Laura Ingraham Disses Sex Education & Praises Abstinence
Reported by Priscilla - April 10, 2010 -
We know that Laura Ingraham is a very good conservative Christian because she wears a very big cross. And like all her fellow conservative Christians, she ascribes to the save your sex for Jesus philosophy otherwise known as “abstinence only education.” As a chaste, unmarried conservative woman (single conservatives like Laura, Coulter, and Limbaugh are all celibate, right?) Laura once said that women will be washed up at the age of 35 if they “come on to boys” when they’re younger. Despite the failure of abstinence only education (can you say Bristol Palin) Ingraham is a proponent of it. Obviously, as an adult convert to Catholicism, Laura doesn’t know that all the admonitions of all the old nuns didn’t stop Catholic high school students from responding to their hormonal urges even under threat of “mortal sin!” (Been, there, done that) Thus, her “Factor” segment about the ridiculous statement from a Wisconsin district attorney, who intends to prosecute teachers who teach sex education, quickly veered from her real area of expertise (not sex but the law) and into the area of evil sex and evil sex education. There was also a gratutitious slam at those slatternly women at Planned Parenthood (which was once in Laura’s “crosshairs”) and NARAL. One could almost envision the ruler in Sister Mary Laura’s hand as she spoke…
I really thought that Ingraham would be focusing on the questionable legal aspects of Juneau County District Attorney’s bizarre warning that any teacher who teaches the proper use of contraceptives could face criminal charges. Scott Southworth, an Christian evangelical Republican, was Laura’s guest on Thursday night’s “Factor” where she was filling in for Bill O’Reilly. Adding balance to the interview was Wisconsin State Rep. Kelda Roys (D) who helped draft the sex ed bill. Ingraham began rationally and even seemed somewhat skeptical when she asked “criminal penalties for teachers who participate in sex ed courses?” She explained that a new state law set some guidelines for non mandatory sex education; but that teachers could be charged with contributing to the delinquency of minors if they “follow the law.” She asked Roys about the need for “this particular piece of legislation in the public schools in Wisconsin.” Roys cited the need to “keep kids safe” and “empower them to make healthy decisions.” She referenced the high rate of female teen rate for STD’s and added that the course aims to reduce, in addition to STD’s, teen pregnancy and sexual assault. But the direction turned to the right when Ingraham asked if the goal is to say that “you’re having sex anyway, so here’s how to use a condom. If your goal is to keep young people healthy and safe, they obviously shouldn’t be engaging in sexual activity as a teenager?” (Thanks for your opinion, Laura!) Ingraham, interrupting Roys who attempted to reference data that “give us a road map”, waved her hand and said “whoa, whoa, whoa, the roadmap is clear, if you don’t have sexual activity as a teenager, you’re not going to get an STD…that is the only fact, incontrovertible, is it not?” Roys said that abstinence must be a part of sex-ed. Ingraham returned to her rational persona when she asked Southworth about his “inflammatory statements” concerning teacher who would run afoul of the law by teaching sex education. He said that the new law goes beyond basic human biology and forces teachers to instruct children in “recreational sex” and that because sex by and with children is illegal, teacher are encouraging children to break the law. Ingraham helped him out by saying “you’re not saying you’re against sex education in general; but this specific type of sex education that actually instructs how to use contraceptive devices…” (The issue of “instruction” wasn’t explained) Southworth then claimed that he “supports sex education” that “teaches human biology.”
The legal ramifications went unquestioned as Laura went back to Royes for more grilling about how NARAL and Planned Parenthood “plays into this” because they were partially the "impetus" for the legislation “to teach the use of contraceptives.” (Hmm, like the Catholic bishops were for the abandoned “Stupak Amendment?” Roys responded that the new law requires that the information be “medically accurate” so that teens could make “healthy choices.” Sister Mary Laura said “Is it healthy for them to be having sex” and when Royes tried to talk Laura shook her head and said, in an uncharacteristically high voice, “this conversation is frustrating, nah, nah, nah, what is the goal…would you recommend to 14 year olds, watching the show…that they should be having sexual activity. Roys said that she recommends teens talk to parents. Sister was happy with that answer but said that Roy didn’t answer the NARAL question. (Uh, Laura, that’s because you didn’t allow her to respond as your lecture took precedence!)
Comment: While Southworth, who is also claiming that this law will “force” teachers to teach about homosexuality and allow Planned Parenthood to market “sexually oriented material,” got a free pass, the majority if the interview was spent by Sister Mary Laura doing a lesson on bad teen sex. Despite the fact that Wisconsin teachers are appalled, there was no question about the reaction of educators. There was no mention of how a law professor at UW-Madison said it is unlikely that any prosecution would stand up in court because of "enormous deference to the recent legislative action." And how is teaching the use of contraceptives, teaching “sex for pleasure?” (Eww-bad) We don’t know because Ingraham didn’t ask. But we do know that Sister Mary Laura doesn’t want teens to have sex. Thing is, we know that they do and if we don’t give them the proper tools to deal with it, then there will be teen pregnancies and STD’s – and that’s what’s really irresponsible. But I guess in households where mommy wears a great, *big cross, sex isn’t an issue. The rest of you kids, write on the blackboard, “I will not have sex, I will not have sex…..”
*In my Catholic “academy,” the Irish Catholic nuns allowed us to only wear small, tasteful “miraculous medals.” (dedicated to Mary). They felt that faith is personal and wearing it on one’s neck was ostentatious and could signify false piety. I suspect that the conservative WASP women of Laura’s home state of Connecticut would find cross bling a bit déclassé – but then Laura is a WASC so I guess the rules are different!