Introduction

The purpose of this manual is to show how YOU can educate and lobby your school board about sex education so that they might vote-out promiscuity education and/or vote-in abstinence education.

Our children do not need programs which teach them how to be promiscuous and teach them to be promiscuous. The rightful role of the public schools is not to change the moral culture of society nor to interfere with the moral position of a family. 

Parents have an absolute right to expect that their children will not receive harmful messages in the public schools.  We should not allow a small group of elitist educators, the promiscuity promoters, to dominate school curriculums and thereby change the standards children learn in their homes and churches.   Schools have no business trying to compete with parents and pastors, but should teach material–reading, writing, and arithmetic, for example–which parents and pastors don’t teach.  They do not need to waste taxpayers’ money teaching about sex.  

Educators who think otherwise should consider the following about how well U.S. twelfth-graders have been educated:

The Third International Mathematics and Science Study tested more than 500,000 students from 41 nations.  This is where students from the United States fell in the final ratings:

Many parents would be surprised to learn that health professionals in their local schools have decided that they are not doing a proper job of parenting.  Such ideas are seldom brought forth.  Yet behind our backs they lobby school boards to make up for what they would call parent incompetency and ignorance.  Without your knowledge or consent, they try to implement Sexuality Attitude Restructuring programs.  You must be vigilant.

One problem parents have is that we often work at jobs not having to do with schools.  To fight the schools, we therefore have to fight after our 8 hours + commute, while the pro-aborts can work in numbers, 40 hours per week.  But don’t let this intimidate you, let it activate you.  Band together and fight!  It doesn’t really take a lot of hours to do all you can do.  What it does take is willingness to put in those few hours and diligence so that you get all the information that is pertinent and so that deals aren’t made without your knowledge and without proper procedure. 

It also means setting your priorities correctly.  While you may not be able to take some time off from work for activities which must be done during the daytime, you nonetheless do have time to turn off your television.  What is your priority, your children’s and grandchildren’s lives, or television?  Let’s face it, most of us, not counting time spent working and sleeping, spend most of our free time in front of the TV.

Did you know that 93%  of schools offer sex education or AIDS education?  What are they teaching your children?  You need to find out!

Background

General Background

In order to expand their philosophy, prestige, power, and income, the goal of sex organizations is to promote sex.  Many of these organizations are legally non-profits, but they are functionally profitable.  Planned Parenthood Federation of America, for example, never loses money and makes an average annual profit of approximately $20 million.

These are some of the reasons the pro-promiscuity people want promiscuity education in the schools:

• Promiscuity education “legitimizes” birth control and therefore sells a product to those who wouldn’t otherwise need one.  Planned Parenthood makes most of its income from selling birth control paraphernalia.
• Since schools must pay money to purchase the programs, the programs themselves generate income.
• Those who sell the programs gain prestige and power in the community.
• The income generated from selling the programs and from selling birth control items and abortion is used to lobby Congress and the states for your tax dollars.
• By increasing sex, abortions are also increased.  This too generates money.
• The leaders believe in promiscuity.
• Individuals who promote the promiscuity programs are required to do such promotion.  It’s their job.  Like those of us who work, if they do not do as they are told, they get fired.

Promiscuity workers have the attitude that if you are even reading this manual, that is enough to give you the title of “extremist.”  They frequently engage in name-calling against those who disagree with them, branding them “fundamentalists,” “extremists,”  and “right-wingers.”

Family Life Sexuality (that is, promiscuity) Education proponents and anti-parent groups are quick to point out that an “overwhelming majority” of the nation supports sex education.  For proof they point to the 19^th Gallop Poll on education.   However, evaluating the statistics in that poll showed that the majority clearly was opposed to explicit information of the Family Life Sexuality Education (FL/SE) program being taught at the elementary and middle school level.

You have legal rights to fight against these bad programs and to fight for good ones.  According to John W. Gower, attorney at law in Washington state and constitutional law expert, “the right and the duty of parents to determine and provide for the proper education of their children is deeply rooted in common law and is well established in constitutional law.” Gower further states, “The United States Supreme Court has recognized and strongly affirmed the inherent common law right of the parents to direct the education of their children under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.” 

John Gower’s research further affirms the power of parents over their children’s education:  In Meyer v. State of Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a state law prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages in private schools.  The court declared that the Legislature has attempted materially to interfere with the calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire knowledge, and with the power of the parents to control the education of their own (emphasis added).

In your fight against promiscuity, your opponents will be more than just the workers of those selling the promiscuity programs.  They will also include the media, coalitions of citizens who believe that teaching birth control is effective, possibly the PTA, and possibly the teachers’ union.  Very often, PTA’s are dominated by the union bosses.  In these situations, PTA’s will help unions fight you. 

Unions’ business should be to promote fair wages and fair treatment of employees by management.  Teachers’ unions should mind their own business and leave the design and selection of programs to whom it belongs: management.  Management is the school board, and the school board is responsible to the voters.

The influence of the local teachers’ union cannot be underestimated.  Parents don’t realize how powerful the union contract can be, not only in benefits and salaries, but also in areas that remove school board control. Many unions have been contracting for homosexual rights, academic freedom, removal of parent volunteers, 24-hour notice before a parent is allowed into a classroom, and more.  Most parents are totally unaware of these negotiations, and discover the small print too late. The only effective way to deal with this situation is to elect school-board members who will not allow these types of things to be negotiated.

The following table generally illustrates the ineffectiveness of promiscuity education.

Background on Promiscuity Education

Among other things, promiscuity programs show students that

• Condoms, pills, and abortion will cover-up any possible reason for abstaining because they will prevent them from getting an STD, getting pregnant, or having to have a baby.
• Since having sex is given as an alternative to abstaining, it is just as reasonable.
• By teaching that sex is acceptable, implicit permission is given by teachers and parents to have it.
• By providing condoms, teachers and parents give permission to have sex.
• The programs often show children in extremely provocative ways that sex is really fun.

Promiscuity Education can be called Sex Education, Sexuality Education, Family Life Education,   Human Growth and Development, or other various innocent sounding names.  The programs attack the natural modesty of a child, and therefore they must be removed.

The following guidelines, established by the promiscuity people, are in SIECUS’ Community Action Kit and some of the National Guidelines Task Force’s Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education.  They were designed to be a framework to assist local communities in designing new curricula or assessing existing programs. It cannot be said often enough that the Guidelines are not a curriculum nor are they lesson plans.  They are only a starting point for teachers and curriculum designers.

What is sexuality education? Sexuality education is a lifelong process of acquiring information and forming attitudes, beliefs, and values about identity, relationships, and intimacy.  It encompasses sexual development, reproductive health, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy, body image, and gender roles.

What are the four primary goals of sexuality education?  

Sexuality education should be a central component of programs designed to reduce the prevalence of sexually related medical problems, including teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases including HIV infection, and sexual abuse.

What are the values inherent in comprehensive sexuality education?

The following values underlie most comprehensive sexuality education programs.  However, each community needs to review these values to be sure that the program is consistent with community norms and diversity:

Key Concept 1: Human Development

Key Concept 2: Relationships

Key Concept 3: Personal Skills

Key Concept 4: Sexual Behavior

Sexuality Throughout Life

Masturbation

Shared Sexual Behavior

Abstinence

Human Sexual Response

Fantasy

Sexual Dysfunction

Key Concept 5: Sexual Health

Key Concept 6: Society and Culture

Sexuality and Society

Gender Roles

Sexuality and the Law

Sexuality and Religion

Diversity

Sexuality and the Arts

Sexuality in the Media

SIECUS: Remember that name.  It stands for Sex Information and Education Council of the United States.  It stands for promiscuity and pornography.  SIECUS was heavily involved in developing the guidelines above  and is the primary developer of promiscuity education programs.

Another activity of SIECUS is rating abstinence programs.  They give such programs bad scores.  When you are at a school board meeting, your opponents may present SIECUS ratings.  Be prepared.  Tell the school board that the ratings are based on the false SIECUS belief that promiscuity is healthy and that therefore, because they claim certain abstinence material is inappropriate, the abstinence material is therefore good.

SIECUS is very much against parental involvement.  Though SIECUS says parents should be involved, they say that the primary goals of comprehensive sexuality education include “[providing] an opportunity for young people to question, explore and asses their [own, not their parents’] sexual attitudes; and [helping] young people develop their own values.”  This information, and that in the next paragraph, is from SIECUS’s Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12^th Grade, 2^nd edition.

The following SIECUS statements serve as examples of SIECUS’ real opinion of parental wishes: “Teenagers sometimes need to talk with an adult other than their parents.” (p. 30). “Some agencies provide services for teenagers that do not require parental permission, are confidential and cost little or no money.” (p. 30).  “Teenagers can get confidential testing and treatment for STD/HIV without parental consent.” (p. 43).

SIECUS also says, “While it is generally desirable for parents to be involved in their children’s contraceptive decisions, the right of each person to confidentiality and privacy in receiving contraceptive information, counseling, and services is paramount.  Measures to support access for adolescents to low cost prescription and nonprescription methods of contraceptives should be strongly encouraged.”  In other words, leave the parents out.

Further, it is clear from several SIECUS publications that, wherever possible, these services should be made available through school-based clinics in addition to other community resources.  School-based clinics are established to provide contraceptives, advice, and abortion referrals.  They are usually portrayed as health clinics, but that is not how they function.  They function as sex clinics.

School-based clinics do not automatically come with promiscuity education, and the methods which you would use to resist their establishment are not covered in this document.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America also says they are in favor of parental involvement.  Like SIECUS, they don’t mean it.  Planned Parenthood makes mistakes, however.  From their viewpoint, the following information, which Planned Parenthood itself published, should be viewed as a mistake.  We can now use their own words against them when we fight for the parental involvement they despise. The Washington Times of January 29, 1997 said:

Planned Parenthood also sells promiscuity education programs, and this is what they say about abstinence education (which they call “fear- and shame-based sexuality education”) and about those who promote it. 

Planned Parenthood often says that abstinence is very desirable.  They are especially apt to say this in descriptions of their course material.  This is to help sell it to school districts.  However, the above paragraph and the  following seven show that they don’t like abstinence.  All this material is from a tract entitled “Planned Parenthood: Speaking for Itself.” 

“If this is a girl you’ve just met and she agrees [to have sexual relations], you’re in the clear provided that she’s old enough to have some sense.”  That’s “some” sense.  That’s leaving God out.  Source: You’ve Changed the Combination!!!!, Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, 1977.

“Our alternate solution, is to be ready, as educators and parents, to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage.  By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.”  From Dr. Lena Levine, Planned Parenthood Federation of America seminar, May 1953.

“The solution [to “negative” early sexual experience] . . . is to teach young people how to experience sexual pleasure, instead of teaching them to not have sex.” Bulletin, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, Summer 1996.

“We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity.  Our concern is not to convey ‘shoulds’ or ‘should nots,’ but to help young people make responsible decisions about their sexual relationships.”  From Faye Wattleton, then-president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Los Angeles Times, October 17, 1986.

“The thrown-back thinking of Focus on the Family [in ‘In Defense of a Little Virginity’ advertisement], with its insidious message of sexual safety exclusively through abstinence is not only annoying, it is dangerous.” From Bulletin, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, April 1993

“Telling people just to practice abstinence is like telling a depressed person to cheer up.” From Pamela Maraldo, then-president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, AP wire story, August 10, 1993.

“The kit [for building community support] provides information for educators, parents, curriculum advisors, and other professionals who want to implement comprehensive programs or prevent the implementation of abstinence-only programs.”  From 1992 Annual Report, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

SIECUS, the promiscuity people, list what they call “Common Characteristics of Fear-Based Curricula” (that is, Christian based)

• Uses scare tactics to promote abstinence. 
• Provides no (or negative) information about contraception. 
• Focuses on negative consequences of sexual behavior. 
• Includes inaccurate medical information. 
• Provides no (or negative) discussion of sexual orientation [really, disorientation]. 
• Includes gender stereotypes. 
• Provides no information for people with disabilities [Pardon my stupid question, but do people with disabilities need special ways to not have sex?]. 
• Includes racist and classist stereotypes. 
• Demonstrates religious bias.
• Depicts nontraditional families as troubled.

The source is “Community Action Kit,” page 64 although the pages aren’t numbered.  The sheet this appears on is titled “Fear-Based Programs.”

One must be cautious when evaluating and criticizing promiscuity-education programs.  One reason is that some programs may have abstinence-only components, and it may be that only these components have been recommended for approval by the school board.  One example of this is Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI).  When California implemented this program, it implemented only the first five components.  These taught abstinence.  Other components teach students to use condoms if they have sex.  Thus, be careful of what you criticize. 

But also be vigilant: Once the good parts of programs are implemented, the bad parts might be slipped in secretly.

Background on Kinsey

Who cares about Kinsey?  YOU MUST!  Notwithstanding that he did his sex research in the 1940’s and notwithstanding that he was unqualified to study sex (being a zoologist specializing in wasps), his findings are the basis for promiscuity education.  You must understand his work in order to confront the promiscuity people.

For more than three decades, sex education in America has been dominated by the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).  SIECUS is viewed as the preeminent authority on sex education.  SIECUS was founded at the Kinsey Institute in 1964.  It was specifically created to teach and promote the sexual theories of Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, author of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.  SIECUS received funding from Hugh Hefner’s Playboy magazine.⁴

Kinsey concluded, based on his findings that:

• Children are sexually active and potentially orgasmic from birth.
• Sex can and should be commonly shared with anyone and anything.
• Left to their own, people are naturally bisexual.
• All cultural and historic sexual taboos and laws are passé.
• All forms of sexual experimentation are beneficial.
• Adultery is natural, healthy, and acceptable.
• Adult-child sex or incest is one appropriate aspect of human sexuality.
• Homosexuality is natural, healthy, and acceptable⁵

The Biased/Flawed Basis of Kinsey’s Scientific Method:

At the time of its publication, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was largely well received by the science community in the United States.  The report was praised for its size, scope, and daring subject matter. Today, however, the scientific methods of Kinsey have been discredited by medical and social science professionals.

As Kinsey’s work came under closer scholastic and scientific scrutiny, his survey methodology was discovered to be seriously flawed.  Much of the statistical data Kinsey published has been proven incorrect.  This is essentially because he sought out “volunteer” subjects in prisons and universities.  In effect, the volunteer bias in Kinsey’s study exaggerated the kind of sexual behavior and attitudes about sex that Kinsey idealized thematically in his reports.  The segments of the population he chose for interview were not representative of the 98 to 99% of the heterosexual majority of American males.

Although there were supposedly 5,300 randomly selected white males in Kinsey’s total male sample, up to a quarter had prior sex offender histories and/or prison experience.⁶  Thus, volunteer bias corrupts the conclusions of the study, particularly in reference to the high incidence (up to 37%) of homosexual behavior Kinsey argued was normative behavior among males.

Any attempt to “clean” the Kinsey data would have to take into account the known sexually biased groups listed by Paul Gebhard and Alan Johnson in their 1979 study, The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938 – 1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research (W.B. Saunders Company).

Beyond the prison population, these sexually biased groups chosen by Dr. Kinsey included: The homosexual Mattachine Society, orphans, pedophiles, the occupants of homes for unwed mothers, prostitutes (both male and female), personal friends of individuals known to be sexually deviant, and patients in mental hospitals.

In his book, The Kinsey Data, Kinsey co-author Paul Gebhard admits: “Individuals from improperly recorded biased sources could contaminate the large sample, conceivably to a serious extent.”  Gebhard also states that Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey was more concerned with building and defending the research than he was with problems of bias.

SIECUS based its approach to sex education curricula for children, teenagers, and young adults in American society on Kinsey’s scientifically biased and flawed findings.

This is the impact of SIECUS-based Promiscuity Education: SIECUS itself emphatically states: “Since its beginning, SIECUS has been a pioneer in taking stands on current sexuality issues of public concern.  SIECUS staff and board members provide testimony at governmental hearings; distribute information to state, local, and national policymakers; work with school boards across America; and advocate for sexual health and education through public speaking, workshops, seminars, and publications. Through court cases, public testimony, and public education, SIECUS has continued to work to protect the sexual rights of all Americans.”⁷

Former SIECUS board member Wardell B. Pomeroy, Ph.D., co-author of the 1948 Kinsey Report on Male Sexuality  and author of Boys and Sex (NY: Delacorte Press, 1981) greatly influenced the establishment of SIECUS as a subtle representative of the Kinsey Institute.

The Kinseyan sexual behaviors and conduct advocated in Dr. Pomeroy’s writings promote behaviors and conduct reflected in the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education from SIECUS.

“Kinsey’s overall thesis of ‘outlet sex’ placed all sexual acts on the same moral, social and biological level whether in or out of wedlock, between two people of the same sex or opposite sex, or even when sex involved children or animals.  By declaring that ‘science’ had found no value in traditional sexual morality, the Kinsey Reports, as they came to be known, provided the ‘scientific’ foundation for America’s sexual revolution.

Kinsey’s work has been popularized by Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner and others whose self-proclaimed mission is to overthrow traditional sexual morality.  Lost amid the publicity, however, is a short chapter in the Male volume called ‘Early Sexual Growth and Activity’ (pp. 157 – 192).  In 1981, Dr. Judith A. Reisman, in a paper delivered at the Fifth World Congress of Sexology in Jerusalem, examined the Kinsey data on child sexuality.  She began asking questions that have yet to be answered:  How did the Kinsey team obtain the data on children?  Did parents give consent?  Was there any follow-up on the recorded experiments?  Where are the children now?

In 1990, Dr. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel wrote the groundbreaking book Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, which reveals shocking evidence that children were sexually abused by adults in the name of science.”

“The most remarkable aspect of the pre-adolescent population is its capacity to achieve repeated orgasm in limited periods of time. . . . Typical cases are shown in Table 34.  The maximum observed was 26 climaxes in 24 hours, and the report indicates that still more might have been possible in the same period of time (pp. 179 – 180).”  The following is a small portion of table 34:

“Kinsey also notes on p. 178, ‘Orgasm is in our records for a female babe of 4 months.’  Since sexual abuse of children was then and still is illegal everywhere in the United States, the names of the subjects are not provided, nor are the names of the ‘trained’ adult ‘partners’ who administered the ‘contacts.’

The Kinsey conclusions, based on the data, have permeated America’s educational institutions and are the major behavioral model on which sex education programs are designed for children.

In Kinsey’s view, children are sexual from birth, are as fully capable and deserving of sexual relations at any age as are adults, and society should reflect this scientifically validated view by radically altering its moral codes.”

“In 1950, Alfred Kinsey testified before the California General Assembly’s Subcommittee on Sex Crimes on behalf of liberalizing state laws regarding sex offenders.  Kinsey argued specifically for granting immediate paroles to child molestation suspects, and also counseled that parents should not warn children about strangers because it might frighten them.  In his testimony, he included no information about sex-crime victims, and noted that societal disapproval of the acts posed more harm than the acts themselves.”  Source: Subcommittee on Sex Crimes, California General Assembly, 1950, pp. 114 – 117.

“In another critique, Kinsey’s Myth of Female Sexuality, Drs. Edmund Bergler and William Kroger write of Kinsey’s work: ‘The psychiatric and medical gynecological misconceptions of female sexuality which it contains are so extensive and so fundamental that prompt correction seems advisable; myths have been created and perpetuated in the past through sheer popular repetition.’”  (See preface of Bergler’s book.)

If none of the above makes any statement about the quality of sex research done by this expert on wasps, consider this: Kinsey died from complications resulting from deliberate, “sexual” self-mutilation of his penis.

You see, then, that current promiscuity education is based on bad alleged science and on perversions.  Be sure that your school board knows this.

The above information about Kinsey is found in Sex Education in American Schools, by Concerned Women for America, phone 202 488 7000, and Robert H. Knight’s/Family Research Council’s Dr. Kinsey and the Children of Table 34, phone 202 393 2100.  Citations from the Concerned Women publication are at the end of this document.

Background on Abstinence Education

Many, if not most, teens want to abstain from sex

Among 1,000 sexually active girls under 16, a 1990 survey found that 84% responded that “how to say no without hurting the other person’s feelings” was the topic they most want more information on.⁸

“Eunice Kennedy Shriver, sister of the late President [Kennedy] and director of the Kennedy Foundation, has discovered during her twenty-five years as a social worker that teenagers would rather be given standards than contraceptives.  She describes a visit to a center for troubled teenagers during which a teacher asked what topic the girls would like to discuss.  They were disinterested in biology, infant care, and family planning, but their hands shot up when the teacher mentioned how to say no to a boyfriend without losing his love.”  Dr. Dinah Richard, Has Sex Education Failed Our Teenagers?, 1990, p. 53.

Principles of Character-Based Sex Education    The Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH) portrays the following values on abstaining from sex before marriage in its EXCERPTS From The National Guidelines and Character Education also by MISH.  Comments added by Life Research Institute are in brackets.  

“These nine principles of character-based sex education are intended to help schools define and develop a character-based sex education program and evaluate existing sex education programs.

1. Premature sexual activity is destructive toward self and others.  It poses a grave threat to young people’s physical health, emotional well being, and character development.  It also harms public health and a nation’s moral character.  Character education does not ignore this problem.
2. The destructive effects of adolescent sexual activity include: -Pregnancy and its consequences (including children having children and more than 400,000 teen abortions annually).  -Sexually transmitted diseases (including possible long term health consequences, such as loss of fertility). -Emotional hurt. -Potential difficulty in future relationships. -The development of disrespectful and irresponsible behavior patterns that are antithetical to good character. [Responsibility and integrity mean doing what’s right even when no one is watching.]
3. Sexual behavior is determined by values rather than by mere knowledge.  Therefore, sex education must educate young people about the moral dimensions of sexual conduct.  It must help them apply core ethical values such as respect, responsibility, and self control to the sexual domain. [Communication, especially with parents, increases knowledge and wise decisions.]
4. To avoid premature sexual activity, young people need: -An understanding of the physical and emotional dangers of sexual activity.-An understanding of the relationship between sex and love and of the emotional aspects of sexual bonding.-A vision of the benefits of saving sex for the committed love relationship of marriage.-The skills, strategies, strengths of character (e.g., modesty, self control, good judgment, and respect for self and others. -Support needed to refrain from premature sexual activity.
5. Character-based sex education should help young people understand that while condoms may reduce some of the physical risks of premature sexual activity, serious risks remain.  These risks include pregnancy, disease, and the negative psychological consequences of temporary sexual relationships.
6. Educators cannot effectively teach children to deal appropriately with decisions about drug abuse, violence, or sexual activity when those children have not developed the character traits that are needed to avoid these unhealthy and risky behaviors.
7. Character-based sex education should teach young people the moral principle that it is never responsible to take serious, unnecessary risks with one’s own or another person’s physical, emotional, or spiritual welfare.  Premature sexual activity involves such risks.
8. Sexual activity by unmarried adolescents is dangerous regardless of who one’s partner is.  Regardless of sexual orientation, the best way for young people to avoids AIDS and other STDs is ‘to refrain from sexual activity until as adults they are ready to establish a mutually faithful monogamous relationship.’ (Said the U.S. Department of Education in 1988).
9. Character-based sex education should be directive, using thoughtful curricula, accurately interpreted medical data, and ethical reasoning to guide students toward right decisions about sex.  Just as character education guides students toward right decisions about respect, responsibility, and self control in other areas of human behavior, it guides unmarried teenagers toward sexual abstinence, the right decision about premature sexual activity.” 

If you don’t know the difference between directive and non-directive education, see the glossary.

Remember the correct answer to this question: “What is the age when it first becomes acceptable to have sex?”  What would you say, “Sixteen for boys?”  “Eighteen for girls?”  How about “The age they are on their wedding day.”

Abstinence advocates portray the following values on abstaining from sex before marriage: -It’s risk free.  -YOU are worth waiting for.  -It’s smart.  -Not everyone is sexually active and you don’t have to be either.  -Sexual desire can be controlled and sexual gratification can be delayed.  -Setting goals and achieving them builds confidence in self.  -Out-of-wedlock pregnancies impact everyone — what one does in private has public consequences.  -Alcohol and drug use change decision making abilities and increases vulnerability to sexual pressures.  -Responsible parenting requires self-sufficiency, communication skills, education, and maturity.  -Adoption is a positive option for unintended pregnancies.  -Paternity testing is accurate and child-support laws are federally enforced.  -Sexual harassment, acquaintance rape, gossip, parenting, refusal, and decision making skills are among the many topics covered.  -STDs can kill  They cause pain cost money, and YOU are not invincible.  -Your life is valuable.  -STDs can hurt.  -STDs can scar.  -Some scars never heal.  -You are vulnerable to STDs at any age. -Some STDs are forever.  -Not all love is forever.  -There’s no condom for your heart.  -Some things are hard to forget. -Abstinence is worry free. -It increases self respect.  -It builds trust. -It’s the healthiest choice.  -You won’t settle for less.  -It’s 100% safe.  -AIDS doesn’t discriminate. -Sex isn’t a preview for marriage.  -Abstinence verifies commitment.  -Your future spouse will be grateful.  -It shows self control.  -Self control beats birth control and abortion.  -Babies need a lot more than love.  -Character counts.  -Abstinence responsible. -It’s honest.  -It’s effective against STDs and pregnancy.  -No risk now.  -No regret later.  -Today’s choices are tomorrow’s future.  -Each year 10% of America’s teens get pregnant.  -You might have to drop out of school.  -You might be talked into killing your child.  -Your boyfriend will probably leave you if you get pregnant, and will almost certainly leave you if you have an abortion.  -Everyone’s NOT doing it.  -It’s hard to say “no” but it’s harder to have an STD or pregnancy.  -You’re not like a car: Meant to be test driven.  -You’re better than a barnyard animal.  -Are you only as useful as a cow is to a bull.  -How meaningful is your life if sex is needed to keep it going?  -Do you think your friends respect a pushover?  -God says “NO!” to sex outside of marriage.  -You are worth “to have and to hold, in sickness and in health till death do us part!” -When you let it be known you aren’t doing it, you will get dates that want you for you, not for your vagina.  -There are tons of ways to show affection other than having sex.

Library Books

According to School Boards, A Call to Action by Wendy Flint: “Library books on sex education can be a problem.  More modern books have become sexually explicit with detailed pictures.  The books are usually recommended to be read to a child by a parent so that the parent can answer any questions, yet these same books have free access to any age child in school libraries. 

Some parents have voiced concerns that their kindergarten or first grade child can check out sex education books that were designed for sixth graders.  At an early age the child is exposed to the curriculum before the parents could open the discussion.

It is difficult for school boards to make a wise, legal, and balanced decision with regard to sex education because there is so much diversity of opinion when a child should ‘know everything about sex.’ 

At the Evergreen School District [in Washington state] board meeting in 1986, sex education books in school libraries were challenged by a parent, and an important decision was made.  About 50% of the parents testifying wanted their children to have access to the books, and 50% did not.  Rather than remove the books and bring an expensive law suit on the district, the board voted to restrict the books to a special shelf in the library, visible, but not accessible to children.  Annually all parents are informed of the book titles.  They can send in parental permission slips to release the books to their children.  A committee with both parents and staff selects which books need to be placed on the restricted shelves.  For selection of these books, the policy states: ‘If the sole or primary purpose of a nonfiction book is to provide sex education, which deals with such sensitive areas as graphic nudity, sexual intercourse, or masturbation, then it will be reviewed for restriction.  The biological development of a baby in utero is not considered to be systematically restricted.’”

Background: Dispersion

Promiscuity education can be dispersed or mixed-in with other subjects.  These subjects may include –stress management (often incorporating physical and mental exercises adapted from Eastern religions) –drugs and alcohol (values clarification programs) –mental health (psychological testing and surveys) –homosexuality  –death education  land critical thinking skills (the challenge of any absolutes). 

The Bad Programs

The Family Life Sex Education (FL/SE) programs, in contrast to promiscuity and abstinence education curricula, are a teacher-training program with vague open-ended guidelines.  Much of the control, material selection and instruction is left up to the individual teacher or staff instructors.  Because it is comprehensive, and often times called “Comprehensive Health,” FL/SE includes many other aspects of instruction that can be purchased and approved separately by the local school board with parents knowledge.

The difficulty is that the FL/SE programs are so diffused into the curriculum that to opt a child out of FL/SE is to opt them out of portions of other subjects also.

FL/SE programs start off by assuming most teens will be sexually active.  It then becomes obvious that teens need instruction in being safe at what they do.  Thus, “safe sex” is the FL/SE battle cry.  The programs guide children into alternatives to sexual intercourse without giving them reasons or the refusal skill to say “no.”  Many FL/SE  programs have redefined abstinence to mean “any sexual behavior to avoid sexual intercourse and pregnancy” and such behavior has been referred to as “outercourse.”  That is, abstinence isn’t necessarily abstinence.

Two damaging assumptions underlie the FL/SE curriculum and teacher training.  The first is the view that children are sexual from birth (refer to the text on Kinsey above) and should learn to enjoy their sexuality as early as possible.  The second message (according to student reports) is that parents don’t understand their children’s sexual natures, so children don’t need to follow parental guidance.

Some goals listed for FL/SE  are: -To reduce fears and anxieties about personal sexual developments and feelings.  -To encourage students to question, explore, and assess their sexual attitudes.  -To develop more tolerant attitudes toward the sexual behavior of others.  -To facilitate rewarding sexual expression.  -To integrate sex into a balanced and purposeful pattern of living.  -To reduce sex-related problems such as venereal disease and unwanted pregnancies.

Finding curriculum examples of FL/SE  is a challenge.  There is no Family Life/Sex Education textbook or standard comprehensive manual.  Inquisitive parents are lucky if they are shown guidelines and they are not shown what is or will be taught.  For the most part, FL/SE  is a teacher-training program.  Much of the control, materials, and instruction is left up to individual teachers or staff instructors.  Parents who want to know what really is in the curriculum must preview all films in their entirety and must review all resource materials recommended for classroom use.  Unfortunately, few parents are willing to undertake such an exhaustive study.  It is also important to know the background of guest speakers and which organizations they are from.

This is a list of the major promiscuity education providers and promoters:

The following is some material from SIECUS’s Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education:

• A sexually healthy adult will:  1) Affirm one’s own sexual orientation and respect the sexual orientation of others.  2) Enjoy and express one’s sexuality throughout life.  3) Express one’s sexuality in ways congruent with one’s values.  4) Act consistent with one’s own values in dealing with an unintended pregnancy.

To be taught in middle childhood, ages 5 through 8, early elementary school:

• Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
• Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
• Masturbation should be done in a private place.
• Smoking, drinking alcohol, and using drugs can hurt a fetus before it is born.

To be taught to preadolescents, age 9 through 12, upper elementary school:

• Homosexual love relationships can be as fulfilling as heterosexual relationships.
• A legal abortion is very safe.

To be taught to early adolescents, ages 12 through 15, middle/junior high school:

• People do not choose their sexual orientation.
• Sexual orientation cannot be changed by therapy or medicine.
• Gay and lesbian youth, like heterosexual youth, may or may not date.
• [Sexual fantasy is to be brought forth–not avoided–in the programs.]
• Young people can buy some contraceptives in a drug store, grocery market, or convenience store without a doctor’s prescription.
• After 24 weeks of pregnancy, an abortion is done only when the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus has extreme medical problems.  [This is a lie.  Abortion is legal during any week and for any reason.]

To be taught to adolescents, ages 15 through 18, high school:

• The telephone number of the gay and lesbian center in this community is _______
• Some sexual behaviors shared by partners including kissing, touching, talking, caressing, massage, sharing erotic literature or art, bathing/showering together, and oral, vaginal or anal intercourse.
• [Sexual fantasy is to be brought forth–not avoided–in the programs.]
• Women whose contraceptives fail or do not use one at mid-cycle can consult with a health provider for emergency contraception.  [Health providers don’t point out that emergency contraception is always abortion.]
• Parents have the right to determine what is appropriate viewing material for their own children.  [This is included to allegedly prove that the Guidelines favor parental involvement.  However, nowhere in the Guidelines does it say that parents have the right to determine if it is appropriate for their own children to have sex and abortions.]

One organization endorsing the Guidelines is National Lesbian and Gay Health Foundation.

No mention is made that often contraception works by aborting the fertilized human being.  (If you have been involved with that, God will forgive you IF you repent.  Repent means turn away from.)

Wrapup

Parents in overwhelming numbers want their children to be taught a clear, consistent message of pre-marital abstinence, not of promiscuity.

Teaching that using condoms is safe enough sex is like asking, “Would you fly on an airplane that would only bring you to your destination 80% of the time?”

Today, we have the best educated young people in the history of America regarding sex and contraceptives.  Billions of our tax dollars have gone to assist in this education.  Now, let me ask you — Are things getting better now that our children have been educated about sex and contraceptives?

Is the teenage pregnancy rate and abortion rate going down?

Do we have fewer single mothers?

Is the STD rate dropping?

Is the overall emotional well being and character of young people improving now that we have taught them how to enjoy sex in a so-called safe environment?

Obviously, the answer to all these questions is a resounding NO!  The solution is also obvious.  We must return to the only solution that has ever worked, abstinence until marriage and monogamy within marriage–between one woman and one man.

The Good Programs

Wendy Flint’s Parents Right to Know, available from National Education Resource Center, P. O. Box 3819, Vancouver, WA 98662, provides the following.  Sources for this are from policy and legislative statements or examples of Washington State Regulations and Requirements related to Health Education; Washington State “Sexual Abstinence and Avoidance of Substance Abuse” legislative bill (passed); Georgia’s mandatory sex education law, and Evergreen School District policies and procedures, Vancouver, WA.

There are many good abstinence curricula.  Unfortunately, because development of such curricula are poorly funded, there are few studies showing their successes.  Facing Reality, Abstinence Curriculum Evaluation Report, 1994 – 1995, is a study on the Facing Reality abstinence curricula.  (Curricula is the plural of curriculum).  Material from that study follows:

“This evaluation also demonstrated that Facing Reality was successful in not only changing the attitudes of low-risk students, but was even more successful in changing the attitudes of the high-risk students.  This seems to counter the criticism that programs which focus on abstinence are ineffective with students who are high risk.”

“Conventional wisdom might expect that those already sexually active, or those who belong to high-risk groups, are the ones least likely to change.  Facing Reality has positive results to counter these assumptions.  It is proving to be very effective with even the High Risk adolescents.”

“From Figure 4 [not shown] it can be seen that, contrary to what one may expect, the non-virgins changed even more in their attitudes than did the virgins.  This difference in the amount of change is not statistically significant, but it is in the direction of the non-virgins having more positive change than the virgins.” [The pre- to post-test gains in attitude scale score was 3.8 for virgins and 4.5 for non-virgins.]

“68% of all students who participated in the program had positive changes toward more abstinent attitudes from pre-test to post-test.  Only 28% experienced a negative change.  This means that students participating in Facing Reality had 2.4 to 1 odds of leaving the program with attitudes more towards sexual restraint than when they entered the program.

Finally, it was shown how important it is to ask about recent sexual activity, since this is one of the primary behaviors being targeted.  When asked about recent sexual activity, the number of ‘sexually active’ dropped by 60%.  This underscores the important information in a recency or frequency of activity question that is gained relative to asking a person only if they have ever engaged in a certain activity.”

Other studies of the effectiveness of abstinence programs show:

From 1984 to 1986 the Teen-Aid abstinence program was taught without the mixed message of contraception at San Marcos Junior High School in California.  In the school year before the introduction of the Teen-Aid program, 147 pregnancies were reported in 600 girls.  In the year after the program, only 20 pregnancies were reported by faculty and staff!^9,10

This phenomenon [of responsibility] is not unique to urban California. D’Ann Pierce of Spur, TX reported that in 1988 her rural school district had 11 pregnancies in a K – 12 student body of 450.  In 1990, after implementing the Teen-Aid program, the rate was down to only one pregnancy in her west Texas town.¹¹

Project Reality NEWS, February 1997 has an article entitled “Our Impact is Showing.”  The following is from that article

Teaching adolescents abstinence and the value of refusal skills has been shown to have residual effects.  The directive model guides students toward decisions which elevate family and community values over the autonomy of the individual.  The directive model of Sex Respect’s program, when evaluated even two years later, showed 44% fewer pregnancies than the control students.¹²

In Atlanta, Georgia, use of the abstinence, or directive, model again refuted the assumption “that adolescents have sex, smoke, drink, or use drugs because they lack knowledge about specific aspects of such behaviors and their harmful effects.”  The Grady Hospital staff considered the need to make age-appropriate lessons “promoting attitudes and skills that young adolescents can use until they gain more mature skills in managing their sexuality.”  By the end of eighth grade, students who had not participated in the program were as much as five times more likely to have begun having sex than those who took the program.¹³

In South Carolina, The School/Community Program for Sexual Risk Reduction Among Teens noted a reduction in teen pregnancy rates (live births plus fetal deaths plus induced abortion).  They stated, “The educational objective is to promote the postponement of initial voluntary intercourse as the positive, preferred sexual and health decision.”  During the three years the program was in progress, the pregnancy rate decreased 58% while three comparison counties had an increase in the pregnancy rate.¹⁴

There ARE other good abstinence programs! 

The federal government has authorized money for each state to fund abstinence-only education.  To learn how to make sure that funding is properly used in your state – contact the National Coalition for Abstinence Education, PO. Box 536, Colorado Springs, CO 80901 0536.

Program Comparisons

There are major differences between Family Life Sexuality (Promiscuity) Education programs, as endorsed by Planned Parenthood and SIECUS, and other sex education programs. FL/SE  starts in kindergarten, while the average program starts in the 4^th or 5^th grade.  FL/SE  often promotes having homosexuals explain their lifestyle in the classroom while the average program does not.  FL/SE  begins discussing condoms in elementary school.  The average program waits until the 8^th or 9^th grade health class.  The Parents Right To Know, cited above, shows the following comparison in its Table 3-1:

SIECUS’s “Community Action Kit” says of our good programs, “The SIECUS content analysis of fear-based curricula identified a number of commonalties among the programs, including: gaps in information, medical inaccuracies, and exclusive focus on abstinence as the only appropriate choice for adolescents and sexist, homophobic and anti-choice biases.”  Since SIECUS thinks abstinence programs are bad, abstinence programs are therefore good.

SIECUS points to a review of studies by Douglas Kirby entitled “No Easy Answers” to allege that SIECUS-type programs are more effective that abstinence programs.  However, Kirby’s studies don’t really say that and are faulty anyway.  Kirby’s “No Easy Answers” article, page 2 under the heading of Abstinence-Only Programs says, “Despite meeting these criteria, many of the studies included in the review had methodological inadequacies that limit the strength and clarity of their findings.”

Page 4 under the heading of Sexuality Education and HIV Programs says, “Thus, at the present time, it is not known whether or not abstinence-only programs delay intercourse.  Therefore, more research should be done on these programs.” When discussing the promiscuity programs, he says, “There has been some concern that such programs will actually encourage teenagers to become sexually active.  However, evaluations of these programs strongly support the conclusion that sexuality and HIV education curricula do not increase sexual intercourse, either by hastening the onset of intercourse, increasing the frequency of intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners.  To the contrary, some of these programs delayed the onset of intercourse, reduced the frequency of intercourse, or reduced the number of sexual partners.  Studies also suggest that some of the programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally.  Taken together, these results are positive, indicating that some sexuality and HIV education programs can significantly delay sexual activity or increase contraceptive use.  A caveat is in order, however.  Only two of the studies of sexuality education and HIV education programs included random assignment, large sample sizes, long term follow-up, measurement of behavior, and proper statistical analyses, and neither of these well designed studies found significant effects upon behavior.” That is, everything SIECUS is saying about the success of the programs it endorses is optimism, not science.   (Emphasis was not in the original, nor is it in the following paragraphs.)

Still on page 4, he says, “A disproportionate number of the programs that significantly increased contraceptive use were AIDS education programs that increased condom use.  It cannot yet be determined whether AIDS education programs are inherently more effective than sex education programs that cover pregnancy, STDs, HIV, and other topics, or whether AIDS education programs have simply been better funded, had better trained staff, had studies with larger sample sizes, or had some other advantage that improved measured effectiveness.  For instance, the fear of AIDS may generate greater receptivity to information about prevention than the fear of pregnancy.”

Kirby’s page 5, under the heading of Family Planning Services, says, “Given the greater effectiveness of the contraceptive methods typically provided by family planning services, and given the other services provided in these settings, family planning services presumably prevented many adolescent pregnancies that would have occurred if these services had not existed or had been significantly curtailed.  On the other hand, there is remarkably little research evidence to support this conclusion.  While there have been several studies of the effects of family planning clinics upon pregnancy or birth rates, and while four of these studies suggest that subsidized family planning clinics may have reduced adolescent birth rates, the strength of any conclusion is greatly weakened by conflicting results among studies and by several severe methodological limitations. . . .”

“Another important question remains: How can family planning services be improved so that adolescents engage in less unprotected sex?  Only a few studies have examined this question, and their results are inconclusive.”

Kirby’s page 6 under heading School-Based Health Centers and Condom-Availability Programs, shows that “In schools with health centers providing contraceptives, substantial proportions of sexually experienced students do obtain contraceptives from the health centers.  However, given the relatively wide availability of condoms and contraceptives in most communities, the provision of these contraceptives does not appear to hasten or increase the frequency of teen sexual activity school-wide, nor does it appear to markedly increase the school-wide use of condoms or contraceptives.  Many students simply obtain their contraceptives through the health center instead of somewhere else.  In addition, the provision of contraceptives does not appear to decrease school-wide pregnancy or birth rates.

Schools without such health centers can also be involved in reducing sexual risk-taking behavior.  For example, given the threat of AIDS, other STDs, and pregnancy, more than 300 schools without school-based clinics have begun making condoms available through school counselors, nurses, teachers, vending machines, or baskets. . . .

The studies consistently show that making condoms available does not increase any measure of sexual activity, but they have produced inconsistent results on the impact of school condom availability on actual condom use.”

Skipping now to Kirby’s page 8 under heading Limitations of the Evaluation Research: “The present state of evaluation research on teen pregnancy prevention programs is quite weak, making it hard for any of us–researchers, policymakers, parents, program developers, and the public–to find a single answer to the question, ‘What works?’ At least four factors limit the conclusions that can be drawn from the many studies reviewed.  First, the studies conducted to date are simply too few to evaluate each of the different approaches, let alone the various combinations of approaches.  Second, many of these studies are limited by methodological problems or constraints.  Third, these studies have often produced inconsistent results. And, fourth, there are very few replications of even the most promising programs that assess their impact in other types of communities and with other groups of youths.

Given the importance of adolescent pregnancy–as measured either by the consequences to adolescents, their children, and society or by the amount of effort directed toward this problem–the lack of more definitive conclusions about what works is truly a national tragedy.”

Kirby’s pages 8 and 9 under heading of Key Findings says,  “Nearly all sex and HIV education programs that have been evaluated have produced some outcome deemed socially desirable by our society–for instance, an increase in knowledge. But only a few programs have produced credible evidence that they reduced sexual risk-taking behavior either by delaying the onset of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners, or increasing the use of condoms or other forms of contraception.  Commonly, however, the behavioral effects were only measured over the short term, not the long term. 

Even though abstinence-only programs may be appropriate for many youths, especially junior high and middle school youths, there does not currently exist any published scientific research demonstrating that they have actually delayed (or hastened) the onset of sexual intercourse or reduced any other measure of sexual activity.  Thus, at the present time, it is not known whether or not abstinence-only programs delay intercourse.

The overwhelming weight of the evidence demonstrates that programs that focus upon sexuality, including sex and HIV education programs, school-based clinics, and condom availability programs, do not increase any measure of sexual activity. . . .  [or decrease.  However, the weight of evidence is extremely suspicious according to his own statements of statistical difficulties.]

Three studies indicate that multi-component programs in schools and communities that combine strong educational components with clear messages about avoiding pregnancy or STDs and the provision of contraceptives may increase the use of contraceptives and decrease pregnancy rates.”

So we see that SIECUS and the promiscuity people use Kirby’s non-conclusions to make claims which are allegedly scientifically based. The promiscuity people do this often.  The following may be another example.  Unfortunately, there is no way to tell.  This is from a United Nations department.  What is known is that the United Nations, being pro-promiscuity, pro-abortion, and pro-homosexual, is very, very in tune with International Planned Parenthood Federation.  The following is the first page of the press release on this international review.  It may not particularly apply to U.S. sex programs.

“In a review commissioned by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), evidence indicates that sexual health education for children and young people promotes safer sexual practice and does not increase their sexual activity.

With sexual health education for the young such a hotly debated issue, UNAIDS commissioned a review of sixty eight reports on sexual health education from France, Mexico, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, as well as from different Nordic countries.  This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date review of studies in this field, looking at sexual health education programs and those incorporating education about the prevention of HIV, the human immuno-deficiency virus which causes AIDS.  The review’s primary intention was to inform policy makers, programme planners and educators about the impact of HIV and sexual health education on the behavior of young people as described in the published literature.

The main conclusions of the review were: 

• Education about sexual health and/or HIV does not encourage increased sexual activity.  Only three out of 68 reported a relation between such education and increased sexual interaction and these studies were regarded as having severe methodological limitations; 
• Good quality programs help delay first intercourse and protect sexually active youth from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and from pregnancy.  22 studies reported that HIV and/or sexual health education either delayed the onset of sexual activity, reduced the number of sexual partners or reduced unplanned pregnancy and STD rates;
• Responsible and safe behavior can be learned;
• Sexual health education is best started before the onset of sexual activity.”

Here is another comparison study.  This is from Douglas Kirby et al., “School-Based Programs to Reduce Sexual Risk Behaviors: A Review of Effectiveness,” Public-Health Reports,  May-June 1994.

Introduction of the authors shows considerable pro-promiscuity prejudice.  Kirby is Director of Research at ETR Associates, producer of promiscuity-education programs.  He has also been Research Director for the extremely pro-abortion Center for Population Options.  Lynn Short, Janet Collins, Deborah Rugg, and Lloyd Kolbe are employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and researcher-participants Stephen Banspach, Susan Dietz, Yvonne Green, and Dan Peterson are also CDC employees.  The CDC is well known to be highly pro-abortion and pro-promiscuity.    In fact, Dr. Satcher, the former director of CDC and new (as of February 1998) U.S. Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health, is so extreme he strongly disapproves of any ban on the partial-birth abortion.

Proof of prejudice, misunderstanding, and misconception is stated clearly in the first sentence (not counting the abstract) of this article: “We are SEXUAL HUMAN BEINGS from birth . . .”  This is straight from the scientifically repudiated Kinsey work where many people allege that Kinsey and associates committed many felonies by molesting children for his so-called scientific studies.  (This topic is covered in the manual you are reading.  See the Table of Contents.)

Thus, we must understand that information from this article or any other article by these authors is prejudiced toward approval of promiscuity-education programs and disapproval of abstinence-education programs.  Kirby is one of these authors mentioned several places in this Life Research Institute document you are reading and is often mentioned as a researcher supporting SIECUS and Planned Parenthood-type programs.

From the article’s Abstract: “The authors identified 23 studies of school-based programs that were published in professional journals and measured program impact on behavior.  They then summarized the results of those studies, identifying the distinguishing characteristics of effective programs, and citing important research questions to be addressed in the future.

Not all sex and AIDS education programs had significant effects on adolescent sexual risk-taking behavior, but specific programs did delay the initiation of intercourse, reduce the frequency of intercourse, reduce the number of sexual partners, or increase the use of condoms or other contraceptives.

These effective programs have the potential to reduce exposure to unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, including HIV infection.  These programs should be replicated widely in U.S. schools.  Additional research is needed to improve the effectiveness of programs and to clarify the most important characteristics of effective programs.” [End of Abstract]

From page 339: “We are SEXUAL HUMAN BEINGS from birth, but during adolescence, sexual feelings change and intensify.”

From page 342: “Results: As a result of these efforts, 23 studies meeting the specified criteria were found.  Seven studies used national survey data to examine the relationship between reported exposure to sex and AIDS education programs and various reported behavioral outcomes.

[There is no emphasis in the original in the following.]

Studies based upon national surveys have several major limitations.  First, they necessarily rely upon the respondent’s recall of whether or not they received sex or AIDS education.  Because this instruction is sometimes integrated into a variety of other topics and may vary greatly in length, content, and quality, respondents often had to use their own criteria to determine whether they had, in fact, received sufficient instruction to say they had been exposed to a program. These problems undoubtedly added considerable measurement error and possibly bias to the seemingly simple question of whether or not they had been exposed to a sex or AIDS education program.  For example, that youth who were most affected by an AIDS educational program may be more likely to remember that program and to report past participation in a program.

Second, Most of the surveys failed to measure in any detail the characteristics of the sex or AIDS education instruction that the participants received.  Typically the surveys asked three or fewer questions about the content of the students’ instruction.  Thus, these surveys provided little information about the quality of the programs.  Consequently, relatively comprehensive and long-term programs are ‘averaged together’ with brief superficial programs.

Third, with national survey data, controlling for all other explanatory variables that might produce spurious relationships between education and sexual behavior is impossible.”

On the topic of “Sexual activity”:  “Five studies based on national surveys examined whether receipt of sex education was related to initiation of intercourse.”  [Thus, the findings of  the authors aren’t valid for at least these five studies according to the above.]

From page 345 “Two additional studies were based upon national surveys that did not measure the timing of instruction and initiation of intercourse.  Thus, the researchers were not able to use more sophisticated and powerful statistical methods (for example, survival, hazard, or event-history models) and were less capable of measuring the impact of instruction.”

From page 352 on the topic of “Initiation of intercourse.”  “Of the eight evaluations of individual sexuality or AIDS education programs, five measured the impact of the programs upon the initiation of intercourse. . . . None of these five programs significantly hastened the onset of intercourse.”  [Or decreased it]

From page 353: “In sum, the data from all eight studies indicate that some, but not all, of these programs increased contraceptive use.  Only two of the eight programs significantly increased contraceptive use among all sexually experienced youths, but two additional curriculums increased contraceptive use among specific groups of students. . . . Four programs clearly had a positive impact upon behavior: the Schinke-Blyth-Gilchrest curriculum, Postponing Sexual Involvement, Reducing the Risk, and AIDS Prevention for Adolescents in School.”

From page 355: “Generalizations about the differences between the effective and ineffective programs must be made cautiously.  However, there do appear to be several distinguishing differences.  First, the ineffective curriculums tended to be less focused and more comprehensive.”  [Did you get that?  Though prejudiced toward comprehensive sex ed, the authors say these programs are ineffective!]  . . .

“Second, the less effective curriculums tended to use a decision-making model in which the decision-making steps were taught; the model was applied to important decisions; and students were implicitly instructed to make their own decisions.  This approach is in contrast to the methods used in the effective curriculums, which presented a clear stand and emphasized clear behavioral values and norms.  For example, an ineffective curriculum, the McMaster Teen Program, asked students to identify reasons for and against having sex, but it did not process the discussion beyond the generation of ideas.”  [That is, it should be better to tell them to say “no” than to let them decide.]

From page 356: “Given these inconsistent results, we cannot determine conclusively the impact of school-based or school-linked reproductive health services.”

From page 358: “Our ability to reach definitive conclusions was limited by the few rigorous studies of individual programs, by methodological limitations of individual studies, and by inconsistent results among some of the findings.  Additional research needs to employ more valid and statistically powerful methods.”

“[Part of] Summary and Conclusions: The vast majority of sex and AIDS education programs in the United States include the following topics: abstinence, contraception, pregnancy, STD, and HIV-AIDS.  The studies that we have reviewed indicate that these programs do not increase sexual activity. . . . The studies of specific programs that included instruction on contraception consistently indicated that none of these programs hastened the onset of intercourse.  Indeed, all of them either delayed the onset of intercourse or had no effect upon the initiation of intercourse.  Furthermore, of the four studies that examined program impact upon frequency of intercourse, none found significant increases in frequency of intercourse, and one found a significant decrease among the relatively small proportion of youths who initiated intercourse after program implementation.”

From page 359: “To date, the published literature does not provide any good evidence indicating whether programs focusing only upon abstinence either do or do not delay the onset of intercourse or reduce the frequency of intercourse.  [However, there have only been three studies.]

. . . programs should both encourage youths to delay or refrain from intercourse and also encourage them to use contraceptives if they initiate intercourse.  Programs should be both age- and experience-appropriate.  That is, programs for younger adolescents should focus more upon delaying intercourse, while those for older youths should focus more upon condoms and other contraceptives.”  [This is the standard liberal left rhetoric: Kids are going to do it anyway, so let’s give them condoms.]

The limitations the authors put on the accuracy of this article plus the obvious pro-promiscuity bias of the other authors should indicate strongly enough that the conclusions are unscientific and not to be relied on.

Possibly, during your negotiations with the school board your opposition will present other studies which allegedly show the effectiveness of promiscuity programs.  This is what you should know about statistics which will be shown in the studies:

• Some authors fail to define the term “being sexually active.”  The reader should determine if this means having had intercourse once or if teens are continually sexually active and at risk.
• Some authors don’t differentiate between sexual activity between married and unmarried teens.
• Some authors misunderstand the difference between the outcomes of “out-of-wedlock” births and births to married teen parents.
• Some authors may report a reduction in “pregnancy rate” when it is, in fact, the “live birth rate.”  To give a true picture of pregnancy reduction, one must also take into account those pregnancies that were terminated before live birth (i.e., abortion and miscarriage rate).

You can use the following material to evaluate programs in your schools to see if they are worthy.  Material is shown from three sources.  Pick and choose as seems appropriate, or use it all.

There are several organizations named RSVP, but the RSVP which created the following is Restore Virtue and Purity to America. The information is published by First Principles Press; P. O. Box 1136; Crestwood, KY 40014; phone 800 837 0544.

RSVP has some excellent forms you can fill out to determine the accuracy of sex ed material.  The forms are oriented toward types of sex ed: Whether based on the discredited and promiscuity-oriented Kinsey work or on non-Kinsey work..  These forms are called “Coding Instruments,” and there are three types. 

With each textbook–not whole curriculum, but textbook–you would fill out all three forms.  Each form is one-page long.  “Coding Instrument #1” is used to count the Kinseyan words.  “Coding Instrument #2” is used to count the non-Kinseyan words.  “Coding Instrument #3,” with supplemental blank sheets, is used to quote typical sentences in certain categories having the words found in the other Coding Instruments.

The coding instruments are copyrighted and cost $3 each.  Following are some of the words found in the Coding Instruments:

Coding Instrument #1, which has 80 words and is oriented toward Kinsey and promiscuity but of themselves portray no values:  abortion, AIDS, anal, bisexual, choice, condoms, masochism, sadism, sadomasochism, safe sex, and transgendered.

Coding Instrument #2, which has 80 words and is oriented toward subjects showing values: adultery, baby, chastity, Christianity, commitment, decency, evil, fornication, God, honor, illegitimacy, marriage act, obscenity, perversion, sacred, sanctity of life, statutory rape, virtue, and wrong.  (What a difference!) 

Coding Instrument #3 lists five subjects: abortion, marriage, sexually explicit media (porn) as neutral, sexual orientation, and parental authority.  Within each of the five there are sub-topics.  For example, you are to copy from the textbook, material which shows abortion as dangerous, abortion as easy, abortion as a good choice, abortion as causing infertility, abortion as increasing the risk of breast cancer . . . homosexuality as genetic, homosexuality as harmless, etc.  Coding Instrument #3 also asks for quoted information on portrayed condom use and failure rates.

Coding Instrument #3 is necessary to provide the context of word usage.  For example, if you noted in a particular text book that the word “abortion” was used, that doesn’t necessarily mean the textbook is bad.  The text could have said, “Abortion is a safe and legal recommendation,” or it could have said, “Even Planned Parenthood says that abortion kills children and hurts, for the long term, nine of ten women who have it.”  Coding Instrument #3 enables you to show the quality of the use of the word, abortion (as well as other words).

While these Coding Instruments are excellent, RSVP does not make recommendations on taking action before or after using them.  The actions you might take are left up to you to decide upon and take. RSVP is relying on others, primarily Concerned Women for America, to develop and implement action plans.  The contact person at Concerned Women for America is Patti Danhke.  Her phone number in Washington, DC, is 202 488 7000.

Focus on the Family has developed the following questionnaire:

Questions Parents Should Ask about Their Child’s Sex Education Programs

1. Is the school’s sex education program truly abstinence-centered?  How much of the curriculum is devoted to abstinence, refusal skills, goal-setting, dating guidelines, control of sexual desires, parental involvement and relational skills?
2. Does the program strongly encourage students to postpone sexual activity until marriage?  Does the program extol marriage as a valued and foundational societal institution?  Or is the program “value neutral,” addressing sexuality outside any moral framework, and asserting that the proper context for sexual activity is entirely relative?
3. Does the school’s sex ed curriculum either incorporate the SIECUS guidelines or is it a Planned Parenthood program?  (If so it is a promiscuity program.)
4. Does the curriculum assume that teens are and will continue to be sexually active and therefore prepare them with information about condoms and other contraceptives?  Does the program advocate condom instruction, condom distribution,  or abortion referral?
5. Does the program direct teens away from their parents as primary educators and caregivers and to “other community resources” and counselors?  (Do not be swayed by what the program literature and descriptions say about this.  They will probably say that communication with parents is very important, but they may not mean it.  Investigate whether the actual course material directs teens away from their parents).
6. Does the sex ed program seek to change behavior, or does it simply attempt to make risky behavior “safer”?
7. Does the curriculum address the emotional consequences of premarital sexual activity?
8. Can the school supply any reliable research to document that comprehensive sex education actually promotes more prudent behavior among teens?

One anti-promiscuity person in California designed the following form usable in California to determine legal appropriateness of school sex programs.  If you live in another state, you should consider modifying this form according to your state laws.

Facts about Homosexuality

One of the premier fighters against homosexuality in the U.S. is Traditional Values Coalition.  Its phone number is 714 520 0300.  All the following information is from their document, SHAPE.  This stands for Stop Homosexual Advocacy in Public Education. 

From page 3 under the heading, “Gay-Affirming Education Places All Students ‘At Risk’”:  “There is great concern because our public school students are being placed ‘at risk’ due to gay-affirming school programs.

According to a 1992 University of Minnesota study of 34,706 youth, 25.9% of 12 year olds were unsure of their sexual orientation.¹⁵

These statistics show our youth are vulnerable and teaching them that homosexual behavior is a normal, natural lifestyle will cause an increase in the behavior of homosexuality placing them at risk.

One out of every four homosexual men with AIDS is 22 years old or younger.

The average 20 year old homosexual male has a 50% chance of contracting AIDS in his lifetime^16″  and about his lifetime, he is fortunate to live to age 40 even if he doesn’t contract AIDS.

POLICY STATEMENT FOR SCHOOL BOARDS

“No funds shall be spent either from federal, state, county, or local sources that by design or effect encourages or supports any activity or provides instructional materials, instruction, counseling, or other services in a manner which suggests homosexuality is a positive life alternative.  No student may be referred to any organization that affirms the homosexual lifestyle.”

From page 4 and following with the heading, “Answers to Myths Perpetrated by Homosexual Activists”: 

“MYTH 1: GAY-AFFIRMING PROGRAMS PREVENT SUICIDE IN HOMOSEXUAL YOUTH.  FACT: HOMOSEXUAL IDENTITY PROMOTION IS WHAT CAUSES SUICIDES.  Research done by Dr. Gary Remafedi of the University of Minnesota explains the longer a youth waits to self-identify the less likely they are to consider suicide because during the teenage years they do not have the maturity to deal with all of the circumstances surrounding such a decision.  ‘The likelihood of an attempt [of suicide] diminished with advancing age at the time of bisexual or homosexual self labeling,’ writes Dr. Remafedi.  ‘With each year’s . .  self-identification, the odds of a suicide attempt declined by more than 80%.’¹⁷  . . . But the way in which the homosexual youth suicide attempters were different was in self-labeling.  It is vital that everything possible be done to discourage self-identification during the early developing years of 6 through 18.  It is especially dangerous for ‘waverers’ and the entire school population or individual youth to be encouraged to consider homosexuality a viable lifestyle in these formative years.”

“MYTH2: DISCRIMINATION IN OUR SCHOOLS CAUSES YOUTH SUICIDE.  FACT: SUICIDE ATTEMPTS NOT ARE NOT RESULT OF DISCRIMINATION.  The prejudice on the part of heterosexuals toward homosexual youths apparently is not a major cause of suicidal depression.  According to the University of Minnesota study “suicide attempts were not explained by experiences with discrimination, violence, loss of friendship (after coming out) or current personal attitudes toward homosexuality.”¹⁷  Thus, the most important risk factors in gay youth suicide attempts were 1) early self-labeling, 2) early sexual experiences, and 3) acting like the opposite sex.”

“MYTH 3: HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) REPORTS SUICIDE ATTEMPTS 2 TO 3 TIMES HIGHER FOR GAY YOUTH.  FACT: YOUTH SUICIDE REPORT NOT VALID.  ‘Gay activists’ have put forth the issue of elevated suicide attempts among young homosexuals as a reason for promoting ‘gay-affirming’ education in the classroom.  Unfortunately, a 1989 HHS report by Paul Gibson¹⁸ continues to circulate even though it was repudiated and dropped by HHS Secretary Dr. Louis Sullivan. . . .The paper authored by Gibson, ‘Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide,’ attacks Roman Catholics and conservative churches and blames them for homosexual youth suicide and further recommends a change in their theology: ‘Religions need to reassess homosexuality in a positive context within their belief systems’¹⁸  The Gibson paper was found to be seriously flawed, never authenticated by being replicated, and evidence that the sampling was skewed became apparent.  In addition, there is no record of the HHS required ‘peer review’ process.  ‘Gibson, a homosexual social worker in San Francisco, uses statistics from mainly homosexual sources and then extrapolates them to the general youth population using the discredited Kinsey estimate of a 10 percent gay population. . . . A perusal of Gibson’s report turns up numerous contradictions and statistical impossibilities.  For example, he refers to one author who speculated in 1985 (in the gay newspaper, The Washington Blade) that as many as 3,000 gay youth kill themselves a year–a number that exceedsthe total number of annual teen suicides by more than a thousand,’ said Peter LaBarbera.”¹⁹

“MYTH 4: GAY-AFFIRMING PROGRAMS ARE NECESSARY FOR SAFETY OF GAY STUDENTS.  FACT: ALL STUDENTS SHOULD BE SAFE.  There are already laws to prevent hate crimes.  Schools should enforce these.  There is no need to indoctrinate all students to accept homosexuality as normal.  According to the California State Board of Education, students should not be allowed to commit violent acts, physically abuse, or verbally abuse any student for any reason.  Many children are abused because they are fat, skinny, poor, have red hair, have no father, are non-athletic, etc.  These acts should not be tolerated for any reason and programs to increase safety should be directed toward the act, not toward the reason for the act. Or should we have fat-affirming programs, skinny-affirming programs, poor-affirming programs, red-hair affirming programs, no-father affirming programs, and non-athletic affirming programs?  Would there be time left for academics?”

“MYTH 5: HOMOSEXUALITY IS JUST TWO MEN LOVING EACH OTHER.  FACT NO.1: HOMOSEXUALITY IS DEVIANT SEX WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS.  The list of deviant sexual practices explains the large amount and the variety of diseases found disproportionately among homosexuals.  Anal sex, oral sex including ingesting semen, drinking urine or bathing in it (water sports or golden showers), eating fecal matter or rubbing it on partner (scat or fudge sports), enemas, sadism, masochism, bondage, fisting (putting the hand and arm up the rectum), and rimming (exploring the rectum with the tongue and thus ingesting significant amounts of feces), toys and animals (sexual contact or masturbating with animals and even putting small live animals inside the rectum), and group orgies.²⁰  Roger Magnuson, a lawyer, educated at Stanford and Oxford Universities and Harvard Law School, discovered in his research on AIDS, that the average homosexual had 550 different sexual partners during his lifetime while AIDS victims averaged 1,100 different sexual partners and some reported as many as 20,000.  Some had as many as nine short sexual encounters in one evening at a bath or bar.  One homosexual reported, ‘believe my estimate of 4,000 sex partners to be very accurate.  I have been actively gay since I was 13 (thirty-one years ago).  An average of two or three new partners per week is not excessive, especially when one considers that I will have ten to twelve partners during on night at the baths.’”²¹

“FACT NO. 2–HOMOSEXUAL SEX IS DANGEROUS AND LEADS TO EARLY DEATH.  Promiscuity from all studies appears to be inherent in the practice of homosexuality and leads to despair, low self-esteem and even suicide attempts for young people who have sexual relations with multiple partners.” 

“Studies have shown there are diseases common to homosexuality such as AIDS, STD’s, gay bowel syndrome, and Hepatitis B, some of which can be deadly.  The homosexual journalist, Randy Shilts, chronicled his community’s unhealthy environment and the stealth killer virus AIDS.  His dismal picture includes:

• Cytomegalovirus (a type of herpes linked to cancer) found in over 90% of the male homosexual population.
• Gay bowel syndrome has increased 8,000 percent since 1973 and refers to the parasites and organisms that lodge themselves in the intestinal tracts of gay men as a result of anal intercourse.
• Hepatitis B, the debilitating disease affecting the liver, is a virtual reality for anyone in the urban gay scene for 5 years. 
• Ravaging epidemics of syphilis and gonorrhea are in the gay community.
• AIDS also brings along a host of other diseases: the cancer Kaposi’s Sarcoma, pneumonia, toxoplasmosis, and mental dementia.²²

Sado-masochism is ‘commonplace’ in ‘normal’ gay eroticism.  Homosexuals have been injured and some have died from this.  In Tennessee, James Young was given a life sentence for strangling Joseph Ladd, in the throes of passion during intercourse.  Joey was bound, writs handcuffed and mouth gagged, and Ladd confessed, ‘I was too drunk and too caught up in the moment.  My desire caused the death of my friend.’²³

Remember, one out every four homosexual men with AIDS is 22 years old or under and the average 20-year-old homosexual male has a 50% chance of contracting AIDS in his lifetime.²⁴  The greatest preponderance of AIDS victims is in the homosexual community.  In 1985 in California, 92% of male AIDS cases were from homosexual contact and .53% (less than 1%) were from heterosexual contact.  In 1996, 78% of AIDS cases in California originated due to ‘men having sex with men’ and an additional 9% were generated by ‘men who have sex with men and inject drugs.’  The total is 87%.²⁵    It should be noted here the danger bisexual men are to women as they bring AIDS to them.  Of the 2,517 cases of AIDS in women in the state of California in 1996, 41% were transmitted from heterosexual contact.”²⁵

“MYTH 6: HOMOSEXUALS MAKE UP 10% OF THE POPULATION.  FACT: ONLY ABOUT 1% OF MALES, AND FEWER FEMALES, ARE HOMOSEXUAL.  The ’10 Percent of the Population is Homosexual’ myth is widely used by homosexuals to further their agenda, but is false.  Recent studies place the figure near 1%.  Even the pro-homosexual Alan Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, found that only 1.1% of U.S. males aged 20 to 39 were exclusively homosexual and only 2.3% say they’ve had a same-sex experience in the past decade [ten years.]²⁶ 

The University of Chicago National Opinion Research Corporation (NORC) study states that .7% were exclusively homosexual and only 5 – 6% were bisexual.²⁷

As reported in Time, ‘only 1% of the 3,321 men surveyed considered themselves exclusively homosexual.’

The false notion that 10% of men are homosexual was born of Alfred Kinsey’s studies, published in 1948 and popularized by homosexual activists to give them more political clout.  Kinsey’s samplings were skewed because they were taken from prisoners, sex offenders, leaders of homosexual groups, and male prostitutes.”²⁸

Stop and think about this for a minute.  Homosexuals say 1) 10% of men are homosexual, and 2) homosexuality is passed on genetically.  Since extremely few homosexuals reproduce, how could 10% of the men be homo?  The math just doesn’t work!

“MYTH 7: HOMOSEXUALS SAY THEY QUALIFY FOR MINORITY STATUS.  FACT: HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT MEET U.S. SUPREME COURT REQUIREMENTS.  The federal courts have a three-pronged test to determine if a class of individuals is to be an ‘insular and discreet minority.’  The federal courts have ruled that homosexual individuals do not meet those requirements.  The requirements are: 1) The class must have suffered a history of discrimination which is evidenced by the lack of ability to obtain economic mean income and adequate education and must have been deprived of cultural opportunities.  2) The class must exhibit obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as an insular and discreet minority.  3) The class must show they are politically powerless.²⁹  ‘Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic; it is behavioral and hence is fundamentally different from traits such as race, gender, or alienage, which define already existing suspect and quasi-suspect classes according to Woodward, 871 F.2d at 1076.  The behavior or conduct of such already recognized classes is irrelevant to their identification. . . . Homosexuals are not without political power. . . .  Lastly, homosexual conduct is not a fundamental right.’³⁰ These facts show that homosexuals do not meet the criteria to be added to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Thus, no legislative body should grant minority status based on sexual behavior in any codes, statutes, or ordinances.”

“Gays are not economically disadvantaged, but actually one of the most affluent groups in America.  The Wall Street Journal reported on July 18, 1991, the results of a nationwide marketing survey showing gays’ average income was more than $20,000 higher than that of the average American.  Gays are more than three times as likely to be college graduates, hold professional or managerial positions, and four times more likely to take overseas vacations.”  These are the figures:

From page 12 under heading, No Evidence that Homosexuality is Genetic: “Even though gay advocates and the media have portrayed homosexuality as genetic, it is junk science.  ‘No credible researcher believes that gays are born that way.’ ³²  No school of medicine or journal of medicine has ever declared that homosexuality is genetic.  First of all, no one has been able to replicate any of the studies.  Secondly, the studies attribute homosexuality to different things, the hypothalamus, brain structure, hormones or genes.  Take your pick.  Dean Hamer’s research on ‘Gay Genes’ was discredited by other studies and Mr. Hamer was charged with research improprieties.’”³³

“‘There is substantial evidence based on years of clinical experience that homosexuality is a developmental disorder,’ says Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D. “Every child has a healthy need to identify positively with the parents of the same sex, have same-sex friendships, a positive body image and a confident sexual identity.  Homosexual feelings can occur when these needs are not met appropriately.”

Homosexuality is a Fluid Choice, Not a Permanent State:  “Dr. Socarides has worked with homosexuals for over 40 years to help over 1,000 resolve sexuality issues and be restored to heterosexuality.  He found that 50% of his clients were helped by therapy, while 25% were able to work through to their own release from the homosexual lifestyle.  The other 25% he found were too damaged in their emotional health for him to be able to help them.³⁴

Schools should not be telling students that homosexuals cannot change.”

From page 14: “Sexual experimentation is Dangerous:   Physical changes take place in the brain altering the neurons as a result of homosexual fantasizing, viewing pornography or actual homosexual behavior.  Behaviors become stronger through repetition.  Once altered, it is difficult to undo the brain’s new programming.  Schools who send students into the lifestyle by directing them to the Gay and Lesbian Community Centers are beginning the socialization process which is a brain altering process.  Once the student has engaged in homosexuality, that experience is logged in the brain.”³⁵   . . .

“Classroom teaching promoting homosexuality may cause fantasizing which implants it in the brain and also places the desire to act on it.  Once imbedded, sexual fantasy life, in particular, is difficult to erase.³⁵  . . .

The experience of pleasure creates powerful, behavior-shaping incentives.  For this reason when biological impulses–especially sexual ones–are not at least partially resisted, trained and brought under the civilizing influence of culture and will, the pressure to seek their immediate fulfillment becomes deeply embedded in the neural network of the brain.³⁵  . . .

Schools should definitely not be encouraging homosexuality, ‘coming-out days,’ or sending students to gay and lesbian community centers where they meet partners and have sex.  Sexual experiences alter their brain with each additional incident resulting in a deeper fixation in the lifestyle.”³⁶

Birth Control Fails to Prevent Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Birth Control is NOT Effective and Reliable

Some people think that creams, foams, and jellies have at least a slight effect on preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).  This would be due to their being somewhat a barrier.  Others say they have no effect.  In preventing HIV transmission, condoms have some effectiveness, but the amount of effectiveness is in significant dispute.  Planned Parenthood claims³⁷ 98 – 99% effectiveness of latex condoms in vaginal intercourse if used perfectly, but it also says³⁸  that in one study condoms slipped off or broke 14.6% of the time.  Other resources give the failure rate as high as 55%.³⁹

The most significant demonstration of the ineffectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission is this: “In a recent World Congress on Sexology in Heldelberg Dr. Theresa Crenshaw addressed the delegates about AIDS epidemic.

Let’s see about other STDs.  Condoms are ineffective in preventing the spread of human papilloma virus (HPV).  HPV causes 90% of American’s cancers of the cervix, vagina, vulva, and penis.⁴²  HPV is probably the most common sexually transmitted disease in America.⁴³  The American Cancer Society estimated that in the U.S. in 1994 there would be 15,700 new cases of cervical cancer and 4,900 related deaths.⁴⁴

Annually in the U.S., there are one to three million new cases of gonorrhea and up to 90,000 new cases of syphilis.  Twenty million people have genital herpes.

The CDC reports that 56 million Americans–that’s one in five–have an incurable STD⁴⁵.  Except for the common cold and flu, STDs are now the most common diseases in North America.⁴⁶

Eighteen million people use contraceptives which have no effect on STD transmission.  With disease rates as just reported, can anyone legitimately dispute that birth control–because it enables more sex–does anything but enable a great STD rate?

In one study of heterosexual couples where one partner is infected with HIV, over an average of two years of sexual exposure if latex condoms were relied upon there was still a 10 to 23% risk of transmission of HIV infection even with training and proper use.⁴⁷

A meticulous review of condom effectiveness was reported by Dr. Susan Weller in 1993.  The review was of all studies made prior to 1991.  She found that condoms were even less likely to protect people form HIV infections.  Condoms appear to reduce the risk of heterosexual HIV infection by only 69%.⁴⁸

A large family-planning clinic found that 52% of respondents had experienced condoms bursting or slipping off in the previous three months.⁴⁹  Between male homosexuals, condoms have been shown to fail 7.3%⁵⁰ , 8%⁵¹ , and 25.5%⁵² of the time.

A Rutgers University study found that barrier contraceptives apparently do not afford adequate protection against chlamydia. Infection rates were similar regardless of the contraceptive used.  User infection rates were: diaphragm – 44%, condom – 36%, oral contraceptives – 37%, and no contraception – 44%.⁵³

If condoms are not reliable, wouldn’t relying on them be like the insane “game” of Russian roulette?  A cartridge is loaded into one of the six chambers of a revolver.  The first “player” spins the cylinder, points the gun to his/her head, and pulls the trigger.  He/she has only one in six chances of being killed.  But if one continues to play, the chamber with the bullet will ultimately fall into position under the hammer, and the game ends in death.  Condoms are like Russian roulette.  Realistically, condoms do not prevent pregnancy, STD’s, or AIDS; they only delay them.  Unmarried adolescents experience an 18.4% pregnancy rate per year using them.⁵⁴

It would be bizarre to give our teens needles, heroin, cocaine, cigarettes, and beer, and then try to teach them how to shoot-up, smoke, and drink “responsibly.”  Likewise, it is bizarre to give them an assortment of contraceptives and teach them how to have sex “responsibly,” and then hope there will be fewer STD’s, AIDS cases, pregnancies, abortions, and emotional casualties!

The remainder of this section is from Medical Institute for Sexual Health’s Winter 1997 three-page newsletter, the title of which is Sexual Health Update.   Quoting “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1996,” CDC Infectious Disease List of 1995, 45: 883-884: “Five of the 10 most common reportable infectious diseases in the United States are sexually transmitted diseases.  The latest National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) collects data on 52 infectious diseases for the United States.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated that chlamydia is the most common reportable infections disease in the United States.  Gonorrhea ranked second and AIDS placed third.  Syphilis and hepatitis B were also included in the top 10.  These five STDs accounted for 87% of all cases of infections caused by the top 10 infectious diseases found in this country.

According to this CDC report, most cases of chlamydia were found in women, but 50% of the cases of chlamdia reported by the CDC were in teenagers (boys and girls).

Dr. Denise Koo, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC, stated that the numbers reflected in the report do not reveal how many people are actually infected–only the number that were reported to the CDC.  The more common diseases of herpes and HPV are not included in the list because they are not designated as reportable by the CDC.” 

Taking quotes from Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) “The Hidden Epidemic-Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” 1997, National Academy Press, 39:  “‘Approximately 12 million new cases of STDs, 3 million of them among teenagers, occur annually.  The committee estimates that the annual direct and indirect costs of selected major STDs are approximately $10 billion or, if sexually transmitted HIV infections are included, $17 billion.’

[Continuing from same IOM article,] ‘Women and infants bear a disproportionate burden of STD-associated complications.  A variety of women’s health problems, including infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain, result from unrecognized or untreated STDs.  From 1973 through 1992, more than 150,000 U.S. women died of causes associated with STDs (including HIV infection) and their complications.’

[Continuing from same IOM article,] ‘Chlamydial infection has been consistently high among adolescents; in some studies, up to 30 – 40% of sexually active adolescent females studied have been infected.’

[Continuing from same IOM article,] ‘Cervical cancer rates and cohort mortality from cervical cancer are increasing among young women, undoubtedly a reflection of increased exposure to STDs such as human papillomavirus.’

[Continuing from same IOM article,] ‘In one study, nearly half of female college students tested had evidence of genital human papillomavirus infection’”

Taking quotes from a CDC report published by The England Journal of Medicine, entitled “Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 In the United States, 1976 To 1994,” October 16, 1997: “Genital herpes infections have increased by 30% in Americans since the late 1970s.   Genital herpes infects one out of every five Americans older than 11 years of age.”

Continuing from same herpes article, “An accompanying editorial in the same journal states, ‘Since at least one in five people now has HSV-2 [genital herpes] infection, those who have unprotected contact with multiple sexual partners should know that unsuspected exposure to HSV is virtually guaranteed.’  That’s a strong statement.  Further, although this editorial mentioned unprotected sex, the authors of the genital herpes study also commented that condom effectiveness against this STD is probably limited because genital herpes lesions ‘can occur on areas of the body not covered by condoms.’  Further, they point out that the virus can be transmitted even when no lesions are present.”

How Good are Teenagers at Using Contraceptives?

The classic study of teen contraception was reported by Gordis et al. in 1970.  This program included an intensive effort to involve and maintain 268 sexually active adolescents on oral contraceptives by a team of pediatricians, gynecologists, public-health nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, dentists, and parents.  In spite of this effort, two years later, only 25% of the 268 were apparently making use of the readily available birth control.⁵⁵

One year after being given oral contraceptives, Emans found that only 44% of single women age 23 or less were still contracepting effectively.⁵⁶

Studies at Stanford University found that even though an effective contraceptive was prescribed, 45% of teenagers became pregnant six to 12 months later.  Abortion was chosen by 64% of these girls.⁵⁷

Thus, 29% of the teenagers who relied on contraceptives to prevent pregnancy got abortions because of contraceptive failure. 

Tactics

Tactics: Introduction

Parents have lost local control because of blind trust in the school system.  Few parents can respond favorably to these simple questions:

1. Have you ever attended a school-board meeting?
2. Do you know who is on your school board?
3. Do you remember voting for school board members in the last election?

When parents don’t attend board meetings, board members do not hear what parents want. When board members make decisions, parents don’t always know what those decisions are.  Where do school boards get most of their information to make decisions?  In the last several years, due to a decrease in parent involvement, most recommendations come from the superintendent, administrators, teachers and the unions. What important decisions do school board members make which affect parents?  The four major areas of authority and responsibility are policy, personnel, curriculum, and budget. 

Examples of school board policy factors are:

1. Whether parents will be on sex-education curriculum committees.
2. If there will be any parent advisory committees.
3. If volunteers will be permitted in the classroom.
4. If students can have meetings after school on school property.
5. How students will be disciplined.

In most states school boards approve textbooks and curricula.  As with any public institution, elected officials are trusted to do their job until a problem arises and attracts public attention.  But in the case of school boards and our children’s education, we cannot afford to wait for controversy. We must speak now.

Individuals who speak at meetings do not need to be specially trained, skilled, or educated.  They do need to be thoroughly prepared.  Having children in the district is an advantage.

Whether or not your opponents deserve courtesy, be courteous and professional.  Not only is this the Christian way–loving your enemies–but it will get far, far better results from your school board than will showing disrespect and scorn.  If you scorn our enemies, the school board will scorn you and what you stand for.

Those states that have “open meeting laws” have held that school districts, because they are publicly funded, are subject to the provisions of those laws.  School districts are also subject to “Freedom of Information” laws that allow people access to detailed reports, applications for funds, and other such documents.  This recognition of the public nature of schools is the basis for you to ask for and to receive detailed information on the nature of sex ed programs in your schools.   If the schools deny you this information, they open themselves up for possible lawsuits.  Most school districts do not want this.

Remember if you loose your fight to prevent promiscuity education from being taught, a good teacher with firmly rooted traditional values can take a very offensive sex ed program and simply leave out the offensive material.  However, a teacher who has bought the Planned Parenthood line can take a very good, pro-chastity program and add objectionable material to make it extremely offensive.

Tactics: Summary of Reasons to Oppose

• Promiscuity-education programs causes more abortions, not fewer.
• They do not reduce pregnancies.
• They increase disease rates.
• Through AIDS, STD’s which lead to cervical cancer, and abortions which lead to breast cancer, they kill students.
• Through abortion advocacy or abortion neutrality, the programs kill babies and greatly harm teens.
• They undercut parents.
• The cost is high; the cost effectiveness is low.
• They can overburden school systems with cost and misplaced priority.
• They cause many parents to withdraw their children from the school district to home-school them or send them to private schools.  Thus, the schools lose funding.

Tactics: Rights

A U. S. Supreme Court decision in Board of Education v. Pico, June 25, 1982, made positive points on the value of community and parent participation in schools.  A majority of the court agreed that: “Local school boards must be permitted to establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit community values, and that there is a legitimate and substantial community interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values be they social, moral or political.”

Within certain constitutional limitations, the right of the school board to oversee book selection or book removal has already been established.  The responsibility of teaching children is a far cry from facilitating a public library or publishing a local newspaper.  Unlike the public libraries, not anything and everything in print can be purchased with the taxpayers` money for the public school library.  A review process must take place and guidelines must be adhered to.  Accountability to parents is the priority.

Tactics: What They’ll Say

Are they telling the truth?  It is important to note that many statements made by special interest groups in school board rooms are what they wish the law to be, but many times is not what the law states..  Their accusations must be investigated by legal council.  Remember, some positions a school board takes are worth going to court over.  This is especially true when there is a good chance of winning and setting a legal precedent.

Promiscuity advocates have adopted two tried and true tactics historically used by pro-abortion supporters to deflect pro-life inquiries:

1) Attack the motives of the questioners.

2) Characterize their questions as either trivial or unworthy of consideration.  

For example, at the annual national School Based (sex) Clinic conference in October 1986, pro-promiscuity advocate, Joy Dryfoos, belittled the clinic “detractors” by characterizing them as “moralizers” who “have a field day of sermonizing, handwringing, trying to keep us off their moral turf.”  A good response is, “What is wrong with morals?”  Or perhaps you might prefer, “What’s wrong with teaching young girls to keep their legs closed?”

These three arguments will be used against you:

1. “You have no right to force your values on everyone else!”  This argument implies that a school sex ed program can be devised which is totally value-free.  It is clear that you cannot have a value free program about such a value laden subject as sex.  If it is not value free, then someone’s values must be taught. So the real objection of the proponents of sex ed is not that you may be advocating a program which contains values, but that you may be advocating a program which teaches values different from what they want to teach your children. Schools should reflect the values of the community.  Despite what your opponents will claim, most people in your community support Christian values on sex just as you do.  You are standing up for your children and insisting that your school not pursue its own agenda, but truly reflect the wishes of the community that pays the bills for the courses and the salaries of the school personnel.  You are, as a matter of fact, simply exercising your rights.  Do not let any sex ed supporter dissuade you from this critical task.  A good response to the statement, “You have no right to force your values on everyone else!” is, “What right do you have to snatch our children from us and indoctrinate them with your alleged values?”
2. “If you don’t like the course, just take your child out and leave the rest of us alone.”  A good comeback is : “Don’t come into our community to teach perversions that neither parents nor students want.”
3. “All you’re trying to do is censor the schools and teachers.”  Response: “It’s not censorship to oppose government funding of sex,” and “It’s you who are trying to censor us.”

Tactics: Theirs

The four phases of establishing a sex program in the schools are:

1. Create an alleged need for the program.
2. Lobby and manipulate for passage of a specific program.
3. Lobby and manipulate for funding of the program.
4. Operate the program.

The opening phase of the four-phase effort typically takes place well before any formal announcement of specific plans for school sex.  Proponents capitalize, for example, on their excellent access to community leaders and to the print and electronic media to heighten public awareness of AIDS and teen pregnancy (not teen sex, just teen pregnancy).

Another alternative can be to keep the entire process as quiet as possible and out of the public eye until it’s too late for opposition.

Another way to generate momentum, promiscuity proponents commonly also arrange for the appointment of a district-wide task force to examine the AIDS and teen pregnancy issues, and then they come back to policymakers with specific recommendations.

Although this advisory committee may try to convey the impression that it is open to community input from all points of view, experience shows that these “blue ribbon” advisory committees are usually packed with promiscuity supporters who come equipped with a predetermined agenda, teaching promiscuity to your children.

During the task force’s deliberations, parents and members of the public may be allowed to speak, but often not until the skids have been greased.  The idea is to show the school board that everyone had input but to show them that almost no one objected to what the task force wanted.

An advisory committee or task force has, merely by the quality of its name, tremendous influence upon decision makers.  Should an advisory committee or task force recommend promiscuity education, point out that its members are merely people with ideas, not experts with answers. That is, discredit the alleged quality of the members and of the committee/task force. 

One must consider how these committees/task forces are formed.  Members are appointed by just a few people, say by the school district.  Let’s say Planned Parenthood wants a promiscuity program and they determine that your local school board is interested enough to study the issue. So the board agrees to form a committee, even a Blue Ribbon Committee. 

Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, Catholics for a Free Choice, NOW, and others, having planned ahead, flood the school board with applications to be on the Committee.  Then, even if Christians are fortunate enough to learn that a committee is being formed, they don’t realize who might be on it, and they don’t apply.  So who gets selected for the committee?  Pro-promiscuity and pro-abortion people.

Another variation of this is when the school people have already made up their minds to promote promiscuity.  Now, this may have been before lobbying by the perverts, or it may have been after.  Nonetheless, they have made up their minds.  Therefore, on their own they stack the committee with perverts.  This doesn’t imply that they recognize them as perverts and deliberately seek the perverts of the community.  It’s just that the board may not have Christian values and may not understand about the promiscuity nature of the programs being hoped for.

In either of these scenarios, what do you think the committee’s recommendation to the board will be?  Now, since this is an advisory committee or task force and therefore just by its name is very “credible” and “qualified” with “experts,” the school almost can’t help but accept their valuable, well-thought-out, contribution to your children.  BE ALERT!!!!!!!   Don’t let the fox guard the hen house.

Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Perspectives identifies ways in which comprehensive service providers have circumvented potential opposition:  “The most common strategy adopted to avoid opposition was to maintain a low profile–generally by keeping programs out of sight, by avoiding potentially controversial preventive services, by staying clear of abortion services, by relying on word of mouth for recruitment and by giving names to programs that obscured their functions (Cyesis, Teen Awareness, Access, Services to Young Parents, Healthworks, and Continuing Education to Young Families are some examples).”  You may want to quote this to your school board.

To avoid controversy, SIECUS says, “Support the sexuality education program by writing letters and making calls to teachers, administrators, and school board members.  Most communication with school officials occurs because something has gone awry.  School personnel will appreciate calls and letters confirming that programs are appreciated.  If you are a professional working in the field and a parent, don’t forget to mention both of your roles when writing in support of the program.”

One pro-promiscuity person said, “Program advocates and service providers are more or less obligated to exaggerate the potential benefits of services in order to secure political and material support.  One popular ploy . . . revealed an incredible array of problems that allegedly would be solved by the provision of services for pregnant teenagers and adolescent parents.  In claims reminiscent of those made for patent medicine nostrums of the 19th century, it was argued that teenage pregnancy services would combat child abuse, infant mortality, mental retardation, birth defects, drug abuse and welfare dependency.”

Promiscuity advocates give this advice to those wanting to implement promiscuity.  The bolding is not from them, but from Life Research Institute, the author of this manual you are reading.

1. State your position in an understandable way and try to avoid arguments with the opposition.
2. To win your opponent over to your side, try to find one or two things your opponent is saying that you can support.
3. Explain that parents always have the right to withdraw their children from sexuality education classes.
4. Point out that there have been a number of national and local polls indicating a great degree of citizen support for sexuality education programs.
5. Point out that a large number of national groups have gone on record as being supportive of sexuality education.
6. Invite prominent community leaders and civic groups that support the schools to a meeting.
7. Find a leader to coordinate an organized effort against the opposition.  Use parents against parents.  Use teacher union member parents as a parent front group.
8. Do not allow a lot of time between the first and second meetings when adopting sex education programs in the schools.
9. Secure speaking opportunities for speakers knowledgeable about sexuality education programs.
10. Develop a phone tree to alert people with information.
11. Develop a direct mail campaign.
12. Develop press relations.
13. Write letters to the editor.
14. Hold neighborhood meetings, using key parents and PTA meetings.
15. At board meetings, allow everyone to speak out; maintain a positive atmosphere; be sure the people leave with the feeling it has been worth their time to win public confidence.
16. Expand an existing educational program rather than start a new one.
17. Start with a pilot program and broaden it later.
18. Utilize trade-offs. For example, you might agree not to discuss homosexuality, but in return be allowed to spend more time on contraceptives.
19. Compromising can be helpful in bringing about change more easily and quickly, and chances are that in the long run your entire program will be implemented anyway.
20. Use “double speech” to fool parents.
21. Make the parents show you specific examples of objectionable materials in the local school program.
22. Do not accept examples taken from other school districts.
23. Label the opposition as “extremists” in the press, teacher union letters, and letters to the editor, to win others to your side.
24. Label the opposition as “religious fanatics” and raise concerns about separation of church and state.
25. Get “Reverends” to testify at meetings and serve on committees that are in favor of contraceptive sex education.
26. Use AIDS program adoption to get your “foot in the door” for implementing Family Life Education.

Tactics: Yours, General

Don’t let the education bureaucracy or the tactics of the promiscuity promoters deter you from your real First Amendment rights which include freedom of speech.  But do, at the same time, learn from past mistakes of others who let emotionalism get in the way of reason.  Be well prepared when presenting your position with intellectual, reasonable, and specific information.  If several parents on your side make a presentation, prepare the presentations in advance in writing and keep them short, giving each parent a different aspect to present. 

Volunteer to serve on curriculum selection committees.  Read everything or talk with others who have read the materials in question before you make an evaluation of the program.  Voices of parents and citizens alike must be heard at school board hearings in order to ensure that board decisions about sex/AIDS education reflect standards of accuracy, tastefulness of materials, appropriateness of age taught, and the teaching of abstinence.  Don’t let these life and death decisions be made for your children without your input.

Document everything you do, from the first phone call to the last board meeting.  Expect the need to repeat some of your work to convince the administration or board of your concern. When protesting any objectionable material, be reasonable in your request, remain calm in your presentation, and stick to the educational factors such as grade level, appropriateness of material to age, and whether other districts use the same material.

The time to protest objectionable books is before the texts will be adopted in your school district.  Call the board members first with your objections so they can study them.  Then, testify at the board meeting. Ask a school librarian for the printed procedures for ordering books, or inquire with the curriculum department.  You might find out they skipped a procedure such as getting approval for the book from the advisory committee.

Weigh your decision to protest a book.  Don’t be hot headed or militant in your behavior–it will only turn the board off–but be firm and well organized in your presentation.  Is the book extremely offensive to your nationality or religion?  Opposing books for moral reasons which the community generally agrees with is most successful.

If possible set your notes aside and speak from your heart.  Print a fact sheet and give it to the board members to study. Courts DO uphold school-boards’ decisions to remove books based on profanity or pornography as defined by the local community.  Courts also support the book selection process of moving books to higher age levels or to a restricted shelf when it is inappropriate for a certain grade.

Political and religious differences of opinion hold little merit in court unless the parents have asked to have their child excused and were denied their rights.

The more people that speak to the board the better.  The most effective testimony uses policy and state laws to back up statements.  Letters sent to each board member prior to the  meeting may also be effective.

SIECUS identifies a prime tool for us.  They say about us:

Tactics: Yours, Policy

Policy making is the most important function of a school board.  Policy sets the direction, goals, curriculum, and district regulations.

Parents, community members, and newly elected school board members need to read the policy of their district.  This will guide them in their rights and help them understand the purpose and educational goals of their district.

Concerns about AIDS, health clinics, sex education, and other curriculum are all dealt with through the local school-board’s policy.

Policy is usually proposed by an administrator or a board member.  The Superintendent may determine when the board has the majority to formally introduce a new policy for a “reading.”  New policy is approved during a public hearing.  Therefore, parent testimony is very important.

Parents should take turns attending board meetings and keep each other informed as new policy is being introduced.  Alternatively, simply call the district office before each board meeting and ask to pick up a meeting agenda or a copy of any new policies to read.

One example of adverse policy is academic freedom.  Special interest groups such as the National Education Association (NEA) and state and local unions have proposed policy for complete academic freedom.  This means all children have access to all books, with no regard for appropriateness of age or content.  This kind of policy contradicts the policy that allows parents to challenge a school district with curriculum concerns. Academic freedom means teachers can use any supplemental material to the curriculum, or bring in any guest speaker they choose.  This is normal if it follows the district-approved curriculum. Equal access is necessary and allowed for controversial subjects so that both sides of an issue are presented, but academic freedom leaves the students without the ability to contest any subject matter.

Policy can be challenged in a court of law, so it is important to get legal advice when you or the school board write it. 

School-board members need confidence when confronting superintendents.  If you are objecting to something already wrong going on in a school and you can see that it violates policy, the policy statement will be a strong tool in the hands of the school board member to resolve the problem.

Tactics: Yours, Activities

Do the following activities.  Usually, but not always, you will find that you should do them in the order given.

Activity 1:  Obtain state laws regarding sex education from your school district’s attorney or your local library.

Are there any state regulations governing implementation?  If so, get a copy. Find out who makes sure that the school districts comply with the state laws and regulations.  Is it The Department of Education? Board of Education? Local officials within the school district?

Are there any more local rules or regulations regarding sexuality education, and who is in charge of implementing them?

Get the School District Policy and Procedure for adopting sex education from your district office.

Get a copy of current sex-education guidelines and curricula for review (District office).

Get a copy of directive-education policy, if any, or developmental guidelines and a sample copy of directive abstinence curricula, if any.

If you are presented with an opportunity to have an effect on school policy (such as with a policy for parents’ access to classrooms), take it.  Try to get the best policy statements you can.  You never know when they will be beneficial to your goals.

Activity 2:  Your school may have counseling as a program separate from promiscuity education.  This may mostly be career counseling, for example.  But it also may include giving girls referrals to Killing Centers.  Investigate this.  Find out about this.

Activity 3:  Study the curriculum, including video cassettes and audio tapes, so that you can address specific changes needed. You cannot fight bad programs with generalities.  You must know exactly what is going on in your school and be able to document it.  A couple of months of quiet fact gathering and documenting will pay dividends later when the battle heats up. Seek evaluation help from others who know what to look for, such as pastors or leaders of special interest groups. 

If you do not know where to start looking, a good place is in the health curriculum in fifth, seventh and eleventh grades.  These seem to be the entry grade levels for Planned Parenthood promiscuity-education programs.  See how abortion, homosexuality and masturbation are treated in these courses.  It will tell you a great deal about your school’s promiscuity education, if any. In addition to the curriculum, you should ask to see any pamphlets or other handouts used in the class and you should view any films used.  Do not let them hide anything!  If you find objectionable material, copy it.

Request information from teachers or school nurses.  Be polite, calm, and reasonable.  If they refuse to cooperate talk, to the principal.  If that fails, talk to the superintendent.  If that fails, call a school board member.  If that fails, call your state Attorney General and ask how to enforce the state’s version of the Freedom of Information Act.

You could also visit the promiscuity classes.

When trying to find out what is going on in your school district, one good source is the teachers’ reference section of the school library.  These are the books intended for teacher use in preparing lessons, and most of the hard-core texts can be found here.  Go to the teachers’ reference library and look for books on human sexuality.  If you find objectionable material, make copies of it.

The key to finding out what is going on in your school is persistence.  Do not let anyone put you off.  If you need material, call daily until you get it and visit the school office daily if that’s what it takes.

Activity 4:  School administrators and teachers sometimes are taught in workshops how to deal with inquisitive parents.  Parents who question the new wisdom of FL/SE  are identified as troublemakers, hostile, or undemocratic.  You can point out that questioning programs and policy is democracy in action.

Don’t accept comments from officials that no one has ever complained or that you are a small minority.  Such comments are often lies.

Activity 5:  Planned Parenthood is a master at name games to fool the public.  It used to refer to its programs as sex education, then Family Life Education, then Human Growth and Development.  Don’t let innocent-sounding names fool you.  Examine the material personally.  Note that Planned Parenthood supporters are not afraid to lie to achieve their goals.

Activity 6:  Understand the difference between sexual attitude restructuring (SAR) programs and true abstinence programs.  SAR programs try to change children’s morals to anything goes.

Activity 7:  If you become aware of a sex problem at a school, document the problem and, if possible, get more than one student’s word for it.  Keep a log book of all your activities and write down summaries of all conversations with officials, including dates and the names of all attendees.  You will find that the other side will distort your real concerns, so take the time to write out specifically what your objections are.

Whenever possible, work with the school administration to get rid of offensive programs before going to the school board.

Put your recommended action in writing–that way there can be no controversy over exactly what you are seeking.  Ask for what you really want. Be complete.  Don’t be shy or humble.  If you want to throw promiscuity education and Planned Parenthood out of your schools, say so!

Remember, before going to the school board, know exactly what the issue is you want to raise and exactly what you want the school board to do about it.

Activity 8:  Help students advocate for abstinence education.  One way is to survey students about sex and present your findings to school board and staff.

Do not hesitate to cite examples and problems with programs in other districts.

Activity 9:   Write curricula objectives to match directive abstinence policy.  (See “Directive” in the Glossary at the end of this manual.)

Set Goals–Define your expectations for the program. State your goals in observable, measurable terms so that you know when you have succeeded.  Include a timeline for all activities developed to meet goals.  Determine which outcomes will indicate that a program is working.

Assess Needs–Take a realistic look at the proposed changes and the likely obstacles you are likely to meet along the way.  Clearly determine the target audience(s). Decide on the appropriate strategies for reaching these individuals. 

Abstinence-course providers found in “The Good Programs” section above will help you with this.

Activity 10:  Assess the level and sources of opposition that a proposed promiscuity program will engender.  What values are being challenged? What alleged values are being proposed?

Activity 11:  Determine how change, which most people resist, can be made palatable.

Activity 12: Develop a strategy.  This will be your program plan.  It will include each of the activities planned, their rationales, target completion dates, and measures of success.  This is a time for making lists of tasks and for dividing the whole into manageable parts.  Each of the parts needs to relate to each other and the your goals.

Activity 13:  Organize a parents’ group to support your plans:  It is usually very helpful to form an organization to carry on the fight.  The organization does not have to be very formal or have a lot of members at first.  It should have a name such as ‘Concerned Parents of ____________’   Include teachers, administrators, educators, students, clergy, health-care providers, professionals from organizations that work with kids, and legal professionals.   Who are the movers and shakers in your district?  Who are the parents and professionals who are interested in righteousness sex education?  Enlist them, and also ask them for names of others.  Always include parents of children in the school district.  Be sure that each individual member of the team has Christian values at least on fornication and abortion.

IT IS EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT THAT THE LEADER, OR LEADERS, OF THE ORGANIZATION BE ADMINISTRATIVELY GIFTED!!!!!!  This leader may be far different from a person who is merely well known, intelligent, or knowledgeable.  Even the pastor of a large congregation may not be administratively gifted but only be charismatic.  The following is one  example of a failure in leadership:   At an event a volunteer was helping the founder and president of a non-profit.  At one point the founder and president said to the volunteer, “What do you want me to do now?”  Don’t let this happen to you.  Choose leaders who have real talents in leadership and administration.

Some group members can take roles with the school board, media, and community while others can deal with day-to-day school activities.   When possible, let people do what they do best.

Invite school board members to your informational meetings.  Treat them as allies until and unless they prove by their actions that they are not.

Activity 14:  Build a coalition. This is not the same as building an organization.  A coalition will be a group of organizations working toward your goals.  They may not exist  for the same reason your organization does, but nonetheless they may want to help you.  Such organizations might be the city council, a physicians group, civic groups, child-advocacy groups, teen groups, Democrat and Republican activist groups, and clergy organizations.  Do you get the idea?  A clergy group doesn’t exist to fight the particular fight you will be in, but being (hopefully) against fornication and abortion, they might help you fight against that even though they will also be doing other things.  Don’t contact groups which you are certain will be pro-promiscuity.  If you do they may form their own opposition group and fight against you. Always enlist parents who have children in the district’s schools.

To interest other people and organizations to build a coalition, show them the evidence about how the existing or proposed program will undercut parents and promote promiscuity and abortion.

Activity 15:  Develop a “hot line” phone bank to inform parents and friends of specific issues coming up in board meetings.  The more parents are involved the more valid the concern is to the school board..

Activity 16:  Plan ahead with the questions to ask teachers, administrators, the school board, and the promiscuity promoters.  Be prepared to be answer questions they will ask you.  Learn.

Activity 17:  Understand that the promiscuity promoters could have a multi-year plan to implement their programs. Understand that you may have a long term fight ahead.  Don’t necessarily regard that as bad for you as a person.  By giving you focus in your life, giving you something to do, and taking you away from TV, you might consider it greatly beneficial.

Be persistent.  A typical scenario when you are trying to unseat an existing program in your school is:   YEAR 1:  The school board will try to stall until June in hopes that you will go away. YEAR 2:  The school board will try to make some small, insignificant compromise to placate you so that you will go away.   YEAR 3:  The school board will be surprised you have not gone away and will begin to take you seriously.  Now is the time to reiterate your goals and to drive for complete success.

Activity 18:  Understand that the opposition might let you put in a relatively good program, but then chip away at it through the years.

Activity 19:  Hold a public meeting for curricula review.  Use a variety of methods to send invitations.

Activity 20:  Serve on a curriculum committee.

Activity 21:  Attend all committee meetings that deal with sex.

Activity 22:  If the school board violates your state laws in their dealings with you, do not be afraid to report them to the proper authorities.  In many states, the state Education Department has a procedure for filing grievances against the school board.  Use it.

Activity 23:  Always be aware of this in your deliberations:  Teen pregnancies include pregnancies of married teens and of 18- and 19-year-olds that are already out of school.  Approximately one-half of pregnancies are of 18- and 19-year-olds.⁵⁸

Activity 24:  Be prepared to propose real and practical alternatives.  If you tell the school board that Planned Parenthood’s sex education programs have to go, but fail to give them some viable alternate courses of action, you might as well save your breath.  Find out about the many fine abstinence-based educational programs for public schools and then be prepared to answer questions on them.

Activity 25:  Have plenty of supporting pro-abstinence and pro-life literature, tracts, books, articles, and research papers available for those who may be interested in further investigation.  Never show up empty handed.  Back up your claims with real substance.  Subscribe to pro-life newsletters in the names and addresses of school-board members. 

Activity 26:  Do your best to soften your barrage of statistics, studies, and surveys with real life stories.  Bring your point all the way home.  Make your presentation personal and passionate.  Make it human.  Make it real.

Activity 27:  Always make sure you use LOCAL examples, LOCAL statistics, LOCAL quotations in your talks.  Don’t let the spokesman for Planned Parenthood brush off your arguments as irrelevant simply because you’ve failed to do your homework.  Check the facts.  Leave absolutely nothing to hearsay.  Remember, lives depend on your getting everything right.

Activity 28:  Use hard evidence.  Use startling statistics and quotations from the Appendices of this manual.  Prove your point.  Drive home your message.  Don’t leave anything to speculation. 

Activity 29:  Prior to any scheduled vote, have your supporters call the school board members at home.  This has great impact if it is done considerately.  Tell your people not to call after 9 p.m. and always to speak respectfully to the school board member or members of his or her family.

Activity 30:  Interview board members about their positions on sex ed.  Educate them, lobby them, and thank them.  Offer facts, documents, and resources to them.

If you sensitize the school officials to the fact that the community is opposed to promiscuity education, you will go a long way toward getting and/or keeping it out of your schools.

Similarly, you should alert your local elected officials and health officials about community feelings concerning promiscuity. They should be invited, along with school officials, to your rally and information nights. The more these people are aware of community opposition to promiscuity, the less likely they are to welcome it.

Activity 31:  Determine the impact either the good or bad programs will have on those targeted. An adolescent pregnancy-prevention program is targeted at adolescents, female and male, yet many others will also be affected by the program.  Anticipating the impact of a program will assist with formative evaluations–the evaluations done along the way to improve programs.

Activity 32:  Be careful of Parent Teachers Associations (PTAs).  Planned Parenthood has gone to great lengths to infiltrate national and state PTAs.  Before you trust any PTA, be sure to check out the leadership and find out what values they are pushing.  In Virginia during one series of PTA meetings promoting FL/SE, parents were not allowed to ask questions during major presentations but only during small groups led by teachers.  Then, in the small groups the teachers would just talk talk talk about the virtues of FL/SE instead of allowing questions.

Activity 33:  Be careful of the teachers’ union.  Most teachers’ unions are liberal, left-wing extremists.  They will probably be pro-promiscuity.  One thing you can do to lessen their impact on the discussions is destroy their credibility by this method:  If their name should have an apostrophe in it but doesn’t, point this out to the school board.  For example, California Teachers Association, the teachers’ union in California, should be California Teachers’ Association.  The missing apostrophe should show it is an association of teachers.  The placement of the apostrophe after the s would show that it is an association of more than one teacher.  So when before a California school board, to discredit this union you could say, “The California Teachers’ Association, which should be comprised of the elite among the elite of educators, is so inept that they didn’t know that they should have a apostrophe in their name.  Children used to learn that in grammar school.  Can we trust the California Teachers Association to provide accurate information to this board on anything?”

Activity 34:  How are schools’ sex education programs funded? Is funding contingent upon approval of a proposed curriculum, or does funding come first? 

Find out who is going to pay for the program, not just for the first year or two, but for the long term.  Is it the state, the school district, or a charitable foundation?  If it is the foundation, make sure the school board knows that foundations like to pay to get things started, but they intensely dislike funding past the first or second year.  Thus, the school district would have to take over the money problem.

Activity 35:  If you are fighting acceptance of a bad program, be sure the school board knows that there must be one cost they may not have thought of:  funds for evaluation of the program results (changes in pregnancy and/or STD rates).  These funds need to be set aside as part of the entire program.  This will raise the cost and lower the acceptability of the program.

Activity 36:  If there is already a promiscuity-education program in the schools, the parents should organize and remove their children from the program.  This will send a clear message to the school administration.

Activity 37:  Raise money for an ad exposing the promiscuity-education program long before the final approval date of the program.

Activity 38:  If the school board will not listen to you, go directly to the community.

Activity 39:  To build further community support: 

• Develop a resource library for health educators. Include curricula, audiovisuals, and the latest data and research.
• Send packets of information on aspects of promiscuity to all libraries. The appendices of this manual are good resources.   Include materials for students, teachers, other school staff, and parents.  
• Work proactively with the media.  Don’t be merely on the defense, but go on the offense.  Mail press releases, try to place articles in newspapers, and respond to editorials if a constructive debate seems possible. 
• Appoint a staff person to handle media requests. Be certain all staff keeps this person informed to better anticipate hot issues and respond quickly to media requests.  Arrange for the media to contact the staff person for assistance.  The staff person MUST build a FRIENDLY relationship with the media.  Make certain that the local media is acquainted with health education programs and issues.  If specific materials are contested in the community, acknowledge that challenges are inevitable.  Remind the media that good curricula are age-appropriate and based on sound research. Meet with newspaper editors to influence publishing policy.   Ask them to write op-ed pieces or to let you write them.   Be persistent. 
• Conduct community-wide polls and focus groups to see what information community members want in the local school-based health education curriculum.
• Survey students to determine their knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors about sexuality.  Present findings and recommendations to school boards and staff. 
• Serve as a resource for parents.  Help them acquire skills to become involved in their children’s education. 
• Publicize and have a parent review night or series of nights and community review night or series of nights.  Educate the parents about Planned Parenthood so that they can see that the activity in your school district is part of a nationwide push for promiscuity.  They must understand that this type of “education” is part of Planned Parenthood’s game plan even if the proposed or existing program isn’t from Planned Parenthood.  Widely publicize the series of nights including mailing announcements to the homes of parents.
• Solicit and receive letters of support from parents. 
• Whenever possible, get supporters names, addresses, and phone numbers so you can keep their support and show their support to the school board 
• Organize an educational forum. An educational forum can promote understanding of sexuality education in the community.  It can feature experts in the fields of research, public health, and medicine including doctors, family planning providers, nurses, professors, HIV/AIDS prevention educators, and teachers. 
• Call radio or TV talk shows to discuss the issue. 
• Set up tables in visible, highly populated areas such as shopping centers and ask supporters to sign petitions, sign up to volunteer, and to distribute throughout the community. 
• Ask religious leaders to raise the issue during services or to provide space and support for an educational session for the congregation. lEnlist the support of groups such as Lions’ Clubs, Elks’ Club, etc. 
• Get the word out in your community through media events, rallies, marches, vigils, ads, billboards, brochures, and flyers.

Use letters-to-the-editor to ask pertinent questions and bring the attention of the community to what is going on in the schools.  Most people trust of schools, so you must present factual information to overcome this trust (when it isn’t justified) and get people to view the facts.

If you are hosting a call-in radio talk show, ask family, friends, and supporters to phone in and ask questions that will allow you to get your main messages across.  Have a developed question and answer plan for them.

Activity 40:  Consider using signs. In Rapid City, South Dakota, Planned Parenthood announced in 1989 it was coming to town.  Due to the efforts of pro-lifers, in 1994 it still had not made an appearance.  One of the things the Rapid City folks did was to get a four-foot by eight-foot sheet of plywood.  They painted it yellow on both sides and painted in black letters “PP–It’s not What You Think.”  They then mounted this sign on a trailer and hauled it all over town.  It would show-up in different parking lots and on different streets.  It was hard to escape the moving sign, and the message got out.

Activity 41:  Picketting schools is a good way to raise the level of public attention.  We strongly recommend weekly pickets.  With a weekly picket, you do not need a great many people to be effective.

Activity 42: Some clergy are good, but some are bad.  Planned Parenthood and promiscuity promoters will typically seek the support of local clergy members.  They contact clergy of the Unitarian Fellowship, the Episcopal Church, and many other small churches and denominations which don’t hold Biblical values.  They may eventually try to recruit members for a “clergy committee.”  Planned Parenthood reasons that, if it can get clergy support, it can stop much potential opposition. To head off this effort, you should immediately begin an education campaign among the local clergy.  Circulate copies of the Humanist Manifestos (from the Internet) and point out that Alan Guttmacher (former head of PP) was a signer of the second Manifesto and that Margaret Sanger and Faye Wattleton (both also former heads of PP) won awards for spreading its doctrine.  Get copies of various brochures on Planned Parenthood and give them to your clergy. Give talks to local clergy groups and even invite anti-PP speakers (see Part III) to talk to the clergy. (To get the Humanist Manifesto or to get PP brochures, call Life Research Institute at 925 676 2929).  Ask the clergy to speak about the evils of Planned Parenthood in their sermons; support a general information campaign, and see if the local clergy councils will pass resolutions opposing Planned Parenthood’s entry into your town.

If some clergy testify to the school board in favor of promiscuity, get other clergy to testify against it!  If they won’t, then you testify.  Show how God forbids fornication.  Show that Unitarians are not Christians by their own admission.

Activity 43:  Get the students involved when appropriate and expand the fight to include an objection to Planned Parenthood in general, not just to the specific program involved.

Activity 44:  Creating and circulating a petition against the school programs is a good idea.  It not only gives you something tangible to show school officials, but it will provide you with a mailing list for your organization.  The petition should show the signer’s name, address, and phone number.  You should use this list to mail monthly information updates to the people who signed.  You can also use the list for a special mailing to get people out to important meetings.

The petition need not be anything fancy.  A sheet of paper with the statement “We, the undersigned, do not want any sex education program which encourages promiscuity in our schools or in our town” is all that is needed.  If you want, you can have specialized petitions for specialized groups.  This could easily be done by inserting a word in the statement as follows:   “We, the undersigned clergy, do not . . .” or “We, the undersigned teachers, do not . . .” or “We, the undersigned students, do not . . . ”   These are not “official” petitions, so there is no special qualifications, such as being registered to vote or being a citizen, for people to sign.  They can be signed by teens, children, senior citizens, and anyone else. No one, however, should sign more than one petition covering the same topic.

Activity 45: Your group should publish a quarterly newsletter to keep people informed.  Your newsletter should be mailed to all who signed your petitions plus all others you want to keep up-to-date.

Activity 46:  Pass fliers out door-to-door before the final school board adoption date.

Activity 47:  You never know what will change the mind of a school board member.  It may be his daughter or a friend.  When fighting these promiscuity education programs, learn about your school board members, where they work, where they go to church, what their hobbies are, and who their friends are.  In this way, you will be ready to follow through on any opportunities that arise. A school board member, like anyone else, will listen to a friend sooner than to a stranger.  Be a friend.

Activity 48:  Develop or serve on a Community Advisory Committee.  Many communities have developed Community Advisory Committees to support sex education.  The Committee may be appointed by the school board or may consist of interested citizens who convince the school board of the need for a sex education program.  The Committee will be most effective if it includes representatives from many different sectors of the community.  If no committee exists, give the school board the names of community members who might want to participate.

Activity 49:  However, be careful of committees. One strategy of the pro-promiscuity people is to get bothersome parents tied up in useless committees while Planned Parenthood accomplishes the real agenda.  Do not refuse to sit on committees, but size up the committee action quickly and be prepared to continue your other activities even though you are on the committee.

Also, watch out for your opposition’s community surveys.  Most people understand that you can make a survey say anything you want by how you phrase the questions.  These people get professionals with strong credentials to use the survey to achieve the preconceived, planned results.  Thus, carefully examine the questions asked and see who they ask them of.  For example, the question, “Do you think students should be taught about human reproduction?” is a far different question than “Should 6^th graders be taught how to use condoms?”  Now, if the proposed program is to teach 6^th graders how to use condoms but the promiscuity people want public support, they would ask the first question, “Do you think students should be taught about human reproduction.”    Let’s say that 90% of the people would answer “Yes” to this question.  Then, the promiscuity people would tell the school board that 90% of the people favor their program! 

Who they poll is also a critical issue.  Did they poll the general population, or did they loiter outside the local adult bookstore?  You have to understand: Promiscuity promoters have often been proven to be liars and perverts.  Think of it this way.  Generally, they are pro-abortion.  Anyone who thinks its okay to painfully murder a baby certainly doesn’t have the morals not to lie.

Activity 50: Make your presentation to the school board professionally.  Be sure that you maintain a polite, courteous, and Christian demeanor throughout.  Don’t lash out. Don’t pop off.  Don’t retaliate.  Don’t call people liars and perverts.

Be sure all your statements are true.  That way, the school board will quickly learn they can rely on your information and must question what the promiscuity education supporters are saying.  From time-to-time, you might even say to the board about something the opposition said, something such as, “Since you found out that _______ was portrayed inaccurately, can you necessarily believe that (what you just heard) is accurate?”  Condensed, this means, if they lied to you before, can you trust anything they say?  What would that be?

Do not condemn or belittle the opposition.

Show up en masse.

Give copies of presentations to each of the board members before talking.

Coach your audience to break out in applause!

Do not try to persuade opponents to adopt another view.  The important people to educate are the school board, parents, and the community, and these are much easier to convince that are your opponents. 

Focus your arguments on the issues.

Before confronting officials (especially with the opposition present), be prepared.  Make a list of questions any of them might ask you.  Know the answers.  Then go see them.   Don’t loose credibility because you’re tongue-tied or unknowledgeable.

Do not hesitate to face the other side head on.  The fact is that most pro-lifers are better prepared to discuss these issues than most of the promiscuity education supporters.  Never be afraid to confront them.  You will have more knowledge than they do.

Make your points clear in a reasonable and rational manner.  Emphasize that you are not forcing your values onto others, but you are opposing “values” that sexuality trainers are forcing onto your children.

Three Essentials:

Above and beyond all else, the most important information about legislative testimony, board meeting comments, or hearings boils down to three essential points:  1) Stick to the time allotted, 2) focus on only one to two topics per speaker, and 3) avoid fiery rhetoric.

Know the time limit and stick to it.  Time constraints are not guidelines.  They are strict regulations that you will be forced to follow.  Therefore, plan your presentation accordingly.  Don’t leave your most powerful information for the end where it may get cut.  Put it in the beginning.  By honoring the time restrictions, you show respect for the representatives you are speaking to and show that you are prepared and thoughtful in your comments.  Sticking to the time shows you are credible.

If your opposition exceeds the time limit, tactfully call this to the attention of the board exactly when it happens.

To prepare for time constraints, practice what you are going to say and time yourself.  Perhaps first outline your presentation, then write it.  Then edit, cutting out the irrelevant to avoid lengthy discussion.  Be straightforward and plain.  This will provide you with more time to support the relevant.

Since it is best to talk from the heart instead of reading your speeches, practice your speeches. Even practice in front of someone.  This speaking isn’t going to be hard.  You will be facing the school board, not the mass of audience.  They will be at your back.  You will be speaking to three to seven people, something you probably do a lot anyway–so don’t even think of the “nervous” word.

Refrain from saying “I think” or “I feel.”   Be specific.   Instead of saying, for example, “I think the sex ed proposed by _______ encourages promiscuity,” say “Pages _____ show that the proposed material encourages teens to have sex.”

Use anecdotes (real-life stories).  They stay with audiences longer than dry data.  Whenever possible, illustrate statistics with a vivid image or story.  You can find anecdotes, statistics, images, and stories in the appendices of this manual.   Could you tell one and sincerely cry?

As the performance of skilled politicians demonstrates, you need not directly answer questions posed to you.  Instead, when appropriate use the questions as opportunities to reinforce your messages.  For example, a promiscuity educator might ask you, “Who are you to impress your values on the entire community.”  Instead of answering the question, respond with, “Who are you to be telling my child that having sex is okay?”

This is a guide to making an outline of your presentation:

I. Introduction:  State who you are and who you represent (if anybody).

II. Introduction of Comments:   “I am speaking today because I am concerned about ______.”

III. Body:  Put your evidence and rationale for your position here.

            A. Reason or support or rejection #1.

            B. Reason or support or rejection #2.

            C. Reason or support or rejection #3. (Keep your reasons limited to three.  Most people cannot remember more than three reasons and three is sufficient to show that there is depth to your concern.)

IV. Conclusion:  “Therefore, because of (reason 1, 2 and 3), I conclude that _____(Example:  The Los Angeles School District) should _____________.”

V. “Thank you.”

VI. Then hand a legible copy of what you said to each member of the board.

Activity 51:  If you are trying to implement an abstinence program, establish adequate funding sources to maximize the success of the program. Use charts and graphs to help represent the pieces of your program.  The source (seller) of the program will help you with this tremendously.

Activity 52:  The most important fact to consider when trying to persuade school board members to support what you want is that these people serve in an elected office and require the support of the community to continue in their position.  Thus, use the term “voters” occasionally in your presentations.  You don’t need to be threatening:  They already understand the election process.

One obvious question which should be raised is:  Do the people in the area really want the program or is it being imposed on them by the power brokers in another community?  Alternatively, is it being imposed by the power brokers of this community who have an agenda which does not have the support of the masses of tax payers and voters.

Activity 53:  One reason for the popularity of private schools and home schooling is that parents object to promiscuity education in the public schools.  Thus, promiscuity education denies considerable funding to public schools.  It is exceedingly important that the school board know this, so tell them.  They do not like loosing money!

Activity 54:  Avoid fiery rhetoric except when quoting the contents of the proposed promiscuity-education program. Make your language plain.  Remember, most of the people you are presenting to are politicians.  They can spot ideological rhetoric from a mile away.  Also, unless your opposition invites clergy to speak or says they have the support of clergy, try not to pull out your Bible and quote scripture.  Public officials and administrators more often than not fail to see the relevancy of spiritual principles on public policy.

Activity 55:  If those who want promiscuity education come from outside the school district’s boundaries, try hard to get the school board to restrict 100% of their ability to speak to the board.  Argue that the board is required to respect COMMUNITY values, not those of outsiders.

Activity 56:  Have you found offensive material in a program?  Ask for the room to be cleared of children, and then read it to the school board.  In many instances the material will be obscene and the school board will stop you.  This makes your point about why you are outraged.

Activity 57:  Submit to the board the policy found in this manual entitled  “Sex Education Policy Recommendations.”  It is found in the section “The Good Programs.”

Activity 58:  Respond to the arguments of your adversaries on issues that affect the community.  At least, have the following answer ready for when you can’t answer their questions:   “I don’t know, but I will find out and get back to you quickly.”

Activity 59:  Be tough and unswerving but always with an eye toward winning for the weak, championing the helpless, and wooing the undecided.

Activity 60:  With ongoing programs, find out from the county or state health department what has been happening with the pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates.

Activity 61:  This is how to ask questions:

There may be an open question and answer time.  If you are thinking clearly and cleverly, you can use this time to give important information as well as ask questions.

Just as in making a presentation, how you ask a question is just as important as the question itself.  Be clear, know what you want to say and be aggressive.  If you feel that the question was not answered to your satisfaction, ask for clarification.  Continue to ask for clarification until the question has been answered in a specific manner.

The key to asking good questions is to ask specific questions attached to a statement of fact.  That is, state a fact or concern that you can support either with community opinion or factual data.  For example:  (This is your statement):  According to Family Planning Perspectives, a Planned Parenthood publication, comprehensive sex programs have not been shown to decrease teen birth or pregnancy rates.  [This is your question]:   Therefore, why should the District spend money on this project?”

Another good question to ask promiscuity supporters is, “Can you show me a study which shows that any of your programs has ever reduced pregnancies or STDs?”

Activity 62: Accept suggestions of the school board on how to settle the issue.

Activity 63: If intermediate issues are not resolved quickly, ask the school board for a vote.  Record how each member votes.  This will give you information as to which members are on your side and which are not.

Activity 64:  Understand exactly what your objective is and accept a solution that will accomplish that objective–even if it is not exactly what you had asked for.  But remain vigilant:  The opposition will try to sneak in  what they want behind your backs.

Activity 65:  There is opt-in and opt-out.  Opt-in is best, and it is where the parents must sign a form if the child IS to participate in a promiscuity program.  Opt-out is where the parents must sign a form if the child is NOT to participate.  The school district dictates which type is to be used.  Push for opt-in!

In some cases, districts have already decided to use opt-out forms, and you might have to live with that.  However, you don’t have to use THEIR form.

In California, The Alameda County Conservative Exchange created an opt-out form to excuse students from objectionable education. Although it is somewhat based on federal law, it is intended for use in California.  If you do not live in California, you should review the form and change it somewhat. You can review your state’s education law at your school district.

A hidden aspect of using this form is to make life very complicated for the school administration, so complicated that they may cancel plans to have objectionable classes.  Thus, the form comes with instructions saying that you should, in the form, strike out and initial specific material which is not objectionable to you.  How this will cause headaches for the administration is best explained by example:   Suppose we have Mr. A, Ms. B, Ms. C, and Mr. D.  Mr. A crosses out “role playing” so that his kid can learn about that.  Ms. B cross out “death education” so her kid can learn about that.   Ms. C crosses out “obituaries.”  Mr. D crosses out “films rated R”.  So now, if  the administration would have programs to teach everything in the list, it would want to teach Mr. A’s kid everything not involving role playing, Ms. B’s kid everything but death education, etc.  Thus, the scheduling and enforcement of scheduling would be a nightmare.  So they might just cancel the whole thing.  Following is the NON-COPYRIGHTED form:

Excuse of Pupil from Objectionable Education

TO:  President and Members of the School Board, Superintendent of Schools, Principal, Teachers, Counselors and Other Staff at __________________School

From:  ______________________________________, Parents of _______________, Enrolled in the _________Grade at __________________________School

This letter is a written, legal notice that I am exercising my rights under the federal Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (the Hatch Amendment) to the General Education Provisions Act of Nov. 12, 1984, and California law (Education Code Sections 51240, 51550 and 51820) to request that the pupil named above be excused from and not attend or participate in any class, presentation, discussion, project, extracurricular activity, or program presented by the school district, or by its agents under its direction, which involve any of the following: 

Sex or family life education; AIDS or HIV; the acquiring or use of birth control drugs or devices; abortion; infanticide; euthanasia or suicide; death education in any form, including the writing of obituaries, or any program designed to foster acceptance or comfort with death; homosexuality; bestiality; sadism, masochism, or sexual perversion; showing of any films rated R, NC-17 or X (pornography); “values clarification” or “decision making”; global education or anti-patriotism; meditation, yoga, trances, guided imagery, “imaginary friends,” or the conjuring of spirit guides; witchcraft in any form; any counseling, group or individual (other than behavior modification programs) or as recommended by the student’s personal physician and approved by us; and the use of questionnaires, role playing, or other means to question, expose, or criticize any private, religious, or moral value of the pupil named above, or the pupil’s family.

This notice applies not only to direct family-life or sex education programs, but also to any of the above-mentioned subjects which may be infused or included as “part of any course which pupils are required to attend” (as provided in Education Code Section 51550.)  I also expect to be notified in writing prior to the school’s excusing my child from class for medical services of any kind, except for emergencies which threaten the life of my child.

I expect to be notified of the presentation of materials and subjects as required by Education Code Section 48980 and of the approximate date of their presentation as required by Education Code Section 48983 so that I may exercise my right to inspect and review instructional plans and materials, as provided in Education Code Sections 51550 and 51820, and so that I may monitor the exemption of the pupil named above from classes or activities involving objectionable subjects described above.

I request that the principal and all teachers or other agents of the school district who are involved with the education of the pupil named above be informed of this written legal notice and that they be made aware that the penalty for knowingly violating my parental rights is revocation of suspension or their certification, as provided in Education Code Section 51550.

I request that you acknowledge receipt of this written legal notice in writing.

Signed:__________________________________________        Date:_____________

Signed:__________________________________________        Date:_____________

Address:______________________________________________________________

Phone Number:_________________________________

Activity 66:   If you have followed all the steps so far and nothing has worked, run a supportive person for your local school board.   School boards normally elect some members every two years.  Let the board members know you are serious by running a candidate. Make sure that all the churches and organizations in your area who support your position get out the vote for your candidate.  The candidate should not run just on the promiscuity issues, however.  To be elected, he or she must also address other education issues.  Otherwise, he or she will almost certainly lose.

Activity 67: If it appears that a promiscuity program may possibly be approved, opponents should try to restrict the content as much as possible.  Moreover, critics should demand that policymakers set a definite date in the future when the program would be evaluated by an independent and objective authority to ascertain whether it has met district goals. Moral people should be involved in the selection of the authority.  Such an evaluation should be conducted and announced publicly prior to a vote for refunding.  This step is especially important if the school board has predicated establishing the program on the expectation that it will reduce pregnancies, births, abortions, and disease among students in that school.  Statistics about pregnancy tests, abortion referrals, and disease tests could be very enlightening.  The program  staff will almost certainly be unable to produce reliable data demonstrating that teen pregnancies, births, abortions, and disease have been reduced.  Perhaps at that point, you will have an opportunity to end the program.

Activity 68:  If, despite your lobbying and educational efforts, you fail to end an existing program or stop a new one from beginning, do not lose heart.  Now try to stop the program from being funded.

Tactics: Yours, Conclusion

Never give up.  This includes after you have won.  The fight is never over. Certainly the proponents of the promiscuity programs do not see the vote as the final word.  You must always watch what is going on.

Glossary

[               ]    —  Brackets are used within quotations to give explanatory or additional information which is not in the original material.  Material within brackets is not quoted material.

Abstinence Education — Sex education that not only stresses abstinence but avoids discussing promiscuity.  For details see Appendix A

Comprehensive — Contains many subject matters other than sex education.  Examples are mental health, death education, stress management, AIDS education, critical thinking skills, self esteem, and life skills.  All comprehensive programs include contraceptive instruction.

Curriculum — Course material.  The plural of curriculum is curricula.

Directive/Non-Directive — Directive programs provide direction for behavior; non-directive programs teach students to make their own decisions, good or bad.  Abstinence programs are usually, though not always, directive; promiscuity programs are usually, though not always, non-directive.

Encouragement or guideline laws — Schools are encouraged by the state legislature to have human sexuality training and health programs.  Age levels and guidelines are suggested but not mandated.

et al. — Used in the Endnotes after citing one or more authors, this means there were also other authors.

Family Life — a term used by proponents of Planned Parenthood’s sex education guidelines for sex education.  Can also be the name of a high school semester course that teaches child rearing, marriage, sex education, and social science.

Human sexuality — In comprehensive sex ed, a term used for students to discover their feelings about sexual experiences ranging from masturbation to intercourse to deviant, abnormal sex practices.

Killing Center — Abortion clinic, abortion mill, abortitorium, etc.

Local option — The decision as to whether a program about sex education or human sexuality is to be introduced into the common schools is a matter for determination at the district level by the local school board, the duly elected representatives of the people of the community.

Mandated Family Life Sex Education — Where the state dictates that every school district will adopt the specific curriculum guidelines and will implement a comprehensive program from Kindergarten through the 12th grade.  Teachers will use the clearinghouses throughout the state and are trained by state funded or authorized Family Life instructors.

Mandated or required by law — Where the state dictates that every school district will adopt a sex education or AIDS education program according to certain guidelines, but curriculum selections are made by local school boards and for chosen age levels.

Opting In — No children enter a sexuality/AIDS education program without a permission slip from a parent.

Opting Out — No children are excused without a permission slip from a parent.

Promiscuity education — One of two types of sex education or sexuality education.  The other type is abstinence education.

Sex education — The study of the anatomy, physiology, and emotions of human reproduction.  In abstinence sex education, morality is discussed.

Sexual Attitude Restructuring — A classification of promiscuity education in which the students are desensitized to the possibility that there is such a thing as promiscuity.  Also called SAR.

State Department of Education core curricula — The state Education Department to mandates which curricula will be used for each subject (including family life) in every school district.

State Department of Education requirements — State mandates that schools are required to have health programs and sex education at certain grade levels.  Curriculum selection is suggested by the state, but the final choice is left to local school boards.

Endnotes

Appendix A

A Legal Definition of Abstinence Education

The new federal welfare-reform law includes a good definition of abstinence education. Section 912–Abstinence Education–of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 amends Title V of the Social Security Act including: “SEPARATE PROGRAM FOR ABSTINENCE EDUCATION”

Sec. 510.(b)(1) The  purpose of an allotment under subsection (a) to a State is to enable the State to provide abstinence education, and at the option of the State, where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock. . . .

(2) For purposes of this section, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which–. . .

(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;

(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;

(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and

(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging is sexual activity. [Emphasis added].