“All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
[...]
(2) All (1) course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”

And from the article you linked, the head of the Illinois Education Ass. said:

“The intent of the language and inclusion of kindergarten was simply to make it possible to offer age-appropriate, not comprehensive, information for kindergartners so that those young children could be given basic information so that they would be aware of inappropriate behavior by adults,” Swanson told me. “Certainly, it was never intended to be some sort of inappropriate information that might be appropriate for junior high or high school students.”

You also cut off that Obama quote mid-sentence. He says: “But it’s the right thing to do, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.”

McCain’s ad take the education bill, and deliberately misrepresents the intent. How is that not a lie?

“Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of *grades K through 12* shall include instruction on the prevention of *sexually transmitted infections*, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

I read the bill (http://bit.ly/2L4JxS) and there are 15 points that it makes. Point 11 is the only one of them has to do with molestation.

Byron York from National Review actually tracked down one of the authors of the bill and to find out if Obama had been honest about the intention of the bill: http://bit.ly/2suSkh

—–clip—–
“When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health — both major contributors to the bill — “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.”…

After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “*I didn’t see it that way, either*,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”

So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

“*Absolutely not.*”
—–end clip—–

I just watched the ad again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs). The nut of the commercial, that Obama voted for a bill that taught comprehensive sex ed to kindergarteners, is accurate.

And to further clarify Obama’s stance, here is a quote from Obama last November at a Planned Parenthood event (where he is referring to Alan Keyes using the same line of attack as this McCain ad during the Senate campaign):

“I remember him, uh, using this in his campaign against me, saying, “Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners.” (laughter) And, you know, which — I didn’t know what to tell him. *But it’s the right thing to do.*”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ6vZRy62KY

Do you? Repeated studies have shown that kids taught abstinence-only have sex at the same time and in equal numbers as kids taught honest facts about contraceptives and STIs. The difference is, the abstinence kids are 50% less likely to use condoms or any sort of contraceptive.

Proponents for contraceptive education are not ’sexualizing our kids’, and abstinence is taught in every form of sex education as the best and safest way. Teaching kids about safety is just realistic and necessary.

“Of the one in six teenage girls who took a chastity pledge, 88 percent broke their vow before marriage, many within a few years. And girls who had taken chastity pledges were less likely to use condoms, and less likely to seek testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

The abstinence-only approach is rooted in a denial of the reality of teenage sexuality. By the age of 19, 70 percent of teenagers have become sexually active. Refusing to face this reality means that teenagers, especially young women, are ill-equipped to take responsibility for their own sexual choices and reproductive health.

In Europe, teenagers become sexually active in equal numbers as in the U.S., but contraception and comprehensive sexual education are widely provided. In addition, there is little societal pressure to remain abstinent. This goes a long way to explaining why the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is dramatically higher.”

There are many 17 year old girls out there that are NOT pregnant either. No one is “acting like this is the first time a 17-year-old girl got pregnant”. It’s just that, in my opinion, the upbringing of kids do reflect how competent their parents are.

Btw, if Palin is against sex education in high school and believe parents should do the job, then she better prove it herself by NOT having a pregnant teenage kid running around.