National Review‘s courageous Byron York has stepped in today to set the record straight on Obama, sex-ed, and McCain’s Obama sex-ed ad.
York’s argument is basically this: sure, the bill in question does does provide for teaching children that there is a such a thing as inappropriate touching. But “the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade.” Ergo, Obama really wants to teach children how to avoid the consequences of sluttery.
Touchingly, York doesn’t bother to quote much from the bill (although, to be fair, he does link to it, and right away, too), relying more on little interviews in which he attempts to uncover Obama’s mindset at the time he voted for the bill. York does favor us with a few excerpts here and there, which serve to (of course!) bolster his interpretation.
Somewhere in the morass, you notice, McCain’s intentions have been conveniently forgotten.
The “logic” of the article is this: McCain’s intentions have been attacked as “shameful” and dishonorable race-baiting. But actually Obama’s motives may not have been conservative, er, pure – ergo, McCain’s motives must have been pure!
If you’re not registering a double-take, or if you’re done with that already, you might want to check out the actual bill in its entirety – you’ll notice two important things: it is about K through 12 (without breaking down what is to be taught in each grade), and ensures that parents get to look at the curricula and materials planned for their kid’s grade as well as empowering any parent to opt out.
