F
Huffington Post
President Obama's 2010 budget, released this afternoon, eliminates federal funding for a range of abstinence-only education programs.
Here's a release from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:
President Obama released his FY 2010 budget today and called for at least $164 million in funding for a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative. This includes competitive grants for evidence-based programs, research and evaluation, and an authorization for $50 million in new mandatory teen pregnancy prevention grants to states, tribes, and territories. The budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education and the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program.
I've always been amazed at people that do not support the one proven method birth control and STD spreading.
I've always been amazed at people that do not support the one proven method birth control and STD spreading.
"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.
OH THAT'S right, because it requires people to use "self restraint" and they get held "responsible" for their actions.
Something the above posters seem to have an allergic reaction to.
Yes, because the government spending money to tell people to not have sex has proven to be soooo efficient. :roll:
Say what?
Can you define "proven?"
FOXNews.com - Study Finds Abstinence-Only Programs Fail to Reduce Teen Sexual Behavior - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News
And yes, that's Fox News.
I do think it's funny how the state that has gotten some of the most money, Texas has one of the highest STD and teen pregnancy rates.
Proven method you say Mr. V?
Well, if you're trying to prove that these programs are a colossal waste of money that actually results in the opposite effect of what you want, sure.
Generally, it helps you if you read first what people write instead of just assuming whatever you want. What Obama did was cut funding for programs that have certifiably failed to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs. That does not mean we remove all abstinence ideas from sexual education.
For someone who decries federal waste, why are you promoting such programs when they do not work? That's worse then waste. At least waste generally gets something done. These programs utterly fail at their primary objective.
Furthermore, several studies have concluded that Abstinence-Only is actually WORSE as it does not factually teach kids reality. Explain to me how you expect our kids to make good choices when they are deliberately fed lies?
Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hey OC, WHEN practiced, it works 100% of the time.
MrVicchio said:Enabling adults that push "have sex, use a condom"... you're the reason it fails.
With all the societal messages from people like yourself saying "go ahead, just be safe about it?"
I was a virgin till I met my first wife and got married. I had parents that stressed the dangers, while handing me boxes of condoms. Guess what, if they had left it at "just have sex, be safe" I might have made a big mistake.
Abstinence education needs responsible adults/parents not enabling "friends".
Hey OC, WHEN practiced, it works 100% of the time.
Enabling adults that push "have sex, use a condom"... you're the reason it fails.
Ya but it's rarely practiced. And abstinence-only education misleads people into believing that birth control is not effective, so when they DON'T practice abstinence they are less likely to use contraception.
Right. It's all the parents' fault that their kids don't wait until they're 45 to have sex. It's not hardwired into human biology or anything.
Great, all we need to do now is eliminate all sex education from the federal budget. Let states do it if SOME people want it so badly. :roll: Either the government should fund both rather inefficiant methods, or the government should fund neither of them. Since I don't like taxes going down the drain in an economy such as this, I'd rather take the former.
burden of proof? How is it cost effective? Oh, and, why does it cost the government anything, other than going to public school.It is in the interest of the federal government to push for sex education. In the long run it A) reduces the number of people who end up needing medical treatment for STDs and can't afford it(usually minorities) and B) unwanted pregnancies. This is not a states issue. It costs the government more to take care of an unwanted kid that it does to teach kids not to have sex without protection.
Great, all we need to do now is eliminate all sex education from the federal budget. Let states do it if SOME people want it so badly. :roll: Either the government should fund both rather inefficiant methods, or the government should fund neither of them. Since I don't like taxes going down the drain in an economy such as this, I'd rather take the former.
It is in the interest of the federal government to push for sex education. In the long run it A) reduces the number of people who end up needing medical treatment for STDs and can't afford it(usually minorities) and B) unwanted pregnancies. This is not a states issue. It costs the government more to take care of an unwanted kid that it does to teach kids not to have sex without protection.
I don't buy the "they'll do it anyway" failed line of thinking.
My wife now? Was 24 when we met, and a virgin.
You all pushing to end Abstinence education... you have very little faith in people, I believe we CAN do better, but not by giving up. You all have given up.
burden of proof?
A new report analyzing the impact evaluations of more than 100 teenage pregnancy prevention programs across the country that were judged to have employed rigorous research methods concludes that eight individual programs, and three different program models, demonstrated "high evidence of success"; the most effective individual program was able to affect teen sexual and contraceptive behavior for up to three years. Authored by Douglas Kirby and released May 30 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Emerging Answers examines a wide range of interventions to reduce teen pregnancy and childbearing, including some that do not directly address sex.
It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occur before the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexual intercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infections occur because young people don’t have the knowledge or skills to protect themselves. To address this important health issue, the American Psychological Association (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supported sex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teach youth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protect themselves against HIV and other sexually
transmitted diseases.
Although STDs are widespread across racial and ethnic groups, the rates tend to be higher among African Americans than white Americans.
Blacks remain the group most heavily affected by gonorrhea. In 2004, the gonorrhea rate among blacks was 19 times the rate among whites.
The rate of chlamydia among black women was nearly eight times the rate among white women. The rate among black men was more than 11 times that of white men.
How is it cost effective?
Oh, and, why does it cost the government anything, other than going to public school.
Hey OC, WHEN practiced, it works 100% of the time.
Enabling adults that push "have sex, use a condom"... you're the reason it fails.
I don't buy the "they'll do it anyway" failed line of thinking. My wife now? Was 24 when we met, and a virgin.
Abstinence requires PERSONAL INTEGRITY. Any dog can hump, a mature human knows how to control themselves.
You all pushing to end Abstinence education... you have very little faith in people, I believe we CAN do better, but not by giving up. You all have given up.
Oh yes Im at fault because me and my current girlfriend of two years have sex on a regular basis and decide to use protection both myself and her.
Heres a bright idea:
Cut all sex education funding period and let PARENTS do some damm parenting.
It is in the interest of the federal government to push for sex education.
In the long run it A) reduces the number of people who end up needing medical treatment for STDs and can't afford it(usually minorities)
and B) unwanted pregnancies.
This is not a states issue.
It costs the government more to take care of an unwanted kid that it does to teach kids not to have sex without protection.
That's your decision, and you are how old?
If you must know Im 24
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?