States rebel against sex-ed rules

[1069]

States rebel against sex-ed rules

By P.J. Huffstutter, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times; Tribune staff reporter Diane Rado in Chicago contributed to this report

In an emerging revolt against abstinence-only sex education, states are turning down millions of dollars in federal grants, unwilling to accept White House dictates that the money be used for classes focused almost exclusively on teaching chastity.

In Ohio, Gov. Ted Strickland said that regardless of the state's sluggish economic picture, he simply did not see the point in taking part in the controversial State Abstinence Education Grant program anymore.

Five other states -- Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Montana and New Jersey -- already have dropped the program or plan to do so by year's end. The program is managed by a unit of the U.S. Department of Heath and Human Services.

>snip<

"Cash-starved school districts are going with abstinence-only programs even though they don't necessarily believe in them," he said. "We get no government support for comprehensive [sex-education] programs whatsoever."

Ohio's Strickland, like most of the other governors who are pulling the plug on the funding, said last month that the program has too many restrictions and rules to be practical. Among other things, the money cannot be used to promote condom or contraceptive use, and requires teachers to emphasize ideas such as that bearing children outside wedlock is harmful to society and "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."

That states are walking away from such funding alarms abstinence-only groups, who insist that cutting off this source of revenue will close dozens of non-profit sex education groups -- and undermine the progress they have made to fight teen pregnancy and curtail the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

>snip<

White House support for the so-called Title V [abstinence education] grant remains strong. President Bush has asked Congress to carve out $191 million for the program in fiscal 2008, an increase of $28 million over current funding.

>snip<

link

When people are willing to turn down grant money, you know they're really serious.
That's pretty much the only way you can tell; talk, after all, is less than cheap: it's free.
But when you're willing to lay out some money for your principles- or turn down federal handouts because of them- that's when the government could be reasonably expected to get the message.
At least, that would be the case if the government were comprised of and headed by reasonable people, which it apparently isn't.

Perhaps Bush will manage to spin this new development in such a way as to convince himself that the reason states are turning down Title V money is because they would prefer to pay for abstinence education programs out of their own pockets, in order that the Title V money can be applied to winning the "War on Terror" instead... :roll:

 

[Jerry]

States rebel against sex-ed rules

By P.J. Huffstutter, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times; Tribune staff reporter Diane Rado in Chicago contributed to this report

In an emerging revolt against abstinence-only sex education, states are turning down millions of dollars in federal grants, unwilling to accept White House dictates that the money be used for classes focused almost exclusively on teaching chastity.

It's always good to see states make sacrifices to support the WoT and help the Bush administration balance the budget.

I mean, the nobility displayed here….did they create an elective sex-ed course? No. Did they invite, say, the Red Cross in to hold a couple free classes? No. They simply laid down the money with no attempt what so ever to mitigate and supplement the curriculum, keeping both the money and the safe-sex-ed.

Selflessness.

 

[1069]

Bush is a joke.
He's the bane of every thinking Republican's existence.
He's ensured that the Democrats will prevail for years- if not decades- to come.

 

[Jerry]

Bush is a joke.
He's the bane of every thinking Republican's existence.
He's ensured that the Democrats will prevail for years- if not decades- to come.

He signed the NAFTA agreement, so there's simply no disagreeing with your opinion here.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I noticed New Jersey was mentioned as a state refusing to participate in this failure of a program. Yet another reason I am proud to be a New Jerseyite.

 

[FallingPianos]

this is a great website: http://www.nonewmoney.org/

you've all written to your congressmen asking them to support the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act right?

 

[Dogger807]

I've always thought abstinence education was the equivalent of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. A complete and total disservice to the children involved. Wanna bet they get more education from their peers and the internet than they do from the class.

Scary enough a lot of what they do get from their friends and the internet is based in more truth than what the class teaches. Have you seen the teaching guide for this class? It should be called "enforcing religious sexual morals thru the use of guilt, fear and lies." but that title was just too long.

 

[debate_junkie]

I've always thought abstinence education was the equivalent of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand. A complete and total disservice to the children involved. Wanna bet they get more education from their peers and the internet than they do from the class.

Scary enough a lot of what they do get from their friends and the internet is based in more truth than what the class teaches. Have you seen the teaching guide for this class? It should be called "enforcing religious sexual morals thru the use of guilt, fear and lies." but that title was just too long.

So abstinence has no good qualities then? It only serves to scare children into compliance? Wow, either I'm older than I thought, or I am too scared and cannot grasp the "if it feels good, do it" mantra.

 

[Dogger807]

So abstinence has no good qualities then? It only serves to scare children into compliance? Wow, either I'm older than I thought, or I am too scared and cannot grasp the "if it feels good, do it" mantra.

wow... what a way to twist my words . I never said abstinence has no good qualities. It's not totally a good thing, but I never said anything about it being devoid of virtue.

I did however state that the whole abstinence only mind set is a few steps shy of connecting with reality. I also stated the information obtained by children through other methods besides the class are closer to the truth. I also stated that they were using the same methods to teach it that are often employed by religion.

And just how the heck did you mange to think I was implying "if it feels good , do it." ???

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Whose worst nightmare are you supposed to be?

So abstinence has no good qualities then? It only serves to scare children into compliance? Wow, either I'm older than I thought, or I am too scared and cannot grasp the "if it feels good, do it" mantra.

What are the good qualities? Let me guess: No disease or pregnancy? Well thats a bit like staying at home to avoid car accidents.

It isn't about doing what feels good, you presumptuous git, its about your not having any good reasons not to do something that is NOT intrinsically wrong, especially if you are properly educated, mature, and safe about it.

 

[BWG]

So abstinence has no good qualities then?

I think they're talking about teaching abstinence-only sex education, per the original article posted.
Sex education should teach about abstinence along with proper protection against disease and pregnancy and the consequences that can and will occur.
Kids know when you're lying to them. Remember how successful drug education was when the teaching method was the fear factor and nothing else?

Wow, either I'm older than I thought, or I am too scared and cannot grasp the "if it feels good, do it" mantra.

LOL...that was the tag hung on my generation, 'Free Love', Rock and Roll will be the destruction of America, this generation is going to hell in a handbasket...yada, yada, yada.
That generation is now the CEOs, managers, superintendents, business owners, political leaders at all levels, etc. Go figure.:shrug:

 

[debate_junkie]

Re: Whose worst nightmare are you supposed to be?

What are the good qualities? Let me guess: No disease or pregnancy? Well thats a bit like staying at home to avoid car accidents.

It isn't about doing what feels good, you presumptuous git, its about your not having any good reasons not to do something that is NOT intrinsically wrong, especially if you are properly educated, mature, and safe about it.

Wow, mere questions are met with such venom? I'm sorry you may have had a rough day, sir. But at no point were you singled out to be a presumtuous git, by someone like myself. And, secondly, I would think that in order to have someone take your debate seriously, you wouldn't engage in the very type of immature behavior that most middle/high schoolers (who ironically are the subject of this debate) regard as beneath them.

And lastly... if I decide to be your worst nightmare, you my friend, shall know. Until then, please take your toys back to your sandbox for a timeout. *toodles*

 

[debate_junkie]

I think they're talking about teaching abstinence-only sex education, per the original article posted.
Sex education should teach about abstinence along with proper protection against disease and pregnancy and the consequences that can and will occur.
Kids know when you're lying to them. Remember how successful drug education was when the teaching method was the fear factor and nothing else?

LOL...that was the tag hung on my generation, 'Free Love', Rock and Roll will be the destruction of America, this generation is going to hell in a handbasket...yada, yada, yada.
That generation is now the CEOs, managers, superintendents, business owners, political leaders at all levels, etc. Go figure.:shrug:

I'm aware of that.. now. I asked because when I first read the post.. that wasn't the message being conveyed. Oh well, perhaps some should clarify their posts a little more.. or I should get another to degree to be "smahter":rofl

heh I was born in the 70's.. all I remember is... umm nothing, and that's a good thing.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

He asked for it

Wow, mere questions are met with such venom?

"It only serves to scare children into compliance?"

Is that supposed to be a question? Take your rhetoric someplace else. Someone calls you a git for your presumptions and suddenly they're "venomous" or having a bad day?...

I'm sorry you may have had a rough day, sir.

Precisely why I called you presumptuous.

But at no point were you singled out to be a presumtuous git, by someone like myself.

Of course not, you were too busy presuming I was a "if it feels good do it" advocate, or that I had a bad day, etc...

And, secondly, I would think that in order to have someone take your debate seriously, you wouldn't engage in the very type of immature behavior that most middle/high schoolers (who ironically are the subject of this debate) regard as beneath them.

That ad-hom was not unprovoked, you presume too much. I don't care if little ol you wont "debate me seriously," you're the one jumping in not even knowing what you're talking about, or understanding the topic for discussion. My loss? :doh

And lastly... if I decide to be your worst nightmare, you my friend, shall know. Until then, please take your toys back to your sandbox for a timeout. *toodles*

:roll: Yeah okay, I'm really scared. 1 ad-hom and you go running... :lol:

Show some respect, then maybe us DP vets will take YOU seriously.

I'm aware of that.. now. I asked because when I first read the post.. that wasn't the message being conveyed.

Perhaps instead of jumping into a debate, you can spend some time, read the posts, crack open that dictionary if you're stumped, and hold your presumptions until you have an argument to make.

Oh well, perhaps some should clarify their posts a little more..

English not clear enough? Before I only called you a git, now you'll get the "venom."

 

[debate_junkie]

Re: He asked for it

"It only serves to scare children into compliance?"

Is that supposed to be a question? Take your rhetoric someplace else. Someone calls you a git for your presumptions and suddenly they're "venomous" or having a bad day?...

Well, is name calling in a debate necessary? I think not, considering you started.

Precisely why I called you presumptuous.

Right.

Of course not, you were too busy presuming I was a "if it feels good do it" advocate, or that I had a bad day, etc...

Where I named you directly, please let me know. Last I checked, it was a general statement, meant with a little humor, which I guess was lost.

That ad-hom was not unprovoked, you presume too much. I don't care if little ol you wont "debate me seriously," you're the one jumping in not even knowing what you're talking about, or understanding the topic for discussion. My loss? :doh



:roll: Yeah okay, I'm really scared. 1 ad-hom and you go running... :lol:

Show some respect, then maybe us DP vets will take YOU seriously.

Oh, pardon my 5 month absence to attend to family matters. And if one isn't understanding, and or following the logic, aren't questions required? Oh of course they aren't. My mistake, I'll tuck my tail and run away :roll:

Perhaps instead of jumping into a debate, you can spend some time, read the posts, crack open that dictionary if you're stumped, and hold your presumptions until you have an argument to make.

Well, then, who died and left you resident debating expert? Right, just as I thought. You're a legend in your own mind.

English not clear enough? Before I only called you a git, now you'll get the "venom."

Call me what you like. You've already showed all I need to know.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

I was going to involve myself in the debate (and I still might), but first, please stop the personal attacks.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Re: He asked for it

Well, is name calling in a debate necessary? I think not, considering you started.

Necessary? Not at all.

And no I didn't start it. Your condescending and presumptuous rhetoric provoked me calling you a presumptuous git. I calls em like I sees em.

And if one isn't understanding, and or following the logic, aren't questions required?

Valid questions that you actually want the answer are to be expected and answered honestly, rhetorical presumptuous ones will be met with rhetoric.

The only half honest question you posed was "So abstinence has no good qualities then?" which even though it was a complete straw-man question unrelated to anything anyone was talking about, I responded with this:

What are the good qualities? Let me guess: No disease or pregnancy? Well thats a bit like staying at home to avoid car accidents.

To which you said nothing. You chose to try and avoid answering for your mistake by pointing out "oooh you made an ad-hom, now I've got the moral high ground and I don't actually have to address your arguments, tee-hee. "

Well, then, who died and left you resident debating expert? Right, just as I thought. You're a legend in your own mind.

:roll: Who said this?:
"I would think that in order to have someone take your debate seriously, you wouldn't engage in the very type of immature behavior that most middle/high schoolers (who ironically are the subject of this debate) regard as beneath them."

What I said about taking you seriously was based on your already admitted mistake, and was in reply to your presumptuous insult. If calling you a git for acting like a git is being immature, what do you call someone who doesn't take his time to understand what people are talking about before she starts slinging presumptions, calling people immature, and not being able to take what she's dishing out?

Moderator's Warning:

I was going to involve myself in the debate (and I still might), but first, please stop the personal attacks.

Sorry Captain, this ***** came in acting rude, so I replied in kind. She has yet to make an actual argument either based on the topic, or something people ACTUALLY said in the posts, so I am just replying to his hypocrisies until she acts like a woman an puts his brain on the line.

Can ya really blame me for an ad-hom (all I said was "git") when the chick hasn't made a point for me to **** on yet?

 

[debate_junkie]

Re: He asked for it

Necessary? Not at all.

And no I didn't start it. Your condescending and presumptuous rhetoric provoked me calling you a presumptuous git. I calls em like I sees em.



Valid questions that you actually want the answer are to be expected and answered honestly, rhetorical presumptuous ones will be met with rhetoric.



:roll: Who said this?:
"I would think that in order to have someone take your debate seriously, you wouldn't engage in the very type of immature behavior that most middle/high schoolers (who ironically are the subject of this debate) regard as beneath them."

What I said about taking you seriously was based on your already admitted mistake, and was in reply to your presumptuous insult. If calling you a git for acting like a git is being immature, what do you call someone who doesn't take his time to understand what people are talking about before he starts slinging presumptions, calling people immature, and not being able to take what he's dishing out?



Sorry Captain, this ***** came in acting rude, so I replied in kind. He has yet to make an actual argument either based on the topic, or something people ACTUALLY said in the posts, so I am just replying to his hypocrisies until he acts like a man an puts his brain on the line.

Can ya really blame me for an ad-hom (all I said was "git") when the guy hasn't made a point for me to **** on yet?

He is a she, thank you very much. And no I wasn't acting rude.. hence the face. So... face facts. Nothing was dished to you. You assumed I was lumping you into the "if it feels good, do it mantra" and you know that to be the furthest from the truth. No one singled you out, general questions were general questions. I haven't made an argument, because I was attacked... by you and whatever it is you're disguising as debate. So, it's apparent as I've been reading through the boards, you operate in this manner, so this is where I will draw the line. I have no time, nor energy to deal with you from this point on. Fair thee well.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Im an *******, Such an assholiolio oliolio...

He is a she, thank you very much.

I noticed, been working on editing the he's to she's.

So... face facts. Nothing was dished to you. You assumed I was lumping you into the "if it feels good, do it mantra" and you know that to be the furthest from the truth. No one singled you out, general questions were general questions.

I made no such assumption. I first noted that your "question" was irrelevant to the topic, then I had to position myself as if you were on the right thread and act as the devil's advocate to your "question."

I don't feel "single'd out" by you, I don't know where you base this on.

I haven't made an argument, because I was attacked... by you and whatever it is you're disguising as debate.

I called you a "git," big deal. The word just means contemptible person, which you were for your presumptions. I noticed you haven't addressed those.

And you call that an "Attack?!?" Imagine if I had called you a moron...

I think this ad-hom is a red herring for your cowardice. You make a presumption (a wrong one might I add), I call you presumptuous, and you go AWOL.

If that one word in all of four of my posts stood out so much that it "disguises" everything else I've had to say, then I am calling you either a child or a coward.

So, it's apparent as I've been reading through the boards, you operate in this manner, so this is where I will draw the line. I have no time, nor energy to deal with you from this point on. Fair thee well.

Good riddance. If you were expecting someone who respects your beliefs, and tolerates presumptuous, condescending bullshit, you're on the wrong board. I'll write off as a complete cop-out from another of the intellectually dishonest.

:rofl Worst nightmare... :2wave:

Closing statement: Abstinence only education is child abuse.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Let this be the end of it, both of you. No more warnings will occur.

 

[1069]

Please don't lock and archive this thread because of them.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I know. It's a good thread and a good topic. If it's just them, I won't.

Although I'm kinda on the phone to Beijing right now, let me try to revive this thread.

The article that 1069 presented does not surprise me. I've seen various research over the past couple of years that support the position that abstinence-only type of 'sex-ed' doesn't do what is wanted to do. Results usually show one of two outcomes: no difference between this type of sex-ed and comprehensive sex-ed or a worse outcome. The areas under comparison are teenage sexual activity, stds, pregnancy, and contraception use. This program doesn't work. Abstinence should be included in any comprehensive sex-ed program, but should not be the only piece for sex-ed to be effective.

 

[1069]

Administration Blamed For Rise Of Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea

A national HIV/AIDS activist organization says that the Bush administration is to blame for a major increase in the number of drug-resistant cases of gonorrhea.

“The Bush administration’s response to STDs in the US has ranged from apathetic to actively harmful," Sean Barry, Director of Prevention Policy for the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project said in a statement.

The organization blames the administration, and the formerly GOP-controlled Congress of under funding HIV education and the promotion of Abstinence Only programs in schools.

The Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project, known as CHAMP, has offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Providence, Rhode Island.

It said that sex education is a concern for activists who fear that advances that have been made in reducing the rates of some STDs "are being reversed due to the Bush administration’s focus on so-called abstinence-only programs."

A 2004 report by Congressman Henry Waxman’s staff found that federally-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula contained “major errors and distortion of public health information,” including inaccurate information about STDs.

“Congress has the opportunity for a new and science-based direction when it comes to sex education in our public schools, which they can do by eliminating funding for abstinence-only programs and creating the first federal funding stream for comprehensive sex education by passing the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act,” said Lei Chou, CHAMP’s Director of Mobilization.

The group called for an additional $110 million in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention STD prevention budget, bringing total funding to $267 million, which would expand programs that monitor, prevent, and treat gonorrhea and other STDs.

Thursday, the CDC said that gonorrhea is now among the "superbugs" resistant to common antibiotics.

The CDC said it is recommending wider use of a different class of drugs to avert a public health crisis. (story)

Gonorrhea, which is believed to infect more than 700,000 people in the United States each year, can leave both men and women infertile and puts people at higher risk of getting the AIDS virus.

>snip<

link

 

[1069]

As of today, eight states, including California (which never accepted the funding), Connecticut, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island and Wisconsin have rejected the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding.


Look at the Federal guidelines for what states must teach if they accept the money:


Federal Guidelines

All grantees that receive federal money for abstinence-until-marriage programs must equally address each of these eight points:

• The social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity as the program’s exclusive purpose.

• Abstinence is the expected standard outside marriage for all school-age children.

• Abstinence is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems.

• A mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.

• Sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.

• Bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society.

• How young people can reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances.

• The importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Administration Blamed For Rise Of Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea

A national HIV/AIDS activist organization says that the Bush administration is to blame for a major increase in the number of drug-resistant cases of gonorrhea.

“The Bush administration’s response to STDs in the US has ranged from apathetic to actively harmful," Sean Barry, Director of Prevention Policy for the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project said in a statement.

The organization blames the administration, and the formerly GOP-controlled Congress of under funding HIV education and the promotion of Abstinence Only programs in schools.

The Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project, known as CHAMP, has offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Providence, Rhode Island.

It said that sex education is a concern for activists who fear that advances that have been made in reducing the rates of some STDs "are being reversed due to the Bush administration’s focus on so-called abstinence-only programs."

A 2004 report by Congressman Henry Waxman’s staff found that federally-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula contained “major errors and distortion of public health information,” including inaccurate information about STDs.

“Congress has the opportunity for a new and science-based direction when it comes to sex education in our public schools, which they can do by eliminating funding for abstinence-only programs and creating the first federal funding stream for comprehensive sex education by passing the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act,” said Lei Chou, CHAMP’s Director of Mobilization.

The group called for an additional $110 million in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention STD prevention budget, bringing total funding to $267 million, which would expand programs that monitor, prevent, and treat gonorrhea and other STDs.

Thursday, the CDC said that gonorrhea is now among the "superbugs" resistant to common antibiotics.

The CDC said it is recommending wider use of a different class of drugs to avert a public health crisis. (story)

Gonorrhea, which is believed to infect more than 700,000 people in the United States each year, can leave both men and women infertile and puts people at higher risk of getting the AIDS virus.

>snip<

link

I had read this just yesterday. Very scary. The issue with abstinence-only education, for me, is this. Though I agree that not having sex and teaching kids ways to understand themselves so they know when they are ready to have sex is probably the best way to avoid things like STD's and pregnancy, having this as the only piece is akin to burying one's head in the sand. I ran a sex-ed program when I worked at a hospital, several years ago, and explained things comprehensively...and still do on an individual basis. Helping kids to know themselves well enough to know when they are ready to have sex along with the reality that if kids have sex, they need to understand all the issues around it would IMO be the most effective type of sex-ed.