Another sex education battle is brewing. First, there was a scathing New York Times editorial aimed at the Trump administration and at the idea of abstinence education. Then there was the front-page article in USA Today on sex education, politics, and pop culture.

These and other editorials and articles leave you with the feeling that: (1) the current sex education programs are working, (2) the abstinence programs are failures, and (3) the Trump administration is “advancing an anti-science, ideological agenda.” All three are false.

Back in 2010, President Obama’s administration eliminated all funding to Sexual Risk Avoidance education (that includes teaching about abstinence) and created the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program. Years later, HHS evaluated the comprehensive sex education program and concluded that more than 80 percent of the teens in the program fared either worse or no better than their peers who were not part of the program.

By contrast, abstinence programs have been proven effective. As I also pointed out in a previous commentary, a CDC report talks about additional health benefits that also accompany teaching about sexual risk avoidance.

Proponents of comprehensive sex education point to some studies that demonstrate that condoms can be effective in preventing the spread of STDs. But these studies say that condoms must be used consistently and correctly. Let me ask those of you who have had teenagers in your home. Would you use the words “consistently and correctly” to describe a teenager’s behavior? I didn’t think so.

Most Americans are surprised to learn that a majority of teens are NOT sexually active and that fewer are sexually active today than 20 years ago. Maybe it is time to reevaluate what we have been teaching in the schools.

Last month there was a big media flap because Michael Cohen (the president’s personal attorney) revealed that Sean Hannity was a client. All sorts of media commentators said that Hannity should have revealed that he had a relationship with Cohen when he was talking about the FBI raid on Cohen’s office.

That seemed like such a good idea, some have suggested this be called the “Sean Hannity Standard.” Not only should the Fox News host reveal his connections to people he discussed, but everyone in the media should do so. I welcome that because in researching this, I found various articles talking about the connections many in the mainstream media have with people they interview.

George Stephanopoulos has served as press secretary for President Bill Clinton. And he also interviewed former FBI director James Comey about his decision not to prosecute Bill Clinton’s wife Hillary over her mishandling of emails.

NBC’s Chuck Todd regularly interviews various Democratic senators. His wife is a longtime Democratic consultant and has even served as a communications director for a Democratic senate campaign. According to this new standard, Chuck Todd should have disclosed his wife’s relationship with these Democrats.

CNN’s Jake Tapper used to work for Handgun Control, Inc. but I don’t remember him acknowledging that before moderating a town hall on gun violence. He has also been a press secretary for a congressional campaign. And his wife has served as a regional field manager for Planned Parenthood.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan (former Fed chairman). ABC’s Claire Shipman is married to Jay Carney (former Obama press secretary). This list goes on and on. Perhaps that is why the idea of implementing the “Hannity Standard” faded so quickly.

Stephen Moore, an economist with the Heritage Foundation, wrote an op-ed with the intriguing title, “Goodbye, OPEC.” He argued that America was not only on the way to becoming energy independent but was also headed towards becoming energy dominant.

What a change this is from just a few decades ago. I grew up with environmentalists warning that we were running out of food and energy. They were predicting future famines and a major energy crisis. It was nearly impossible to imagine any way this country would be on its way to energy independence.

Stephen Moore was on my radio program to explain this remarkable turnaround. Much of it is due to the American oil shale boom which has significantly changed drilling operations in the Permian Basin in Texas and the Bakken Shale in North Dakota.

As America gets closer to becoming a net exporter of oil, that will have the positive effect of reducing our trade deficit. Obviously, Saudi Arabia is still a player in the oil business, but most of OPEC is fading away. Oil is now listing at $70 a barrel. As the price increases, that can also help the economy.

Of course, politics is another reason why America is moving toward energy independence and even energy dominance. The previous president wanted to restrict oil exploration and fossil fuel development. The current president has a different attitude. Some have called the oil shale boom “Donald Trump’s Revenge.” The president has been willing to free up lands in places like Alaska and has allowed permits for new pipelines. There is even talk in Congress about using royalty and lease payments from drilling on federal lands to reduce the current budget deficit.

All of these changes in energy policy and energy production are reasons that it may finally be time to say goodbye to OPEC.

Over the last year, we have been hearing that the judges that President Trump has been appointing to the bench have been faithful to the Constitution. But few of us have time to read any of their opinions and determine that for ourselves. So today I want to summarize the first opinion rendered by Judge James Ho (who now serves on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals).

Here is the opening line of his opinion: “The unfortunate trend in modern constitutional law is not only to create rights that appear nowhere in the Constitution, but also to disfavor rights expressly enumerated by our Founders.” For years, constitutional conservatives have longed to read this kind of sentence from federal judges.

He wrote this dissent on a case that was to determine whether a $350 limit on political contributions was constitutional. He questioned the right of government to limit political participation. “As citizens,” he wrote, “we enjoy the fundamental right to express our opinions on who does or does not belong in elected office.”

He also went beyond the decision at hand to observe that, “if you don’t like big money in politics, then you should oppose big government in our lives.” He reasons that if you are going to ask taxpayers to devote “a substantial percentage of their hard earned income to fund the innumerable activities” of various forms of government, then you should “at the very least allow citizens to spend a fraction of that amount to speak out about how the government should spend their money.”

It is going to be fun to watch the career of Judge James Ho. Who knows? He might even some day become the first Asian American to serve on the Supreme Court.

You may have heard the term “cultural appropriation.” But I have found that many of our listeners were unfamiliar with the term and how it is used to criticize anyone who is not deemed to be “politically correct.”

The online cultural appropriation police were in full view recently when a young woman decided to wear a traditional Chinese dress to her school prom. Since Keziah Daum is not Asian, this infuriated people on social media when she posted a picture of her in the dress. She thought it was beautiful. Social-justice warriors saw it as bigoted and a clear example of “cultural appropriation.”

The term “cultural appropriation” has been used in sociology to explain how a majority culture borrows or adapts from a minority culture some custom, fashion, or cuisine. In the past, it was a descriptive phrase. Now it has become a proscriptive phrase used to punish anyone who appropriates something from another culture.

Sometimes these accusations get very confusing. Vogue, for example, was accused of cultural appropriation when it featured “manicure sculptures” of white women with long nails. The criticism was that only black women can wear long-adorned nails because that belongs to black culture.

But others pointed out that long-adorned nails go all the way back to upper-class women in the Ming dynasty. They were a sign that you were too rich and powerful to do any manual labor. Should Vogue apologize to African-American women or the descendants from ancient China? It all gets very confusing.

Perhaps it is time to remind these critics that the meals we eat and the clothes wear are usually the byproducts of centuries of “cultural appropriation.” Even the English language I am using right now derives from many previous language sources. Let’s leave this young girl alone and focus on things that are really bigoted and offensive.

The Internal Revenue Code allows ministers and other religious leaders to take a housing allowance exemption, but that has now been threatened by a ruling by a federal district court judge. Her decision is currently on hold and has been appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Alliance Defending Freedom brief argues that the housing allowance provided to ministers “does not transfer public monies to ministers or houses of worship, nor does it result in any administrative or financial relationship between the government and religion.” Therefore, it is a permissible accommodation of religion and is consistent with this country’s “practice of exempting churches and other religious organizations from government-imposed tax burdens.”

It is worth noting that the housing allowance exemption actually predates the IRS code. Originally, it was provided for employees who had to live in a particular location in order to do their jobs (ranch hands, innkeepers, and military personnel).

Hiram Sasser (First Liberty Institute) asks, “Why would anyone ban rabbis, imams, pastors, and other religious leaders from a decades-old housing exemption simply because they are religious?” Ken Klukowski (also of First Liberty) reminds us “The parsonage exemption mirrors other housing allowances for teachers, first responders, and military personnel who must live in the community they serve.”

Many pastors already pay both the employee and employer taxes on Social Security and Medicare on their housing allowance. Removing the housing allowance without considering the self-employment tax issue would put ministers at a disadvantage in their tax burden. The IRS code, therefore, is a permissible accommodation of religion because it lifts the governmentally imposed tax burdens on ministers and other religious leaders.

How accurate are fact checkers? Many fact-checking sites are tied to newspapers, and others are independent operations. Often they provide a valuable service. Sometimes though, the fact checkers need to be fact-checked. Such was the case with Snopes, which is one of the best-known fact-checking sites.

Snopes did an analysis of one of the criticisms of California Assembly Bill 2943, which has been making its way through the legislature. The bill would prohibit the sale and distribution of books and counseling that is aimed at helping people overcome their same-sex attraction.

One member of the California Assembly (Travis Allen) wondered, “If this bill were to pass, would this prohibit the sale of the Bible, that teaches these things about sexual morality?” Snopes rejected the statement saying the bill “does not mention the Bible, Christianity, or religion at all” and concluded the statement was “demonstrably and clearly false.”

Robert Gagnon, writing in The Federalist, acknowledges that the bill doesn’t mention the Bible, but explains that is irrelevant. “Sure, it is virtually impossible that California will immediately attempt to ban the sale of the Bible itself. Not even the hard left in California has that kind of chutzpah. But citations of Bible verses in the context of declaring homosexual practice and transgenderism to be morally debased could indeed get one into serious trouble with the law if it comes in the context of selling or advertising a product or service.”

He concludes that Snopes “heavily shades the truth.” He then suggests, “Read the bill. There is no religious exemption. There is no restriction to mental health professionals.”

This bill in the California legislature is much worse than the fact checker would have you believe. It may not ban the Bible, but it would certainly ban all sorts of books and counseling in the name of promoting the homosexual agenda.

Sometimes the most important principles of a news story are the ones rarely mentioned. When we compare the death of Alfie Evans to Charlie Gard, we see the loss of parental control. And when we contrast his situation to the royal prince (Louis Arthur Charles) we see the danger of socialized medicine.

Over a week ago, the news dutifully reported that young Alfie Evans died because his parents were denied the opportunity to obtain treatment in Italy. Last year it was Charlie Gard who was taken off life support by the British court system and prevented from seeking medical treatment in America. These two cases will become the precedent that confirms that the state (not the parents) have control of sick children.

The British court system removed parental control and placed it in the hands of British bureaucrats. It is one thing when a government steps in when parents prevent children from receiving life-saving treatment. It is quite another when the government prevents parents from pursuing life-saving treatment for their child.

Consider the contrast of the death of Alfie Evans with the birth of the prince. If Louis Charles was born with some medical condition, don’t you think that the royal family would do anything they could to save the child? It is hard to imagine the British court system getting involved at all. His treatment would be the exception. Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard are the rule.

Sick children in a socialized medical system cannot be allowed to leave. Others might be ready to leave the system, and that would damage the system. And if any of these sick children were cured it would reflect badly on the medical experts and the British bureaucrats. So parents cannot be allowed to take their children to another country, even if the parents or the other country pay for it.

During this political season, various candidates are talking about further governmental control of health care. We need to ask them if the stories of sick children in England illustrate what they are advocating for America.