Republican voters, struggling to decide which candidate will best handle the myriad problems facing America under the Obama regime — problems that include a stagnant economy, a collapsing Europe, a boiling Middle East, etc. — were treated to a New Hampshire debate that focused on . . . birth control.  A post-debate NYT op-ed establishes why this was such a driving topic for the moderators — the Left is going to make this election about abortion.  Because Obama is rapidly losing any semblance of support on issues that matter for the future of this country, the Left is hoping to agitate women with visions of Bible-wielding sex police storming into people’s houses, arresting them for owning condoms:

But the message from Iowa was crystal clear: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman Jr., Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry all stand ready to restrict a woman’s right to make her own childbearing decisions and deny essential health care to millions of women.

The Republican field is united in its determination to overturn Roe v. Wade; to appoint Supreme Court justices supportive of that goal; and to end government payments to Planned Parenthood for family planning services, cancer screening and other vital health services provided to low-income women. The candidates also want to reinstate the global gag rule that barred family planning groups abroad receiving federal money from even talking about abortion.

The op-ed goes on for several more fevered paragraphs, all urging women to rise up and say “Keep the Republicans out of my uterus.” The liberal women on my “real me” Facebook page are responding with appropriate panic.

There is no doubt but that the Republican candidates, even formerly pro-Choice Mitt Romney, are now or have become disenchanted with the Leftist obsession with abortion and “reproductive rights.”  I too have come disenchanted with a culture that is obsessed with infant death and, worse, that celebrates random, rampant and dangerous youth sexuality.  Here are a few random thoughts on the subject:

Contrary to the New York Times‘ fears, I’m not worried that the egg will be totally unscrambled, with the world reverting to a repressive era characterized by back alley abortions.  Too many things have changed in the past few decades.  Unwed motherhood and birth control are an integral part of our culture now.  Without the easy option of abortion, women and men may be more zealous about birth control.  And if a pregnancy happens, the likelihood of coat hangers or social death are certainly smaller.

Also, if Roe v. Wade, a singularly badly thought-out decision, is reversed, all that will happen is that the abortion debate will revert to the state level.  The big urban states will keep abortion; the smaller rural/Southern states will not.  Then, there will be a few years as people get to examine these experiments in progress and see what works best for women and children.

In my role as a parent, I wouldn’t mind at all having a more repressive culture.  Yesterday, a teenager I know said, “Our principal just discovered that twelve-year olds are sexually active, and now she’s bringing people into the school to teach them how to do it right.”  Since I was driving a carpool at the time, I was so shocked, I almost ran a red light when I heard this one. I immediately launched into my tried and true lecture that, just because kids have the physical maturity to do something doesn’t mean they should do something, although with data about pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, depression, self-loathing, and the failure to connect well in adult relationships.

I know, though, that I’m fighting a rear guard action.  These kids are inundated by sexually charged movies, TV shows, songs (especially songs, lately), plus, as this boy said, detailed instructions from their schools.  Hollywood is setting the agenda, and it’s one that lacks any sense of decency or morality.  I think it would be a good thing if rampant sexuality became more difficult.

I’m also willing to bet that, if one could get all the liberal mamas and papas in my world to figure out that unfettered everything is putting their kids at risk, simply because it means that sex is always “in the air,” they too might agree that putting the brakes on things is a good idea — especially if they could be brought to understand that putting the brakes on things is not the same thing as reverting to a 1620′s ethos.

Specifically regarding chemical birth control, whether it means giving girls the pill or unfettered access to the morning after pill, I’m really opposed to that.  The pill isn’t just a contraceptive.  It is an incredibly potent chemical cocktail that manipulates a woman’s, or more disturbingly, a growing girl’s body.  All women know that from the moment you take your first pill, you not only stop getting pregnant, you gain weight, you have mood swings, you go for baby-faced men, your skin breaks out, you risk blood clots (a friend of mine almost died that way), and sex becomes less enjoyable.  Also, if you’re unlucky, it makes you vomit.

What’s ironic is that the same liberals who spend a fortune on organic milk and grass-fed beef, or who refuse to vaccinate their kids because of the risk, embrace the idea of exposing their still-maturing daughters to this stuff.  Irony is probably the wrong word.  Our culture is so insane we’ve moved into a post-ironic era were nothing should surprise us anymore.

So I’ll end this post with a question:  As between the Democrats who push relentless for unfettered abortion and birth control access for tweens and teens, and the Republicans, who would like to make abortion a state matter and stop having the federal government fund it, which party do you think better serves women’s needs?

I’m a very literal person, which means that, for the most part, I like to spell things out, and have them spelled out to me.  Certainly that’s been my approach when discussing boys and sex with my daughter.

I haven’t danced around the fact that boys want sex.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  It’s their nature.  Society used to put constraints on that desire, but it doesn’t anymore.  The girl is on her own when it comes to saying “no.” I’ve spelled out to my daughter the tactics that boys will use (guilt, peer pressure, words of love, etc.), and explained that, no matter, the tactic, her answer, for her own physical and emotional well-being, has to be “no.”  Or, if necessary, “NO!!!”  She has to respect herself, and any boy who won’t abide by that self-respect isn’t worthy of her.

I’ve been thinking about the unequivocal message I’ve been spelling out for my daughter because of the school dance she went to this weekend.  It turns out that “freak” dancing has become normative at these dances.  In the car on the way over, I explained very carefully to my daughter and her friend what “freak” dancing is:  a boy you don’t know, or barely know, masturbates himself against your rear.

Both girls shrieked, “Oh, my God!  That’s gross.”  They’re right, too.  The reality of freak dancing is gross.  You can dress it up with cool names like “freak,” and say that “everybody is doing it,” and “there’s nothing wrong with it,” but it’s a disgusting practice that no girl should ever countenance.

My daughter had a great time at the dance.  She danced only with her friends, the way girls do, with all of them standing in a circle.  She didn’t kiss anyone on the dance floor and neither did her friends.  In an atmosphere rife with possibilities for mischief, they had a wholesome, fun time.  (And yes, I have only her word for it, but my instinct on this one is to trust her.)  I’d like to think that, for my daughter at least, part of that wholesome fun came about because I don’t pull my punches with her, but send her out armed with concrete information.

(I do the same with my son, of course, but he’s younger and a boy, so the messages are slightly different.)

To wrap up this post, a Billy Joel song that embodies the persuasive powers of a young man looking for sex:

Click here to view the embedded video.

You can also see it here.

Those who are pushing for universal health care here in America might want to take just a second to contemplate what Britain’s National Health Service (“NHS”) is doing in the area of teen sex.  Because Britain has the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe, which no doubt is quite costly to the NHS, you might assume that the NHS would push a combination of abstinence and contraception.  Thinking along those lines, of course, would just prove how utterly naive you are.

Contrary to your naivete, the NHS is hip, dear, totally hip.  Teens shouldn’t be lectured about such boring things as self-control, love, marriage, and contraception.  They should be groovin’ and going with their feelings.  Sex is beautiful, man, and the NHS is there to make sure the teens know that fact.  Thus, an NHS pamphlet prepared specially for British teens contains this helpful information:

The NHS is telling school pupils they have a ‘right’ to an enjoyable sex life and that it is good for their health.

A Health Service leaflet says experts concentrate too much on the need for safe sex and loving relationships, and not enough on the pleasure it can bring.

***

Under the heading ‘an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away’, the leaflet says: ‘Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?’

The advice, which also claims regular sex is good for cardiovascular health, has been circulated to parents, teachers and youth workers.

***

The NHS leaflet has been drawn up by Sheffield primary care trust and is entitled Pleasure.

The true beauty of the pamphlet is the rationale its author offers for promulgating this groovy, free-lovin’ information:

Its author, Steve Slack, director of the Centre for HIV and Sexual Health at NHS Sheffield, defended it by saying the advice could encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are sure they will enjoy the experience.

He added that as long as teenagers are fully informed about sex and making decisions free of peer pressure as part of a caring relationship, they have as much right as an adult to a good sex life.

Each and every Victorian who ever lived is rolling in his or her grave.

The few sane minds left in England are protesting the NHS’s latest effort to decrease teen pregnancy — which is an effort only Austin Powers could truly appreciate — but I rather wonder if they’re going to have much success.

Considering how whacked out the NHS is becoming over the seemingly intractable problem of teen pregnancy (especially since the word “no” does not seem to be a part of the British sex ed vocabulary), one wonders if the next step is going to be a consultation with Obama’s own science czar, John Holdren.  A little hormone treatment to the national water system, and everyone can have all the fun sex they want.

It’s rather funny to think that Kurt Vonnegut, who wrote Welcome to the Monkey House: Stories at about the same time as Holdren wrote his treatise on mass sterilization, got it all wrong.  The secret wasn’t, as Vonnegut’s overpopulated alternative reality predicted, making sex too awful for anyone to try.  Instead, it was making it so much fun that people would willingly permanently spay or neuter themselves for the pleasure.

In my Friday Open Thread, I promised that I’d blog about Zac Efron.  First off, let me clear the air here and explain that I haven’t developed some pathetic “middle-aged woman/teenage boy” obsession with him (although he does bear an uncanny resemblance, girlish hair and all, to the teen idols of my youth).  What makes me interested in him is the movie 17 Again, which I saw last weekend.

***

SPOILER ALERT: The rest of this post is going to discuss plot lines in the movie, so if you’ve been dying to see this one, and you want it to stay fresh, you’d better stop reading right now.

***

17 Again is about a man who, dissatisfied with his life, is given his 17 year old body back.  That is, he isn’t sent back in time to the year in which he was 17.  Instead, he becomes his own children’s peer, attending high school with them. Further, he’s not completely 17 years old.  Instead, he still has his adult knowledge, values, attitude and memories, except that they’re all packed into a teeny-bopper cute Zac Efron package.  As the movie develops, he realizes that he’s not going to change his own life trajectory, but that he can help his children.  His son his being bullied by the sociopathic captain of the baseball team and, worse, his daughter is dating the same sociopath.

With this plotline, you can imagine this is not a movie I normally would have chosen to see myself.  However, given the PG-13 rating, I wanted to make sure I knew what my 11 year old daughter and her 12 year old friend would be watching.  I could, of course, just have said “no” to her request to see the movie, but I knew that, thanks to DVDs, there was a 100% certainty that my daughter would end up seeing it at someone’s house in a few months.  Given my certainly in that regard, it seemed to me that the smartest thing for me to do would be to know the details and counterattack — if necessary.

I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that the movie was not very good from a grown-up perspective.  Nevertheless, it earned an A+ from me for one scene.  In that scene, the sex education teacher says (and I paraphrase), “We officially teach abstinence here, but we know you’re going to have sex anyone, so here are some condoms.” She then passes around the condoms.  The Efron character, a 30 something father in a 17 year old body, watches his daughter take a condom, and then watches her boyfriend take a handful.

Right about this time, I was contemplating (a) dragging the girls out of the theater or (b) giving them an hour long lecture during the 20 minute ride home.  As it was, I didn’t have to do either, because the cute Efron character came to my rescue.

You see, when the condom basket came to the Efron character, he refused to take one.  Then, with all eyes upon him, he stood up and explained that he will not take one because he’s not in love with anyone, and you don’t have sex unless you’re in love.  And, even better, you don’t have sex unless you’re married, because sex really boils down to having children.  He than rhapsodized about the wonders of fatherhood, and the importance of a committed relationship.

This is the same speech I routinely give my kids.  Right now, they listen politely, but I know that, in a year or two, I’ll just get eye-rolling coming back at me.  With Efron giving the speech, however, my daughter and her friend were much struck by it.  It meant something to them that the cutest, coolest guy in Hollywood advocated a position remarkably similar to that put forward by Mom and Dad.

Last year, my daughter had her first exposure to sex ed, and I have to say I thought the school district approached it perfectly, focusing on the biology of sex.  About half the kids in the class were just hitting puberty, and they had lots of questions, which the course answered with sensible science.  At a meeting for parents before the course started, we learned that the class would be abstinence only, and that all values questions would be politely referred back to the parents.  Listening to my daughter over the next two weeks, I learned that the school kept its promise about teaching basic human physiology, with an emphasis on abstinence.

I mention all this because John McCain’s campaign took a lot of heat in the last few days for allegedly lying about Obama’s sex ed legislation in Illinois.  McCain’s ad noted that the legislation required heavy-duty sex ed in Kindergarten.  As Byron York points out, this is absolutely true.

While Obama may now be blathering on about appropriate and inappropriate touching, the bill’s language makes entirely clear that even 5 year olds would be required to have comprehensive lessons in sexually transmitted diseases — lessons that can’t happen unless the 5 year olds are also taught a whole lot about sex.  I suspect that, when legislative theory was put into educational practice, wiser heads ensured that the 5 year olds didn’t get any of these lessons, but that’s not the point.  The point is that Obama had no problem signing off on legislation that, if read as written, would mandate such lessons.

Although I get squeamish reading about what Obama was willing (either intentionally or carelessly and stupidly) to inflict on Illinois’ 5 year olds, it could have been worse, a lot worse.  In England, where common sense, human decency and childhood are vanishing concepts, a high powered “think tank” came up with a somewhat different curriculum for 5 year olds, and tried to sneak it into the schools:

Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.

Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of ‘creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated’.

The ambition was revealed in documents prepared for the No Outsiders project run by researchers from universities and backed with £600,000 of public money provided by the Economic and Social Research Council.

The stated purpose of the project – which is operating in 14 primary schools – is to stop bullying and prejudice aimed at homosexuals.

However, at a seminar at Exeter University tomorrow, supporters of the group will go beyond the anti-bullying agenda and discuss ‘pleasure and desire in educational contexts’.

A document prepared for the seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: ‘The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children’s bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.

‘The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire – and that it is therefore not about bodies.

‘Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.’

You can read more about the proposed curriculum here.

I’m having a very hard time finding out what the sex ed curriculum is in Alaska schools.  Although Palin advocates abstinence, what are the public schools teaching?  It appears from the article that they’re teaching full sex ed, with an emphasis on the virtues of abstinence.

A couple of things.  First, that’s exactly the same curriculum in my Blue neck of the woods, and that’s because the parents demand it.  They want the kids to know have a sound scientific knowledge about the birds and the bees, and the ways to prevent little birds and bees from coming along, but they want the schools’ emphasis to be on no sex.

Second, if Palin’s daughter really did receive a comprehensive curriculum, one could argue that teaching about sex and birth control, with a mere emphasis on abstinence, doesn’t work.  After all, she got pregnant.

The same article says that the schools in Alaska don’t provide birth control, something with which I heartily concur.  Kids can pick up birth control at any grocery store (condoms for him, sponges for her, not to mention spermicides for both), and the school should not be in the business of putting its imprimatur on teen sex.

So it sounds to me, not as if the Palins failed their daughter, but as if their daughter might just be another casuality of public school sex training.

Soccer Dad, who has a wonderful blog here, sent me a nice email agreeing with the points I made in my Biology will have its way post. He added an anecdote about Planned Parenthood: “The archdiocese of Baltimore announced that it would pay for counseling for women who had undergone abortions. Planned Parenthood objected. It was then that I realized that Planned Parenthood stood for a lot more than just freedom of choice. It stood for allowing women to be just as irresponsible as men could be. (I think that was a general point of yours.)”

First, he’s right that this Planned Parenthood story fits in perfectly with the point I was trying to make. Second, he sent me off on a rant about Planned Parenthood, abortion and the culture of teen sexuality that I thought was worth reprinting here:

I grew up very pro-Choice and still part ways with deep conservatives in that I’m unwilling to ban abortion entirely. What I’d like to do is change the culture. Hillary says “keep abortion safe, legal and rare,” but she doesn’t mean that last one, because she is unwilling to attack a sexual culture that inevitably means abortions will always be in demand.

Maybe I’m being incredibly stupid, but I do believe that if our culture stopped teaching high school, college and even middle school girls that not only does sex have no consequences but that it’s a necessary adjunct to the socialization, they’d stop having sex so much. If we went a step further, and said that self-respect, love, friendship and mature self-control all militate against jumping into bed, we’d have even less sex. In that social context, teaching matter-of-fact biology classes, akin to the ones I had when I was 14, which cover human reproduction and methods of contraception as part of that package, would not be incitements into bed. There wouldn’t be exciting and amusing demonstrations of candy-flavored multi-colored condoms being rolled over cucumbers. In my world, sex shows would stop coming to colleges, and Valentine’s Day would be about love and affection, and not about the Vagina Monologues.

I used to support Planned Parenthood when I believed that it was simply about helping adult woman make responsible choices about their sex lives. I’ve become very hostile to it now that I realize that it’s mission is to preserve the non-stop sex culture that rains down on our children.

As the mother of a 10 year old who is bombarded with nude pictures of Disney Stars, and Britney breakdowns, and Madonna kissing other women at awards shows, I loath the sex saturated culture we have become. I really wasn’t that aware of it before, because I came of age before it hit big time, and I didn’t have children in the right demographic until recently. Now that I see it, it disgusts me — and, as the parent of innocent, loving young children, it frightens me.

Soccer Dad was kind enough to send me the 199s article about Planned Parenthood, which I’m including here, below the fold:==============================

====================
Catholics launch assistance project for after abortion -
Lead priest says 1 in 3 women have post-traumatic

syndrome
==================================================
Sun, The (Baltimore, MD)-January 19, 1992
Author: Sheridan Lyons

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore will launch today at the Cathedral of Mary Our Queen a program to offer spiritual and emotional counseling to women traumatized by abortion.

A steering committee for Project Rachel is being selected under a project director named by Archbishop William H. Keeler. The director, the Rev. Blair Paul Raum, 46-year-old pastor of St. Patrick’s Church on South Broadway, is a certified counselor who said he works outside the church as a family therapist.

He said yesterday that the archbishop would formally announce the project at the annual Respect Life Mass at 3 p.m. at the North Charles Street cathedral.

In an interview at St. Patrick’s, Father Raum said “a very conservative estimate” is that 30 percent of women who have abortions will suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome, similar to the experiences of Vietnam War veterans, within 10 years of the procedure.

“With 30 million abortions since 1973, that’s 10 million women. There’s a lot of folks out there,” he said.

He acknowledged that the American Psychiatric Association does not recognize post-abortion stress syndrome, but said he believed the illness will be recognized as more women experience it and seek help.

James A. Guest, president of Planned Parenthood of Maryland, disagreed with that assessment last night, saying that the issue has been studied by the APA, the surgeon general and others “and there’s simply no credible evidence that this syndrome exists.”

“It looks like a group that’s vehemently opposed to abortion in the first place has invented a syndrome that doesn’t exist and attached a percentage to it that’s totally unsupported.”

But Father Raum said that studies showing women suffer no ill effects after abortions have focused only on the first year after the procedure. He added that “generally in the first years, she experiences a great deal of relief, because usually the abortion is had as the result of a crisis pregnancy.”

Next comes a period of denial, Father Raum said. “A very powerful defense, and she can move on and function very well.”

But, he said, “somewhere within that 10-year period, something breaks the denial: seeing a child that would be the same age; the anniversary of the due date; . . . the sound of a vacuum cleaner [if it was a suction abortion] and all this suppressed emotion begins to surface.”

The women begin showing signs of post-traumatic stress syndrome the way soldiers do, Father Raum said, through reliving the experience and suffering from sleeplessness and guilt that they survived while another died.

As a counselor, he said, he has seen 18 to 20 cases of post-abortion trauma in the past three or four years. He recalled, “Some women come and say, ‘I’ve been thinking about my abortion lately and it’s really bothering me.’ Others may not say it directly but are having problems with their marriages . . . and the root cause is that he wanted her to have an abortion.

“This is an issue at the very heart of being a woman,” the priest added.

He offered the example of a married woman who had had two abortions, six and seven years ago — the first because of marital problems that couldn’t take the additional strain of a child, and the second because she and her husband were both in school.

The woman experienced increasing tension with her husband, from whom she now is separated.

Then one Sunday during the Christmas season she was in church — which she had all but stopped attending. Father Raum said, “It was Christmas, a special season focused on the birth of a baby. She began to think about her children, the abortions . . . and her denial began to break and she began to feel a great deal of emotional distress.

“She decided to seek help with what she was feeling and a reconciliation with God, with the realization that what she had done was wrong.” The woman and he fasted and prayed, he said, and she celebrated the sacrament of reconciliation. She later planted a tree in memory of her aborted children.

Project Rachel — named in part for the biblical figure who mourned her children — began in 1984 in Milwaukee, he said.

The Catholic anti-abortion stance often makes a woman feel alienated from the church just when she may need spiritual comfort the most, Father Raum said yesterday. And belonging to a strongly anti-abortion denomination can be a factor in the post-traumatic stress syndrome.

But contrary to notions about damnation and excommunication, he said, “a good confession would forgive that sin [abortion].”

Although Baltimore’s Project Rachel will be a Catholic project at first, it will welcome clients of any faith. They will be referred either to a counselor or a priest.

Once the steering committee is appointed, he said, he plans to arrange for a toll-free telephone number to take confidential calls.

“For any woman who calls the line, we would attempt to address her need,” he said. “And we are looking down the line to expand beyond the Catholic Church, to offer more.”

Edition: FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: 1B

Record Number: 1992019032
Copyright (c) 1992 The Baltimore Sun Company

UPDATE:  At American Thinker, Steven Warshawsky writes wonderfully — and sadly — about the degradation of sexuality as viewed through the prism of the Spitzer court papers.