Did you see the Seattle Times piece this morning? The one carrying water for CSE proponents? Please go to the article and leave comments. Here's our response from The Facebook Group That Shall Not Be Named:
Misinformation has indeed flourished online, but it’s coming from the pro-CSE crowd and the media that gives them unlimited, unchallenged exposure for their talking points. The Seattle Times didn’t bother to question the “Facebook group with over 17,000 followers” (notice they didn’t dare print our name, lest readers come here, see the truth, and stray from the prescribed groupthink).
If they had this is what we would have told them:
SB 5395 requires schools to use one of OSPI’s reviewed/approved CSE curricula or create one in cooperation with OSPI that will contain the same elements as those on the list. OSPI sets the standards and can change them at any time. OSPI will also not approve of anything that isn’t CSE. Sorry, but that does mean sex ed curricula is being dictated by state education officials.
We have never said that teachers are required to talk about sex with kindergartners even though the law says “Comprehensive sexuality education for students in kindergarten through grade three must be instruction in social emotional learning….“ Maybe you can tell us what CSE, which is defined in the bill as “recurring instruction in human development and reproduction,” means in that sentence. In any event, teachers are not prohibited from teaching sex to K-3 kids.
OSPI’s definition of age-appropriate is not shared by most parents. A kindergarten and 2nd grade anatomy lesson tells students, “So a person with a vulva has three holes between their legs and at the top is a very sensitive area called the clitoris.” The standards call for using medically accurate names for body parts, which CSE proponents have repeatedly said is important for children to keep themselves safe. Parents can reasonably expect this lesson could be taught to their children, especially since it comes from the only curriculum (3 Rs) on the list for grades K-3.
If CSE proponents are so concerned about giving information to kids’ for their personal safety, why do they promote curricula that leave out failure rates for birth control methods, the risks of oral and anal sex, the harms of pornography, and the fact that 80-95% of gender dysphoric children will identify with their birth sex before reaching adulthood?
The 2019 Health Review in noting the limited data available concluded with, “Therefore, this HIR also cannot estimate the potential magnitude of impact on health outcomes, including changes in the rate of STIs or teen pregnancies.”
In a 2019 review of 103 school based comprehensive sex education studies, six studies found evidence of “real effectiveness” at least 12 months after the program without producing other negative effects. Conversely, the review found that 16 of the studies showed negative effects on teen sexual behavior and sexual health.
The Seattle Times is one of countless news organizations who have steadfastly refused to publish examples from the curriculum despite them being readily available. Why are they hiding the truth?
We may not have Planned Parenthood’s money or a media that will report fairly, but we have the most important people of all—the parents, grandparents, and concerned citizens that truly have their children’s best interests at heart and have done their research. We like our odds. https://www.seattletimes.com/.../mandatory-sex.../...
Comentários