And it seems to me that you haven't read the Factcheck article. I find it hard to believe they haven't read the bill when they actually cite SB 99 and dissect it at length, based on the exact wording.

Its conclusion is:

Quote
Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
The extremely partisan defense of the ad is the very definition of a specious argument. It's quite obvious what the insinuation was and what kind of disturbing image it was supposed to send. The distortion becomes even more evident when you read what's actually on the bill, who sponsored it and the intention of the interested parties.

I won't defend the Obama ad. I am not so blinded by my ideology that I don't recognize when the truth is twisted beyond recognition.

alcyone

One loses so many laughs by not laughing at oneself - Sara Jeannette Duncan
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/duty_calls.png