Truth & Lies About the Birds and the Bees

Pardon the interruption to "Scandalpalooza 2013" and a highly contentious state legislative session, but this is an issue that every parent in America needs to understand.  In light of the push to revamp sexual education in the state, I began to conduct some research and was utterly horrified by what I learned.  I summed up some of my findings in a column for local news media last week (re-published below,) but 650 words is not nearly enough to explain this issue.  I hope to write more about this in the coming months. 

Original column:

Are you ready for the sexual rights of the child?   According to a recent United Nations “Right to Education” report, children must be taught about their right to “pleasurable sexual experiences,” from the outset of their schooling.  Under the guise of promoting health, UN activists at UNICEF and the World Health Organization are working to provide a “comprehensive sexual education” (CSE) to the children of the world.  The problem is that while this education is certainly expansive, it is dangerously far from comprehensive.

According to these “CSE” advocates, we must provide children with ample information so that they can engage in ‘safer sex.’  CSE programs include information on every imaginable way humans could engage in sexual activity, and students are referred to websites that provide images and detailed descriptions.  Through such efforts children learn about every possible thing they could do to themselves or others sexually.  This, according to CSE advocates, is a healthy human right for children.

Of course all of the exposure to sexual deviancy is presented to the public as an effort to provide safe sex.  Supporters claim that CSE programs are based on science, implying that abstinence lessons are non-scientific.  However, according to pediatrician and psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman, CSE materials are based on outdated information from the 1970’s, and ignore the latest research on human sexuality.
 
Dr. Grossman points out that while CSE advocates are teaching children that they can have ‘safe sex’ by using condoms, sound science shows that condoms do not prevent transmission of a whole slew of diseases, some of which are deadly.  Shockingly, the previously mentioned UN Report decries the “erroneous association between sexuality and disease,” since the goal is to “abolish guilt feelings about eroticism.”  While teaching kids that ‘alternate’ sexual activity won’t result in pregnancy, CSE programs fail to emphasize that serious diseases are still transmitted through such behavior.  (And that some 'non-traditional' activities are far, far more dangerous.)
 
In addition to dismissing the seriousness of sexually transmitted diseases, CSE programs completely ignore decades of advance in our understanding of neurobiology.  Contrary to the 1970’s meme that men and women are essentially the same except for a few body parts, neuroscience has demonstrated that male and female brains differentiate eight weeks after conception.  The hormones released by seemingly benign actions like hugging trigger notable changes in the human brain and turn off certain decision-making faculties.  More intense activities cause girls in particular to bond to a sexual partner- even one who is abusive and exploitative.  Furthermore, both neuroscience and psychiatry have demonstrated that early sexual activity has long-term emotional and psychological impact.

But these aspects of human sexuality are not mentioned in so-called “comprehensive” sex education lessons.  Instead, much of the new-old approach to sex education is based on the discredited Kinsey Report of 1948.  Although entomologist Alfred Kinsey was a horrific sexual deviant whose published ‘research’ was largely based on studies of prison inmates, organizations like Planned Parenthood still celebrate his work and perpetuate his assertion that human life is primarily about sexual pleasure- from birth to death.  As Dr. Grossman asserts, in CSE, real science is ignored in favor of an agenda.

While Texas has largely embraced abstinence-based instruction, there is now a well-concerted effort underway to change sex education.  The Texas Freedom Network, founded by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards, is training volunteers in every school district in the state.  These volunteers seek appointment to School Health Advisory Councils and claim that local teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are due to ‘inadequate’ sexual education. The door is then opened for a new ‘comprehensive’ curriculum.
   
According to the UN “Right to Education” report, there is one significant obstacle to the sex education agenda: parents.  While leftists like MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry might believe children belong to the “Collective,” we still have strong parental rights in this country.  Parents need to be aware of the agenda and pseudo-science that is endangering children under the guise of sexual health.  Stay informed and know that, at least for now, you have the right to opt out.

Suggested reading:  You’re Teaching My Child What? and World Youth Alliance’s “New York City Sexuality Education Report,” both by Miriam Grossman, M.D. (www.miriamgrossmanmd.com).

Look For the Union Exemption: Update

I'm afraid I've been remiss again in posting my print columns.  "All In Perspective" is a bi-weekly column that runs in the Hill Country News, the Georgetown Advocate, and the Jarrell Star-Ledger.  To update this topic, the Texas House passed SB 346 this week without amendments.  Apparently, Representative Charlie Geren did not want to risk sending the bill back to the Senate, and so even though supporters of SB 346 have acknowledged the union exemption problem, they refused to amend.  Sadly, the answer I was given on why the union exemption was there in the first place was because "the Dems wouldn't vote for it without the exemption."

Well, duh. 

I support appropriate transparency measures, as long as they apply to everyone equally.

Please note that Williamson County Representatives Larry Gonzales and Tony Dale both voted yes on an amendment to remove the union exemption.  Unfortunately, the amendment failed, and the bill still gives unions a free pass.

SB 346 was sent to the Governor yesterday, but he has not yet signed it.  There are rumors of a veto, but we shall see. 

Original Column: 

Contrary to popular belief, labor union power is on the rise in Texas.  Few Texans realize that our "right to work" status merely prohibits compulsory union membership.  Not only do we have a wide variety of private and public sector unions in Texas, union membership in the state increased by 65,000 members last year.  It is no secret that the Democrat strategy to 'turn Texas Blue' is heavily reliant on burgeoning union power. 

Now it seems that the Texas Legislature is poised to pass legislation that would exempt labor unions from new political disclosure rules.  Recently the Senate approved a bill expanding the definition of a 'political committee' and requiring more activists to report contributions used for political purposes.  (Senate Bill 346)  The vagueness of the proposed law is leaving many political ethics lawyers scratching their heads about who will be covered.  But one thing is certain; the proposed law specifically exempts labor unions. 

If this political disclosure law is passed as written, Texas will be joining a slew of ‘blue’ states that exempt labor unions from rules that apply to Joe Citizen. 

 

Last year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a study entitled “Sabotage, Stalking & Stealth Exemptions:  Special State Laws for Labor Unions.”  The report describes little noticed state laws that exclude unions from prosecution for “conduct that would otherwise be considered criminal activity.” While many of the union exemptions apply to what we might consider ‘white collar crime,’ others involve more serious and physically violent behavior.

For example, while every state in the nation prohibits stalking, Pennsylvania’s prohibitions specifically exclude those involved in a labor dispute.  Other strong labor states (California, Nevada, Illinois, etc.,) also exempt unions from stalking measures. These union exemptions are unfortunate considering the history of violent tactics often employed by union activists.  The U.S. Chamber report includes the story of a non-union shop owner who had rocks thrown through his store windows, his tires slashed, and was shot in the arm, but Ohio labor unions defended these “monitoring” tactics as perfectly legal.

Likewise, California’s trespassing laws, designed to protect individuals and property, exclude “labor union activities.”  Such laws have permitted union members not only to picket, but to actively harass and intimidate customers of non-union businesses, business owners, and their respective families.  California also permits union activists to “willfully (block) the free movement of another person” in a public transit system facility or vehicle. 

 

Other state laws around the nation exclude unions from prosecution for sabotage and threats of bodily injury, but many of the non-violent exclusions are equally as troubling.  For example, in some states labor activists have been permitted to unionize anyone who accepts state funds for child care.  In Michigan, parents who accepted Medicaid to care for their own disabled child in their own home have been forcibly enrolled in and forced to pay dues to the SEIU. 

 

Texas already has a few laws that give advantage to organized labor, such as those governing formation of public sector unions.  The proposed political disclosure bill requires transparency for everyone except those who funnel campaign funds through organized labor.  And contrary to what supporters of the exemption have claimed, labor unions are not required to disclose contributions from non-members, even for political activity.

 

With its union exemption measure, the proposed disclosure law as written should be unacceptable to Texans who would like to keep this a “right to work” state.  Giving unions even the slightest advantage increases their political power and does not bode well for the future of the Lone Star State. 

Texas House Passes Fiscally Conservative Spending Limit

During the Texas House deliberations today, legislators approved an amendment to HB 7 that limits state spending growth to population growth plus inflation.  This is a very positive development that will prevent state government from gobbling up too much of the economy.  I'm happy to report that all three of Williamson County's elected representatives voted for HB 7 as amended.  (Larry Gonzales, Tony Dale, and Marsha Farney.)  Kudos to these Reps for taking a stand for fiscal restraint. 

Too bad we can't do something about the federal government, or even some local governments. 

Press release from the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

“Reining in the overgrowth of Texas state government has been one of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s top legislative priorities for many years. Between 1990 and 2012, total state spending increased at 2.5 times the rate of population growth plus inflation. When government spending increases faster than population growth plus inflation, that means the cost of government per person goes up, the footprint of government gets bigger, and the ability of families and businesses to meet their own needs while covering the cost of government comes under greater strain.

“Over the last few years, Texas voters have sent a clear message that the footprint of state government is as big as we want to see it get, and that we wanted our elected leaders to be more rigorous and thoughtful about setting spending priorities going forward. TPPF appreciates the efforts of State Representatives Phil King, John Otto, Drew Darby, and the 103 legislators in total who yesterday approved an amendment to HB 7 that adds a population growth plus inflation measurement to the state spending limit.

“Now it is the Senate’s time to act.  Sen. Dan Patrick’s SB 101 and SJR 10 await a Senate floor debate, and we encourage all senators to support these vital measures.”

The Honorable Arlene Wohlgemuth is the executive director and director of the Center for Health Care Policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. She served 10 years in the Texas House of Representatives, specializing in health care issues.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

National Day of Prayer 2013

Although Austin, Texas isn't necessarily known for active Christianity, this morning residents of the city and surrounding areas joined Governor Rick Perry in a special prayer breakfast.  Highlights included comments from former NFL player & State Representative Scott Turner, a performance by National Dove Award Artist Paul Overstreet, and a very heartfelt conversation about life and faith between Jimmy Gregory and Governor Perry.  Most significant however, was the prayer time; attendees spent time praying for the Military, those in government, education, media, business, and ministry, and especially families.  (And yes, we prayed for President Obama.)

There are many ways you can stand up for truth, but one essential element is to pray unceasingly. 

The official National Day of Prayer 2013 is actually May 2, but there are numerous events scheduled around the state all week long.  To find an event near you visit the NDP Task Force events page.  Several events are planned for Williamson County in Cedar Park, Georgetown, Leander, Round Rock, and Taylor.  Details can be found at the National Day of Prayer-Austin website. 

Misinformation About Union Political Disclosures

Yesterday I posted about Texas' Senate Bill 346, which would require greater political disclosure but would exempt labor unions from the new law.  Apparently some Republicans are defending the exemption because they have been led to believe that unions already engage in disclosure.

Political ethics attorney Jerad Najvar has done some fact-checking on these claims and shows that under IRS rules, even if a labor union engages in political advertising the union does NOT have to divulge contributor information.  Furthermore, unions can and do accept third-party contributions which do not have to be disclosed. 

Read the full story at Lex Politico. 

I'm afraid some of our legislators have been seriously mislead and I am pleading with them to do their homework before voting on Senate Bill 346.  As written, this bill is unacceptable. 

Who Represents Me?

Proposed Texas Law to Exempt Unions? Updated

Contrary to popular belief, labor union power is on the rise in Texas.  Few realize that our "right to work" status merely prohibits compulsory union membership.  Not only do we have a wide variety of private and public sector unions in Texas, union membership increased by 65,000 members last year.  It is no secret that the Democrat strategy to 'turn Texas Blue' is heavily reliant on burgeoning union power. 

Now it seems that the Texas Legislature is poised to pass legislation that would exempt labor unions from political disclosure rules.  Recently the Senate passed Senate Bill 346, which expands the definition of a 'political committee' and requires more activists to report contributions used for political purposes.  The vagueness of the proposed law is leaving many lawyers scratching their heads about who will be covered.  But one thing is certain, the law exempts labor unions.

From SB 346:

This subchapter does not apply to a labor organization or any subordinate entity or associated account of a labor organization.

Translated from the original Greek, this means:

This subchapter does not apply to a labor organization or any subordinate entity or associated account of a labor organization. 

As campaign attorney Jerad Najvar points out in Lex Politico, this law would "favor labor unions over everybody else."

Interestingly enough, it seems that the bill may have been slipped through the Senate without being read, because the Senate has taken the unusual step of recalling the bill.  (Concurrent resolution 33, April 17, 2013).  The recall measure passed by 21-10, but came too late to stop the House from taking up the bill.  SB 346 is currently listed as being in the House State Affairs Committee, and the House GOP still has an opportunity to amend.

In no way should any Republican be passing any law that exempts labor unions.  While there are other serious concerns about unintended consequences, political transparency is a good thing.  What is not good is giving labor unions special status.

Call your representative today and ask them to oppose SB 346 as written.
Who Represents Me? 

UPDATE:  My original wording left some readers confused about the current status of the bill.  I have revised to make it clear that the bill is technically in the House State Affairs Committee.

Related Posts
No Labor Unions in Texas?  Think Again...

Take Action to Support Crucial CAB Reform

UPDATE:  Texas Public Policy Foundation's David Guenther has interviewed Representative Dan Flynn on HB 3416 and CAB abuse.  The discussion will be available online tomorrow, April 15, as a TPPF Policy Cast here.  

As I've written previously, a bipartisan group of state leaders have proposed CAB, or Capital Appreciation Bond, reform.  The Senate version, (SB 449 authored by Sen. Juan Hinojosa) passed by a resounding vote of 28-3.  Now the House version, (HB 3416) is languishing in the Ways and Means Committee. 

Last week Leander ISD Trustee Pam Waggoner skipped the district's board meeting to attend a hearing on the House bill and argued that her district could not live without CABs that would allow them to defer debt for 30-40 years (and lead to a monstrous total debt burden of $2.7 billion).

Below is a communication I received from a concerned resident asking for help with this issue: 

Last Thursday in a public hearing LISD told the Texas House Ways and Means Committee that they couldn't live without CABs, that LISD kids would be stuck in portable buildings!  The brokers and some of the school districts turned out in droves to fight House Bill 3416  which would severely limit CABs, both to 20 years length instead of 30 or 40years and to 20-25% of the debt ratio per student for a district.  Not perfect, BUT WE NEED THIS BILL to slow LISD's insane spending.   It's our ONLY hope as LISD looks at issuing another $173 million bonds using CABs to drive our debt toward $4 BILLION.  The Bill is "pending", according to Rep. Flynn's office (the author) it is being tweaked and if we want it voted on and not languishing to die, we need to call and let them know they've been mislead by LISD and the Wall Street interests that are making millions off these CABs. 

I told them that a group of citizens here has worked for 2 years begging LISD to stop using CABs, and that they refused to listen.  I told them that virtually no voters in LISD actually know about the CABS, much less understand them, since LISD did absolutely NOTHING to tell voters in advance about their decision to incur the CAB debt before they issued them.  Then they used them to build lavish, extravagant facilities that would rival a private college campus, not just to replace portables. 

Please call or fax Chairman Hilderbran's office TODAY and talk to his staff. Let them know what you think about CABS! The more calls they get, the sooner it will be voted on. If you can think of anyone, please ask them to call to. Let's get this bill out of committee before LISD and Wall Street kill it!

Rep. Hilderbran, Harvey
District 53
(512) 463-0536
(512) 463-1449 Fax

Rep. John Otto (R) Vice Chair
(512) 463-0570
(512) 463-0315 Fax

Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R)
(512) 463-0727
(512) 463-0681 Fax
Rep. Angie Chen Button (R) Angie Chen
(512) 463-0486

Rep. Craig Eiland Craig (R)
(512) 463-0502
(512) 936-4260 Fax

Rep. Allan Ritter (R)
(512) 463-0706
(512) 463-1861 Fax

Rep. Mark Strama (D)
(512) 463-0821
(512) 463-1199 Fax

Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D)
(512) 463-0616
(512) 463-4873 Fax

Rep. Naomi Gonzalez (D)
(512) 463-0622
(512) 463-0931 (Fax)

Please note:  At this point, calls are more effective than emails.