THE STOPP REPORT

Conclusion

This is another in a long line of offensive books PP is pushing for children and should be opposed by all STOPP supporters.

Special sex education issue

STOPP has often pointed out the fact that Planned Parenthood depends upon classroom sex education programs to provide new customers for its contraceptive business. Obviously we are at complete odds with Planned Parenthood when it comes to the perverted sex ed programs it promotes in schools throughout the country.

Recently STOPP took part in a sex education workshop at American Life League's June 2001 conference in Minnesota. This workshop not only exposed Planned Parenthood's plans for the future but also discussed whether abstinence-only or chastity-based classroom programs were the answer to PP-style sex ed programs. In this issue of the Ryan Report we will share some of the insights from the conference with readers.

STOPP's sexual morality education policy

Let's be very clear, right from the start, about STOPP's policy regarding sex education. The three main points listed below are excerpts from American Life League's policy statement on the matter. STOPP helped formulate this policy. We urge you to read the policy in its entirety.

• American Life League [and STOPP] will support only educational programs that unequivocally express the truth: there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and no one has the "right to choose" morality.

• American Life League [and STOPP] will support only educational programs that teach sexual morality in the context of leading children toward the practice of virtue and that avoid examining the subject of sex in any concrete, detailed or descriptive way in the classroom or other public setting.

• American Life League [and STOPP] will support only educational programs that recognize, respect and support the primary role of parents in the moral formation of their children and their prerogative to impart any information beyond the abstract on the subject of sex privately, delicately and at the appropriate stage of development for the individual child.

Obviously, Planned Parenthood's sex education courses fail to meet any of the above criteria.

PP helps surgeon general make his pro sex ed report

A recent sex education threat from Planned Parenthood comes through a surgeon general's report PP helped create. This past summer, Surgeon General David Satcher released a report titled, "The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Behavior." In it he says the following:

"This evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity, either by hastening the onset of sexual intercourse, increasing the frequency of sexual intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners" (p. 11).

Later he says, "Few would disagree that parents should be the primary sexuality educators of their children or that sexual abstinence until engaged in a committed and mutually monogamous relationship is an important component in any sexuality program. It does seem clear, however, that providing sexuality education in the schools is a useful mechanism to ensure that this Nation's youth have a basic understanding of sexuality."

Notice how Satcher avoids the term "marriage," preferring instead to say "committed and mutually monogamous relationship." Notice also that abstinence is only a "component" in any sexuality program. Taken as a whole, Satcher's "Call to Action" is really a call for typical Planned Parenthood style comprehensive classroom sex education which pays some lip service to abstinence but whose main message is one that encourages contraceptive use.

It should come as no surprise that Planned Parenthood Federation of America's president, Gloria Feldt, hailed Satcher's report. Planned Parenthood's own people helped develop the document. Listed as contributors on page 25 are Jacqueline E. Darroch and Jennifer J. Frost, both of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood's own research arm. Lisa Dominguez of Planned Parenthood of New Mexico is listed on page 26 as one of the leaders of a discussion group that helped develop the document and, later, on page 27, as one of the reviewers of the document. Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perpectives is listed as a reference a dozen times in Satcher's "Call to Action."

Joining Satcher's array of pro sex ed contributors is discussion group leader Deb-orah Haffner of SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) and "sexpert" Douglas Kirby of ETR Associates. Kirby is listed as a contributor, a steering committee member and a reviewer. His influence is unmistakable in Satcher's document.

Kirby recently released his own study entitled "Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy." Kirby, according to the Washington Times (6/7/01), claims sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity. Critics of Kirby's study have pointed out that Kirby works for ETR Associates and that ETR Associates (which began its existence as the education arm of Planned Parenthood of Santa Cruz, California) developed and continues to market two of the programs that Kirby concluded have the strongest evidence of success.

Like Kirby, Planned Parenthood also has a conflict of interest. Would Satcher invite the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company to help him develop a "Call to Action" document about the health dangers of smoking? Not likely. Yet Satcher has turned to PP for help in developing his sex health "Call to Action." PP makes millions of dollars selling contraceptives and abortions. Comprehensive classroom sex ed programs encourage sexual promiscuity by teaching kids about such contraception and abortion. Thus, comprehensive sex education programs ultimately bring lots of money to Planned Parenthood.

Keep in mind that Satcher is a Clinton appointee. When Satcher was nominated for surgeon general, Sen. John Ashcroft strongly opposed Satcher, citing Satcher's opposition to a ban on partial-birth abortion as a reason.

Why has Bush, who claims he is pro-life, kept pro-abort Satcher as surgeon general? How can Satcher be on the same team as pro-life Attorney General John Ashcroft, one of Satcher's most vocal opponents during the Senate confirmation process? Bush should ask for Satcher's resignation immediately.

STOPP supporters can call the White House comment line (202-456-1111) and ask that President Bush demand an immediate resignation from Surgeon General David Satcher. Ask also that President Bush replace Satcher with someone who will not be a mouthpiece for Planned Parenthood's perverted sex ed agenda.

Countering pro-sex-ed studies

As evidenced by the previous article, the Planned Parenthood comprehensive sex ed agenda is often supported by "studies" by various "experts" in the field. Not only are such studies used to promote government funding of sex education, but they also can be used to establish sex ed programs in school systems and to deflect criticism from concerned parents regarding sex ed in the schools.

One tactic STOPP supporters can use to counter the effect of such pro-sex-ed studies is to question the objectivity of the source, as we did above in the case of Satcher's report and Kirby's study. It is also nice to have some authoritative studies that support your viewpoint as well. Below we review two important studies that can be used for this purpose.

The 1990's saw a significant decrease in reported adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. To justify teaching kids to use contraception, PP is trying to convince the public that these declines were caused by improved contraceptive use. The following statement found on the PP Action Fund web site in October 2000 illustrates such attempts: "80% of the decline in teen pregnancy is a result of more effective contraceptive use and about 20% is a result of delayed sexual activity" (The Guttmacher Report, 1999).

What Planned Parenthood doesn't say is that "more effective" often means long-term "contraceptives" that frequently act as early abortifacients, thus many actual pregnancies are never counted as such, and many more abortions are occurring than are being counted.

STOPP sex ed fighters can counter Planned Parenthood's claim by pointing to a 1999 study commissioned by the Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils. "The Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy, Birth and Abortion Rates in the 1990s: What Factors Are Responsible?" was written by Jeffrey M. Jones, M.D., Ph.D., and 10 other M.D.s. The document says:

"However, the contention that these declines are due to increased contraceptive use by teenagers does not withstand critical analysis and review… Abstinence and decreased sexual activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. Attributing these declines to increased contraception is not supported by the data."

You can obtain a copy of this valuable study by calling the New Jersey Physicians Resource Council directly at 877-236-5772. STOPP can also e-mail you the PDF file version if you drop us a line by e-mail. This is a very well documented study that has been showcased by many pro-life groups, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (on their website) and by STOPP (in the November 2000 "STOPP Update"). We still find, however, that many people at the grassroots level are unaware of its existence.

The Physicians Consortium released a study in January of 2001 entitled "A Perspective on the Medical Implications of the Virginity Pledge among Teens" by Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. and three other doctors. The Physicians Consortium consists of physicians from 19 individual state Physicians Resource Councils. The 2001 study concludes with the following:

"As a group of more than 2000 physicians who deal daily with the ravages of STDs and teen pregnancy, we see a simple solution: abstinence until marriage with an uninfected partner and monogamy thereafter. This is the lifetime prescription for optimal sexual health.

Our position on the matter of marriage is based on medical experience as well as science. Research overwhelmingly documents the fact that abstinence until marriage is the optimal medical model regarding sexuality. Individuals who remain sexually abstinent until marriage are better off medically, socially, educationally, economically and psychologically than those who have sex outside of marriage. Groups that attempt to discredit abstinence until marriage as a religious message apparently ignore a vast body of science. It is our opinion that those who oppose the concept of abstinence from a medical point of view have been greatly influenced by the fraudulent "research" of Alfred Kinsey, a zoologist who has been completely discredited by mainstream science. As physicians, we are concerned about the health of our patients. Abstinence until marriage to an uninfected partner, and monogamy thereafter, is the optimum health message. This fact is not altered because some people may choose not to marry or others do not believe that sex and marriage should be linked.

The challenge for medical professionals, parents, public health workers, educators and other youth leaders is to create a compelling vision for this goal and direct teens toward it."

To get a copy of this 2001 study call the Physicians Consortium at 612-827-9552. Note that this is a different number from the one given earlier for the 1999 report. Both of these studies are useful to present to teachers or school board members if you are working to get a PP style sex ed program out of your public school district, or trying to keep such a program from being initiated.

Father Marx on sex ed in Catholic schools

Fr. Paul Marx, in the Sept. 1992 HLI Special Report (No. 94), made an often quoted statement regarding sex education in Catholic schools which is very relevant to matters we have discussed in this issue. He said, in part, "some 90% of married, Catholic teachers of childbearing age are contracepting or have been sterilized," and that "it's impossible for these so-called Catholics to teach, generate or inspire chastity, because they don't practice it themselves…the best sex education any child can have is a loving set of parents, who were properly prepared for marriage, and who obey and live out the rich and comprehensive teachings on chaste, loving, fruitful sexuality contained in the total Christian/biblical message."

Fr. Marx is not simply saying parents should teach sex ed, he is saying parents who obey the Church's teaching should be teaching sex ed to their children. This last point is an important distinction, which many have not made in the past. Too often we hear simply that parents should be teaching their children about these matters. The problem is that most Catholic parents (just like most Catholic teachers according to the Fr. Marx quote) are themselves contracepting.

An advocate of sex education in Catholic schools might very well argue that if we simply expect Catholic parents to teach their kids about sex, we are likely, in the majority of cases, to get a worse product than one would get from a school based program because so many parents are contracepting. How can we expect such parents to teach their children what the Church teaches? There are several responses to such an objection:

• The teachers come from the same Catholic population so they are not likely to be any better.

• "Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it" (Familiaris Consortio, 36).

• Even in the case of something as important to salvation as baptism, the Church does not generally baptize a child unless there is some reasonable evidence that the parents will it and will nurture the child in the faith. Perhaps a similar attitude has to be taken toward those unfortunate children that have parents who are contracepting. One might wish to try to reach these children via correct Catholic teaching in the schools regarding human sexuality, but if the parents are giving a different message, how effective can such education be anyway?

In his speech at the American Life League's Celebration of Life World Family Conference banquet on June 23, 2001, Fr. Marx pointed out that some seminaries do not teach future priests about contraception. Perhaps, in order to solve the problem of contracepting teachers and parents who can't be trusted to educate children properly regarding human sexuality, bishops should be focusing on programs in the seminaries rather than programs in the Catholics schools. If priests do not give the proper teaching to parents and teachers from the pulpit and in the confessional, how can we expect parents to be able to impart the proper teaching to children? (We are not talking about the seeming minority of Catholic parents who do follow the true teachings of the Church).

Fr. Marx sums up the solution this way:

"Too few children have such parents, [who obey the teachings of the Church regarding sexuality] some will argue. But this only proves that a generation of young peo-ple has been mistaught. Planned Parenthood-type sex ed programs and their offspring, the abstinence/chastity programs, won't rehabilitate these victims, whether children or parents. Let's make every effort, then, to produce no more mis-educated children. Let's teach children on every level the entire Faith in a comprehensive catechesis, supported by integral, orthodox preaching from the pulpit" (HLI Special Report, No. 94, Sept, 1992).

Are abstinence/chastity programs the answer?

The following is an excerpt from the notes of a talk given by Cathy Brown at American Life League's Celebration of Life World Family Conference in Minnesota in June 2001. We thank Cathy for permission to print this. Readers can order an audiotape of her presentation (and others from this conference as well) from St. Joseph Communications, Inc., P.O. Box 720, West Covina, CA 91793-0720.

The primary argument for teaching abstinence education or chastity education in the school is that parents are not doing their job. They are not taking their God-given responsibility seriously. And not only that, but also many parents are not living chaste lives themselves, thus making it impossible for them to teach their children.

It can become quite overwhelming to sift through all of the ideologies on abstinence education. There are so many different schools of thought.

We have: comprehensive sex ed, abstinence - plus, abstinence only (consequence based and character based), abstinence in the public school, private school, and Catholic schools. We have CCD programs that want to implement the programs. NFP joined the ranks with many who want to teach fertility awareness to young ladies with the hope that they will learn to respect themselves and their bodies. Then we have chastity speakers, literature, and books - geared to teens and adults who want to help.

We can throw comprehensive sex education out the window without a thought. Nothing PP style is good for our kids. I don't think I have to go into depth about the reasons why comprehensive sex-education is a bad idea. And not just a bad idea, but an immoral one.

Actually most chastity and abstinence programs are geared toward protecting our children from PP. And how do you combat a giant like Planned Parenthood who snuck in the back door and stripped parents of their God-given right to educate their children before anyone knew what was happening? You initiate abstinence programs.

Quickly though before we go on, let's throw into the mix the fact that the definition of abstinence alone has become quite relative. According to PP - many deviant behaviors can be enjoyed while a teen still wears the label "virgin." Abstinence, they say, is defined by the individual. We can safely toss out any program that adheres to this philosophy as well.

Chastity educators take it a step further and promote a respect for sexuality both outside and inside of marriage. They address peripheral issues like modesty, honor, what it means to be a man or a woman of God.

So, what then is the ultimate goal for those of us who want to help fight Planned Parenthood and save our kids? What do we want for them? The goal (if it isn't it should be) is Heaven. We want our kids to know, love and serve Christ. Ultimately we are concerned for their souls. Because if we succeed in helping them avoid the temporal consequences of sex outside of marriage but they still lose their souls, we really haven't helped them at all.

So we need God.

We need kids to understand that there are moral absolutes - there is right and wrong - there is a hell. Something the majority of kids don't believe today.

Sex outside of marriage is wrong - it's immoral - you can go to hell for it. That's the bottom line - now obviously we can't just walk into the classroom and say that and nothing else - but it should be the main point always.

In the public school we can't do this. You can't even mention God unless you are giving a personal testimony. I have known a number of public school abstinence educators. All of them are amazing, God-filled individuals. Some of them are strong Catholics with a deep love for the kids they teach and sincerely want to be part of the solution. I asked what they do since they cannot talk about God.

They talk about consequences - they have nurses come in and shock the kids with pictures of STD's and statistics about pregnancy. They play games designed to teach kids the rewards of waiting for something. They talk about the positives of abstinence, that it builds character. But they don't—because they can't—ever say it's wrong. They say it can hurt you, others, society, but they don't say that it hurts your soul. So ultimately most young people in their classes are left to decide what's right for them—exactly where PP wants them, value free-making decisions based on their perception of what's good for them.

It's what is commonly called values clarification - a term that I have learned is quite misunderstood. This ideology dismisses the possibility of absolute moral truths and asserts instead that people are free to make their own rules, to personally fashion their own unique code of morality to choose whatever behavior pleases them most at a given time with little, if any, consideration of the common good. It teaches that a behavior is not morally good or evil, rather "wise or foolish" actions that can vary from time, place and circumstance.

It rejects the concept of personal sin. And it is something that the church is opposed to: In Familiaris Consortio (37) we hear the Pope say, "The Church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles. That would merely be an introduction to the experience of pleasure and a stimulus leading to the loss of serenity - while still in the years of innocence - by opening the way to vice."

I'm not saying that this is the intent when teaching in the public schools, but when you cannot even mention morality - you certainly run a great risk. So, what do we do? Do we get out of the public schools? Most would say no way. If we leave, PP moves in.

But, what if all of the time, energy and money expelled to create new and better abstinence programs was used instead to fight PP, to remove sex ed altogether - to educate parents and help them understand their obligations as parents. Could it be that some abstinence educators see some benefit in teaching kids about sex - they just want to do it the "right" way.

It became pretty obvious at ALL that any educational programs that do not talk about morality, that do not talk about right and wrong, cannot be condoned.

What about Catholic schools and CCD programs? Here you can talk about God - a step up from public school programs, right? Not exactly. Remember the goal - heaven. We reviewed a number of these programs. While some of them were obviously well-intentioned they, as far as we could tell, missed the mark.

I looked at a couple of programs that are in use today. One that greatly baffled me was a new initiative to teach NFP to young girls. While I understand the intent - teaching young girls about their bodies will help them develop a respect of themselves that will keep them chaste. I watched a speaker try this on a group of 8th grade girls. The girls left embarrassed, not empowered to protect themselves.

I looked at another - one that has caused quite a stir around the country - even in my hometown. It's called Growing in Love - carries the imprimatur. This program for kids K-8 is disgusting. Even in kindergarten the content is graphic. Why? To beat PP to the punch I am told. Something Pope Pius XI warned us about way back in 1929:

"Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers. Such persons grievously err in refus-ing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; [Rom. VII, 23] and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace" (On the Christian Education of Youth, 65-66).

So instead of letting PP rob them of their innocence we decided to do it ourselves. Again, why don't we just fight PP and let our kids be kids. I thought about this the other day while I was watching my 8-year-old son hunt for frogs in the ditch. He methodically went through the ditches in the neighborhood for about two hours. It's all he could think about all day. I think that is so awesome - why should he carry the weight of the world on his shoulders? All he needs to concentrate on is being a kid. He's home schooled and programs like Growing in Love are precisely the reason why.

My son knows this about babies. You need a mommy and a daddy to have a baby. How did the baby get into the mommy's womb? God put him there. How does he get out? The doctor takes him out. How? It's complicated.

When I read "Growing in Love." I was shocked. I felt violated. I read information that I have never been told, didn't know, and don't need to know, and I'm 30. I had to stop reading eventually because it was making me sick.

All that information like this does is place a huge burden on children. It was pretty obvious why these sex-ed programs were wrong as well. It's again this false notion that more information is better.

Some will and do argue that they only use the good parts of these programs - they filter out the filth. That's like sending your daughter to PP for a checkup (checkups aren't inherently bad) because they do them for a low fee. Why would anyone take that kind of a risk with a child? Because it's not just about the content - it's about the presentation.

So, I'm pretty certain at this point that all programs that offer explicit info about sex - regardless of whether or not they contain info about morality - they are all wrong.

But what if there was a program, a speaker, that focused on morality only (chastity only) with consequences being an after thought? This would be acceptable, right?

The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (66) says, "Each child's process of maturation as a person is different. Therefore the most intimate aspects, whether biological or emotional, should be communicated in a personalized dialogue. In their dialogue with each child, with love and trust, parents communicate something about their own self-giving which makes them capable of giving witness to aspects of the emotional dimension of sexuality that could not be transmitted in other ways."

I have to be honest - we have tried this over the years at ALL and it always fails. And, why the focus on chastity anyway? If the goal is to help them get to heaven, the focus should be on virtue. Pride will send you to hell just as quickly as lust.

Before the ninth grade you run the risk of violating a child's latency period. After the ninth grade you run the risk of searing their modesty.

The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (55) says, "Therefore, it must be stressed that education for chastity is inseparable from efforts to cultivate all the other virtues and in a particular way, Christian love, characterized by respect, altruism, and service which after all is called charity. Sexuality is such an important good that it must be protected by following the order of reason enlightened by faith. The greater a good the more the order for reason must be observed in it. From this it follows that in order to educate in chastity, 'self-control' is necessary, which presupposes such virtues as modesty, temperance, respect for self and others, openness to one's neighbor."

There are those who say - look, for many of these kids, their modesty has already been seared. So aren't we just doing damage control? The assumption there being that you know every kid in your audience—his home life, his experiences, etc.

The fact is - and this is the punch line - parents are in the best possible position to provide this information. But, they're not doing it, so maybe we need to help them do it. The position of the National Federation of Catholic Physicians Guild is:

"Healthy sexuality cannot be taught in the classroom, it cannot be taught by strangers, it cannot be taught apart from the family. When parents fail in their responsibility to their children, it is they who must be educated for, for better or for worse, it is they who will educate their children in these matters…The truth is that the school simply cannot compensate for the failures of the home… And it is the formation, not the information, that counts"(see Veil of Innocence).

After all, it is they who will have to stand before God one day and tell Him why they didn't educate their children. God help us if their answer is, "No one ever told me I was supposed to. Besides, someone else did it for me." We are usurping their rights and they don't even have a clue. And we justify it by saying that, well, PP usurped their rights first. Could it be - could the answer be that nothing short of parents being parents will help turn the tide? Do parents even know? Do they know what latency periods are? Do they know how damaging sex ed is? Do they know that they have an obligation to teach their kids at home?

It may seem that we are opposed to teaching abstinence/chastity. Not so. We're just not sure that as a movement we've addressed the problem the right way. We've been targeting the wrong audience.

You can make a difference

For many years, parents have used a resource provided by STOPP to fight sex education. It has helped get rid of sex education programs in dozens of schools and reduce the impact of the programs in others. That resource is a book called Parent Power. You can order a copy from our resource department or download it from the web (see action items).

Action items

• Fighting sex ed in a public school? Download a free copy of Jim Sedlak's Parent Power, or order the printed version at 866-LET-LIVE.

• Got a sex ed program in your Catholic school? Get a copy of Jim Sedlak's brochure, "Fighting Sex Ed in Catholic Schools" by calling HLI at 800-549-LIFE.

• Want to learn more about why sex education is bad? Get STOPP's video series on PP and listen to talk #4. You can order the videos by calling 866-LET-LIVE.

• Want to educate parents or clergy in your community? Invite Ed Szymkowiak or Jim Sedlak to speak on sex education, why it's wrong and how to fight it. Call 540-659-4171, ask for Rozann.

• Want to help defeat Planned Parenthood? Let people know about its offensive sex education programs and how it hurts our children.

• Send a tax-deductible donation today to help us keep fighting PP and sex education.

• Pray that God will lead us in our work and that we will always have the courage to do His will.

Back issues of the Ryan Report.