Thursday, June 21, 2007

Prior Lake/Savage High School abstains from abstinence.

Click Here to read update on story.

If the recent firing of Chris Lind by Prior Lake/Savage School Board officials reveals anything it exposes the districts real attitude towards abstinence based sex education.

MFC recently obtained a notarized copy of a statement delivered by Jim Fry at the school board meeting earlier this week. Fry was asked by Chris Lind to witness a January 3rd meeting at the district office with Tony Massaros of Human Resources.

Fry says that Massaros told Lind he could not talk about abstinence with students during or after school, on or off campus, during or after school hours. According to Fry, Massaros also told Lind he could not talk about abstinence in a bible study in his own home, “in youth groups at church or in small group study off campus.”

Massaros allegedly censored Lind from discussing abstinence with anyone who had ever attended the district.

Perhaps Lind would have kept his job if he had limited his discussions to other comprehensive sex education topics such as how to get an abortion or oral sex with a dental dam. (See examples of comprehensive sex education curricula.)

The recent rise in STDs and STIs in Minnesota is proof that current sex education curricula are a colossal failure. And, as long as schools continue to fire personnel for promoting abstinence then we can only expect more of the same.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Star Trib columnist credits MFC with defeat of unhealthy sex ed bill

Nick Coleman gets everything else wrong.

We don't often agree with Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist Nick Coleman, but he got one thing right in his June 13 column; he acknowledges that Governor Pawlenty’s firm opposition to comprehensive sex ed, and the DFL majority's backing down on it, were the result of MFC's mobilization of thousands of concerned parents who called the Governor and key legislators urging them to reject it.

Click Here to read column.

Click Here to listen to MFC Tom Prichard's interview on WCCO.

We also agree with Coleman that "mainstream parents" need to “make ourselves heard.” Please Nick, get as many parents involved as possible, because the more parents are informed of the unhealthy content in several sex education curricula, the easier it is to defeat.

Predictably, Coleman ignored our central theme; that teaching children sex activities such as anal and anal-oral sex is unhealthy. (An examination of several sex education curricula in Minnesota revealed the unhealthy content listed above. See Birds & Bees.)

We shouldn't be surprised then that Coleman called the sex education bill “moderate.” As Coleman quotes MFC statements that exposed the unhealthy curricula, we have to assume he believes teaching children about anal sex, and anal-oral sex is “moderate” as well.

MFC encourages parents to refer to comprehensive sex education as “unhealthy.” “Mainstream” parents understand that teaching this material to children grades 7-12 sex is unhealthy. Most legislators agree.

Also, the well-documented rise in STDs and STIs in Minnesota clearly indicates that current comp sex education is unhealthy as well. In fact, it is a colossal failure as more children have become infected.

Pawlenty and Comp Sex Ed

Entering the 2007 legislative session in January there were marked increases in the number of legislators who were supportive of abortion, homosexuality and condoms. One of their major initiatives was mandating that all public schools, grades seven through twelve teach comprehensive sex education.

Currently, Minnesota law requires school districts provide some education on sexually transmitted diseases and infections. The new proposal would have mandated all schools teach the comprehensive, pro-condom message each year, grades seven through twelve.

What does comprehensive sex ed teach? First and foremost it promotes condom use and gives lip service, at best, to abstinence education. But along with the pro-condom message invariably comes teaching supportive of homosexuality and homosexual behavior which means promoting acceptance of unhealthy sexual practices. And finally it encourages students to be accepting of their aberrant behaviors like cross-dressing and sex changes. Imagine, presenting these behaviors and lifestyles as OK to impressionable and often insecure teenagers. It would be a disaster.

Fortunately, thousands of phone calls to Governor Pawlenty and legislators were important. In the end the provisions were completely dropped.

We appreciate Governor Pawlenty's defense of common sense and the involvement of thousands of Minnesotans who made calls opposing this legislation. If people hadn't spoken out many more kids would be exposed to the bitter and unhealthy fruit of the sexual revolution in public schools across Minnesota.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Pawlenty and Domestic Partner Benefits

Entering the 2007 legislative session in January there were nearly two dozen fewer pro-family legislators which meant significant liberal majorities in the state legislature. As a result, homosexual activists were confidently pushing domestic partner legislation which would have granted homosexual government employees marriage benefits. In other words, it was an effort to redefine the family and take a significant step towards same-sex marriage.

In fact, they had four different bills seeking to redefine the family and grant recognition for homosexual couples through state and local government employee plans, and sick leave and hospital visitation plans. I'm sure they were surprised that they came out of the session in May with no successes. Why were they unsuccessful despite large, supportive liberal majorities in the legislature?

There were a number of reasons but the critical reason was Governor Pawlenty's strong, outspoken opposition to these efforts to redefine the family.

Early in February the Minnesota Family Council sponsored a legislative briefing featuring Governor Pawlenty. There he voiced his opposition to domestic partnerships and subsequently said he'd veto legislation containing these provisions. His firm opposition led liberal legislative leaders to back down, fearing his vetoes would threaten their other initiatives.

We appreciate Governor Pawlenty's support for protecting the integrity of the family and marriage. Given the moral foundation of a healthy society are healthy families and marriages headed up by a mother and father, domestic partnerships is exactly the wrong direction to go. It will only lead to greater social breakdown and problems, especially for children. Governor Pawlenty should be applauded for his strong stand.