Why is it that people embrace anything that claims to be “award winning” without question? If ever you want to sell something – tell people it’s “award winning” and you’re guaranteed to pick up some easily swayed fans. Such was the case last summer, when the school sexual education curriculum in Scarborough was challenged by concerned parents.

The school board had its job cut out for them, as chambers that normally have few spectators became packed with concerned parents. It became apparent that the big guns needed to come in to defend the sexual education program. Appropriately so, Scarborough’s curriculum director, Monique Culbertson presented the current program. She was sure to mention that Scarborough’s program had received a recognition award.

Now she can boast that Scarborough’s curriculum has received two awards. So, how dare those parents ever question the sexual education curriculum again – right? Maybe it’s time to look at where those awards are coming from, and start asking some embarrassing questions like who’s in bed with whom?

Superintendent William Michaud recently accepted an award from Planned Parenthood’s Chanda Turner for his success in “holding back the extremism that has been so prevalent elsewhere, as evidenced by the governor’s recent decision to refuse federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds.”

Since when is encouraging kids to hold off on having sex considered extreme? With the now known and well documented increases in sexually transmitted diseases, and the rapid rise of cervical cancers in the 15-to-25-year-old age group, why shouldn’t informed parents storm town hall to encourage change?

In the heat of summer’s sexual education hearing, a South Portland woman from Planned Parenthood, spoke out against Heritage of Maine’s offer to supplement – not replace – Scarborough’s current program with a program that promoted abstinence only. She cautioned meeting attendees to look at the material carefully because the Heritage program was pro-marriage, and promoted the heterosexual relationship. At the time, I thought she was a fringe and radical thinker, and since few raised question or challenge to her comment, we moved on.

But it’s hard to move on now that we learn that superintendent Michaud has accepted an award from this very organization. It prompted me to dig a little deeper into what Planned Parenthood is all about.

Margaret Sanger, founder (1879-1966), was one of 11 children born to poor Irish immigrant parents. Raised in poverty, she married into wealth and settled in Greenwich Village, N.Y. She became closely associated to leading figures in the eugenics movement – believing that some human races were superior to others – superior races should be encouraged to reproduce, while those considered inferior members of society such as the poor or minorities should be regulated. In the May 1919 edition of the Birth Control Review, she wrote, “More children from the fit, less from the unfit – that is the chief aim of birth control.” And then, in November 1921’s edition, she declared, “Birth control: to create a race of thoroughbreds.”

Not only did Sanger have a disregard for the poor, whom she referred to as “human weeds,” she also had a disdain for blacks, of which her motives were clear: “Remember our motto: if we must have welfare, give it to the rich, not to the poor…We are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

Just when you may think that it couldn’t get any worse, she then lashes out against marriage: “The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order.” Rather, Sanger endorsed over throwing the family unit to make way for a “voluntary association” between sexual partners that focused more on sexual gratification rather than reproduction.

In honoring Michaud, Planned Parenthood had this to add: “… we are convinced that more public talk – not less – is what is required to counteract the pervasive and often negative influences of popular culture on teen sexual health…”

I’d say it’s time for more talk – but not with Planned Parenthood – thank you. This organization has endorsed the following goals that are fostering the pervasive and negative influences that they claim to prevent:

– Children as young as 5 should be taught about masturbation and vaginal intercourse.

– Children as young as 9 should be taught about contraception, abortion, and bisexuality.

– Children as young as 12 should be taught about mutual masturbation and contraception without parental consent or notification.

Our superintendent wants only the most expensive, state-of-the-art schools, to reflect the affluent society that we dream of becoming. While many of us question how we will pay for this affluence, more expense is anticipated to the tune of roughly $50 million for a new intermediate school, and an addition to the middle school.

But wait, maybe there’s a solution – the “award winner” has jumped in bed with Planned Parenthood, the group who cautions against marriage and the heterosexual relationship. To the best of my knowledge, it is the heterosexual union that produces children. If we avoid that, our school population will decline, and we won’t need all those luxurious schools after all!

Accepting an award from a special interest group is irresponsible, and misleading to the credibility of curriculum. That’s my opinion, I welcome yours.