Freakish-fundie Sens object to relaxing standards for abstinence education

[jefferson_dem]

Consider the source...

Abstinence funds debate heats up on Senate panel

By Cheryl Wetzstein and Marion Baillot
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A debate about the strict definition of a $50 million-a-year abstinence education grant program is expected tomorrow when a Senate panel convenes to discuss the 1996 welfare law.

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to offer an amendment that would allow states to use their Title V abstinence education funds "how they see fit," says one sex education advocate.

Abstinence education supporters say there is ample evidence their approach works. "Abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way of ensuring that someone does not become pregnant out of wedlock or get someone pregnant out of wedlock or contract sexually transmitted diseases. I don't think we need any studies ," Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary for children and families in the Department of Health and Human Services, said last week at a Capitol Hill "Abstinence Day" event sponsored by the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and Focus on the Family.

<SNIP>

Teenagers need the abstinence message more than ever because "if they just consume popular culture, they don't get this message very much," said Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, who also attended the gathering.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050306-113014-6652r

[beam me up scottie]

1. How did these neanderthals

get to be in charge?
How does Focus on the Family get the assistant secretary for children and families to speak at an "Abstinence Day" event on Capital Hill?
Gee, not having sex is the best way not to get pregnant, wow, that's a revelation.
"Okay kids, you can all go home now, just remember not to have sex, alrighty?" Nope, no studies needed here.

[Zorra]

2. "I don't think we need any studies.....". How republican to say so.

Republicans don't need studies because fact always conflict with their loony toon ideas and policies:

Teenagers special: Going all the way
05 March 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Alison George
snip---
The US has by far the highest number of teenage pregnancies and births in the west; 4.3 per cent of females aged between 15 and 19 gave birth there in 2002. This is significantly higher than the rate in the UK (2.8 per cent), which itself has the highest rate in western Europe (see Chart).



http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18524891.300

[WillowTree]

3. I can't say I disagree on this one.

If the grant is earmarked for abstinence education, then that's what it should be spent on. I mean, it's not as if there's anything wrong with promoting abstinence for unmarried teenagers. And you have to admit that he's right about one thing: Abstinence is, in point of fact, "the only 100 percent effective way of ensuring that someone does not become pregnant out of wedlock or get someone pregnant out of wedlock or contract sexually transmitted diseases."

If the states want an "as you see fit" grant, then they should petition for one.

[fortyfeetunder]

4. Studies show Just Say No (abstinence) doesn't work

You don't have to go very far, to see that the Texas experiment in abstinence education has been an abject failure. Yet, this same failed experiment, just like NCLB is being held up to a national model....

Just in case you were looking for the details...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=19531

[beam me up scottie]

5. Yes, it works great

EXCEPT for the kids who do not abstain. They not only get pregnant more often but they also get std's due to LACK of information.
Abstinence should be mentioned, then promptly followed by thorough, science-based facts about how to protect themselves.
It is a crime to withhold information from them since they can DIE if they don't practice safe-sex.

[yo-yo-ma]

6. the evidence is

teens who are exposed to abstinence only education have higher unplanned pregnancy rates than teens exposed to either no sex ed or regular sex ed.

this is not a debate about evidence, or about public health, it's simply an exercise in public "morality"

by a bunch of hypocrites