions. But if they think there are public policy solutions, particularly ones that limit or penalize the choices facing couples, I wish they would spell them out explicitly in the context of their discussions of these studies.

One last thought: It ill-serves libertarians to deny the results of good science and social science, whether it’s climate change from the left or family structure from the right. We should, of course, critically interrogate that work to make sure that it is, in fact, good. But if it is good, we should welcome it as we should first be concerned with the truth and not our ideological priors.

The next questions we should ask, however, are about the implications. In the case of these recent studies on family structure, it is incumbent upon us to assess both the quality of the work and its implications, and we should pay particular attention to what is not being seen and what questions are not being asked.

Just because one family structure is better for children all else equal means neither that other family structures aren’t good enough for kids, nor that all else is always equal, nor that we shouldn’t consider the well-being of adults when we discuss the consequences of alternative family structures.

This post first appeared at the excellent philosophy blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians.

Steven Horwitz
Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, now in paperback.

Presidential Scorecard on Marijuana

/in , , , , /by

Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) evaluates the positions of 18 candidates—15 Republicans and 3 Democrats—on their support of an evidence-based marijuana policy:

  • Opposition to marijuana legalization for recreational purposes
  • Support of prevention, intervention, and treatment for marijuana use
  • Regulated, FDA-approved approach to the legitimate medical use of marijuana components

marijuana score card candidates

Some candidates are still formulating a position (e.g., John Kasich). SAM will be sending a questionnaire to the candidates to clarify their stance.

Best Candidates:
Marco Rubio
Chris Christie
Ben Carson

Worst Candidates:
Bernie Sanders
Rand Paul

Read SAM’s Scorecard of 2016 Presidential Candidates here.

One-Third of Obamacare Co-Ops Shut Down by Charles Hughes

/in , , , , , /by

Hundreds of thousands people will lose their insurance plans as a raft of health insurance cooperatives (CO-OPs) created by the Affordable Care Act will cease operations.

Just last week, CO-OPs in Oregon, Colorado, Tennessee and Kentucky announced that they would be winding down operations due to lower than expected enrollment and solvency concerns (although the one in Colorado issuing the state over the shutdown order). They join four other CO-OPs that have announced that they would be closing their doors.

In total, only 15 out of the 23 CO-OPs created by the law remain. These closures reveal how ill-advised this aspect of the ACA was both in terms of lost money and the turmoil for the people who enrolled in them. The eight that have failed have received almost $1 billion in loans, and overall CO-OPs received loans totaling $2.4 billion that might never get paid back.

In addition, roughly 400,000 people will lose their plans.

Proponents of the CO-OPs believed that they would be able to offer lower premiums than for-profit insurers because they did not have the same profit motive, but even non-profit insurers cannot operate at a financial loss indefinitely.

When they were created, these CO-OPs had no customers, no experience in setting premiums, no networks and limited capital. The government tried to subsidize the early period of uncertainty by disbursing loans to help with startup and solvency issues, and money from other provisions like risk corridors would dampen losses in the initial years.

Lower than expected payments from the risk corridors have exacerbated the issues facing some of these CO-OPs, who were counting on substantial payments to stay afloat. But this is hardly the only factor contributing to their struggles, some of them the product of other government policies like delaying employer mandate penalties and giving states the option to allow transitional policies through 2017.

Some of these later developments could not have been anticipated, but many analysts, including Cato scholars, were skeptical about the prospects of CO-OPs from the beginning.  Even some ACA supporters recognized the flaws inherent in the CO-OP design: Paul Krugman derided them as a “sham” and in a 2009 interview Professor Timothy Jost said could not see how a CO-OP “does anything to control costs.”

There have been multiple warning signs that many CO-OPs were in trouble.  Earlier this year The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent letters to 11 CO-OPs placing them on “enhanced oversight” due to financial concerns, and a 2014 report from the HHS Office of Inspector General found that “most of the 23 CO-OPs we reviewed had not met their initial program enrollment and profitability projections,” and that the government “had not established guidance or criteria to assess whether a CO-OP was viable or sustainable.”

These CO-OPs were not a good idea at inception and were always going to face many obstacles to success.  Multiple changes to the law since they were established have exacerbated these problems, and already struggling CO-OPs have folded. Competition is indeed vital in health insurance markets, but the CO-OPs were a bad way to try to foster this competition.

With these closures, billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost and hundreds of thousands of people will discover that the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” promise does not apply to them.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Charles Hughes

Charles Hughes

Charles Hughes is a research associate at the Cato Institute.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top Officials With Failed Obamacare Co-Ops Made an Average of $245,000

Here’s the Reason Why So Many Obamacare Co-Ops Are Failing

The Real-Life Consequences of Failing Obamacare Co-Ops

Arizona’s Obamacare Co-Op to Shut Down After Receiving $93.3 Million From the Government

Obamacare Co-Ops Are Failing at a Rate of 50 Percent. Here’s Why.

The 10th Co-Op Created Under Obamacare Has Collapsed, Leaving Nearly 50,000 Consumers to Find New Insurance

Florida State University Grad Student leading the fight for campus concealed carry

/in , , , , /by

Lee Williams, reporter for The Gun Writer, in his column: Colleges students who support campus carry want their voices heard reported:

During most discussions about concealed carry on colleges campuses, the voices of students who support gun rights and want a means to defend themselves are usually missing, according to Rebekah Hargrove a graduate student at Florida State University.

Hargrove is president of the Students For Concealed Carry at Florida State University.

Once she earns her Master’s degree, she plans to continue at FSU toward a PhD in a public health-related field, such as bio-terrorism, and then go to work for the Centers for Disease Control.

Yep, she’s sharp as a tack.

Born in Connecticut but raised in Sarasota, the 22-year-old grew up with guns, shooting with her family.

Hargrove and her friends who support the Second Amendment, “Just want to be treated like everyone else around town,” she said.

“We want the right to defend ourselves,” she said. “The instant we decided to go and get an education, we lost that right.”

Her Students for Concealed Carry at FSU has around 100 members, including some who are under 21 and not yet old enough for a Florida Concealed Carry License.

Read more.

An article was published on October 11th, 2015 in the Tallahassee Democrat by James Call titled Rebekah Hargrove, an unexpected gun advocate about this incredibly savvy young woman who is leading the fight among college students in Florida to restore the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the right of self-defense.  Her dedication and help on this issue is enormously valuable to us all.

We have written that guns have gone mainstream because women are buying them for self-defense. This trend is continuing with women on Florida’s campuses who are concerned about their safety.

As the saying goes, better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Rebekah Hargrove who is the president of Students for Concealed Carry at Florida State University. Facebook photo.

Planned Parenthood Sex Education and the ‘Dental Dams’ Lie

/in , , , , /by

We apologize for this information, but as we allow our children to be assaulted this way in school we cannot expect to be too sensitive ourselves. We have “sanitized” the article. – Judith Gelernter Reisman and Thomas R. Hampson

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves,” Matthew 10:16

The Kinsey Cult

Ira Reiss, a Sociologist and Professor Emeritus at Minnesota University was a charter member of Kinsey’s Sex Cult. His papers, articles, and audio and video recordings already are housed at the Kinsey Institute, 57 years of his work so far.  Reiss, like other Kinsey disciples, advocated the production of pornography and its display for “training” purposes to prepare students entering the new sexuality fields spawned by Kinsey’s supposed revelations on sex.  Kinsey gleefully directed the development of these training materials, which during the late 60’s, started to be called Sexuality Attitude Restructuring (later re-named Reassessment) (SAR) sessions.

These training sessions are promoted as sexual desensitization seminars, pornographic extravaganzas of all manner of enthusiastic sexual activities presented to groups of men and women as training to become certified therapists, counselors, educators or researchers, etc, in matters of sex and sexuality. Viewing these images triggers sexual arousal, (blush) actually changing their brains, minds and memories. Even the New York Times, quoting the science on brain change and plasticity noted, “the vicarious thrill of watching sex, it turns out, is not so vicarious after all.”[1] In addition to desensitizing sexologists to the images of heterosexual activities, sado-masochism, group sex, sodomy, the use of sex “toys” (apparatus) and other unmentionables, the sex leaders also hold small group discussions to explore the participants’ attitudes and biases in order to neutralize any ‘negative’ views.

But the stated purpose of these sessions is not the whole story, or even the real story.

Early on, these sessions were not used to merely desensitize, and encourage acceptance of all sex acts but as indoctrination into a “sex positive” mindset.  Such training has been a requirement for certification by the American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors (AASEC) which later became the American Association of Sex Educators Counselors and Therapists (AASECT).  Indeed, leaders often pressured participants into sexual experimentation with each other.

Reiss revealed this in his book, An Insider’s View of Sexual Science since Kinsey, recounting his experience at an 8 day SAR session in San Francisco in 1972.  At the time, Reiss already was a professor at the University of Minnesota where its medical school was one the first in the country to offer SAR training to medical students.  But it was a new, untested program.

The director of U of M’s SAR program had secured a grant from the Playboy Foundation to send 25 couples from the University, all expenses paid, to San Francisco to receive training from the group that had followed on Kinsey’s practices, the National Sex Forum (NSF) (aka: the National Sex and Drug Forum).  The purpose was to improve the programming at Minnesota.  Reiss and wife were among the volunteers for the Playboy sponsored training of future national sex education. Reiss reports:

“The view presented by many of the staff was supportive of people trying out the full variety of sexual acts that exist (S and M, gay, extramarital, group sex, etc.).  The supposed purpose was to allow people to break through their old restrictive sexual attitudes.  I had no objection to offering such options.  However, as they elaborated, it became clear that this support of broad experimentation was more than just permission giving—it was presented as a demand to experiment.”[2]

When Reiss resisted, the SAR leaders ridiculed him, one of them saying, “Are you hostile to group sex or gay sex, and is that why [you are] so cautious about trying something new?  Are you biased?”[3]

Reiss explained that he did not object to the idea of such activity, or even to promoting such experimentation.  Rather, he objected to making it a demand instead of merely encouraging it.

And promoting and demanding and forcing freewheeling sexual libertinism, SAR trainers have been doing for over 40 years now.

While AASECT requires SAR training as an element in their certification standards, the Kinsey Institute is still involved and Planned Parenthood has joined in.  In 2007 Planned Parenthood of Indiana, the Kinsey Institute and AASECT cooperated in staging a SAR training at an Episcopal Retreat Center (of all places).  SAR trainings take place continually all over the country every year.  Those attending become the “experts” who write the sex education materials, who teach the teachers who put on the programs that “inform” our children about healthy sexuality.

Mentally and emotionally corrupted graduates of the SAR training become the “experts” who design sex-ed courses and teach our children. Thus, they have “determined” that the body’s solid waste exit is a “genital” as it is described in the currently used sex education program in Hawaii; that sexual excitement from urine is just normal sex play, endorsed by a Massachusetts Department of Public Health book distributed to Massachusetts children; that orgies are natural entertainment, that pornographic sex addiction is a myth; that it’s normal for children to have sex and that they have the right to choose whatever sexual activity they may think to try; and that sodomy (legalized 6-3 in 2003) is healthy sexual practice for all sexual orientations.

The whole purpose of these “sex positive” programs is not to liberate adults from their Victorian moral prisons but to indoctrinate children into an unrestrained, sexually available lifestyle. Even if such “programs” are not being taught in all schools yet, this material is available on multiple websites and widely promoted to all comers, regardless of age.  The Kinsey Institute, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, AASECT, and others all provide sites that extoll the virtues of unrestrained sexual experimentation.

Is it any wonder that youthful STD’s, pregnancies, abortions and abuse are pandemic?

Which brings us to one of the big lies spread by these organizations: safe/safer sex.

dental dams pamphletNow: The Dental Dam Lie

After telling children that they must use the condom properly; unroll it, check carefully for any holes, full directions for putting on, etc., Minnesota AIDS Project experts (SAR graduates) tell youngsters they can cut and use plastic wrap as a “barrier” when a child has oral contact with “the opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body,”[4] known by other cruder jargons.

What?

After all the care telling children to assure the condom is in perfect condition, sex experts endorse plastic wrap!?  A child asked me once “if we don’t have plastic wrap, can we use tin foil?”

This Minnesota AIDS Project advertisement teaches children how to make their own dental dam.

Proper Use for Dental Dams

“A rubber dam and accessories is a device composed of a thin sheet of latex with a hole in the center intended to isolate a tooth from fluids in the mouth during dental procedures … The device includes the rubber dam, rubber dam clamp, rubber dam frame, and forceps for a rubber dam clamp. This classification does not include devices intended for use in preventing transmission of sexually transmitted diseases through oral sex…”[5] (Italics added)

sheer dental dam“We know of no other latex dam cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for protection against STDs[6] for” oral sodomy, or oral contact with that opening at the end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste matter leaves the body.” “*NOTE: Unlike Sheer Glyde Dams, dental dams were never intended for, tested or proven to be an effective barrier for the prevention of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). (Italics added)[7]  And there is the warning:

“Warning: Do not use during penetrating penile/vaginal or penile/anal intercourse.”[8]

Requests for documentation from sales@glydehealth.com for all three approvals await.  So far, weeks have passed and we’ve heard nothing.  And we probably won’t either.  Documentation we obtained from the FDA specifically states that the dams are NOT to be used for oral/anal sex.

Which brings us back to Reiss, Planned Parenthood, the Kinsey Institute, and AASECT at their Retreat on Sexuality at the Episcopal Retreat Center. For Planned Parenthood has brainwashed thousands of teachers, counselors, educators, lawyers, judges, doctors for five or six decades.

“If you choose to have vaginal or anal intercourse, use condoms every time. They can reduce the risk of HPV. They are not as effective against HPV as they are against other infections such as chlamydia and HIV. But they greatly reduce the risk of HPV infection. You can use condoms, Sheer Glyde dams, dental dams, or plastic wrap during oral sex to further reduce the risk.”[9]

Now, it is time to bring this into the courtroom. Do “condoms” and homemade, mislabeled “dental dams” give the protection Planned Parenthood claims, or are they just an excuse to hypersexualize younger and younger children, groom them, and leave them increasingly vulnerable to disease, even death, and sexual abuse by peers and adults?  Let us hear from you if you have been victimized by believing the lies that were told in school about condoms, never approved by the FDA for sodomy, and so-called “dental dam” safety.

RELATED VIDEO:

REFERENCES:

[1] Cells That Read Minds, Jan. 10, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10mirr.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

[2] Ira Reiss, An Insider’s View of Sexual Science since Kinsey, Roman and Littlefield, Inc., New York, p. 64.

[3] Ibid.

[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/anus?q=anus.

[5] http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=872.6300.

[6] http://www.gamelink.com/display_product.jhtml?id=294017. Sites for general “health” aids as well as school health claiming safety: www.nakedtruth.idaho.gov/dental-dams.aspx‎ brown.edu/…/sexual…sex_and…/dental_dams.php‎  www.gc.cuny.edu/…/What-are-Dental-Dams…‎ studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/…/dental_dam. https://www.rochester.edu/…/SexualHealth/ https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/sexual…/sexually…/oral-dams‎, etc., etc.

[7] http://www.gamelink.com/display_product.jhtml?id=294017. Sites for general “health” aids as well as school health claiming safety: www.nakedtruth.idaho.gov/dental-dams.aspx‎ brown.edu/…/sexual…sex_and…/dental_dams.php‎  www.gc.cuny.edu/…/What-are-Dental-Dams…‎ studenthealth.oregonstate.edu/…/dental_dam. https://www.rochester.edu/…/SexualHealth/ https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/sexual…/sexually…/oral-dams‎, etc., etc.

[8] http://www.drugstore.com/sheer-glyde-dams-protective-barrier-creme-vanilla-flavor/qxp55546

[9] http://m.plannedparenthood.org/mt/www.plannedparenthood.org/hudsonpeconic/cervical-cancer-38430.htm.

Calling all young Patriots! Build large families to save American culture!

/in , , , , , /by

I’m so sick of hearing that as the population ages we have to tolerate more and more immigration from the third world.  Heck, that thinking is what is destroying Europe. And, I am sick of us being on the defense.

How about a national campaign to encourage young American couples to have more babies!  Why not!

If you are my age, you know we college students were beaten over the head with the idea that we dare not over-populate the earth and we dutifully (many of us!) did what we were told, all the while, the whole system was geared for people with lower educations to have MORE babies (encouraged by the welfare system).

Let’s stop the madness.  How about rewards for the well-educated to have large families!  (Oh, I can hear the screaming and gnashing of teeth from the Left now!).

Maybe there is some (brave!) private foundation out there willing to promote such a campaign!

This post is archived in a rarely used category here called ‘creating a movement‘ which I would like to use more often!

Oops!  Should have reminded readers about this recent post—Death by Demography—when I initially posted this one.

RELATED ARTICLES:

It is official! Fiscal year 2015 Syrian resettlement: 97% Muslim

Sec. of State John Kerry: Climate refugees our next move to erase borders

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) advances bill to bring in MORE Syrian refugees, more quickly

FBI Director confirms (again) that they can’t thoroughly screen Syrians entering the U.S.

Planned Parenthood talks only to Womyn’s Studies Professors and Students

/in , , , , /by

Alas, my requests for more information from Planned Parenthood regarding how such activities as the one I observed on September 17, 2015, at Hamilton College, as well as their national “Pink Out” Day on September 29, fit into their own or educational institutions’ missions, were ignored by Beth LeGere, Director of Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood Mohawk Hudson, for a long time.  She finally responded to my two email messages, a telephone message, and a cell phone message with a refusal to speak to me.  As I reported last week, she demanded a retraction to a statement that was not directly attributed to her.  She admitted to encouraging students to vote, but denied encouraging them to vote for pro-choice candidates.  One of my questions to her in my email concerned how encouraging students to vote was part of the mission of an organization that is purportedly for “women’s health.” Certainly, a lecture about voting, its history, patterns, and historical origins would be an appropriate topic for a college campus event, especially one that requires student attendance by the professor as the September 17 Hamilton College event did (as I’ve recently learned).

In her original email to Accuracy in Academia, where she read my post, Ms. LeGere implied that I should have identified myself at the event as a journalist.  LeGere wrote, “I would have welcomed the opportunity to be interviewed and quoted correctly. I encouraged students to register to vote but I DID NOT encourage anyone to vote for pro-choice candidates.  In incorrectly asserting that I made such an inappropriate statement, Ms. Grabar calls into question her own objectivity as a journalist and competency as an accurate reporter.”

She further stated, “Any responsible journalist should print a public retraction based on the above,” and “I am available to speak to Ms. Grabar should she like the opportunity to get the facts.”

Yet, she will not answer my question about the appropriateness of a health organization representative encouraging students to vote.  Apparently, the “facts” go out only to those already inclined to believe her version without question.  These are the students whose professors require that they attend one-sided presentations of advocacy groups engaged in very controversial practices (like trading in fetal body parts) and funded by taxpayers.  Certainly, a debate between this group and a pro-life group would have been an appropriate campus event.  But as I described in my previous posts, Planned Parenthood was provided an exclusive forum for disseminating their views under the guise of an academic activity.

Here is the timeline and exchange. I made initial contact on October 1, writing her an email:

Dear Ms. LeGere:

Thank you for reading my article about your visit on September 17 to Hamilton College. . . .

Thank you for confirming that you had encouraged students to register to vote.

I went to your website and found the mission statement, which I quote in full:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Mission Statement: A Reason for Being Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility, regardless of the individual’s income, marital status, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin, or residence. We believe that respect and value for diversity in all aspects of our organization are essential to our well-being. We believe that reproductive self-determination must be voluntary and preserve the individual’s right to privacy. We further believe that such self-determination will contribute to an enhancement of the quality of life and strong family relationships.

Based on these beliefs, and reflecting the diverse communities within which we operate, the mission of Planned Parenthood is

to provide comprehensive reproductive and complementary health care services in settings which preserve and protect the essential privacy and rights of each individual

to advocate public policies which guarantee these rights and ensure access to such services

to provide educational programs which enhance understanding of individual and societal implications of human sexuality

to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications

“My question concerns how your visit to Hamilton College, especially your encouraging students to register to vote and to call Congressman Richard Hanna and ask him to vote in a way to help Planned Parenthood fits this mission statement.”

I then quoted the mission statement from Hamilton College’s website.

I continued: “Your visit was part of an event that was sponsored by various academic departments, such as Comparative Literature and Philosophy.  The event with Rhodessa Jones was billed as being related to the ancient Greek drama, ‘Medea.’  I do not see any reference to such topics under Planned Parenthood’s educational mission.

“Please explain where encouraging students to vote fits into the mission statement.

“Please send me a list of schools, K-12 and college, which you have visited.”

I left her a message on her office phone on the mornings of October 5, and on her cell phone October 6.  I sent her a second email on October 6 in the afternoon.  I had additional questions:

Planned parenthood supportersPlanned parenthood supporters“In addition to questions in my previous email, I would like to know about Planned Parenthood’s ‘Pink Out’day  events on college campuses, especially public colleges and in New York State.  I noticed that there was a Pink Out day event at S.U.N.Y. Geneseo.

“Would you let me know how much Planned Parenthood spent for these college campus activities (including salaries, travel expenses, materials, etc.)?”

These were all very polite.

I finally heard back from her on October 7, with a terse email message reading,

“Thank you for following up. Unfortunately, it appears we can’t rely on accurate reporting from your site and must decline an interview.

“Our apologies for any misunderstanding.”

Such a response confirms what I oberved on September 17: Planned Parenthood targets the most vulnerable through their allies.  In the case of Hamilton College it was through professors abusing their positions to indoctrinate students.  Once again, parents, alumni, trustees, and citizens ought to be demanding that such academic travesties stop.

EDITORS NOTE: Part 1 of the series is here; part 2 here.

In 1996 Playboy warned of ‘Sexual Attitude Restructuring’ in America

/in , , /by

Even Playboy said May 1996, that; “most of us would define as sexual harassment” (p. 42) what goes on at meetings of the “Society for the Scientific Study Of Sexuality.”  President of the SSSS, Naomi McCormic warned the sexpert attendees they should not really do certain things publicly. (There also used to be a warning that sex activity had to be done in a private setting)

Saying “the list is far from exhaustive” folks should please refrain from: nasty, hostile remarks about women (and men), belittling (straights?), calling people sex prudes, nipple comments, crotch comments, fondling, touching, sexual advances that had been rejected, and so on.

These are our human sexuality experts, credentialed, having passed the SAR (Sexual Attitude Restructuring) “Fu*karama” days, weeks, months of pornography viewing, and practica that most must take to be sexperts. These are the authors of the sex books we read, sex “studies” they conduct, school sex ed curricula and  sex guides.  These are colleagues in the sexuality field, many like Kinsey, sex addicts, pornography addicts, pedophiles, pederasts, expert witnesses in courtrooms, teachers, professors, judges, and many on the editorial board of Paidika, The Journal of Paedophilia.

RELATED VIDEO: The Kinsey Effect: How One Man Destroyed the Morality of America

sex ed experts article