From the August 2000 Idaho Observer:

CDC programs pervert minds of public school children

Federal government insists upon imprinting next generation with deviant sex traits

Last month we exposed the Massachusetts Department of Education as sponsoring a how-to workshop designed to teach 12 to 14-year-olds about gay and lesbian sexual behavior. After reading the shocking details of the Massachusetts workshop presented under the guise of teaching tolerance, and the CDC programs in the article below, how can there be any question that the goal of contemporary public instruction is to hopelessly undermine all traditional concepts of morality and decency in our children?

By The Idaho Observer

CANTON, Ohio -- Under the guise of fighting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a scheme using our federal tax dollars to pervert the minds of our children in the public schools of America. Ohio State School Board member Diana Fessler uncovered the CDC's program and has successfully stopped it in Ohio -- at least temporarily.

Fessler reported that nearly all states are receiving CDC money, mostly through state departments of education or health.

So far, according to Idaho Citizens Eagle Forum President Dani Hansen, the Idaho Department of Public Instruction has not yet applied for participation in any of the three CDC pro-homosexual programs. Hansen is not too sure how much longer Idaho will hold out. “With our new exiting standards health curriculum, this may become a real problem, the standards certainly allow for these programs,” Hansen said.

The CDC has developed manuals which are part of its “Programs That Work” (PTW) and include “Be Proud! Be Responsible!”, “Becoming a Responsible Teen,” and “Reducing the Risk.”

The CDC has reportedly made its perverse educational materials available to school districts nationwide.

The first step in implementation of the program is surveying the students so that the schools and/or health department can determine that the students are at risk and to establish a benchmark to measure the effectiveness of the behavior modification programs. “Confidential” surveys, which include invasive questions about the student's sex life, are called “Youth Risk Behavior Surveys.”

Although Fessler reported that Ohio officials admitted the survey is “terrible,” they “only used it because we have to in order to get money from Atlanta [the CDC].”

Many states have already surveyed their students, while some, such as Alabama, are just now beginning discussions on the questionnaires. The July 2000 EAGLE FORUM REPORTER, in an article called “Sex Questions Sicken Connecticut Parents,” explained that a 95-question Youth Risk Behavior Survey, described by one parent as “pornographic,” was given to 800 middle school and 1,200 high school students in New Milford, CT. This has Connecticut parents worrying that the survey is a precursor to the CDC's Sex Ed Program.

The AP reported in May that PTW was being used in Illinois for Illinois State University to train teachers in “Reducing the Risk” curriculum for 9th and 10th graders.

State Sen. Patrick O Malley called the program “startling” and columnist Phil Luciano, in the PEORIA JOURNAL STAR of 5/24/00, said, “Our schoolhouses have been overtaken by condom minions.”

Examples from curriculum

In the CDC's Comprehensive School Health Education program, the “curriculum provides the necessary skills by letting participants handle condoms and practice working with condoms using their fingers as props” ... or using “acrylic (penile) models or standup toothpaste canisters.” Students are told of lubricants that are handy around the house (grape jelly, maple syrup and honey) but are advised to avoid butter, Crisco, cool whip and mayo.

After being sworn to secrecy, they are divided into teams of two or three, sent to different areas of the room with condom packages, a penile model, some lubricant, spermacide and paper towels. As part of this “performance based curriculum,” students practice putting on and taking the condom off the model. They are encouraged to train each other, applaud the success of teammates, and are then given refreshments (Session 6).

In Session 7, they are told to dream safely, that even when daydreaming, they should imagine using a latex condom. They are told that “Both gay and straight couples engage in anal sex.”

They are instructed in how to make a dental dam for safe oral sex. Under the BART (Becoming a Responsible Teen) program, they are told to list all the words they use or hear others use to talk about sex, which should create a sense of “comfort and belonging.” “If necessary, the teacher will prompt students by asking for words for specific parts of the body, sexual acts and birth control. The teacher repeats each word and writes it on the board, with everyone agreeing on definitions” (I will not list these pornographic words to which the students are exposed, but they are available in Fessler's report in case you doubt how dirty they are).

Regarding abstinence, students are told that “there are many ways to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD): by becoming a hermit, by being so unpleasant that everyone avoids you, or by never being involved in a romantic situation. Although “no judgment is made about which of these responses is best,” (this is called Values Clarification), after students hear the teacher equate abstinence with nerdiness and being disliked, sex with latex will likely be the choice. Finally, the students must go on a field trip to visit a clinic, preferably with his/her girl/boyfriend, filling out homework sheets describing the route to the clinic, cost of contraceptives and STD treatment, and reasons to recommend the clinic to a friend (Remember that this could be part of a writing assignment in English class under the concept of “Integrated Curriculum” used in many schools -- thus, opting out of sex ed will not necessarily protect your child). These programs are aimed at “public and non-public schools” to “move toward health instruction that works as the core principles of CDC's “programs that work” and “are extended to all categorical health lessons traditionally taught in comprehensive pre-K through 12 health education.”

This story is right in line with the story about the Massachusetts Department of Education funding weekend “how-to” gay and lesbian sex workshops for 12-14 year olds (The Idaho Observer, July 2000). It is simply not appropriate for schools to teach children how to behave sexually. In all honesty, we are speechless on this subject. How can anybody justify this new aspect of public instruction as being anything but abhorrant?

Diana Fessler is a member of the Ohio State Board of Education who has been successfully fighting the CDC influence on public instruction. To read the full report from which this article was taken, please visit her website at: http://www.fessler.com/