Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, October 19, 2007
Brent Bozell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Abstainers Are Killers?
by Brent Bozell
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Portland, Maine, found itself in the national spotlight on the morning of Oct. 17. The King Middle School was debating whether to provide birth control to sixth-graders without their parents' consent or knowledge -- not just condoms, but even birth control pills or contraceptive patches.

ABC's "Good Morning America" picked up the story, with anchor Diane Sawyer first professing shock at the young ages involved, but then echoing the proponents' justification: Children "are caught in the changing worlds of early puberty and sexual messages everywhere."

That's the line that rings in the ear. ABC is addressing a social problem: How to deal with middle-schoolers wanting to have sex because they're inundated with sexual messages in ads, in music videos, with sexual themes endlessly discussed and dramatized on television?

Sawyer invited on talk show host Glenn Beck and "sexologist" Logan Levkoff (promoted by fans as the "Get It On Guru") to debate it. Sawyer asked Levkoff: "Would you draw the line anywhere? What if it were grade school?" Amazingly, she replied, "I don't necessarily draw the line, because we're in a world where we get so many sexual messages."

Levkoff lives in a parallel universe. We are talking about little boys and little girls, 11 years old.

The lesson from the anything-goes crowd is so illogical it borders on the obscene. In order to "protect the youth" from unsavory sexual messages, we should provide them will all the technology so they can have "safe sex" -- even at age 11. But who is responsible for this bombardment of sexual messaging in our culture that's fueling this fire?

ABC and all the other networks, along with many of their advertisers, need look no further than the mirror. More than any other element in our society, it is they who are responsible for the deluge, primarily -- though not exclusively -- through their entertainment products.

It's bad enough that they refuse to take any responsibility for their own sleazy product. But what's unconscionable is that TV dramatists are now portraying those who want to keep children free and safe from premature sexual activity as mentally disturbed, even as a social menace.

The swaggering shysters of ABC's "Boston Legal" went to court on Oct. 9 on behalf of a high-school girl who contracted the HIV virus from "unprotected" sex with a boy. The girl in this script sued not the infecting boy, not the boy's parents, but the high school that taught abstinence-only sex education. Continued...
1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Brent Bozell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(75 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Oct 21, 2007 - 12:25 PM EST
proportion
One more thing: when I mean proportion I mean that schools cannot engage in the fear tactics and myth regarding sex and the emotions that go with them
Hormonal fluctuations, tension, crushes, same sex orientation and puppy love are all very real and serve a purpose.
But teaching that homosexuality INEVITABLY means disease, early death, promiscuity and lack of ability in OTHER areas of life, is just plain irresponsible, untrue and damaging to the young gay psyche.
Making girls responsible for the negative attitudes or controlling actions that males employ is also damaging and irresponsible.
Yet, even those with the best of intentions, like clergy and other adults of influence DO damage youngsters in this way along gender lines and biases.
The typical ignorance that is laced with fear is evident any MANY TH posters.
The lack of education on some issues of sexuality IS appalling and begs that some of you could use your own education where it counts.
Having said that, Puritanical mores will ultimately have the effect of making children laugh at being out of touch on one hand, and lacking credibility because of hypocrisy on the other.
That's what you get for lying and denying kids the truth. Not fear passing for it.
Two teenaged girls, 15 and 17 murdered a young mother up here near where I live. Casual street violence isn't as common among young girls, but they are catching up.
Yep, our country has some serious educating to do, and scapegoating the wrong minority, or getting behavioral expectations along gender lines wrong, isn't the way to do it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Oct 21, 2007 - 12:14 PM EST
I love children
I love children, my first instinct is to protect and engage children too. It's one of the reasons I went into law enforcement.
I know what damages children and I know that turning them into VEAL doesn't help them either.
I've seen horrible neglect and abuse out there in the field, and I've heard it on the news too. I'm interested to know WHY these schools took this action, not just that they are doing it.
A few schools doing it, doesn't mean it's a common trend, but more likely something experimental.

Children CANNOT be lied to. The truth can be tempered and measured for their age, but lying, denial and lack of access to the truth and comprehensive information is dangerous, let alone unproductive. Because then, the only option a CURIOUS child will have, is getting it from ignorant and badly misinformed people.
Parents can and should have the option of taking the class first, and seeing if THEY missed current and reliable information and then they can pass it on to their child.
This is at least SHARING education and information.
But STOPPING it altogether isn't always a good option.
I'm appalled at this latest situation.
I hate it. Have we come to this?
I don't lie to children, and their parents wouldn't appreciate if I did.
I have been put in the position of mentor, advisor and other support.
My own background and the trust built has made parents feel their children are safe with me. And they are.
But I also know many children aren't safe with their own parents, sadly.
This is a reality.
I have a lot more questions regarding this new situation. There is something else there. I'd sure like to know what that is.
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.