79-08-A3: Difference between revisions

From Ronald Reagan Speech Wiki
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
=== Transcript ===
Do you remember when we were told that the increase in the divorce rate and the number of children born out of wedlock were problems sex education in the schools could solve?
I'll be right back.


Recently a Los Angeles newspaper editorialized about the increasing birth rate among unwed teenage mothers, calling it a personal disaster for them and their children and a social disaster for the country. The writer then confirmed his opinion by citing statistics developed in a two-year study by a task force of the House Select Committee on Population. The figures are indeed sobering, one million adolescent girls get pregnant each year and a third of them have abortions. Of the six hundred thousand who gave birth last year, almost half, two hundred and fifty thousand, were under seventeen years of age. About seventy percent of the pregnant girls do not finish high school and ninety percent of those under age 15, drop out of school.
Not too long ago in talking about sex education in our schools I mentioned (if
>>MISSING<<
I remember correctly) that someone had recommended lowering the age of consent to
IN 1976, about half of the public funds expended for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, 4.6 billion, went to mothers who first gave birth as teenagers. Births among unwed teenagers have more than doubled since 1960 and the rate of births to girls under 15 has increased 33% in the last 10 years. 50% of unwed mothers are in their teens.
13 years. Let me correct that statement. Someone didn't just suggest it. It's a
part of the 212 page criminal code signed into law last August in the state of New
Jersey. It has just been discovered by a New Jersey police officer who sounded the
alarm.


The editorial went on to support proposals by a member of Congress to increase funds to extend family planning services to more teenagers and for an extension of sex education in our schools. It was pointed out that these proposals could lead to a saving of money because so many of these teenage mothers became dependent on welfare.
The new law reads that age of consent for sexual intercourse is lowered to 13
and even lower if there is less than 4 years difference in age between children
having sex.


I've never been against saving tax dollars but I wonder if our first concern shouldn't be for saving these girls from tragedy which could very well affect their entire lives. I'm not sure that more sex education as it is presently taught is the answer. Please note that I said "as it is presently taught." I'm sure all of us are aware of the importance of young people knowing, as we used to say, the Facts of Life, but in our concern less sex education in the schools violate religious beliefs have we been teaching sex as a purely physiological function like eating when you're hungry? Can we completely divorce sex education, as I'm afraid we do, from any association with moral behavior without implanting in young minds that it has no more significance than eating a sandwich? So why not? A california scholar has written an essay, "Turning Children Into Sex Experts." The author says, quote, "The seventh grader in my city is advised to set for himself a purely personal standard of sexual behavior. No religious views, no community moral standards are to deflect him from his overriding purposes of self-discovery, self-assertion and self-gratification." Unquote.
The purpose of the change was to exempt consenting youngsters from statutory
rape charges while strengthening protections for actual rape victims according to
the two feminist groups who drafted the legislation. Spokespersons for the groups
said, "A rape prosecution is too high a price to pay for adolescent sexuality."
They also said this brought the law up to date with the sexual habits of teenagers;
that "many parents don't know or want to admit it, but the number of sexually
active teenagers is increasing rapidly."


A judge has advocated lowering the age of consent to thirteen, because children are more sexually active these days.
In fairness let me say these spokepersons evidently were not representative
of many in the feminist groups who were not aware they were sponsoring such a law.
Remember it was in a 212 page bill -- Chapter 14 section 2C: 14-2.


Before we accept the congressman's idea, that more sex education is an answer to teenage pregnancy, shouldn't we ask if anyone has done a comparison of the situation before there was such education in the schools and after? I've had a report from one district that the venereal disease rate among young people in that district went up 800 percent in the first few years after sex education became a part of the curriculum.
In fact it had slipped by many of the legislators who had voted yes and who
now have introduced a bill to repeal the provision.


Before we do more of what we're doing, why don't we find out if what we're doing is part of the problem.
But it was the parents, the clergy, the NAACP and other groups who manned the
ramparts. One father said, "I look at my 13 year old and other youngsters and I
just can't see that they can handle sex emotionally."
 
Ironically this slipped through a legislature that is considering raising the
drinking age from 18 to 19 or 20.
 
But in all of the furor and understandable distress of parents one thing should
warm the hearts of all of us. God bless the wisdom that often goes with youth.
An 8th grader said, "I'm against the law. A lot of kids who didn't do it before
are going to try it now -- it's like giving them permission. And if they get
pregnant, who's going to marry a 13 year old?"
 
A teacher held a discussion of the law in her class when the publicity about it
had made it a subject of general conversation. "The kids said they weren't ready
for that kind of responsibility," she reported and then added this wonderful line.
"And they were surprised there were adults who thought they were."
 
Well, as someone once said, "some people grow up and some people just grow
older."


This is Ronald Reagan.
This is Ronald Reagan.
Line 36: Line 67:
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>05/29/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>05/29/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-446]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-446]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TABLE>

Latest revision as of 17:23, 20 March 2026

- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1979

<< Previous BroadcastNext Broadcast >>

Sex Education[edit]

Transcript[edit]

Not too long ago in talking about sex education in our schools I mentioned (if I remember correctly) that someone had recommended lowering the age of consent to 13 years. Let me correct that statement. Someone didn't just suggest it. It's a part of the 212 page criminal code signed into law last August in the state of New Jersey. It has just been discovered by a New Jersey police officer who sounded the alarm.

The new law reads that age of consent for sexual intercourse is lowered to 13 and even lower if there is less than 4 years difference in age between children having sex.

The purpose of the change was to exempt consenting youngsters from statutory rape charges while strengthening protections for actual rape victims according to the two feminist groups who drafted the legislation. Spokespersons for the groups said, "A rape prosecution is too high a price to pay for adolescent sexuality." They also said this brought the law up to date with the sexual habits of teenagers; that "many parents don't know or want to admit it, but the number of sexually active teenagers is increasing rapidly."

In fairness let me say these spokepersons evidently were not representative of many in the feminist groups who were not aware they were sponsoring such a law. Remember it was in a 212 page bill -- Chapter 14 section 2C: 14-2.

In fact it had slipped by many of the legislators who had voted yes and who now have introduced a bill to repeal the provision.

But it was the parents, the clergy, the NAACP and other groups who manned the ramparts. One father said, "I look at my 13 year old and other youngsters and I just can't see that they can handle sex emotionally."

Ironically this slipped through a legislature that is considering raising the drinking age from 18 to 19 or 20.

But in all of the furor and understandable distress of parents one thing should warm the hearts of all of us. God bless the wisdom that often goes with youth. An 8th grader said, "I'm against the law. A lot of kids who didn't do it before are going to try it now -- it's like giving them permission. And if they get pregnant, who's going to marry a 13 year old?"

A teacher held a discussion of the law in her class when the publicity about it had made it a subject of general conversation. "The kids said they weren't ready for that kind of responsibility," she reported and then added this wonderful line. "And they were surprised there were adults who thought they were."

Well, as someone once said, "some people grow up and some people just grow older."

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

 

Details[edit]

Batch Number79-08-A3
Production Date05/29/1979
Book/PageRPtV-446
AudioNo
Youtube?No

Added Notes[edit]

Retrieved from "http://www.poorrichardsprintshop.com:80/reagan_wiki/index.php?title=79-08-A3&oldid=4799"