What else was in the awful health care bill passed by US House? Family redefinition provisions for one.

The approximately 2,000 page health care bill passed by the US House under the cover of dark last Saturday evening continues to be reviewed for all the bad stuff it contained. Dramatic expansion of government control and regulation of our nation's health care system is the most obvious, but not surprisingly there were a lot of other left wing social agenda items included. Among them family redefinition provisions.

These were highlighted in a story posted on the left newsblog Minnesota Independent.

They correctly conclude that the focus of pro-life and social conservatives was the battle over abortion coverage mandates in the bill. But then go on to point out a number of provisions slipped in by homosexual activists "unnoticed".

While abortion politics dominated conservative opposition to the health care reform package that barely passed the U.S. House on Saturday evening, several measures in the bill that are beneficial to LGBT Americans largely went unnoticed — especially by conservatives.

The Human Rights Campaign reports it successfully lobbied to get five provisions important to the LGBT community included in the final bill.

Currently, the government doesn’t track health disparities based on sexual orientation and gender identity like it does for race, economic status, marital status, age and a number of other characteristics. The bill that passed the House would add those categories to the government’s data collection practices and would for the first time be able to determine health disparities. That would enable the government to direct funding for research and public health efforts to address those disparities. A similar bill has been offered in Congress, the Ending Health Disparities for LGBT Americans Act.

The House bill also contains language from the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Employer-paid health benefits for a domestic partner are taxed by the federal government as income but benefits for spouses are not. That means same-sex couples that utilize their employers’ health plan pay income taxes that married couples do not. The bill that passed the House on Saturday would fix that inequity.

An important disparity in the treatment of HIV is remedied in the bill. In order for people living with HIV to qualify for Medicaid programs they must have a diagnosis of AIDS — which often comes after years of living with the disease. The new legislation would enable states to qualify individuals who are newly diagnosed with HIV disease for Medicaid programs. That policy is included in the bill as the Early Treatment for HIV Act.

Strong protections to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in health insurance and in the health care system also made it into the House bill.

Finally, the bill provides funding for comprehensive sex education programs that include relevant information for LGBT students.

The provisions show homosexual activists are once again turning to government as a vehicle for indoctrinating young students.

They point out the attention of many social conservative groups was on the mandating of abortion coverage and justifiably so. Stopping efforts which would have codified the power of the state and use of our taxpayer dollars to kill, eventually, millions of unborn children, was of supreme importance.

That, however, doesn't negate the significance of many of provisions which seek to redefine and thus undermine the basic structure of the natural family. This is, of course, where homosexual activists ultimately want to go.

American College of Pediatricians gives strong endorsement of abstinence-until-marriage approach to sex education.

A national organization of pediatricians, the American College of Pediatricians came out with a surprisingly strong endorsement of abstinence education. I say surprisingly because most professional organizations are usually to the left on controversial topics like abstinence.

Their report said:

The American College of Pediatricians strongly endorses abstinence-until-marriage sex education and recommends adoption by all school systems rather than "comprehensive sex education". This position is based on "the public health principle of primary prevention - risk avoidance in lieu of risk reduction," upholding the "human right to the highest attainable standard of health."[1]

They point out the problems associated with teenage sexual activity:

By every measure, adolescent sexual activity is detrimental to the well being of all involved, especially young women, and society at large. Children and adolescents from 10 to 19 years of age are more at risk for contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) than adults.[2] This is due to the general practice of having multiple and higher risk sexual partners, and to the immaturity of the cervical tissue of girls and young women. The CDC recently stated that of the 19 million new cases of STIs annually reported in the United States, 50 percent occur in teens and young adults under 25 years of age.[3] Twenty-five percent of newly diagnosed cases of HIV occur in those under 22 years of age.[4] This translates into one in four sexually active female adolescents being infected with at least one STI.[5]

Bacterial STIs may cause life-threatening cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and infertility. Viral STIs which include herpes, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and HIV are generally incurable. Herpes afflicts its victims with life-long painful recurrences, may be passed on to sexual partners even when asymptomatic, and may be life threatening to newborns if passed on at birth during vaginal delivery. HPV is found among 90 percent of sexually active young adults and teens.[6] While often self-limited, HPV has high risk strains that may persist for life and cause cancer of the cervix. HIV not only may cause premature demise, but also significant suffering with life-long dependence on multiple toxic and costly medications. The CDC estimates that STIs cost the U.S. health care system as much as $15.3 billion dollars annually.[7]

Adolescent pregnancy is similarly associated with adverse socioeconomics that have an impact on the family, community and society at large. One in thirteen high school girls becomes pregnant each year.[8] Adolescent pregnancy results in decreased educational and vocational opportunities for the mothers, an increased likelihood of the family living in poverty, and significant risk for negative long-term outcomes for the children. For example, children of adolescent mothers are more likely to be born prematurely and at a low birth weight; suffer from poor health; perform poorly in school; run away from home; be abused or neglected; and grow up without a father.[9]

They talk about the emotional scars from teenage sex:

Even if sexually active teens escape acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and becoming pregnant, few remain emotionally unscathed. Overall, one in eight teens suffers from depression,[10] and suicide has risen to become the third leading cause of death for adolescents, paralleling the rise in STIs within this population.[11] Infection with an STI has long been recognized as a cause for depression among teens. More recently, however, adolescent sexual activity alone has been acknowledged as an independent risk factor for developing low self-esteem, major depression, and attempting suicide.[12] In studies that controlled for confounding factors, sexually active girls were found to be three times as likely to report being depressed and three times as likely to have attempted suicide when compared to sexually abstinent girls.[13] Sexually active boys were more than twice as likely to suffer from depression and seven times as likely to have attempted suicide when compared to sexually abstinent boys.[14] This is not mere coincidence. Scientists now know that sexual activity releases chemicals in the brain that create emotional bonds between partners. Breaking these bonds can cause depression, and make it harder to bond with someone else in the future.[15]

Sexual activity is defined as genital contact. This includes mutual masturbation, as well as oral, vaginal and anal intercourse. While only vaginal intercourse may result in pregnancy, all of these practices may spread STIs, and lead to emotional trauma. Abstaining from all sexual activity is the only 100 percent safe and effective way to avoid teen pregnancies, STIs, and the emotional fallout of adolescent sexual activity. Almost 40 years of emphasis on "safer sex" with "values-neutral sex education," condoms and contraception has clearly failed our young people. The effectiveness of abstinence sex education in delaying the onset of sexual debut, on the other hand, has been demonstrated in rigorous scientific studies. Abstinence education does not occur in a vacuum, making it especially difficult to separate its influence from the opposing influence of the media and cultural milieu. Nevertheless, five out of seven programs recently reviewed showed a significant reduction in sexual initiation rates (two programs showed rates decreased by half).[16] Evaluation of community-based abstinence programs in peer-reviewed journals showed that they are effective in significantly reducing pregnancy. According to an April 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation "fifteen studies examined abstinence programs and eleven reported positive findings of delayed sexual initiation."[17] Reviews by The Institute for Research and Evaluation state that "several well designed evaluations of abstinence programs have found significant long- term reductions in adolescent sexual activity."[18] These do not begin to thoroughly evaluate the hundreds of ongoing programs.

They address the difference between the abstinence until marriage versus comprehensive sex education approach:

In its endorsement of abstinence-based sex education, the College calls attention to the scientific controversies surrounding alternative educational platforms. Most sex education curricula fall into two categories, abstinence-until-marriage or comprehensive sex education programs (occasionally, referred to as "abstinence plus" programs). Recently, abstinence education has been accused of not providing critical health information about condom use. Abstinence education curricula, however, do not discourage the use of condoms; rather they note that chastity obviates the need for condoms. Abstinence education programs do not claim that condoms have no place in preventing STIs. Comprehensive programs, on the other hand, are misleading in the emphasis they place on condom use. These programs give teens the impression that condoms make sexual activity safe. In reality, there has been much conflicting medical literature on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs since the 2000 NIH report on the subject and much of the controversy remains unresolved.[19] Teens must be informed that condoms do not offer complete protection from either pregnancy or STIs.

The College position supporting abstinence-until-marriage education, unlike alternative education platforms, also recognizes the unique neurobiology of adolescent brains. The frontal cortex of the adolescent brain is still in development and unable to make the consistently wise executive decisions necessary to control action based on emotional input. Researcher Jay Giedd has stated that, "Until the mid-twenties young people do not have the physical brain capacity to make fully mature decisions."[20] programs that address smoking, drugs, and alcohol use. Emphasis on contraceptive methods undermines the authority of parents and the strength of the abstinence message. This approach reinforces the ubiquitous (yet erroneous) message presented by the media that engaging in sexual activity is not only expected of teens, but is the norm. Adolescent brains are not equipped to handle these mixed messages. Parents and teachers need to "function as a surrogate set of frontal lobes, an auxiliary problem solver" for their teens, setting firm and immutable expectations.[21] Adolescents need repetitive, clear and consistent guidance.

And they endorse involving parents in the sex education process:

As families address this issue of sex education, the American College of Pediatricians recommends that parents be fully aware of the content of the curriculum to which their children are being exposed. The national "Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education" that were drafted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) place strong emphasis on "values neutral" sex education beginning in kindergarten. According to these guidelines, children between the ages of 5 to 8 should be taught not only the anatomically correct names of all body parts, but also the definitions of sexual intercourse, and masturbation.[22]

Overall, these comprehensive programs only emphasize "safer sex." Many comprehensive programs also provide sexually erotic material to teens with explicit condom demonstrations. Other programs suggest alternative types of sexually stimulating contact (referred to as "outercourse") that would not result in pregnancy but still could result in STIs. Some of these activities, depending on the ages of those involved and the state in which they occur, could actually be illegal. These education programs can break down the natural barriers of those not yet involved in sexual activity and encourage experimentation. Additionally, many programs emphasize that teens do not need parental consent to obtain birth control and that teens therefore need not even discuss the issue with them.[23]

Discouraging parental involvement eliminates one of the most powerful deterrents to sexual activity, namely, communication of parental expectations.[24] Firm statements from parents that sex should be reserved for marriage have been found to be very effective in delaying a child's sexual debut. Parental example and "religiosity" have also been found to be similarly protective. Adolescents reared by parents who live according to their professed religious faith [25] and are actively involved in their worship community,[26] are more likely to abstain from sexual activity as teens. Successful sex education programs involve parents and promote open discussion between parents and their children.

The American College of Pediatricians also believes parents should be aware of the current state of funding, and government involvement in sex education choices. Comprehensive programs receive seven to twelve times the funding of abstinence programs.[27] However, according to a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services, comprehensive programs do not give equal time to abstinence.[28]

And they address the efforts to discredit abstinence education:

In 2004 Congressman Henry Waxman of California presented a report before Congress critical of the medical accuracy of abstinence education curricula.[29] The Mathematica Study was similarly critical of the medical accuracy of abstinence education programs.[30] However, in 2007 the U.S .Department of Health and Human Services conducted an extensive review of nine comprehensive sex education curricula using the same methods employed by Congressman Waxman and the Mathematica Study. These comprehensive programs were found to have no better record for medical accuracy. The HHS review also found that the comprehensive programs were hardly comprehensive. The amount of discussion dedicated to "safer sex" exceeded that spent on abstinence by a factor of up to seven. Some of the programs failed to mention abstinence altogether. None of the programs carefully distinguished between reducing and eliminating the risks of sexual activity, and nearly every program failed to mention the emotional consequences of early sexual activity. Although some of the comprehensive programs showed a small effect in reducing "unprotected" sex (7 of 9 programs) and to a lesser extent in delaying sexual debut (2 of 8 programs), the impact did not extend beyond six months.[31]

According to a 2004 Zogby Poll, 90% of adults and teens agree with The American College of Pediatricians position that teens should be given a strong abstinence message.[32] Programs that teach sexual abstinence until marriage are about much more than simply delaying sexual activity. They assist adolescents in establishing positive character traits, formulating long-term goals, and developing emotionally healthy relationships. These programs increase the likelihood of strong marriages and families - the single most essential resource for the strength and survival of our nation.

Three cheers for the American College of Pediatricians.

What Obama didn't tell you when he defended comprehensive sex education -- it is about sex and it's not age appropriate.

The McCain ran an ad highlighting Obama's support for a bill in the Illinois legislature which would have taught comprehensive ("anything goes") sex education to kindergartners. The ad asked why did Obama support teaching kindergartners about sex before they can learn to read.

In response, Obama and his media defenders argue the bill talked about "age appropriate" sex education. I've heard the line about age appropriate before -- that's what the promoters of comprehensive sex education always say. But when you look at the specifics of comp sex ed, it's anything but age appropriate.

Here's an example of what comp sex ed advocates would consider "age appropriate" based on SIECUS, comp sex ed guidelines. (SIECUS stands for "Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States" and they establish nationally recognized comprehensive sex education standards.) Here's a sample of what they recommend for kids, ages 5 to 8.

Ages 5 to 8 --

• "A family consists of two or more people who care for each other in many ways."
• "Vaginal intercourse - when a penis is placed inside a vagina - is the most common way for an egg and sperm to join."
• “Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.”
• “Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.”
• "Masturbation should be done in a private place."
  
• “Adults often kiss, hug, touch and engage in other sexual behavior with one another to show caring and to feel good."

There you have it, sexually explicit and graphic description of sexual activities and practices. They also promote acceptance of homosexuality, homosexual marriage, and alternative sexual lifestyles.

Comprehensive sex education is really "anything goes" sex education and it's used to indoctrinate our kids as young as in kindergarten.

Thank you Gov. Pawlenty

Thank you Gov. Tim Pawlenty for answering the requests of thousands of callers by opposing comprehensive sex education, gestational surrogacy and efforts to legalize same sex marriage - to name just a few.

You are truly a pro-family governor.

The ideology of the 60's sexual revolution is a cognitive STD

"Daddy, how many sex partners should I have?"

Apparently a majority of our state legislators think the answer should be, "as many as you like, but fewer is better, as long as you use ‘protection’ – none is safest, but we really don’t think you are capable of saying ‘No.’" That essentially is what they want to require schools throughout the state to teach children in grades 7 through 12.
Thanks to years of sex education with that convoluted message, the Center for Disease Control recently reported that one in four teenage girls are infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) – nearly 50% for African American girls.

One might ask, "How do we stop this epidemic?"

The answer, say comprehensive sex ed advocates, is mandatory comprehensive sex education that encourages children to engage in unhealthy sexual behaviors, giving them the illusion that using condoms makes it safe. In other words, mandating more of what has already produced alarming rates of STD’s among teens. Bills currently before the legislature, like SF 3349, deceptively named "Responsible Family Life and Sexuality Education Programs" promote condoms, dental dams and contraceptive use while encouraging acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles and unhealthy behaviors such as anal sex and anal-oral sex.

How does that make you feel about your child or grandchild’s chances of avoiding infection?

That uneasy feeling in your gut is telling you that our sex education programs are not working. The reason, in this author’s humble opinion, is because they are driven by an unhealthy ideology. Sadly, however, most sex education advocates and parents are in denial that the ideology exists, allowing it to stalk the unprotected values of yet another generation.

We are still steeped in the ideology of the sexual revolution. It’s a cognitive STD.

When abortion rates go up, the tendency among many educators is to blame teaching abstinence. When a report shows a rise in STIs and STDs like Chlamydia, blame abstinence. An ideology that denies the notion of personal responsibility seeks to enable risky behavior with an illusion of safety. Rather than changing behavior, it attempts to remove consequence with condoms, dental dams, pills, vaccines and abortions.

Denial is a powerful mental defense mechanism that in this case obscures the failure of a sexual revolution that swapped abstinence-based values for the more enlightened partner of free sex. And now our kids are paying the price.
Denial is easy to identify if you’re not caught in its blissful delusion. Look for it every time you hear phrases like "facts based" or "technically accurate information" vs. "ideology founded on fear and misinformation." We should also look for it in the mirror.

A recent University of Minnesota poll revealed that 89 percent of parents polled favored a comprehensive approach to sex education versus 10 percent who favored an abstinence-based curriculum. 81 percent of the parents polled also agreed that taking a sex education class doesn’t make children more likely to engage in sex. Polls like these expose our desperate need for intervention. It shows that the majority are not aware of the specifics of what’s being taught to our children, or the documented consequences.

According to a review of comprehensive sex guidelines established by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, masturbation, sexual intercourse, cohabitation, oral and anal sex, and homosexuality are recommended as part of the curriculum.

We can no longer deny the results of a failed ideology, laid bare by a growing body of facts that proves the folly of reckless sexual behavior. We need to accept responsibility and stop deceiving ourselves into believing that what educators term a "comprehensive" approach, can be an effective surrogate for values taught at home and re-reinforced at school.

To the contrary, Brigid Riley, the executive director of the Minnesota Organization of Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and Parenting (MOAPPP), is at the Capitol lobbying legislators to mandate "comprehensive" sex education. Riley, the consummate enabler, assures them that "Comprehensive sexuality education actually encourages young people to wait longer to start being sexually active," and goes on to say, "When they do become sexually active they’re more likely to use contraceptives and condoms. And they have fewer partners."

The facts don’t support the claims of the enablers. With 1 in 4 teen girls infected with STDs and teen pregnancy continuing to rise, the failure of the current sex-ed curriculum is obvious. Do you see the ideology? Can you hear the denial?

If not, then perhaps it time to look in the mirror and imagine your child asking you, "Mommy and Daddy, how many sex partners should I have?"

One in four teen girls in US infected with STI

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention just reported that one in four teen girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection (STI). (A little more than 3 million girls.) Among girls who admitted having had sex, the rate was 40 percent.

One in four. 40%.

How does that make you feel about your own daughters chances?

And don't fool yourself into thinking this is just about intercourse. STI's can occur via heavy petting, oral sex, or mutual masturbation.

Wake up, this isn't the 60's anymore when the threat of infection was largely limited to syphilis and gonorrhea. Five decades of foreplay have unleashed approximately 25 STD/STI's.

Do you really believe she will avoid infection by learning how to use a condom or dental dam - at school?

That feeling in your gut is telling you that sex education programs are not working. The reason, IMHO, is because they are driven by an unhealthy ideology. Sadly, however, most sex education sponsors are in denial the ideology exists - even as our daughters pay a heavy price.

Denial is easy to identify. Look for it every time you hear someone demean, belittle or blame abstinence. We should also look for it in the mirror. We will never, ever, protect our daughters until we come clean and tell them that the ideology of the sexual revolution has failed.

In other words, the rise in STDs, teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are the result of a progressive ideology towards sexual behavior - not because of a lack of education about salves, creams, abortions, condoms, dental dams, pills and vaccines.

Go ahead - tell her.

Because it's unhealthy stupid!

Two recent stories underscore the unhealthy ideology behind “gay rights” and comprehensive sex education that is endangering our children and our national health.

The first is the outbreak of a drug resistant, highly contagious staph infection in U.S. hospitals. A new study by the University of California, San Francisco reported that the strain has spread rapidly in the homosexual populations of San Francisco and Boston. They feared the “flesh eating” infection “has the potential for rapid, nationwide dissemination” among gay men.

In a Reuter’s interview, Dr. Binh Diep, the researcher who led the study, said, “Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable … ‘We think that it's spread through sexual activity.’”

Beware extremists claiming that anyone can catch the infection. Perhaps. However, before it spreads to the general population lets point out that those indulging in high-risk, anonymous sex with multiple partners aren’t just anyone.

In another story, San Jose University has banned blood drives from campus because homosexuals (a high risk category for HIV/AIDS) are not allowed to donate. According to Citizen Link, “San Jose State students and faculty donate about 300 units of blood a year, and, according to Michele Hyndman of the Stanford Blood Center, any further losses could put local patients in jeopardy.”

“We’re not arguing anything about the science," said Larry Carr, university vice president. "We’re not in a position to argue the science. We have a conflict with a nondiscrimination policy on our campus.”

Parents should demand that Carr resign, as he is endangering the health of the students, the blood supply and the community at large. He is allowing political correctness to trump sound medical standards. In an era of rampant sexually transmitted diseases this is criminal.

In Minnesota Clamydia is up. STD’s are up. Unwanted pregnancies are up, and yet the cowardly and deceitful comprehensive sex ed ideologs - and their media shills - blame abstinence and demand condom/dental dam* based indoctrination for our innocent youth.

Has it occurred to these dangerous ideologs that all these precautions (condoms, dental dams, vaccines, pills, abortions) are proof that they are encouraging our children to play in a disease infested playground?

A healthy dose of science teaches us that unhealthy sex begets unhealthy consequences and teaching our children to practice unhealthy behavior - even with a dental dam or condom - is child abuse.

* A dental dam is a piece of latex used for oral sex. Even the CDC has stated "No barrier methods for use during oral sex have been evaluated as effective by the FDA."

What do the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-condom groups have in common? All proponents of comp sex ed and share a common worldview about sex

A friend recently received in the mail an end of 2007 fundraising letter from SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). SIECUS is the national organization that has established national guidelines for comprehensive sex education. The letter shows their ideology when it comes to all things involving sex and that includes abortion.

When it comes to presidential candidates, SIECUS believes these individuals "must support five key objectives." And what are these objectives?

1. A comprehensive approach to sexuality education combined with adequate funding to support these programs.

2. Evidence-based programs to prevent HIV infection, unplanned pregnancies and sexuality transmitted diseases.

3. The right of all women to choose when and whether to have children.

4. The right of all individuals and couples to be treated equally, regardless of sexual sexual orientation.

5. International policies that allow medically accurate sexual and reproductive information to be shared and women to receive the reproductive health services they need and deserve."

The letter goes on to say,

"If we make the right decision, in a few short months we can be on our way to seeing the end of a regressive era in American history..."The abstinence-only-until -marriage industry, built in large part by the current administration, has been harming millions of young people in thousands of classrooms around the country for far too long. A woman's right to choose and abortion has never been in greater jeopardy than it is today. And same-sex partnerships are being demonized in the media and in Congress by conservative zealots."

What's interesting is the strong appeal to homosexuality and abortion as key parts of their agenda. Looking at actual comprehensive sex ed curricula, the linkage becomes much clearer; comp sex ed is the vehicle for pushing a pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda in the schools and among our young people.

I was told by an elected official that he was door knocked this past summer by MN NARAL on behalf of comprehensive sex education. And the Minnesota AIDS Project, a key pro-homosexual group in the state, pushed for comprehensive sex ed in the public schools during the last legislative session.

At its core, these interest groups all share a common worldview on sex. It's very much a materialist, self-centered view that sex is first and foremost about the person and whatever that person might want. It's not rooted in the transcendent. Sex isn't the product of a Creator's plan nor does it have a transcendent purpose. And it doesn't fit into the "laws of nature and nature's God" view articulated by the founders.

Those on the cultural left demonize those on the "religious right" for wanting to impose their religious beliefs on others through the abstinence until marriage approach to sex education. Yet cultural left have their own worldview and even religion when it comes to life and sexuality. It's not rooted in the Scripture and Christian tradition but rather in a secular, materialist naturalism which views the material as all that exists. And people decide based on their personal preferences what constitutes the moral and ethical.

One of the ways to resolve who's right is to look at the fruit of the different worldviews. Through the sexual revolution and the "anything goes" mentality towards sex, there's been a steady stream of suffering, disease, and death. Reality has a way of crushing down and exposing false ideas and understandings about life. That's exactly what's happening with a distorted view of sexuality. We can't deny the reality of the fruit of particular worldviews. Eventually, the truth does prevail but often at a terrible human cost.

Another reason comprehensive sex ed would be a disaster for Minnesota's public schools -- deadly virus being passed among homosexual men

Another reason for not supporting comprehensive sex education in our Minnesota public schools, which some legislators wanted to mandate for every Minnesota public middle and high school, is the recent news of a deadly bacteria being transmitted among homosexual men who have sex.

According to the Reuters news agency:

A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.

They said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

"Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," said BinhDiep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco who led the study. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."

According to chemical analyses, bacteria are spreading among the gay communities of San Francisco and Boston, the researchers said.

"We think that it's spread through sexual activity," Diep said.

This superbug can cause life-threatening and disfiguring infections and can often only be treated with expensive, intravenous antibiotics.

It killed about 19,000 Americans in 2005, most of them in hospitals, according to a report published in October in the Journal of the American Medical Association...

Incidence of MRSA is rising along with the resurgence of syphilis, rectal gonorrhea, and new HIV infections partly because of changes in beliefs about the severity of HIV and an increase in risky behaviors, such as illicit drug use and having sex that abrades the skin, Diep's team wrote.

"Your likelihood of contracting each of these diseases increases with the number of sexual partners that you have," Diep said. "The same can probably be said for MRSA."....

Why is this another strike against comprehensive sex education? Because it promotes condoms and acceptance of various sexual behaviors and lifestyles. It mentions very little of abstinence and zero of marriage. More fuel on the fire of sexual promiscuity.

Homosexual sex is inherently unhealthy. This news report is another example.

CDC notes that teen pregnancies and out of wedlock birth rates are up in US and Minnesota

The CDC reported today that in Minnesota, the percent of teen births increased from 6.8% in 2005 to 7.0% in 2006 and the out of wedlock birth rate increased from 29.8% in 2005 to 31.7% in 2006. Nationally, the teen pregnancy rate increased from 10.2% to 10.4% and out of wedlock birth rates increased from 36.9% to 38.5% during the same time periods.

I believe the rise in teen pregnancy and out of wedlock birth rates is attributable to the ‘anything goes approach’ to sex we see the teen culture. And now it’s being pushed in schools through unhealthy comprehensive sex education programs which only makes matters worse.

The rise in out of wedlock birth rates is a very troubling development. It’s at all time highs and puts at risk the well-being of all concerned, especially children. Kids raised without the benefit of two parents are 5 to 6 times more likely to be raised in poverty, get in trouble with the law, have problems in school and personal problems.

As I said in a news release, "The sexual revolution of the sixties and its progeny today, as seen in these CDC figures, has been a disaster. It’s left in its wake a trail of broken hearts, disease, sickness, and even death. Our kids and society deserve better."

Star Tribune spikes real story - Superintendent Westerhaus resigns after voters affirm message of abstinence

As usual, the ever-shrinking Star Tribune refused to print the whole story regarding the election of Chris Lind to the Prior Lake/Savage school board last week.

In a slick bit of spin the Star Tribune shaded the story by reporting that the “district told [Lind] him he could not talk to students off-campus about religion.”

The truth is that District Human Resource Director Tony Massaros told Lind that he could not talk about sexual abstinence with students during or after school, on or off campus, during or after school hours.

See notarized testimony by Jim 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.

Why are the Star Tribune and the Prior Lake/Savage school board working so hard to color the story?

Perhaps it’s because comprehensive sex education is a colossal failure.

Fox News just reported more than 1 million cases of Chlamydia in the U.S. last year – the most ever reported for a sexually transmitted infection (STI). Never has it been more dangerous for youth to be sexually active.

Clearly, schools should be telling students that abstinence is the healthiest choice.

But instead of protecting our youth, the Star Tribune ideologues chose to shade the story, and Sup. Westerhaus resigned.

Voters override high school gag order on abstinence by electing Chris Lind to the school board

Chris Lind won't be silenced anymore.

Voters sent a clear message to Prior Lake-Savage schools last night by electing Chris Lind to the school board. Lind, who received 13.96 percent of the vote was the only non-incumbent elected.

Last June Lind was fired from his job as Prior Lake-Savage high school campus supervisor because of job performance. A closer look revealed that Lind was told by Tony Massaros, District 719 Director of Human Resources, that he could not talk about sexaul abstinence with students during or after school, on or off campus, during or after school hours.

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.

Looks like voters have given Lind, and his healthy message of abstinence, the bully pulpit.

Left bias from Star Tribune on abstinence until marraige sex education

Over the weekend the Star Tribune ran a story on the Department of Health's decision to not seek federal abstinence funding monies for a state program supported by Planned Parenthood. (That fact alone should raise red flags as to it's bona fides as a true abstinence until marriage program.)

The article by Josephine Marcotty served as an attack piece on abstinence until marriage curricula and message and again shows the liberal media bias against the common sense message, "Wait until you're marriage to have sex."

First, Marcotty uses the language of the left when she describes the abstinence until marriage approach as "abstinence-only" sex education. There's much more to true abstinence education than only abstaining. It's waiting to share the most intimate aspects of oneself with one person, not multi-partners or at one night stands.

Marcotty writes, "At issue is the question of whether adolescents and teenagers should be taught the view embraced by social conservatives -- that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases." What's controversial about that? It's true on its face. Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.

She goes on to say "Several recent studies have raised the decibel level in the national debate because they found that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers and adolescents." She doesn't say which studies those are or the controversial nature of those evaluations. There is plenty of evidence showing the abstinence message works.

Next she says, "In fact, critics of abstinence only education say it's prevalence might be one reason why the long decline in sexual activity among teenagers has stalled since 2001 and why American teens continue to have the highest rates of pregnancy and abortion in the industrialized."

Here she simply regurgitates the charges of contraceptive proponents without any response to the accuracy of these accusations. I would argue the exact opposite is true. The reigning orthodoxy in the sex education industry is condoms, condoms and more condoms. Since the onslaught of the sex revolution in the 60s we've seen an explosion of STDs from a few to a couple of dozen. I suppose she and "critics of abstinence only education" would say that abstinence caused that. In schools kids are inundated with condom messages; the main approach isn't abstinence until marriage but again condoms, condoms and more condoms.

Next she quotes from Michael Resnick, a UM professor who is a big proponent of condom education. He's hopeful we're moving away from the abstinence until marriage approach. "Are we seeing a turnaround in these positive trends because we are seeing the impact of ineffective educational strategies on kids?"

What's interesting about Dr. Resnick is a study he helped write was used as the basis for a monograph on sex education produced by the University of Minnesota in the late 1990s entitled, "Reducing the Risk: Connections That Make a Difference in the Lives of Youth." (The report Resnick helped write "Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" published in 1997 in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association." A longitudinal study on Adolescent Health published in JAMA in 1997.)

The monograph found that family characteristics that protect teens from early sexual intercourse and pregnancy were "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent sex" and "perceived parent disapproval of adolescent contraception." In other words, Resnick is now promoting activities which directly undermines factors which discourage early sexual intercourse and pregnancy among adolescents.

My comments on the subject, buried in the middle of the article, constituted three paragraphs of the 27 paragraph article.

Marcotty follows my comments by quoting from Bill Smith a vice president for SIECUS, the principal national promoter of comprehensive sex education standards which promote not only contraceptives, but also acceptance of homosexuality and oral and anal sodomy. He was aghast at my suggestion that STDs and emotional damage can happen to folks in their 20s not just teenagers.

Then she concludes with quotes from Brigid Riley, the head of MOAPPP the primary promoter of comprehensive sex ed in the state, and Resnick who said parents want to hear abstinence but also contraceptives.

Interestingly enough, a Zogby poll was done on parents views of the content of comprehensive sex education programs. If found that when parents discovered what's actually in comp sex ed curricula, e.g. promotion of condom use among other things, support drops dramatically.

Comprehensive sex ed advocates engage in a bait and switch approach. They say, "Oh we'll teach abstinence but we'll also information on contraceptives as well." A review of what their comprehensive sex ed curricula by the Heritage Foundation found the comp sex ed curricula actually spent less than 5% of their time on abstinence and zero on marriage. They spent over 600% more time on condom use than abstinence.

The bottom line in this battle over sex ed, abstinence and condoms is a worldview battle. On the one side are those who view sex as a recreational sport and have a pretty much anything goes attitude towards sex -- let's just try and mitigate the consequences through condoms and abortion. On the other side are those who maintain a moral vision of sexual expression within the context of a marriage relationship. History, common sense and morality point to the second approach as best for the individual and society.

Schwarzenegger protects marriage while exposing children to unhealthy sex education curriculum

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been busy of late, vetoing a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage while signing another that would force schools to promote unhealthy sexual activities and lifestyles.

The debate has shifted from same-sex marriage and judicial activism to "rights." The goal of homosexual activists is not tolerance or acceptance but the total censorship of any and all opposition to their unhealthy agenda.

Thankfully, thousands of Minnesotans rallied during the 2007 legislative session in support of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's veto of a similar comprehensive sex education bill that would have mandated the indoctrination of similar unhealthy sexual activities.

Rest assured, supporters of comprehensive sex education will be back with a vengeance in 2008. The Minnesota Family Council, and thousands of concerned and mobilized parents will be ready.

Blinded by an unhealthy ideology

By Chuck Darrell

One of the organizations touted at the showing of "Sex Ed and the State" was the Birds & the Bees project. As reported here and at Mfc.org, Birds & Bees teaches children how to perform anal-oral sex with a dental dam.

I doubt MOAPP will be able to convince many liberal legislators they'll have "cover" supporting unhealthy sex activities like rimming - even if they wear a dental dam.

This is another example of how ideology drives comprehensive sex education. The vast majority of Minnesotan's find it far too comprehensive.

Comprehensive sex ed and abstinence message

By Tom Prichard

The 2007 legislative push to mandate comprehensive sex education for all Minnesota public middle and high schools was really a Trojan horse for promotion of condoms and aberrant sexual lifestyles. Thankfully, Gov. Pawlenty's veto threat caused the unhealthy legislation to be dropped from the E-12 Omnibus bill.

Liberal legislators realize the public likes abstinence so they couch comprehensive sex ed in terms of abstinence. They say schools should take an abstinence-first approach to delaying initiation of sexual activity while also including education about the use of protection and contraception.

Yet that’s what pro-contraceptive advocates have done for years. They say, "Oh we’re for abstinence but kids should get information on contraceptives as well." Interestingly, a Heritage Foundation study of nine comprehensive sex ed curricula and nine true abstinence curricula came up with some interesting results. They found that comprehensive sex ed programs spent less than 5% of their time on abstinence and zero on marriage but 28% of their time on condom promotion. True abstinence curriculum spent over 50% of their time on abstinence and 17% on marriage.

For kids considering whether to have sex or wait until marriage, the comprehensive sex ed approach is tantamount to telling kids not to smoke but then spending the bulk of the time promoting filtered cigarettes. Or telling kids not to drink but then discussing lite beer.

It sends a mixed message which doesn’t work for cigarettes and alcohol and it won’t work for teen sexual activity. Legislators who want to mandate a condom message for our public schools are simply fuel on the fire. The ones who will get burned are our kids.

The fact is, comp sex education is all about ideology

By Chuck Darrell

Last night I attended Jim Winkle's documentary "Sex Ed and the State" at the Oak St. Theater. After the Q & A I spoke with Jim about "ideology" vs. "data", a common theme during the evening. Most of you know the argument; abstinence is based upon ideology and comp sex education is based upon scientific data. Science trumps ideology. Case closed.

However, for those of you that are open minded enough to think outside the box, I encourage you to follow the "facts" to their source. I think the facts will lead you to ideology. In other words, the rise in STDs, teenage pregnancy and abortion rates are the result of a progressive ideology towards sexual behavior.

The fact is, "Sex Ed and the State" failed to recognize the cause and effect between the ideology of sexual progressives and the negative outcomes comp sex education is designed to combat.

And, trying to reduce STDs or abortions without addressing the underlying ideology is like trying to reduce casualties in Iraq while refusing to acknowledge the war.

This requires some twisted logic - and a red herring. When abortion rates go up - blame abstinence. Report a rise in Chlamydia, blame abstinence. Increase in STIs and STDs - must be abstinence. (Al Gore blames global warming however.)

"Facts" based comp sex education is a denial mechanism designed to hide the failure of a sexual revolution that swapped abstinence-based values for the more "enlightened" partner of free sex. And now our kids are paying the price.

Think I'm wrong? Jim's documentary discussed a Clinton administration surgeon general report calling for comp sex education. However, the report was spiked because of the President's oral office shenanigans. The Oak St. audience found this to be humorous. Do you see the denial? The dysfunction?

How about the ideology?

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.

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.