Wolf Howling: sexualizing children

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

A Real Scandal

Today, the Obama administration dropped its right to appeal a judge's decision mandating that the Abortion Plan B pill be made available over the counter to underage girls without limitation - no prescription necessary, no need for parental consent. I've written on this before (see here and here). It is the left's war on the family and on religion. It is replacing parental discretion with the left wing government's judgement on how children should be raised, and it is furthering the left's goal of sexualizing our children. Of all the scandals coming out of Washington today, this one is the least noticed, yet the one with the greatest potential long term ramifications.

The Left In Loco Parentis & The Plan B Abortion Pill

. . . The defining issue for me — the one that launched me on a personal trajectory of confrontation with the Left and with my colleagues and friends — was the persistent undermining of the family as an institution. . . .
There were whole communities where committed fathers were almost totally unknown. Children as young as five were becoming highly sexualised from the example of their promiscuous mothers. Family breakdown was dissolving the bonds of society and civilisation itself. . . .
Melanie Phillips, Why The Left Hates Families, Daily Mail, 3 May 2013

In order to remake society, the left wars on the foundations of society, including the family. Since time immemorial, children have learned their values, their work ethic, their religion and their skills at the elbows of their parents. The left, however, wants the state to take over the role of the parents - to act in loco parentis - when it comes to inculcating modern left wing values. Sexualizing our children is perhaps the left's primary focus within this rubric.

The most recent example was the law suit brought by the Center For Reproductive Rights, a far left organization, seeking to make the Plan B abortion pill openly available to children - or as the Center worded this in their law suit, to "women of all ages." Prior to this lawsuit, under the Bush administration, the Plan B abortion pill was available without a prescription only to women age 18 and older. Not surprisingly, the Center was able to find a federal judge willing to impose their corrupt social policy on our nation. This is stomach churning.

Kathleen Parker, writing at the Washington Post, itemizes the litany of problems with this federal decision, rightly concluding that "public policy should be aimed at involving, rather than marginalizing, parents."

To say that this controversy is strictly political is no argument against debate. Politics is the debate about the role of government in our lives. And the debate about Plan B is fundamentally about whether government or parents have ultimate authority over their children’s well-being.

Kathleen Geir, writing in response to Ms. Parker at the far left Washington Monthly, makes it abundantly clear that this case is nothing more or less than the state being used to displace parental influence on their children in matters of sex. It really must be read to be believed. Her arguments can be summed up as that sex at any age should be free of any ethical or moral consideration, free of any physical consequence, and that parents should have no say in their child's sex life. She dismisses contrary argument on the rights of parents as "mere emotionalism":

Oh, I see! We’re just having a high-minded debate about the “proper role of government” here. Except that we aren’t: the conflict here isn’t parents vs. the government, it’s parents vs. the reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy of their daughters. Be that as it may, Parker is trying to make this about “the big bad government” vs. the rights of individual parents — who always, of course, have their daughter’s best interests at heart, and would never, ever physically or emotionally abuse her if she asked her parents’ permission to go on birth control. Forget about the specter of a terrified 12-year old girl who’s faced with the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy, who fears that her life may be ruined, and who then must grapple with the full array of health complications that pregnancy and birth entails.

It’s well worth mentioning here that many young girls become pregnant from sexual relationships that are not exactly what most of us would consider to be consensual. Studies show that teens are far more likely to become pregnant if their sex partner is older. For example, the pregnancy rate for girls age 15 to 17 is 3.7 times greater if their partner is six or more years older than they are, vs. two years older. Many teen pregnancies result from statutory rape, incest, or other abusive relationships. But hey, let’s just compound the trauma by denying these little sluts birth control and forcing them to deal with an unwanted pregnancy!

Another problem with Parker’s argument her blanket refusal to look at the alternative — i.e., what will happen if young girls are denied access to birth control. The debate here is not whether, or at what age, it’s okay for young girls to become sexually active. We’re talking about their right to prevent pregnancy once they do start having sex. Parker blithely assumes that, while young teens are not mature enough to pop a single pill within 72 hours of intercourse, they are mature enough to experience a full-term pregnancy, with all the life-changing, potentially traumatic physical and mental health consequences that entails. Excuse me, but WTF? Even if we restrict ourselves to the woman’s physical health alone, the risks of pregnancy and giving birth are far more serious than any of the very mild risks associated with Plan B.

But Parker’s piece relies on emotionalism rather than science. She resolutely refuses to trouble her beautiful mind with the facts.

5. And speaking of emotionalism: finally, there’s this — Parker pulls out her ace in the hole, and plays the parent card:

Question 2: Do you think that girls as young as 11 or 12 should be able to buy the morning-after pill without any adult supervision? Didn’t think so.

Question 3: If you answered yes to Question 2, are you a parent? Didn’t think so.
Sorry, I call BS on this. First of all, having a pregnant, underaged daughter on their hands is among many parents’ worst nightmares. Many would vastly prefer that their daughter had ready access to birth control, as opposed to the alternatives of supporting her decision to get an abortion, or the decision to carry a pregnancy to term, and (as usually happens in such cases) keep the baby. With birth control, there are far fewer agonizing decisions and is far less pain all around — let alone the fact that much of the responsibility for raising a baby born to a very young girl would inevitably fall on the shoulders of her parents.

Secondly, if parents really would prefer that their daughter be denied birth control, so what? Sorry mates, but it’s not your body and it’s not your decision. Legally mandated forced pregnancy — which is basically what you get when birth control options are shut down — is incompatible with human liberty and respect for the individual. Even children have some basic rights, and the right to refuse the physical and emotional burdens of pregnancy damn well ought to be one of them.

Finally, the other huge problem of playing the parent card is the dubious assumption that mommy and daddy can always see things more clearly and that they inevitably know what’s best for their little darling. But again, this is bogus. For one thing, daddy dearest or some other beloved male relative or stepfather may be the party guilty of raping and knocking up the daughter in the first place.

Beyond that, there’s the problem that many parents have bizarre, antiquated patriarchal notions about their daughters’ sexuality. You’d think that in 2013, parents would be less irrational and hysterically overprotective about these things than they were in the past, but in many ways they’re actually worse. The Christian right, with their chastity balls and virginity pledges, is one version of it; endlessly anxious, over-controlling helicopter parents are the bourgeois secular equivalent.

So no, I don’t think that father — or mother — necessarily knows best. Even if they’re not abusive, mom and dad may still have some pretty deranged notions about their daughter’s sexuality and some pretty serious control issues. . . .

There is no middle ground with the left. The classical liberalism of our forefathers that has brought us freedom, democracy, and material wealth will either triumph over these insane people or be destroyed by them.

Tweet

Read'n, Writ'n, & Butt Hump'n

Helena, Montana's new proposed elementary school curriculum seems to have taken a new twist indeed. It appears short on the teaching of reading and writing, long on sexualizing our children and teaching them to accept homosexuality.

I have several concerns in our culture wars. One, that our children are being sexualized. Two, that God and a generic judeo-christian morality have been ripped from the public sphere and our schools. And three, instead of leaving the teaching of morality to the parents, the left's secular ideology is now being taught to our children as the new morality. And all of those concerns are highlighted in the latest from Helena, Montana.

The Helena school board chairman has introduced a new gay friendly curriculum that will have kindergardeners introduced to penis's and vaginas. In First Grade, children will be taught to "understand [that] human beings can love people of the same gender . . ." This lesson is repeated in different forms in all future grades, as well as a block of instruction discussing how it is unacceptable to denigrate someone for being gay. By Fifth Grade, children will be taught about "oral, anal and vaginal" intercourse, and in Sixth Grade, they will be taught:

Understand that sexual intercourse includes but is not limited to vaginal, oral, or anal penetration using the penis, fingers, tongue or objects.

Well, that's just great - for my twenty-something son and daughter (or me for that matter). I think that is outrageous for an 11 or 12 year old student in elementary school to be exposed to this. Call me a prude. Further, whether homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle is a moral and religious issue, not something that lies within the purview of public schools. But by sixth grade, students are being taught that:

[S]exual orientation refers to a person’s physical and/or romantic attraction to an individual of the same and/or different gender, and is one part of ones’ personality.

Whether schools should teach children about sex and, if so, when is a reasonable area of debate. But the Helena, Montana proposed curriculum goes beyond any reasonable bounds of teaching about reproduction. Indeed, it borders on, if not strays into the arena of sexualing children and it completely oversteps its bounds in teaching that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. This is the left wing agenda on steroids. Our children need to be protected from their clutches. Step number one, vote for a new school board in Helena Montana - and in every other locality where the left is seeking to shape our children in their image.