What if the StayPuft Marshmallow Man was invited in to say, "Sugar gives you energy!"
What if a man dressed as Samuel Adams delivered a presentation on how to drink responsibly?
What if they gave out free samples of their products? Now add to it that the school pays them to do it with taxpayer funded government grants. Wouldn't that seem like a conflict of interest?
That's business as usual in the sex education biz. Seriously.
The schools' response to the outrage in both cases was,
- The curriculum was "pre-screened and approved."
- Parents sign permission slips for the class and "can look at the curriculum" prior to the class.
- The curriculum came from a "community clinic" and has been used for years.
Let me repeat that: Their objective is NOT to prevent sexual activity. Their objective is to prevent UNPROTECTED sexual activity.
As a parent, or concerned adult, YOU might believe discouraging sexual activity among middle schoolers (or high schoolers, for that matter) is just a good idea... but you are grossly outnumbered by the number of adults in your child's world who ASSUME they will be having oral sex by age 10-12, and certainly be sexually active by the time they are 14.
And the people with the loudest, most insistent voices are the ones whose livelihood depends on providing birth control, STD testing and abortions.
If we wouldn't let Sam Adams, the Marlboro Man or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man hawk their products to children, how come no one objects when abortion providers hawk theirs?