Planned Parenthood's Children's Sex Ed Materials are 'Too Graphic' for New York Times
Photo Credit: DarlaMackThis week, both the New York Times and Washington Post rejected a full-page advertisement from American Life League as “too graphic” and “shocking” for their adult readers. What was too graphic? This full-page color advertisement showed images from actual Planned Parenthood sex-ed materials used for children as young as 10 years of age. ALL couldn’t agree more. The rejected [and graphic] ad can be seen HERE.
“The question we must ask is: Why is the Obama administration funneling $350 million to push this filth into classrooms while at the same time telling us we don’t have money for White House tours, TSA agents, or border security?” asked Judie Brown, president and cofounder of ALL. “Starting in kindergarten, funded with our tax dollars, PP uses graphic cartoons to saturate children with sexual imagery that encourages them to focus on sexuality, engage in sex, and accept dangerous aberrant sexual acts as perfectly normal. Parents’ tax dollars are being used to turn their own children into Planned Parenthood’s future sex customers.”
To raise public awareness about Planned Parenthood’s controversial sex education—-more accurately described as sexual indoctrination—-ALL planned a series of advertisements revealing what and how children are really taught in PP’S so-called “comprehensive sex education.” These are programs that are already in many schools and will reach all public schools as currently mandated in Obamacare.
The Washington Post rejected the advertisement simply saying that, without disguising the pictures, it was “too graphic.” The only images in the ad are from Planned Parenthood-endorsed sources. If they are too graphic for adults reading the Washington Post, then they certainly should not be in elementary school classrooms.
Read more from this story HERE.
