Imagine that McDonald's is the largest provider of free school lunches, through both state and federal programs.  Millions of dollars for millions of lunches.  Students consume large quantities of fat, carbs and sodium.  

Within a few years, there is a measurable negative impact on the health of the students.  Health officials become alarmed.  They open gyms near to the schools, offer free memberships, hire taxpayer-funded personal trainers, purchase the latest and greatest exercise equipment.  But they can't get the teens to go to the gym.

A massive Public Service Ad campaign across all media platforms ramps up to encourage teens to go to the gym.  There is a tiny blip up in gym memberships, which is hyped as "a successful campaign," but there is a persistently large group of students who are overweight and sluggish.

Health officials hire taxpayer-funded researchers to find out why teens don't exercise.  The studies show teens like Mickey-Ds more than they like working out.

A few parents suggest that perhaps McDonald's should not be the provider of free school lunches.  They volunteer to talk to students about inexpensive lunches they can bring from home which are healthier and easy to make.  It catches on.  

The concerned adults set up a 501c3 non-profit called the "Brown Bag Brigade."  Community support pours in.  The program doesn't cost the schools a thing, and produces great results:  The number of students who bring their lunch from home goes up, and there is a noticeable health improvement among the student body.

School officials, however, are unhappy.  Federal reimbursement for the number of school lunches provided decreases.  They have become dependent on that slush money to cover non-teaching-related benefits. 

McDonald's is unhappy.  Profits drop with every student who brings a healthier lunch from home.  Not to mention fewer kids with an after-school Mickey-D addiction.  "Supersize Me," a documentary about the addiction, goes viral.  McDonald's stock value drops precipitously.

Taxpayer funded gyms near every public school, become obsolete as fewer kids need them.  Layoffs of personal trainers, gym administrators and officials whose jobs relate to teen eating habits are threatened.  

To stop the hemorrhaging, McDonald's funds conferences to train employees facing layoffs to lobby politicians. Their behind-closed-door objective is to make it illegal for students to bring lunch from home.  They don't want students to even be TOLD it's an option.  Students must eat McDonald's free school lunches or nothing at all.  Conferences are set up to explain how to counteract the Brown-Bag-Brigade.  

It works. 

The message goes out: The real reason those people are telling teens how to make a healthy lunch from home is they HATE minority kids and don't want them to be go to their gyms!  

Brown-Bag-Brigade organizations receive "cease and desist letters" from school districts and the ACLU.  Businesses which had funded the volunteers going into public school are shocked to find they are being picketed and demonized as HATERS.  They get out of the "lunch-from-home" business.  Bumperstickers abound saying, "Lunch from home hurts our kids!"

The state decides children will NOT be told they can bring their lunch from home.  Front page news stories say parents WANT their children to eat Mickey-D's at school (based on the question, "If a child is otherwise going to go without lunch, do you want the school to provide a free McDonald's Happy Meal?")

Now that they are the ONLY OPTION, McDonald's gets even more contracts to provide free school lunches.  Within a few years, there is an increase in the number of students with health related issues like high-blood pressure, obesity, diabetes.  The government issues a statement that they are "shocked and alarmed"...

Does that sound ridiculous to you?  It shouldn't.  That's exactly what has happened in Sex Education.

Abortion providers and STD clinics receiving government funding were paid millions to tell public school student they can have multiple sexual partners, explore any and all sexual behaviors without risk as long as "they get tested and use protection."

This despite overwhelming evidence which PROVES:
  • Multiple sexual encounters with an infected partner, WILL eventually lead to transmission, even with protection. 
  •  There is no protection against some STDs.
  • There are some STDs which are asymptomatic and have no test.
  • The length of time it takes for an immune system to clear an STD can be years.
  • STDs have a much more severe impact on teenage girls.
  • Men who have sex with men have the highest incidence of STDs.
  • The more partners a person has the less likely they are to use condoms at all.
  • Sexually active teens do poorer in every way: scholastically, risk-taking, acting out, ability to sustain relationships, avoiding non-marital pregnancy, becoming infected, etc.
Nevertheless, students were taught their ONLY option was to: 
  1. Get tested and use protection (which were available at a clinic being paid to tell, test and treat them!).
  2. Get birth control or an abortion for unexpected pregnancy (also available anonymously and without parent consent from the clinic being paid to tell them and perform the procedure). 
For many years, there was a steady increase in teen sexual activity, infections and pregnancy.  

But in 2001, non-profits such as Positively Waiting! began promoting the benefits of sexual self-control.  It produced a measurable decrease in STDs, pregnancy and sexual activity among teens.  There were fewer teens in need of government funded testing, treatment or abortions.  

Organizations which had been providing taxpayer-funded sex education got fewer requests for their program and materials. Organizations bent on changing social mores about traditional marriage saw an erosion of support in areas where teens were not as sexually active.

In response, those organizations funneled a LOT of money into the system to pressure schools and politicians to abandon abstinence programs.  [Which were now described as "programs that don't want teens to know how to protect themselves!" although no such programs were in operation in any schools at the time.]  

Researchers found a majority of parents answered yes to: "Do you believe sexually active teens should have access to birth control?"  News stories proclaimed "Parents prefer Comprehensive Sex Education to Abstinence Education!"   

States took the bait and in 2006 banned non-profits which promoted sexual self-control.  In CA, the Education Code was changed so that textbooks could not depict any lifestyle outcomes as "undesirable."  Students were to be given easy access to free condoms from sex educators, school nurses, teachers and other anonymous adults without parental involvement.

In 2013, there has been a huge increase non-marital pregnancy rates, STD infections and broken relationships.  State officials are "shocked and alarmed."


Jeb Webster
07/22/2013 4:30pm

This is an amazing analogy. What is so obviously absurd in dealing with food becomes quite terrifying when related to teen sexual activity. Well done, Karen. This one was out of the park.


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply