Bush Seeks Money for Abstinence Education

[vwcruisn]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20041125/ap_on_go_pr_wh/second_term_abstinence)


WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election insures that more federal money will flow to abstinence education that precludes discussion of birth control, even as the administration awaits evidence that the approach gets kids to refrain from sex.

Congress last weekend included more than $131 million for abstinence programs in a $388 billion spending bill, an increase of $30 million but about $100 million less than Bush requested. Meanwhile, a national evaluation of abstinence programs has been delayed, with a final report not expected until 2006.

...




What a great way to spend money we don't have :rolleyes:

[shadowfax]

I agree with you about fiscal conservatism, but it's not any worse than spending money distibuting condoms or morning after pills.

Is it?

[vwcruisn]

I agree with you about fiscal conservatism, but it's not any worse than spending money distibuting condoms or morning after pills.

Is it?


I think this would be a much more effective use of the money. Telling a bunch of horny teens not to have sex is like telling the 5 year old to keep his hand out of the cookie jar. Its not going to work.

[shadowfax]

I think this would be a much more effective use of the money. Telling a bunch of horny teens not to have sex is like telling the 5 year old to keep his hand out of the cookie jar. Its not going to work.

That's a great analogy. That's why america is so fat--we can't teach our chilren to keep their damned hands out of the cookie jar. We don't teach our children restraint, because that's too hard. and of course, when you let kids do whatever the hell they want to from when they're neo-natal, they're not going to listen to you when you tell them it's wrong, potentially emotionally damaging, potentially unhealthy, or whatever to have sex.

[zimv20]

afaik, studies do not support the claim that abstinence funding leads to a decline in teenagers having sex.

assuming that will hold true, what's the point of spending money on that, as opposed to spending money on programs which are shown to be effective, such as sex education?

[shadowfax]

afaik, studies do not support the claim that abstinence funding leads to a decline in teenagers having sex.

assuming that will hold true, what's the point of spending money on that, as opposed to spending money on programs which are shown to be effective, such as sex education?I'm not opposed to sex education. It's very important.

But not the kind where you basically tell them i know you're gonna get busy with all those other 16 year olds, and 14 year olds, and 13 year olds... so here's some condoms... remember, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't get pregnant or contract AIDS. Just like in the real world--it doesn't matter if you do anything wrong, as long as you don't get in trouble for doing it.

[blackfox]

I thought this was a thread about Bush's Education Policy in general. My mistake.

I thought that abstinence education waswhat has been taught in schools who receive Federal funding. I fail to see the logic in throwing more money at it.

Is it to buy an excuse? "Oh, teen pregancies are up?, well it certainly wasn't our fault. We spent x billion dollars on the issue. We care. It must be the fault of x or y."

For the moment, I am concerned more about Fiscal Responsibility and prioritizing well, than the issue surrounding sex-ed itself.

When a Congress can manage to get provisions/bills passed like this, yet fail to get an Intelligence Reform or Budget bill worked out, I find that to be a big problem. I would hope most should, regardless of your political leanings.

[shadowfax]

that's definitely something i agree with. fiscal irresponsibility is probably the main reason i'm not a republican... tax cuts *and* government expansion... right...

[dotnina]

Abstinence ed isn't going to work. What has a far better chance of working is education about the topic as a whole.

Kids don't want to be told what to do. When it comes down to it, kids will do whatever the hell they want. Your only hope is that you've taught them well, and they'll make a decision that they believe suits them best.

[Xtremehkr]

Better to teach about the financial burden of having kids. Young people have a warped conception of time (generally speaking.) Eighteen years plus is hard for kids to grasp when they have had no experience with dealing in such matters, the rest of the time it is simply a bad decision made in the heat of the moment.

It's hard to fight biology, whether you believe in it or not, puberty is an inevitability not a choice. I think it is better to prepare them for it rather than think that they are not going to do it. As adults who have been there, we should know this.

[pseudobrit]

assuming that will hold true, what's the point of spending money on that

I'm convinced this "mandate" crap has given Bush every reason he needs to do whatever his insane conscience feels is best, regardless of facts contrary.

Throughout the years conservatives bashed liberals for being wasteful and overly sensitive, saying they made spendthrift governing decisions based on "feelings instead of facts." It sure is odd that the way Bush "feels" about a particular subject is now more than enough to go ahead and put us deeper into a deficit.

[Taft]

I'm not opposed to sex education. It's very important.

But not the kind where you basically tell them i know you're gonna get busy with all those other 16 year olds, and 14 year olds, and 13 year olds... so here's some condoms... remember, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't get pregnant or contract AIDS. Just like in the real world--it doesn't matter if you do anything wrong, as long as you don't get in trouble for doing it.

OK, this is NOT the sex education program that most researchers advocate. Or, for that matter, most parents or those on the left. For an example, look at the programs designed by the major universities in this country.

ALL of them put abstinence on the top of the list of ways to prevent pregnancy and STDs. ALL of them tell the kids that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy and STDs.

Just like in the real world--it doesn't matter if you do anything wrong, as long as you don't get in trouble for doing it.

And here is where we have a problem. This line of yours is very telling. You think having sex is "wrong." You are bringing morality into an area where EVERYONE has differring opinions on what is good and bad. Would you prefer that sex-education teachers told the kids that "sex is bad," that "God wants you to wait," or that "you are a bad person if you have sex outside of marriage."

There are two seperate issues here: morality and the facts of sex, STDs and pregnancy. I just don't think it is appropriate for a teacher to try to force their morality into the impressionable brains of their students. Let the teachers teach my kids about laws, science, math, reading, nature, and, yes, the facts about sex and STDs. Let the PARENTS give their kids lessons about morality, what is good and bad, etc.

I'm assuming you are Christian, right? Well what if your kids' teacher was a very traditional Muslim? Would you want that teacher to try and convince your kids that a woman who didn't wear a head covering outside of their house was a "bad person?" Would you want an Amish teacher trying to convince your kids that electricity was bad?

If you want your kids to get a religious education, complete with the enforcement of moral values, SEND THEM TO A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL! If not, then let the school teach your kids about FACTS and CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS and make yourself responsible for raising your kids in a moral and upright way.

And here's an even more controversial idea: talk to your own d*** kids about sex and morality. Why in the world would you want you kids only knowledge of sex and what is right and wrong to come from a classroom? And don't be naive to the fact that even before they got to that classroom, most kids will have heard about these things FROM OTHER KIDS! Do you think that other kids are a good and informed source for information regarding sex??

Talk to your kids EARLY about sex. And if you are a Christian who holds that sex should only be between a man and his wife, then tell your kids about that. Tell them it is a sin in the eyes of God, if you like. But, for their sake, also tell them about safe sex and the risks of condom use and other birth control. Then tell them that even if they don't make the best choices you will always love them and that they can talk to you about any problem that would come up. Because nothing says "get an abortion" like "we'll disown you if you have sex before marriage."

Taft

[pseudobrit]

The problem with abstinence only education is that the extend of education is just that: it teaches them only to abstain. It withholds all the facts about sex. That means it's a lie.

It's EXACTLY like the failed drug education programmes.

If you lie to kids in the classroom, when they find out they were lied to, they disbelieve everything (true or not) that was taught along with the lie.

[Taft]

I thought this was a thread about Bush's Education Policy in general. My mistake.

I thought that abstinence education waswhat has been taught in schools who receive Federal funding. I fail to see the logic in throwing more money at it.

Yes, abstinence is taught at all Federally funded schools which are compliant. However, that is not the same as abstinence-only education, which is what many people (including Bush) would prefer to be taught in schools.

Bad idea. But I'm sure God would approve. :rolleyes:

Taft

[Taft]

"The only 100 percent way to avoid a car collision is not to drive, but the federal government sure does a lot of advocacy for safety belts," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a group that promotes education about birth control and condom use.

Exactly.

Taft

[Chip NoVaMac]

I agree with you about fiscal conservatism, but it's not any worse than spending money distibuting condoms or morning after pills.

Is it?

The problem I have with this news is that we can not have education of one without the other. Having been deeply involved with the AIDS crisis (at a point that it was known as GRID), you can not have one without the other.

Wish I could point to the exact studies, but I seem to remember that "economic" situations do contribute to a lack of abstinence and the use of "birth control".

In regards to the abortion issue (by your reference of the morning after pill); we need to limit the adoption of overseas children, and encourage the adoption of the children in our own country. We also need to do more in getting people that are "marginal", jobs that will give hope. It may mean paying more at the stores, but is that not better than the current system?

[Chip NoVaMac]

I'm not opposed to sex education. It's very important.

But not the kind where you basically tell them i know you're gonna get busy with all those other 16 year olds, and 14 year olds, and 13 year olds... so here's some condoms... remember, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you don't get pregnant or contract AIDS. Just like in the real world--it doesn't matter if you do anything wrong, as long as you don't get in trouble for doing it.

But you are missing that the "abstinence" funding is a replacement to sex education as I have read it. As I said you can not have one, without the other.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Better to teach about the financial burden of having kids. Young people have a warped conception of time (generally speaking.) Eighteen years plus is hard for kids to grasp when they have had no experience with dealing in such matters, the rest of the time it is simply a bad decision made in the heat of the moment.

It's hard to fight biology, whether you believe in it or not, puberty is an inevitability not a choice. I think it is better to prepare them for it rather than think that they are not going to do it. As adults who have been there, we should know this.

I know what you mean with the "time warp". In HS and a few years after I knew a number of reps from some of the camera companies. I returned to the industry 5 years ago. It was a company dinner that I ran in to one of the reps from some many years ago. My first comment was "so you are still alive?". For me it was that I looked at this guy as being "old" when I was in HS. It also gave me pause just how old I was.

[Xtremehkr]

There are a lot of other factors involved culturally as well. The majority of parents spend for too little time with their kids. Young people today are more likely to follow pop culture than ever before.

When everything in the country revolves around sex and sexuality, from music videos to marketing, it is hard to imagine how teaching abstinance is going to overcome puberty, new emotional feelings and massive amounts of peer pressure.

Especially when you consider what is expected of a sucessful man, sexual prowess is an integral part of that. Combine that with sports, a closed environment and plenty of free time you can pretty much guess what is going to happen. Especially if they are ignorant of it.

Some people actually believed that doing it standing up or in a swimming pool was effective birth control measures.

For a lot of men, hormones still over rule common sense sometimes, that's even worse as a teen.

Yeah, just don't it kid. Right.

[pseudobrit]

I agree with you about fiscal conservatism, but it's not any worse than spending money distibuting condoms or morning after pills.

Is it?

In one important way: the two you mention are proven to at least be effective and do what they're supposed to.

[takao]

i fail to see why this topic has to be discussed anyway
when did teaching abstinence prove to be effective ?

[Daveman Deluxe]

I'm a firm believer in what's called "comprehensive sex education". That's when birth control methods are taught along with abstinence. I think that it's important that kids be made aware that abstinence is by far the best birth control and STI-prevention method, as more than just a passing note. I also think that it's important to understand how sex works physically, emotionally (gasp!), and also spiritually (double gasp!). I had a health teacher my freshman year in high school who discussed the whole "health triangle" thing and said that he didn't think the whole "physical, emotional, and social health" thing doesn't cut it--he said that spiritual health is important too. Not surprisingly, I also got the best sex education from him I ever received in high school.

That said, I also think that parents these days are grossly negligent in the rearing of their children. We need a return to the solid parenting that comes from loving discipline (now THERE'S a dangerous word) and results in well-adjusted children who know and do what's right, in all areas from sex to cheating on financial reports.

[pseudobrit]

That said, I also think that parents these days are grossly negligent in the rearing of their children.

Day care, TV and video games raise kids today.

Parenting is either a luxury (they can't afford it) or a nuisance (they won't sacrifice for it) for our parents today.

One parent needs to raise the kids while the other earns the income to keep the household afloat. Or both work part-time.
When each parent works 40-60 hours a week, they cannot raise their children.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Well said, pseudobrit. I was fortunate enough that my dad worked out of a shop out back of our house from the time I was a year old until I was thirteen or fourteen. When my little sister was still at home all day, dad would work during the day with her out there, and come back up to the house when I got home from school. When mom got home, we'd eat supper (that my dad cooked), and then dad would work about 7 to 11. Mom worked 8-4:30. Grandma also came by a lot when she and grandpa moved from California to the next town over.

I hope that when I raise a family, either one of us will be fortunate enough to work from home, or that my wife would be willing to stay at home or work part-time until the kids are in middle school or so. It's sad that a lot of the things our society in the U.S. values these days requires two full-time wage-earners in the household. It takes some sacrifices, but I know for a fact that it's possible to keep one parent at home full-time. I know of at least one family that does it, and their family even has nicer stuff than mine does--and both my parents work full-time.

Off-topic, I can't believe I said "rearing" in my post above. I was shocked when I read that quote by pseudobrit. :p Nothing wrong with saying it, just seemed out of character for me.

[shadowfax]

Day care, TV and video games raise kids today.isn't there a movie where jim carrey was a guy who was raised entirely by television in the 1960s/70s...? seems like I remember something like that, but i can't place it.

[daveL]

I don't presume to supply any real content here, but I personally need to convey my opinion that Bush and his ultra-Christian right are complete idiots. They're doing a very good job of polarizing the world. W's legacy: He ruined the western world. What a complete ass. The worse part about it is: Do you think Mr. Bush practiced abstinence? No way, mister rich kid! He'd screw a snake, if it stayed still long enough (I'm not saying he didn't eventually grow up). More pandering to the extreme right.

[daveL]

Well said, pseudobrit. I was fortunate enough that my dad worked out of a shop out back of our house from the time I was a year old until I was thirteen or fourteen. When my little sister was still at home all day, dad would work during the day with her out there, and come back up to the house when I got home from school. When mom got home, we'd eat supper (that my dad cooked), and then dad would work about 7 to 11. Mom worked 8-4:30. Grandma also came by a lot when she and grandpa moved from California to the next town over.

I hope that when I raise a family, either one of us will be fortunate enough to work from home, or that my wife would be willing to stay at home or work part-time until the kids are in middle school or so. It's sad that a lot of the things our society in the U.S. values these days requires two full-time wage-earners in the household. It takes some sacrifices, but I know for a fact that it's possible to keep one parent at home full-time. I know of at least one family that does it, and their family even has nicer stuff than mine does--and both my parents work full-time.

Off-topic, I can't believe I said "rearing" in my post above. I was shocked when I read that quote by pseudobrit. :p Nothing wrong with saying it, just seemed out of character for me.
Nice post. I agree.

[pseudobrit]

I hope that when I raise a family, either one of us will be fortunate enough to work from home, or that my wife would be willing to stay at home or work part-time until the kids are in middle school or so.

What about you? Would you be willing to stay at home or work part-time?

[3rdpath]

a few years before my wife and i started our family, we decided to position our lives in a way that would allow us to spend the maximum amount of time with our kids. this choice involved a lot of planning, both operationally and fiscally. come to find out, that was the easy part.

raising kids and being present in their lives is HARD work...certainly the hardest i've ever done. it is also the most enjoyable. kids are young but for a moment( or so it seems) and the timeline for influencing them with values, morals, curiosity, wonder and purpose is brief. it's not surprising in our present time of little accountability that most parents don't want the responsibility for their kids...it's much easier to blame tv, music, video games and other kids when your child makes the wrong choices. regardless, most kids will make wrong choices but at least there is a sense of responsibility that comes with those choices.

obviously, this is an issue i feel strongly about...

i'm no longer surprised that i'm the only dad with his kid at the park on a weekday...its just sad to see the nannies huddle together while the kids get zero personal attention. since i live in a tight little neighborhood, i know most of these kids have two parent families but you wouldn't know it by the amount of time you see the kids and parents together. one of the dads actually told me he didn't like the weekends because they have their 2 kids without any help. kids know this stuff...they're barometers that are very in-tune with their environment. they can feel the thought of blessing or burden.


to dovetail this in with the actual topic, i'm certain that my kids will have little need for school-based sex education. my feeling is that school is an addendum to our teachings at home.

[stubeeef]

Everyone does it differently, my wife and I decided that she would stay home (not to say it can't be the guy) and raise our kids till the youngest went to school. Now she is the music teacher at the school that all our kids go to. It has been a nice compromise. It was a way to keep me out of the airlines so I could stay home more, now as a corporate pilot I avg only 3 nights a month on the road vs 12 or more.

I was raised by a single mother, she worked all day and finished her bachelors and masters at night. She practiced quality time vs quantity, so being an active parent is far more important than just "being there".

[Daveman Deluxe]

What about you? Would you be willing to stay at home or work part-time?

I might. If I wind up teaching music in high school (which I'll have to do for a few years to get my Ph.D. anyway), I'd probably do that part-time and then work at home part-time, teaching piano and voice lessons (not feasible with a baby, but with a toddler or something). If I teach at university, that's unfortunately not an option. So, to answer your question, yes, I would be willing, but my career path may not permit it. The question is academic as I haven't even got a girlfriend yet, but it's good to think about. :D

[zimv20]

The question is academic
pun alert.

[skunk]

noted. :cool:

[Taft]

isn't there a movie where jim carrey was a guy who was raised entirely by television in the 1960s/70s...? seems like I remember something like that, but i can't place it.

The movie "Being There" is basically about the same thing. It stars Peter Sellers and was made in the 70's. Pretty good show about the butler of an old rich guy who is mentally slow and who was seemingly raised by the TV. When the old man dies, the butler has to make it on his own, hilarity ensues. Good show. I'm sure lots of parralels could be made with today's society.

Taft

[3rdpath]

The movie "Being There" is basically about the same thing. It stars Peter Sellers and was made in the 70's. Pretty good show about the butler of an old rich guy who is mentally slow and who was seemingly raised by the TV. When the old man dies, the butler has to make it on his own, hilarity ensues. Good show. I'm sure lots of parralels could be made with today's society.

Taft

i always thought chauncey gardiner resembled henry kissinger.

[Xtremehkr]

I've already decided that I am not going to spend any time at home if kids are born, one adult will have to work. I think that it makes more sense for it to be the father who works. Careers are not well served by time off and interuptions to raise kids. Women bear the children and in my opinion are better at nurturing them.

Not that I intend to work 100 hours a week and not participate in anyway, but I do think that there are different biological roles that come into play.

Probably a little more traditional than anyone would have expected, but it just makes sense. The job if raising kids, taking care of a house, and maintaining a family are no small task. Maybe women have felt underappreciated at times, but I would consider that if done properly it is on par with any other profession you may want to take on.

However, if there ever are kids, they will be raised as young adults who are going to be aware of the world. They will know and hear "bad" words from time to time but will also understand that they are not allowed to use them. They are not going to be sheltered from ideas or ideologies that I don't agree with and they won't be conditioned to oppose what their parents oppose.

At every point of their lives they will be ready for the world though and knowledge is power. Reasoning is a powerful tool against peer pressure because it trancends rebellion by teaching kids to think about how their actions will affect them now and in the future.

[zimv20]

if i ever have a kid, i'm going to keep him in a box, and introduce colors to him one at a time.

kidding.

[Xtremehkr]

Beats a plastic protection bubble, at least he/she will will be exposed to something.

[Lyle]

Beats a plastic protection bubble, at least he/she will will be exposed to something.Hey, John Travolta spent all that time in a plastic bubble and he turned out OK, didn't he?

[Xtremehkr]

Hey, John Travolta spent all that time in a plastic bubble and he turned out OK, didn't he?

Don't know about that, he's a Scientologist ;)

[Ugg]

Hey, John Travolta spent all that time in a plastic bubble and he turned out OK, didn't he?

But then he went on to do Grease, Saturday Night Fever, and ended up as a Scientologist so "ok" might be a relative term. :eek:

[StarbucksSam]

I'm not saying that abstinence does not work; I just... don't think it's a realitic option for everyone, and I feel that teaching it does nothing.

[scem0]

I wonder how Bush recommends telling a gay person they shouldn't have sex marriage when he wants them to be prohibited from getting married in the first place. :rolleyes:

Sanctity of marriage.... poo on that. Bush shouldn't have a bigger voice than anyone else when it comes to religion.

scem0

[Chip NoVaMac]

From the Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html?nav=most_emailed_emailfriend

Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

By Ceci Connolly

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

? A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

? HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

? Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.

Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.

McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.

Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.

President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.

Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.

Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.

Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.

Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.

Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."


A real concern the validity of the information that we want the students to learn.

[Xtremehkr]

Hey, if we give out exorbitantly priced speeding tickets it will stop people from... oh wait.

Hey, if we have a death penalty people like Scott Peterson won't... oh wait.

Teaching abstinence doesn't adress culture, it runs contrary to it. Teaching abstinence as well as proper contraception and STD protection measures seems to be the most pragmatic solution.

Pragmatism? what? That would be like appeasing liberals with a compromise that could work for everyone. Terrible idea, no room for other peoples ideas in this Administration.