Family First NZ states:

TEENS REJECT ‘SAFE SEX’ EDUCATION

SUPPORT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND ‘RIGHT TO LIFE’

A nationwide poll of 600 young people aged 15-21 poll has found that they hold conservative values on sex issues – which are significantly similar to the views of parents.

 SEX EDUCATION

When asked “Do you think sex education in schools should teach values, abstinence and consequences such as pregnancy, or just teach safe sex?” only 19% supported just the ‘safe sex’ message currently being taught in schools, with one in three (34%) wanting ‘values, abstinence, and consequences such as pregnancy’ taught instead, and a further 42% asking for a combination of both – especially amongst older teens. The support for just the ‘safe sex’ message dropped even lower for the older teens.

 “This is a direct rebuke from young people to the ‘use a condom’ and ‘everyone’s doing it’ messages being pushed by groups like Family Planning, AIDS Foundation and Rainbow Youth,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

 “Many parents were rightly horrified last year when details of what was being taught in schools under the guise of ‘sex education’ surfaced. Judging by the results of the current approach – which is a good place to start – sex education has been an utter failure. New Zealand has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the OECD, our STD rates are out of control and the number of teenage girls having abortions continues to rise.”

 “For those youth who are sexually active, they are not being told the truth. Groups like the Family Planning Association and the AIDS Foundation are perpetuating the myth that as long as you use a condom, you can pretty well do what you like in terms of promiscuity, experimentation, and fringe behaviours – with little or no information on the physical or emotional ramifications or prevention of disease.”

In one example, a mixed class of boys and girls were asked by the AIDS Foundation if they had masturbated lately and were given condoms and strawberry-flavoured lubricant. They were also given a leaflet featuring graphic pictures, terms including “cock” and “wank”, and advice on the best condoms. Reports last year highlighted that children as young as 12 are being taught about oral sex and told it’s acceptable to play with a girl’s private parts as long as “she’s okay with it”. In other cases, 14-year-old girls are being taught how to put condoms on plastic penises, and one female teacher imitated the noises she made during orgasm to her class of 15-year-olds. One concerned father took his 12-year-old son out of a sex education class at his all-boy school after he came home upset about what had happened during one of the lessons. It included a question-and-answer session that focused on, “I have learned that my girlfriend has a thing called a clitoris. I really want to play with it. Is that okay?” The answer was: “Yes, if you ask her and she’s okay with it.”

 A poll of parents in 2010 found that three out of four parents of young children want the abstinence message taught in sex education – with 69% of kiwis overall supporting the ‘wait’ message.

 PARENTAL NOTIFICATION

When asked “Provided it won’t put the girl in physical danger, should parents be told if their school-age daughter is pregnant and considering getting an abortion?” 59% of young respondents thought the parents should be told. 34% disagreed. More young men than women agreed, but both had majority agreement.

 “It is significant that even young people can see the importance of having parents informed and involved, even when they know that those same parents will be rightly disappointed and upset. This is a very strong response from young people, and is a rebuke to the politicians in 2004 who chose to exclude parents from this process when debating the provision in the Care of Children Bill,” says Mr McCoskrie.

 According to the Care of Children Act 2004, access to abortion is not restricted on grounds of age. Section 38 of the Act says that a girl of any age can give consent to an abortion and that consent operates as if it were given by her parents. Therefore, her parents need never know that their daughter is having such a procedure. Family First is aware of young girls being written to directly asking them to make an appointment to have the Gardasil vaccine.

 “This all effectively means that while a parent has to sign a letter for their daughter to go on a school trip to the zoo or to play in the netball team, they are totally excluded from any knowledge or granting of permission for that same child to be put on the pill, have a vaccine, or have a surgical abortion,” says Mr McCoskrie.

 When parents were asked a similar question in a 2010 poll, 79% responded yes – only 12% said no.

 Family First is asking for the law to be amended to allow for parental notification in all cases of medical advice, prescriptions and procedures unless it can be proved to a family court that it would place the child at extreme risk.

 “Parental notification laws in Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, and other US states have seen a drop in both the pregnancy rate and the teen abortion rate – a win-win situation for all concerned. This is especially relevant when almost 80 teenagers a week have an abortion in NZ,” says Mr McCoskrie.

 UNBORN CHILD’S RIGHT TO LIFE

When asked “Do you believe an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born?” 56% of youth respondents said they believed an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born. Slightly more young women than young men agreed – 58% to 55%. Those aged 15 to 17 were strongest in support – 66%.

 “This is a pleasantly pro-life view from our young people. A decision from the Court of Appeal last June that the law does not recognize or confer a right to life on the unborn child sends a dangerous message, and should make NZ’ers feel very queasy,” says Mr McCoskrie.

 “The message that an unborn child has absolutely no rights is completely inconsistent with warning messages about prenatal alcohol and drug use, recognising the unborn child as a victim with respect to violent crimes on pregnant women, and even the report released by Sir Peter Gluckman referring to ‘environmental risks that occur prenatally’.

 “On the one hand we are imploring pregnant women to live a healthy lifestyle to enhance the wellbeing of their unborn child, yet on the other hand the courts are telling us that the child has no right to life. That’s a contradictory message that shows a complete disregard for the most vulnerable. Just when does a child obtain the right to live? 30 weeks? 40 weeks? In the birthing room? At the first Plunket visit?” asks Mr McCoskrie.

Family First is calling for a law change that gives an unborn child the same human rights as any other human being.

 “Teenagers are right to say that we should not allow discrimination against our most vulnerable.”

 The Curia Market Research poll surveyed 600 15-21 year olds nationwide. The poll was conducted between 4 and 6 December 2011 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.1%.

ENDS

FULL POLL RESULTS CAN BE FOUND AT:

http://www.familyfirst.co.nz

Bob McCoskrie – National Director, Family First NZ

See Sunday Star Times coverage of Family First media release:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/6226549/Conservative-young-cautious-on-sex-education

Joy To The World (Lyrics)

 Joy to the world the Lord is come!

Let earth receive her King:

Let ev’ry heart prepare Him room,

 And heav’n and nature sing,

And heav’n and nature sing,

 And heav’n and nature sing .

                       +++++++

Joy to the world, the Saviour reigns!

Let men their songs employ:

While fields and floods, rocks, hills and plains,

Repeat the sounding joy,

Repeat the sounding joy,

Repeat the sounding joy.

                      +++++++

He rules the world with truth and grace

And makes the nations prove

The glories of His righteousness,

And wonders of His love,

And wonders of His love,

And wonders of His love

                    +++++++++++

The words and lyrics of this much loved old Christmas carol “Joy to the World” were written in 1719 by Isaac Watts, an ordained Christian pastor.

 Isaac Watts (17 July 1674 – 25 November 1748), is recognised as the “Father of English Hymnody”, as he was the first prolific and popular English hymnwriter, credited with some 750 hymns. Many of his hymns remain in active use today and have been translated into many languages.

Besides being a famous hymn-writer, Isaac Watts was also a renowned theologian and logician, writing many books and essays on these subjects. Watts was the author of a text book on logic which was particularly popular; its full title was, Logic, or The Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry After Truth With a Variety of Rules to Guard Against Error in the Affairs of Religion and Human Life, as well as in the Sciences. This was first published in 1724, and its popularity ensured that it went through twenty editions.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Watts

What better way to fulfill our Society’s charitable aims of “promoting moral and spiritual welfare” among this sector of society, than to supply a high quality and easy-to-read book to each of our 8,800 prisoners: one that promotes spiritual and moral values! During the year our Society has been helping get a copy of The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan – in a modern English version – to every prisoner. Already over 800 have been distributed with the help of the NZ Prison Chaplaincy Services. This book is arguably the most published book in the world – second only to the Bible and is acclaimed by some reputable scholars as “the greatest allegory ever written” (see www.pilgrimsprogress.co.nz ).

Our involvement in this project has come about in part as a result of research the Society has carried out into the needs of prisoners in the area of literacy and rehabilitation. A number of our members have been involved for many years in prison ministry and are still actively involved.

The Society’s objectives (see www.spcs.org.nz ) include:

“To encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person made in the image of God” and promote “wholesome personal values as the foundation for stable communities”.(extract from SPCS Constitution available in full on line at www.charities.govt.nz & www.societies.govt.nz). See Mattew 25: 36-40.

View the brochure below if you wish to financially support the project

An essay by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and editorial board member of Public Discourse

This essay, published 17 October 2011,  is adapted from remarks he delivered earlier this month at a conference honoring John Finnis at the University of Notre Dame.

Copyright 2011 The Witherspoon Institute – PUBLIC DISCOURSE – Ethics, Law and the Common Good.

Quote:

“….the familiar depiction of the debate over pornography regulation as pitting the “rights of individuals,” on the one side, against some amorphous “majority’s dislike of smut,” on the other, is false to the facts. The public interest in a cultural structure—in which, as Dworkin says, “sexual experience has dignity and beauty”—is the concrete interest of individuals and families who constitute “the public.” The obligations of others to respect their interests, and of governments to respect and protect them, is a matter of justice.”

For fulll essaygo to: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/10/3958

The Society’s Web blog aims to stimulate rational reflection on, and reasoned appraisal of, a wide rage of issues affecting families and society. Since human opinion is always corrigible and meaningful assertions imply conditions under which they may be falsified, the web blog opinion piece articles are written in the belief that truth is ultimately independent of opinion. The opinions and views expressed in such web log articles do not necessarily wholly reflect the Society’s stance. They are simply deemed to be worth publishing for readers to consider, evaluate, respond to, etc. A careful effort is made to ensure that no article is published that promotes or defends any viewpoint that is contrary to, or might undermine or negate, our Society’s objectives.

Copied from www.spcs.org.nz/activities/

The Society’s objectives have been registered with the Registrar of Societies. See www.societies.govt.nz (Inc. Soc. No. 217833. Incorporated 26/09/07) or viewed at www.spcs.org.nz/objectives/

In an open letter to The Dominion Post, 14 of the 18 members of Capital & Coast and Hutt Valley district health boards have called for “a community-wide conversation” about alcohol, saying the health system can only do so much on its own.

The board members – who are voted in by the public or appointed by the Government – have added their voices to those of staff at both organisations, who have relentlessly decried the end effects of alcohol abuse.

Alcohol, as well as contributing to patients showing up at emergency departments, is responsible for a significant proportion of cancers, organ diseases and other long-term illnesses that the health system treats.

“Community agencies battle with other costs – broken relationships, poor work records, car crashes, domestic violence, money problems and heartbreaking wasted potential” said emergency department doctor Linda Head.

The group penned the open letter in support of the Cannons Creek community in Porirua which objected to the relicensing of local store Thirsty Liquor, near Russell School, and the manager’s certificate. The SPCS supports those who raised public awareness of the issue by engaging in a peaceful street march and wrote letters to the papers expressing their views.

Capital & Coast board member Judith Aitken said that “the regulatory regime that’s in place [to contol alcohol licensing, advertising etc] and is being considered by the Government, is completely inadequate”.

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc., a registered charity with the Charities Commission (CC20268), has as one of its objects for which it is established

“To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of [among other things] the ABUSE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS” (taken from section 2d of its Constitution)

It supports community groups speaking out about matters relevant to the moral and spiritual welfare of society, including “the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity, pornography, violence, fraud, dishonesty in business, exploitation … and other forms of moral corruption.” (S. 2d)

On the positive side, the Society was also established “To foster public awareness on the benefits to social, economic and moral welfare of the maintenance and promotion of good community standards, including supporting enforcement agencies to uphold such standards as set out in law and to encourage condstructive debate and discussion in this area.”

For this reason, individual members have made submissions over the years to parliamentary select committees and other forums such as the Law Commission – looking at proposed changes to our alcohol laws. The Society agrees with Capital & Coast Board member Judith Aitken that our current regulatory laws on alcohol are woefully inadequate.  Enforcement agencies need to be more proactive in enforcing the law and our courts need to deliver sentences that are commensurate with the offences/crimes committed – i.e. sentencing in line with the intention of the law – they MUST act ass a real deterrent to law breaking.

Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, has been calling for some years for a raising of  the drinking age. It made a submission to the Law Commission’s Inquiry calling for the purchase age to be lifted to 20. This call, supported by many community groups, and one that was included in the Law Commission’s original recommendationds, has been rejected by parliament.

It says that potential complainants may not speak up and complain about breaches of broadcasting standards as a result of the BSA refusing to grant name suppression to complainants.

 “It takes a lot of courage for complainants to speak up about broadcasting breaches and it serves no purpose for their names to be broadcast or printed in the media. Families will be less inclined to speak up if they know they will have their name splashed across the media, and especially where they are complaining about what they consider a moral issue which they feel strongly about,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. Family First is referring to a decision released today regarding a Prime TV programme on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra which included references to sexual activity and bodily functions where the complainants requested name suppression but were refused by the BSA. 

“The programmers, producers and schedulers responsible for broadcasting the material are often able to hide behind a mask of anonymity, but complainants have no similar right,” says Mr McCoskrie. 

“The issue is not who complained, but whether the complaint was warranted. This is no different to Crimestoppers, CYF, the Department of Labour, and the IRD – all which allow for anonymous complaints.” 

“The BSA should focus on the merits of the complaint, not the identity of the complainant. And complainants should be given the right to ask for name suppression.”

End

Tens of thousands of the guides were distributed throughout the country by Family First NZ, a charity registered with the Charities Commission; assessing the political parties based on their responses and/or lack of responses to questions on their respective policies on moral and conscience issues considered by the charity to be highly important to prospective voters. Such issues included:

1. Define marriage as one man and one woman

2. Policies promoting marriage

3. Unborn child has right to life

4. Informed consent for women seeking abortion 

5. Parental notification for teen pregnancies

6. Abstinence and parental-based sex education

7. Legalisation of surrogacy

8. Same sex adoption by non-biological adults

9. Decriminalisation of euthanasia

10 G-rated billboards

11. Decriminalise non-abusive smacking

12 Raise drinking and purchase age to 20

The pamplete stated: “The leaders of the Labour, National and Maori Parties refused to complete the questionnaires.” Points were awarded to responses (Yes/No) which were in line with Family First NZ position. Where possible the charity analysed these three partys’  voting record and public statements on these issues, but was only able to provide guidance on the policies relating to a small small number of the 30 questions/issues raised.

NZ First NZ and the Conservative Party (the latter received 2.8% of the vote, fifth in ranking ahead of their closest rival the Maori Party, which only scored 1.3%) were real ‘winners’ on election night. ‘Winners’ in the sense of wooing a significant block of voters (almost 10%), based on a firm, unequivocal policy stance taken on 30 values issues – with answers in harmomy with Family First NZ position – while leaders of the National, Labour and Maori parties who refused to respond ‘failed’ in the “value” assessment. The Greens scored poorly in the Family First NZ guide at 23% – well below Act at 43% and United Future at 37%.