Rita Diller

Opinion

Is Planned Parenthood in your children’s schools?

Rita Diller
Image

March 12, 2014 (STOPP) - We hear almost weekly from anxious parents who want to know whether Planned Parenthood is in their children’s school. Some have already started making phone calls and sending letters to the school district to find out when they contact us. Others are at a loss where to start.

Here is a resource to help you find quick answers about the prevalence, source, and format of sex education in your geographical area.

Q. Where in the US have sex ed programs been implemented? Where in my state have sex ed programs been implemented?

A. Sometimes we need look no further than the website of the enemies of life and morality to find a wealth of information. After all, these entities receive obscene amounts of government and/or foundation funding in order to advance their agenda and track their progress.

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.—a pro-abortion organization intricately intertwined with Planned Parenthood—maintains a website that it says “represents the most complete portrait ever assembled of sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the United States.”

It also tracks funding streams, grantees, and funded programs. It identifies “examples of model programs, policies, and best practices being implemented in public schools across the country that provide more comprehensive approaches to sex education in schools. The Fiscal Year 2010 edition undertakes the enormous task of creating a portrait of comprehensive sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs happening across the country and provides an unparalleled amount of information and includes profiles for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the other U.S. territories,” according to the SIECUS website.

Keeping in mind that SIECUS is 100 percent behind repugnant “comprehensive” sex classes and vehemently fights abstinence until marriage, one may follow this link and click on any state to find a great deal of information about funding received and programs being taught in various school districts across the state. Keep in mind, also, that this information is current only as of 2010. However, it was in 2010 that huge streams of renewable funding opened up for “comprehensive sex education” through the federal government.

Be aware that the programs that are referenced here as viable abstinence programs are not strictly abstinence. They teach about contraception and most go far beyond that. The contraception portions of many contain demonstrations that would scandalize grown-ups. If a program leans more toward abstinence and traditional marriage, SIECUS will complain that it uses fear-mongering, information and statistics promoting the benefits of marriage, heterosexuality, and other such things that SIECUS considers dreadful, bigoted, hateful, and harmful.

At the college level, Planned Parenthood maintains a presence on college campuses through its VOX (Voices for Choice) clubs and programs. To find whether VOX is on your campus, simply search the Internet for the name of your university paired with “VOX.”

A word about SIECUS: SIECUS was launched in 1964 by the Kinsey Institute to teach the Kinsey philosophy of sex education in American schools. Dr. Mary Calderone, a former medical director at Planned Parenthood, was the first director of SIECUS.

Dr. Alfred Kinsey authored the “Kinsey Reports” in 1948 and 1953. These reports were the basis for a sexual revolution that promoted and sanctioned promiscuity, pornography, and homosexuality. Kinsey’s research was disproportionally based on surveys of prison inmates, sex offenders, and prostitutes.

Quoting Concerned Women of America’s report, A Nation Deceived:

“To obtain data about the sexual behavior of children, Dr. Kinsey worked with trained pedophiles who sexually abused hundreds of children (as young as two months) to prove to the world that infants, toddlers, and juveniles could enjoy sex pre-puberty with the help of an adult. Their sexual torture was recorded as pleasure.” Read more about SIECUS here.

Q. How does Planned Parenthood and its network get into schools?

A. Anti-abstinence, “sex positive” entities with a broad national reach, like SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, Advocates for YouthAnswerETR Associates, and the Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy are instrumental in laying the groundwork to facilitate implementation of what the Planned Parenthood network refers to as “comprehensive sex education.”

Entities targeting regional areas to implement sex classes in schools recently revealed by STOPP include SHARE in Arizona, and WISE, now reaching into nine states.

SHARE: The Sexual Health and Responsibility Education initiative is the vehicle created by Planned Parenthood of Arizona to push its sex education programs into schools. According to the Planned Parenthood of Arizona (PPAZ) website, the Sexual Health and Responsibility Education initiative, or SHARE, is actively working to provide:

• Assistance with the selection of a comprehensive sexuality education curriculum that aligns with National Sexuality Education Standards-Core Content and Skills, K-12 [Read more about the National Sexuality Standards created by Planned Parenthood and cohorts here.]

• Resource support for teacher training

• Technical support-coaching and curriculum mapping

• Parent workshops

In fact, the job description for Planned Parenthood’s new community organizer/regional health coordinator in Yuma, Arizona, says that person, under the guidance of the PPAZ director of education “identifies target school districts and works with school leadership to move toward adoption of a comprehensive sexual health curriculum policy in these districts to advance the Sexual Health and Responsibility Education (SHARE) initiative.”

WISE: The Working to Institutionalize Sex Education initiative, with the goal of institutionalizing, or normalizing, the Planned Parenthood network’s repugnant, hedonistic “comprehensive” sex education, targets geographical areas with “favorable policy climates” for the normalization of sustainable school-based sex education. Current locations targeted by WISE include Washington; Oregon; California; Colorado; Iowa; Georgia; North Carolina; West Virginia; and Rochester, New York.

WISE works from the top down, beginning at the state education board level. By working at the state level, it is much easier to bypass parents in implementing laws that require or promote “comprehensive” sex classes in schools.

The Wednesday STOPP Report has covered the WISE initiative extensively. Read more about the far-reaching impact of WISE here.

Q. Who funds these blanket organizations pushing classroom sex education and legislation to require it?

A. SIECUS thanks “Anonymous Foundation, The Brico Fund, The Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, The Educational Foundation of America, and the WestWind Foundation” for funding its public policy and advocacy efforts, in its FY 2010 report.

According to the WISE initiative’s “method toolkit,” the initiative is “led by the Grove Foundation . . . [and] supported by a collaboration of funders including the Ford, William and Flora Hewlett, and David and Lucile Packard Foundations.”

SHARE is listed as an initiative of Planned Parenthood of Arizona. No funding source is identified.

Q. Who is teaching the PP curriculum? Teachers from districts or PP employees?

It varies from place to place. We know that Planned Parenthood of Arizona is training “facilitators to help teachers and other youth serving professionals develop the confidence they need to successfully deliver the curriculum to students.”

In Georgia, the lead WISE initiative partner GCAPP says,

The WISE Initiative services to school districts include: support in selecting sexual health curriculum, teacher training, parent workshops, and technical assistance as needed throughout the implementation process. Since 2009 GCAPP has trained 200 teachers in over 75 elementary, middle, and high schools to implement medically accurate, age appropriate curricula reaching over 17,000 students in the 2012-13 school year alone.

From the WISE toolkit website we learn:

In the first three years of the initiative, all of the WISE sites made significant progress toward their objectives. Collectively, over 100,000 students have been impacted due to WISE related activities; over 700 teachers have been trained; and 120 schools have implemented sex education where there was previously no sex education before or where it was significantly improved upon due to WISE.

Planned Parenthood keeps a low profile in the structure of WISE. However, looking down the ladder at the structure of the lead partners, Planned Parenthood comes clearly into focus. For instance, a WISE Iowa Project brochure lists Planned Parenthood as a partner. In Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains is an alliance member of Colorado Youth Matter, the organization that is leading the WISE initiative there. Similar connections between Planned Parenthood and WISE lead partners exist in other states receiving WISE initiative funding.

In Oregon, a list of WISE board members includes three Planned Parenthood employees. In California, one must dig a bit deeper to find Planned Parenthood’s involvement. There we find that ETR heads up the California WISE initiative. ETR began as the educational arm of Planned Parenthood of Santa Cruz. Former ETR marketing director Steve Bignell, editor of the Family Life Education curriculum and Family Life Educator magazine, served as education director at Planned Parenthood of Santa Cruz.

An educational venture presented by Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Planned Parenthood University offers “nationally recognized professional certification in reproductive health and sexuality education.” It awards a “Sexuality Education Certificate for educators, trainers, and outreach staff of Planned Parenthood affiliates and related organizations, providing sexuality and reproductive health presentations to groups in their communities and in schools and other educational settings.” The list goes on and on.

The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood participates, whether directly or indirectly, in many settings in teaching classroom sex classes, or in teaching others to teach sex classes in our schools. It is necessary to examine each location, and sometimes to dig very deeply into the structure of the program to determine Planned Parenthood’s involvement.

For detailed information about fighting Planned Parenthood sex education, read Jim Sedlak’s Parent Power!! Be sure to subscribe to the Wednesday STOPP Report and remember that its archives are searchable. It contains a wealth of information and research about Planned Parenthood sex education.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

News, ,

Trump vows to push LGBT rights, hedges on pro-marriage litmus test

Lisa Bourne

CONCORD, New Hampshire, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Does Donald Trump support the gay agenda or oppose it? On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, observers are still scratching their heads about where the GOP frontrunner actually stands.

Trump has repeatedly and consistently said he supports the natural definition of marriage, but can a President Trump be relied on to promote it resolutely and cogently? It is this question that has many marriage activists expressing concern about his increasingly likely hold on the GOP nomination.

In fact, the National Organization for Marriage has gone so far as to say that Trump has “abandoned” the pro-marriage cause.

Trump himself underscored the problem on the weekend when he told a New Hampshire television station that from the White House he would push “equality” for homosexuals even further forward.

A cable news reporter self-identifying as a lesbian asked him last Thursday after a rally in Exeter, "When President Trump is in office, can we look for more forward motion on equality for gays and lesbians?"

“Well, you can and look - again, we're going to bring people together. That's your thing, and other people have their thing,” Trump told Sue O’Connell of New England Cable News. “We have to bring all people together. And if we don't, we're not gonna have a country anymore. It's gonna be a total mess.”

Following the comments, Trump appeared Sunday on ABC’s This Week program with George Stephanopoulos and would not commit to appointing Supreme Court justices who’d overturn Obergefell, though that would be his “preference.”

STORY: ‘Anyone but Donald Trump’: Here’s his record on life, marriage, and religious liberty

“We’re going to look at judges. They’ve got to be great judges. They’ve got to be conservative judges. We’re going to see how they stand depending on what their views are. But that would be my preference,” he told Stephanopoulos. “I would prefer that they stand against, but we’ll see what happens. It depends on the judge.”

Trump’s comments follow his statements during a Fox News Sunday interview last week, when he said, “If I'm elected, I would be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things, but they've got a long way to go.” 

“[Marriage] should be a states rights issue,” Trump continued. “I can see changes coming down the line, frankly.” 

When asked by Fox if he “might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage,” Trump replied, “I would strongly consider that, yes.”

The real estate mogul criticized the Supreme Court for the Obergefell decision imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states last June, but then later in August, Trump voiced support to NBC News for banning companies from firing employees on the basis of sexual orientation. “I don't think it should be a reason” to fire workers, he said at the time on Meet the Press.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and a number influential evangelicals have endorsed Senator Ted Cruz in the race for president. The Texas senator has not only committed to appointing pro-marriage justices, but says the president and the states can rightly defy the “fundamentally illegitimate” ruling just as President Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision.

NOM has also been highly critical of Trump, saying he has “abandoned” their cause. The organization said in its January 27 blog post just prior to the Iowa Caucus that “Donald Trump does not support a constitutional amendment to restore marriage to our laws. Worse, he has publicly abandoned the fight for marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued their illegitimate ruling redefining marriage, Trump promptly threw in the towel with these comments on MSNBC: ‘You have to go with it. The decision's been made, and that is the law of the land.’”

NOM had said the week before that Trump “has made no commitments to fight for marriage, or the rights of supporters of marriage to not be discriminated against and punished for refusing to go along with the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.'”

New Hampshire voters have been tracked as showing support for homosexual “marriage,” as a poll last February showed 52 percent of Republican NH primary voters saying opposing gay “marriage” is unacceptable.

The latest CNN/WMUR tracking poll shows that overall 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a growing 17-point lead over the nearest GOP contender. RealClearPolitics polling average in the state puts him at 31.0 percent support, with Marco Rubio second at 14.7, John Kasich third at 13.2, and Ted Cruz fourth at 12.7.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Rich Koele / Shutterstock.com
Greg Quinlan

Opinion, , ,

The unravelling of Chris Christie

Greg Quinlan

February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- I'm a member of the clergy and for the past eight years have lobbied the powerful in Trenton, covering the administrations of both Governors Jon Corzine and Chris Christie.  I did much of my work on behalf of the New Jersey Family Policy Council, associated with Tony Perkins' Family Research Council.  I am currently the President of the Center for Garden State Families.

Those of us who are engaged in the fight to secure the right to believe, speak, and practice the Christian faith in America were all heartened by the election of a Pro-Life Governor in 2009.  Not only did Chris Christie run as an open Pro-Lifer, but he adopted a position in support of natural marriage in the course of the campaign.  And when legislative Democrats attempted to pass same-sex marriage in the lame duck session, so they could have outgoing Governor Corzine sign it into law, Chris Christie rallied opposition and stopped it.  Those were the early, hopeful days; but as Governor, Chris Christie has presented himself in an inconsistent, even scatterbrained way, often making decisions that go against earlier stated beliefs. 

One of his first decisions was to make a liberal Democrat the state's Attorney General.  Once approved by the Senate, and she was, the Attorney General could not be fired by the Governor, as was the case with other cabinet officers.  This gave a liberal Democrat enormous power and she used it to join up with liberal Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in filing a brief against Christians in a case called Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  Just one day after being sworn in, the newly appointed state Attorney General took the most aggressive legal posture available to defend former Governor Corzine’s one-gun-a-month handgun rationing law, moving to dismiss an NRA lawsuit to overturn the law, and later vigorously opposing the NRA’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the case.  Because of this appointment, New Jersey did not join in the lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare.

Governor Christie appointed a radical "sexologist" to run the NJ Department of Children & Families.  This appointee would later resign when it emerged that she had held the top job in an organization that had supported a study advocating the normalization of some forms of adult-child sex. 

His judicial appointments were also confusing.  While claiming to oppose same-sex marriage, Governor Christie nominated an openly gay Republican to the state Supreme Court who supported it.  Even Democrats wouldn't support this plainly unqualified appointment, and he never served.  The Governor supported the advancement of a liberal Democrat to the job of Chief Justice, while refusing to support the re-appointment of a Republican and the Court's most conservative member.  He also appointed a controversial defense attorney who had defended a number of Islamic extremists who had violated immigration law. 

In 2013, many of those in the Christian community opposed legislation that banned young people from receiving counseling and therapy to lead them away from homosexuality.  As an ex-gay myself, I could have personally attested to the benefits of such counseling, much of which is no different than what is found in contemporary twelve-step programs.  However, the Christian community opposing the ban was not afforded the opportunity to meet with the Governor.  Only the homosexual community with its pro-ban agenda was given that benefit.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

I don't blame the Governor for this, but I do blame his staff.  As President Ronald Reagan said, "personnel is policy," and  Governor Christie's choices in personnel have not advanced the policies he campaigned on, and often it was the direct opposite.   

New Jersey ended up being just the second state in the country that only allows young people to receive counseling that advocates homosexuality, but bans by law counseling that advocates heterosexuality. When he signed it into law, Governor Christie embraced the made-up "science" of the propagandists, when he cited un-specified "research" that "sexual orientation is determined at birth."  This is the so-called "gay-gene" trope that has baffled those engaged in the Science of Genetics because it has never been discovered.

As a candidate for Governor, Chris Christie talked the talk and raised the expectations of Christians in New Jersey. As Governor, and especially in his appointments, Christie undermined our confidence in his leadership. Christians should ask tough questions before extending our faith in him again.



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Center for Medical Progress lead investigator David Daleiden speaks at an event in Washington, DC, before the 2016 March for Life. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

News,

Pro-life investigator hits back with new footage after judge blocks release of abortion sting videos

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

SAN FRANCISCO, February 8, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A new video from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows two National Abortion Federation (NAF) employees saying that abortion clinics would be interested in kickbacks from profits on fetal tissue and body part sales.

The video comes three days after a San Francisco imposed an injunction sought by NAF against CMP videos that one of the abortion group's attorneys said meant that "NAF's members can sleep a little easier tonight."

CMP accused the pro-abortion organization of hiding behind the court.

According to U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick, however, NAF "made...a showing" that release of CMP videos would harm rights to privacy, freedom of association, and liberty of NAF members.

URGENT: Sign the petition to Harris County urging them to drop the charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Click here.

"Critical to my decision are that the defendants agreed to injunctive relief if they breached the agreements and that, after the release of defendants’ first set of Human Capital Project videos and related information in July 2015, there has been a documented, dramatic increase in the volume and extent of threats to and harassment of NAF and its members," wrote Orrick.

Additionally, the judge found that CMP's videos “thus far have not been pieces of journalistic integrity, but misleadingly edited videos and unfounded assertions," and that nobody from the abortion industry “admitted to engaging in, agreed to engage in, or expressed interest in engaging in potentially illegal sale of fetal tissue for profit" in the CMP videos.

However, in a new video released today that is unrelated to the injunction, a NAF employee told undercover journalists that kickbacks "definitely [sound] like something some [of] our members would be really interested in," with another chiming in that money from private purchasers to abortion clinics were "a win-win" for clinics.

The undercover investigators, who had purported to be part of a biotechnology company with an interest in fetal parts, were offered the chance to be at a NAF conference. “We have an exhibit hall and then we also have the general conference. But I mean, this is a very great way to talk to our members. We have a group purchasing program through our membership,” the journalists were told. “So it seems like this would be a really great option to be able to offer our members, as well.”

This is the second ruling against CMP in recent weeks, and the second by Orrick since July. The San Francisco judge issued a restraining order against CMP related to NAF's 2014 and 2015 meetings in San Francisco and Baltimore that Friday's ruling extended.

The other recent ruling came in the form of an indictment of CMP's David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Merritt and Daleiden turned themselves into Houston authorities for booking and processing last week. After being released on bail, Daleiden spoke at a LifeSiteNews/Christian Defense Coalition press conference after which more than 100,000 petition signatures backing Daleiden were dropped off to the Harris County, Texas District Attorney's office.

According to Orrick, who says he reviewed the more than 500 hours of recordings from CMP, "It should be said that the majority of the recordings lack much public interest, and despite the misleading contentions of defendants, there is little that is new in the remainder of the recordings. Weighed against that public interest are NAF’s and its members’ legitimate interests in their rights to privacy, security, and association by maintaining the confidentiality of their presentations and conversations at NAF Annual Meetings. The balance is strongly in NAF’s favor.”

NAF did not respond to a request for comment about the allegations by Orrick and a NAF spokesperson that CMP's videos have caused threats and other security concerns against NAF members.



Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook