Planned Parenthood Focus on Teaching Your Children About Sex Their Way!
As the mother, grandmother and great-grandmother of 5, I find this insistent need to make everything about our children's lives being focused on SEX, especially at such a young age and NOT by their parents repugnant, totally unnecessary and intrusive of Parental Rights. I have written several articles regarding Planned Parenthood and their intrusion into the American family - not just abortions, but the literature and agenda they continue to put out by "untrained" employees and school boards around the country aligning up with them giving them access to our children without parental knowledge or approval. The Federal governments involvement in continually LYING to America that they are NOT funding Planned Parenthood with tax dollars is not only a lie but deliberate "over-stepping" of their authority and legislative powers according to the Constitution. They have been funding Planned Parenthood through "GRANTS" which are what - TAX PAYER $$!
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: ASSUME YOUR CHILD MAY BE GAY/LGBT
by Alex Newman
Tax-funded abortion and lobbying behemoth Planned Parenthood, which butchers hundreds of thousands of unborn children each year, has a message for parents: Assume your child may grow up to be homosexual and confused about their gender, or risk damaging them. Seriously.
As part of the grotesque “guidelines” for how to talk to preschool-aged children, readers are informed that the old-fashioned idea that anatomy determines whether a person is male or female is actually wrong.
“While the most simple answer is that girls have vulvas and boys have penises/testicles, that answer isn’t true for every boy and girl,” Planned Parenthood argues. “Boy, girl, man, and woman are words that describe gender identity, and some people with the gender identities 'boy' or 'man' have vulvas, and some with the gender identity 'girl' or 'woman' have penises/testicles. Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl.”
In case that was not enough, the abortion giant goes on to clarify. “You can say that most girls have vulvas and most boys have penises/testicles,” the guidelines say, urging parents to tell children that “it doesn’t matter too much what parts someone has.”
Of course, in the real world, God created people male and female from the very beginning. And this truth is literally embedded in the chromosomes of each and every person, from the start of his or her life in mothers' wombs until death.
Far from being a “social construct,” as the post-modernist pseudo-intellectuals seeking to destroy civilization and the family claim, being male or female is an immutable, biological fact. No amount of genital mutilation or hormones can change it.
As part of the grotesque “guidelines” for how to talk to preschool-aged children, readers are informed that the old-fashioned idea that anatomy determines whether a person is male or female is actually wrong.
“While the most simple answer is that girls have vulvas and boys have penises/testicles, that answer isn’t true for every boy and girl,” Planned Parenthood argues. “Boy, girl, man, and woman are words that describe gender identity, and some people with the gender identities 'boy' or 'man' have vulvas, and some with the gender identity 'girl' or 'woman' have penises/testicles. Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl.”
In case that was not enough, the abortion giant goes on to clarify. “You can say that most girls have vulvas and most boys have penises/testicles,” the guidelines say, urging parents to tell children that “it doesn’t matter too much what parts someone has.”
Of course, in the real world, God created people male and female from the very beginning. And this truth is literally embedded in the chromosomes of each and every person, from the start of his or her life in mothers' wombs until death.
Far from being a “social construct,” as the post-modernist pseudo-intellectuals seeking to destroy civilization and the family claim, being male or female is an immutable, biological fact. No amount of genital mutilation or hormones can change it.
|
|
The abortion giant, which profits handsomely from killing the babies that result from its immoral teachings, goes on to ask parents to encourage fornication. “When talking to younger kids, it’s common for parents to frame sex only as 'something married grownups do when they want to have a baby,'” the tips say. “But it’s okay and even good for kids to understand that grownups have sex for other reasons too, like for pleasure and to express love and feel closer to a partner.”
The tips also urge parents to present “sex and masturbation in a way that's positive (or neutral)” to their children, without qualifying that the sex should be within the confines of marriage.
As if the young children were not already confused enough, Planned Parenthood chastises parents for talking to their daughter “about growing up and having boyfriends or marrying a man (and vice versa).” Apparently that “sends the message that girls are supposed to like boys, and boys are supposed to like girls, and that anything else is wrong or not normal.”
“While kids this young don’t know their sexual orientation yet, assuming they’re straight could make them scared to come to you or feel bad about themselves later,” the abortuary's propaganda continues. “This can lead to mental health issues, unhealthy relationships, and taking more health risks when they reach their teenage years.” The fact that homosexual behavior is strongly correlated with each of those problems is never mentioned.
Far from being the ramblings of an unhinged lunatic that can safely be ignored, this is exactly the sort of immoral filth, confusion, and perversion that is being pumped into young children's impressionable minds on a daily basis in government schools all across America.
Parents must take action to protect their children. And Congress must protect taxpayers from being complicit in the mass murder of unborn children — and the indoctrination of born children — perpetrated by this wicked tax-funded organization.
The tips also urge parents to present “sex and masturbation in a way that's positive (or neutral)” to their children, without qualifying that the sex should be within the confines of marriage.
As if the young children were not already confused enough, Planned Parenthood chastises parents for talking to their daughter “about growing up and having boyfriends or marrying a man (and vice versa).” Apparently that “sends the message that girls are supposed to like boys, and boys are supposed to like girls, and that anything else is wrong or not normal.”
“While kids this young don’t know their sexual orientation yet, assuming they’re straight could make them scared to come to you or feel bad about themselves later,” the abortuary's propaganda continues. “This can lead to mental health issues, unhealthy relationships, and taking more health risks when they reach their teenage years.” The fact that homosexual behavior is strongly correlated with each of those problems is never mentioned.
Far from being the ramblings of an unhinged lunatic that can safely be ignored, this is exactly the sort of immoral filth, confusion, and perversion that is being pumped into young children's impressionable minds on a daily basis in government schools all across America.
Parents must take action to protect their children. And Congress must protect taxpayers from being complicit in the mass murder of unborn children — and the indoctrination of born children — perpetrated by this wicked tax-funded organization.
| facingthescreendilemma.pdf.docx |
Early Childhood CCSS
“Developmentally Inappropriate”
“Developmentally Inappropriate”
I believe it should be mentioned here that the Florida legislators have been informed that the Early Childhood Standards thru the Common Core Standards are Developmentally Inappropriate relating to K-3 grades.
One of the most distressing characteristics of education reformers is that they are hyper-focused on how students perform, but they ignore how students learn. Nowhere is this misplaced emphasis more apparent, and more damaging, than in kindergarten.
How can teachers hold all children to the same standards when they are not all the same? They learn differently, mature at different stages – they just are not all the same especially at the age of 4-6 and some up to the age of 9. A 2011 nationwide study by the Gesell Institute for Child Development found that the ages at which children reach developmental milestones have not changed in 100 years.
For example, the average child cannot perceive an oblique line in a triangle until age 5 ½. This skill is a prerequisite to recognizing, understanding and writing certain letters. The key to understanding concepts such as subtraction and addition is “number conservation.” A child may be able to count five objects separately but not understand that together they make the number five. The average child does not conserve enough numbers to understand subtraction and addition until 5½ or 6.
On September 18, 2013 the American Principles Project in conjunction with the Pioneer Institute released the video of Dr. Megan Koschnick’s presentation regarding certain aspects of the Common Core standards which are developmentally and age inappropriate. Dr. Koschnick gave her presentation at a September 9, 2013 at a conference at the University of Notre Dame.
“Why do we care if [Common Core standards] are age inappropriate? Well, you can answer that with one word – stress,” said Dr. Megan Koschnick during her presentation. “Instead of thinking about what’s developmentally appropriate for kindergarteners, they are thinking [college] is where we want this kindergartener to end up, so let’s back track down to kindergarten and have kindergarteners work on these skills from an early age. This can cause major stress for the child because they are not prepared for this level of education.”
Dr. Koschnick’s presentation echoes the concerns set forth in the Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative (March 2, 2010) and with the concerns set forth in The Answer Sheet blog in the Washington Post, entitled “A Tough Critique of Common Core on Early Childhood Education” (January 29, 2013). This blog, written by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige, quoted Dr. Carla Horowitz of the Yale Child Study Center as stating, “The Core Standards will cause suffering, not learning, for many, many young children.”
Professor Gerard Bradley of University of Notre Dame Law School attending the event: “Many critical observers of Common Core have focused upon the inadequate math and ELA standards at the high school end of education — and rightly so. But, Dr. Koschnick’s arresting presentation tells us that there is much to criticize at the front end, as well.”
Dr. Koschnick has some strong feelings about the Pre-K push also. “Studies have already revealed that children subjected to developmentally inappropriate classroom practices exhibit high levels of observable stress-related behaviors. I noticed a big change in my son last year after he started Pre-K. And I hear many stories from parents in my district that seem to support these studies”. Dr. Koschnick hypothesizes based on her expertise in childhood development that the effects of inappropriate curriculum will include:
• a loss of creativity
• frustration
• possibly conflict
• a lot of tears
According to Dr. Koschnick, we’re starting very early with notions of conformity. We are teaching our children to care only about the notions and ideas of others, and to adjust their manner of being accordingly. We have already heard that in most cases the points that are to achieved, it doesn‘t matter as much if the answer is correct, but in how they reached it. It can also be safely assumed that early childhood professionals and teachers were excluded from the development of the standards for the K-3 standards. We then can safely assume the same will hold true for the Pre-K students.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the goal in place is in the creating of robots or “yes” boys and girls.
It is frightening to read this “Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative” (March 2, 2010) which came in response to the release of the draft of the new CCSS which had been made public in January, 2010. The report shows conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children learn, what they need to learn, and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades.
CONCLUSION: We therefore call on the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to suspend their current drafting of standards for children in kindergarten through grade three.
We further call for the creation of a consortium of early childhood researchers, developmental psychologists, pediatricians, cognitive scientists, master teachers, and school leaders to develop comprehensive guidelines for effective early care and teaching that recognize the right of every child to a healthy start in life and a developmentally appropriate education.
Childhood expert Nancy Carlsson-Paige of Lesley University in Cambridge, a senior advisor to Defending the Early Years has presented a document created to help teachers and parents understand why the CCSS are inappropriate for kindergarten through third grade and to help teachers and parents advocate against them in the Early Years.
Carlsson-Paige lists 6 items she believes to be the main problems with the CCSS K-3:
• Many of the Kindergarten – 3rd Grade CCSS are developmentally inappropriate, and are not based on well-researched child development knowledge about how young children learn.
• Many of the skills mandated by the CCSS erroneously assume that all children develop and learn skills at the same rate and in the same way.
• Early childhood educators did not participate in the development of the standards.
• There is a lack of research to support the current early childhood CCSS. The standards were not pilot tested and there is no provision for ongoing research or review of their impact on children and on early childhood education.
• The standards do not take into account what young children today need when they get to school. Children need play in school now more than ever. They need teachers who are skilled facilitators of play so the solid foundations can be laid in the early school years for optimal learning in the later years.
• The adoption of CCSS falsely implies that making children learn these standards will combat the impact of poverty on development and learning, and create equal educational opportunity for all children.
The United States is 24th in a ranking of the wealthier nations that provide early years education. It is very apparent that credentialed professionals were not involved in creating the CCSS for the very young. And it is additionally apparent when you read the National Sexuality Education Standards (Page 12). Were these people parents? What are we doing to our children?
I highly recommend that parents go to this link and download to your computer “Facing the Screen Dilemma: Young Children, Technology and Early Education”.
And from Peg Luksik – April, 2015 - In Common Core classrooms (for all children), and in homes struggling to complete Common Core math homework assignments, success is not the norm. Instead, children struggle through the confusing assignments, not really understanding what they are doing, and not ever truly succeeding. When children are consistently placed in this situation, frustration is the inevitable outcome.
In the end, the children call themselves failures. They can’t do the task that has been presented to them, and they can’t conceive of a world in which the grown-ups could be wrong. So if things aren’t going well, the only possible explanation is that they themselves are stupid.
Tragically, this statement is now echoing across the elementary classrooms of America.
If the goal of Common Core is to destroy, not only the mathematical achievement of our children, but their self-esteem as well, then it is succeeding beyond any expectations. If such destruction was not the goal, then a reasonable person might wonder why anyone would continue to defend a program that is shredding the self-image of America’s little ones.
One of the most distressing characteristics of education reformers is that they are hyper-focused on how students perform, but they ignore how students learn. Nowhere is this misplaced emphasis more apparent, and more damaging, than in kindergarten.
How can teachers hold all children to the same standards when they are not all the same? They learn differently, mature at different stages – they just are not all the same especially at the age of 4-6 and some up to the age of 9. A 2011 nationwide study by the Gesell Institute for Child Development found that the ages at which children reach developmental milestones have not changed in 100 years.
For example, the average child cannot perceive an oblique line in a triangle until age 5 ½. This skill is a prerequisite to recognizing, understanding and writing certain letters. The key to understanding concepts such as subtraction and addition is “number conservation.” A child may be able to count five objects separately but not understand that together they make the number five. The average child does not conserve enough numbers to understand subtraction and addition until 5½ or 6.
On September 18, 2013 the American Principles Project in conjunction with the Pioneer Institute released the video of Dr. Megan Koschnick’s presentation regarding certain aspects of the Common Core standards which are developmentally and age inappropriate. Dr. Koschnick gave her presentation at a September 9, 2013 at a conference at the University of Notre Dame.
“Why do we care if [Common Core standards] are age inappropriate? Well, you can answer that with one word – stress,” said Dr. Megan Koschnick during her presentation. “Instead of thinking about what’s developmentally appropriate for kindergarteners, they are thinking [college] is where we want this kindergartener to end up, so let’s back track down to kindergarten and have kindergarteners work on these skills from an early age. This can cause major stress for the child because they are not prepared for this level of education.”
Dr. Koschnick’s presentation echoes the concerns set forth in the Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative (March 2, 2010) and with the concerns set forth in The Answer Sheet blog in the Washington Post, entitled “A Tough Critique of Common Core on Early Childhood Education” (January 29, 2013). This blog, written by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige, quoted Dr. Carla Horowitz of the Yale Child Study Center as stating, “The Core Standards will cause suffering, not learning, for many, many young children.”
Professor Gerard Bradley of University of Notre Dame Law School attending the event: “Many critical observers of Common Core have focused upon the inadequate math and ELA standards at the high school end of education — and rightly so. But, Dr. Koschnick’s arresting presentation tells us that there is much to criticize at the front end, as well.”
Dr. Koschnick has some strong feelings about the Pre-K push also. “Studies have already revealed that children subjected to developmentally inappropriate classroom practices exhibit high levels of observable stress-related behaviors. I noticed a big change in my son last year after he started Pre-K. And I hear many stories from parents in my district that seem to support these studies”. Dr. Koschnick hypothesizes based on her expertise in childhood development that the effects of inappropriate curriculum will include:
• a loss of creativity
• frustration
• possibly conflict
• a lot of tears
According to Dr. Koschnick, we’re starting very early with notions of conformity. We are teaching our children to care only about the notions and ideas of others, and to adjust their manner of being accordingly. We have already heard that in most cases the points that are to achieved, it doesn‘t matter as much if the answer is correct, but in how they reached it. It can also be safely assumed that early childhood professionals and teachers were excluded from the development of the standards for the K-3 standards. We then can safely assume the same will hold true for the Pre-K students.
It is becoming more and more apparent that the goal in place is in the creating of robots or “yes” boys and girls.
It is frightening to read this “Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative” (March 2, 2010) which came in response to the release of the draft of the new CCSS which had been made public in January, 2010. The report shows conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children learn, what they need to learn, and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades.
CONCLUSION: We therefore call on the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to suspend their current drafting of standards for children in kindergarten through grade three.
We further call for the creation of a consortium of early childhood researchers, developmental psychologists, pediatricians, cognitive scientists, master teachers, and school leaders to develop comprehensive guidelines for effective early care and teaching that recognize the right of every child to a healthy start in life and a developmentally appropriate education.
Childhood expert Nancy Carlsson-Paige of Lesley University in Cambridge, a senior advisor to Defending the Early Years has presented a document created to help teachers and parents understand why the CCSS are inappropriate for kindergarten through third grade and to help teachers and parents advocate against them in the Early Years.
Carlsson-Paige lists 6 items she believes to be the main problems with the CCSS K-3:
• Many of the Kindergarten – 3rd Grade CCSS are developmentally inappropriate, and are not based on well-researched child development knowledge about how young children learn.
• Many of the skills mandated by the CCSS erroneously assume that all children develop and learn skills at the same rate and in the same way.
• Early childhood educators did not participate in the development of the standards.
• There is a lack of research to support the current early childhood CCSS. The standards were not pilot tested and there is no provision for ongoing research or review of their impact on children and on early childhood education.
• The standards do not take into account what young children today need when they get to school. Children need play in school now more than ever. They need teachers who are skilled facilitators of play so the solid foundations can be laid in the early school years for optimal learning in the later years.
• The adoption of CCSS falsely implies that making children learn these standards will combat the impact of poverty on development and learning, and create equal educational opportunity for all children.
The United States is 24th in a ranking of the wealthier nations that provide early years education. It is very apparent that credentialed professionals were not involved in creating the CCSS for the very young. And it is additionally apparent when you read the National Sexuality Education Standards (Page 12). Were these people parents? What are we doing to our children?
I highly recommend that parents go to this link and download to your computer “Facing the Screen Dilemma: Young Children, Technology and Early Education”.
And from Peg Luksik – April, 2015 - In Common Core classrooms (for all children), and in homes struggling to complete Common Core math homework assignments, success is not the norm. Instead, children struggle through the confusing assignments, not really understanding what they are doing, and not ever truly succeeding. When children are consistently placed in this situation, frustration is the inevitable outcome.
In the end, the children call themselves failures. They can’t do the task that has been presented to them, and they can’t conceive of a world in which the grown-ups could be wrong. So if things aren’t going well, the only possible explanation is that they themselves are stupid.
Tragically, this statement is now echoing across the elementary classrooms of America.
If the goal of Common Core is to destroy, not only the mathematical achievement of our children, but their self-esteem as well, then it is succeeding beyond any expectations. If such destruction was not the goal, then a reasonable person might wonder why anyone would continue to defend a program that is shredding the self-image of America’s little ones.
