I guess no more Silver Ring Thing for Massachusetts teens — at least not funded by the state …* As just about everyone in the blogosphere has already noted, the Patrick administration has decided to refuse $700,000 in funds for “abstinence only” education, which doesn’t actually result in, you know, kids not having sex.
Amazingly, the legislature wants to keep the money in there. Isn’t it amazing what having just one lobbyist can do for you?
Last year and this year, Raymond B. Ruddy — president of the Gerard Health Foundation, which has given millions to antiabortion and abstinence groups — hired lobbyist John Bartley to persuade lawmakers to include the funding in the budget for the program. Ruddy paid Bartley nearly $50,000 last year for his work on this single issue.
By having a high-priced lobbyist roaming the halls of the State House, one rich guy can get all manner of endangering lies, distortions and half-truths piped into our kids’ heads, at taxpayer expense. Think about that.
This is what our legislature is hearing and reacting to, folks. You think “civic engagement” doesn’t matter?
*Some headlines need to be recycled.
Rep. Balser (D-Newton) has filed an amendment to prohibit abstinence-only funding. It’s amendment #704 for anyone who wants to urge their legislator to support it.
I think I’ll send her a little note to thank her.
In the great budget scheme, $700K is a small potato. Almost like the Administration has decided if it can’t win the big stuff (corporate tax increases, pension ‘PRIT’ reform, GIC reform), it may as well lose the small stuff.
<
p>
Interesting note however at the bottom of the article linked:
<
p>
<
p>
Interesting that the House would block 2 ideas that seem to have great promise. Tax amnesty was very, very successful for CT and for NJ, yet Mass rejects it out-of-hand. Then, think about how much the gas tax waiver would save the local budgets (DPW trucks and cars, municiple vihicles, etc…), yet again, rejected.
<
p>
…then how will we raise enough money to put more cops on the streets in Boston where the votes…uh…CRIME is?
Massachusetts has had tax amnesty programs before, as recently as 2002/2003. And, yes, they work. In 2002/2003, they reportedly collected well over $150 million. But that was the first such program in nearly 20 years, so lots of scofflaws were still out there. A new program now would undoubtedly be less successful.
<
p>
Moreover, isn’t there a fairness issue here? Why should we offer amnesty for tax scofflaws but nothing for those living up to their legal responsibility to pay taxes? I think there is something to the fact that Republicans seem to be more forgiving of those who don’t pay their taxes than Democrats. Some crimes are more serious than others it appears. Are acid and abortion next?
<
p>
Waiving the gas tax (even “just” for municipalities) is wrongheaded for all the reasons that the gas tax is a good idea in the first place.
Except, of course, too much of it might go to rural areas which have more road miles to patrol and maintain.
Where good behavior is defined as consuming fewer gallons of gasoline. This can be done by driving less (more efficient service routes, delivery schedules, carpooling, etc), or by operating more fuel efficient vehicles (sedans, small trucks, and the bigger guys).
<
p>
Removing the tax removes an incentive for municipalities to engage in good behavior w.r.t. consumption of gasoline.
<
p>
Personally, I’d like to see the lege give towns and cities the local option of an additional $0.01 to $0.03 increase in the gas tax, split x:y:z with the town:state:MBTA*. This would likely help rural areas more than urban, since the gallons of gas consumed per capita are higher as you move away from Boston. The small amount would prevent an incentive to drive to the next town to price-shop for gas, and
* What should x and y be (if z == 0)? Perhaps the same ratio as the restaurant idea. If we increase z just a smidge, we could help finance more MBTA projects, thereby creating an incentive to use public trans in addition to the disincentive to drive.
And it certainly extends to gas usage… but in a lot of cases, telling municipal departments to drive less is telling them to just sit around instead of doing their job. The police, for example, literally the patrolmens’ job is to drive around town wasting gas. My town’s police put 40k (+/- 5k) miles a year on our cruisers by driving them 3 shifts a day all week.
<
p>
I’m for a gas tax on consumers and even for increasing it because driving has social costs (environment, middle east policy) that the driver should be held accountable for. But the government taxing itself just winds up being silly most of the time.
How about idling?
How about ensuring that tires are properly inflated?
How about encouraging patrolmen to be easy on the gas and easy on the brake when cruising?
How about considering fuel economy as another factor when making new vehicle choices?
<
p>
And remember, it’s not just cops we’re talking about. Consider: * tele/video conference instead of meeting * choosing high mpg vehicles for admin vehicles * choosing the car instead of the pickup for maintainance needs that don’t require the truck
<
p>
and so on and so on.
<
p>
Perhaps, but maybe not in this particular case. After all, only one gov’t agency at a state or local level is charged with reducing gasoline consumption, traffic on the roads, and so forth — yet all gov’t agencies can play a role in reducing their fuel consumption and miles driven. In this case, a tax reminds the agency bean counter to behave in harmony with this greater public policy.
The City of Boston recently started using biodiesel in much of it’s fleet. Needless to say, this is good for the environment and the public health of the City. The gas tax (even when paid by municipalities) encourages trying biodiesel, hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles that until recently haven’t been price-competitive. It will also eventually encourage new inventions and drive down the price of new non-gas innovations. To me, this is reason enough to continue having “government tax itself” here, though I usually agree that is a silly and wasteful undertaking.
My only point is that the state shouldn’t be replacing local aid dollars with a gas tax rebate as a matter of public policy. Wherever possible, revenue should be raised via an income tax (I think). If revenue is raised in a less progressive way, it should be done only as part of a determined policy decision that the tax will discourage undesirable behavoir.
But not for punishment. Even cities and towns should have incentives to act in a way that is in the long-term interests of its residents (i.e. purchasing alternative fuel vehicles). A gas tax is the perfect example of that.
And don’t give me that old chestnut about how the MBTA serves everyone – I know people who haen’t been to Boston for over 30 years.
<
p>
Also – why are you not advocating a ‘productivity’ quotient for Ch. 70, or Addl. Assistance, or the other FORMULA DRIVEN forms of state aid that favor urban areas?
First of all the MBTA 1 cent in 5 on the sales tax is only collected in towns that have MBTA service, be it subway, bus, trolley, or commuter rail. So if you have no MBTA, you aren’t paying for it.
<
p>
Secondly, the MBTA does benefit the entire state, because it helps reduce air pollution, medical costs, etc. These effects may not be significant to someone on the Vineyard, but they’re more than $0.00 — and that’s the sales tax the Vineyard contributes to the MBTA.
<
p>
Thirdly, the MBTA helps stimulate the huge business economy within Boston, and those taxes do get spread throughout the state.
<
p>
<
p>
Who said I wasn’t?
<
p>
P.S. A gas tax is indeed a formula. Linear even, so it’s easy to calculate!
Why tax amnesty? Because it works:
<
p>
<
p>
Here, try this, for example:
<
p>
Why should we offer [clean needles] for [illegal drug users] but do nothing for those living up to their legal responsibility to [not use drugs]?
<
p>
See?
Just to be clear, the state prefers $0 of funding of any type to $700,000 of dedicated funding? Abstinence doesn’t have a positive impact on teen choices, but nor does it have a negative one. And $700,000 is $700,000….
that you weren’t allowed to teach anything alongside abstinence when you receive this money. if that is the case, it is a disaster and money well wasted.
I know abstinence education is ineffective, I know it’s part of the right wing agenda, I know the administration’s position is entirely correct, but why pick THIS fight? All it does is give the administration a public defeat without doing anything to widen (or even strengthen) his base of public support. What happened to the kitchen cabinet and the new team, or was this already in motion before they arrived?
This is a policy choice. Besides, if they want a fight this is an easy one because the data clearly shows these programs are not helping and the money is therefore wasted.
<
p>
Upthread, there’s a reference to a slate article that evaluates a Florida and Mississippi program and finds them not significantly effective. Here in Massachusetts? Maybe, maybe not, unless you somehow know differently?
I don’t see the story or controversy here. Why disagree so publicly about such a minor amount of money? Seriously, the Miss and Florida data show insignificant effect, but what do you expect from a statewide expenditure of $700K or less?
<
p>
That’s $822 per town! Probably wouldn’t even buy a condom for each high school kid in the state.
<
p>
I’m more appalled at the low publicity the Globe handled the dismissal of the i) gas tax waiver for towns and ii) the tax amnesty.
How about just because its wasted pork?
You continue to scoff at the effectiveness, based on a study, but from the study:
<
p>
“…the findings provide no information on the effects programs might have if they were implemented for high school youth or began at earlier ages but continue to serve youth through high school. …
<
p>
…while friends’ support for abstinence may have protective benefits, maintaining this support appears difficult for most youth as they move through adolescence. To the extent that the Title V, Section 510 abstinence programs aim to influence peeer networks, this dispersal or dilution of peer networks after youth complete the programs presents a significant challenge to sustaining positive change.”
<
p>
Perhaps the problems isn’t the “abstinence only” education, but rather, the lack of continued “abstinence only” education throughout high-school.
<
p>
As ‘pork’ goes, this money isn’t on par with gazebos and gaslights.
You just got through talking about how this wasn’t enough money to do anything about. Now, you’re saying that you want it all through high-school. Surely it’s not enough money to do that. If you’re hanging your hat on that as a reason to follow through with this, then it is wasted money, because without the follow-through, there is no benefit.
http://www.alternet….
<
p>
http://oversight.hou…
because it doesn’t matter what the lege does. From the Globe article:
<
p>
<
p>
Game over.
Better to decline money for education that may not work and in turn opt to use local money for education that may not work.
Game Over? Even if you had 160 members vote for the abstinence only grant – you’re fine with the Governor just not doing it? A little inconsistent with your previous posts, don’t you think? If Romney did that everyone on here (including me) would be up in arms…
but if that particular $700,000 could have a greater benefit elsewhere, why spend it on the SRT, given that it’s (a) clearly over the line on church/state issues, and (b) not effective at abstinence anyway?
It didn’t take long for Mass Family Institute to put out a
<
p>
I’m glad the governor has taken this policy stance. Not just for it’s practicality and the church/state issue, but because he’s giving the anti-gay bigots something else to think about for a change. Thus we have a wee respite. /sigh of relief/
if by church/state you mean church-state, it seems to be fine under dubya. i’ll ask it and get back to you.
he’s giving the anti-gay bigots something else to think about for a change.
<
p>
I get to stay on message and continue saying that marriage grants conception rights, though. The state should certainly not be allowing anyone to teach that sex before marriage is an option for anyone, since the state has laws that say the opposite. Just ignore the law kids? Child or adult, poor or Tom Brady, sex before marriage is illegal, because only marriage has conception rights.
Please advise how it has been proven ineffective, when it hasn’t been allowed to happen.
<
p>
I remember a breifing by Mr. McQuillken on how abstinance didn’t decrease illegitimate teen pregnancy.. He ranted about babies born to teens. I asked how we was seperating out young mothers who were married, and in a stable environment. He admitted he didn’t but just assumed that ALL babies born to mothers 20 or younger were illigitimate. I have young relatives he insulted with that proposition.
on SRT and other abstinence only programs. The results:
<
p>
Abstinence only education is no more effective than no education. Here’s a CNN article.
how inconvenient! i thought dubya took care of that problem already. this is, after all, war. sigh. more books to burn, always more books to burn…
And upthread – this would promote abstinance IN ADDITION TO other sex education.
<
p>
Does ANYBODY find it sad that refraining cannot be mentioned as a good and viabile option?
Teachers are not allowed to mention any other option if you accept this “abstinence only” federal funding.
The Feds say this money goes to abstinence only ONLY, and even some of those abstinence only programs are abstinence only enough.
<
p>
And who says that refraining cannot be mentioned? Refraining should of course be mentioned, and in fact stressed. But getting this money forbids discussion of the alternative.
<
p>
You misstate the conclusion. Look at the study.
<
p>
The fear was that abstinance only caused students to use condoms less. The study shows that long term, such was not the case.
<
p>
The study also states that targeting youth, solely at young age, may not be sufficient. “…the findings provide no information on the effects programs might have if they were implemented for high school youth or began at earlier ages but continued to serve youth through high school.”
the study
<
p>
The study does conclude that students in “abstince only” programs at at early age, and only at an early age (11 or so) had no better outcome (STD, teen pregnancy) once in high school than those students not in abstinence only programs.
<
p>
Seems weird to decline the money.
<
p>
I will plug this movie, which did a great job showing how ignorance about sex and lack of a full sex education, even if you abstain from intercourse, can result in pregnancy. Ignorance is never a good thing.
I don’t understand what the “only” means, though. does that mean they can’t teach that condoms often don’t work, that using the pill often fails, and doesn’t protect against stds? Surely the money does go to something, though, perhaps it goes to reducing ignorance about sex?
<
p>
And do they remember to work in the legal angle, that it is illegal to have intercourse before marriage in this state?
All this time, I thought that liberalism was controlling public education. How wrong could I be! I had no idea there was a lobbyist actually trying to push the concept of abstinence into the curriculum. I can only hope that some of this supplemental abstinence education conincides with the Day of Silence!
<
p>
All this time, I thought that we were just ignoring what good research tells us about what works. Afterall, we’ve ignored what we know about effective reading instruction so that we could force the feds to give it up for whole language. And we gladly raised our own taxes to pay for fuzzy math programs even while colleges were telling us increasing numbers of incoming students needed remedial work. And best of all we march along like the children behind in Hamelin to the tunes of “universal preschool”, “whole child”, and “abolishing MCAS/NCLB” because those messages make us feel good.
<
p>
How wrong I was! There is now one study that shows four abstinence only programs resulted in no change in sexual behavior. It must not work! Let’s get rid of it!
<
p>
How wrong I was about the anti-intellecutalism of public education! I’m not even going to read the report summary which told of better results when it came to identifying STDs and knowing that the pill didn’t prevent them! Instead, I’m going to construct my own knowledge — that’s all the rage these days — and make statments such as “Teachers are not allowed to mention any other option if you accept this “abstinence only” federal funding” and “I know abstinence education is ineffective, I know it’s part of the right wing agenda, I know the administration’s position is entirely correct”. That was easy!
<
p>
Most importantly, I am not going to look at historical data of teen pregnancy rates. I’m not going to notice that there has been a sharp decline since the early 1990s, and I’m certainly not going to try to find out if this had anything to do with the addition of abstinence only messages that came out in the late 1980s. Thanks for that reminder, stomv! I almost forgot to forget!
<
p>
Find me a study — any peer reviewed published study — that shows that abstinence only education works.
<
p>
Then go ahead and demonstrate that it’s OK to violate church | state separation a la SRT to get those numbers.
<
p>
Then go ahead and demonstrate that the fantastic drop in teenage pregnancy is because of abstinence only education and not because of (expanded access to birth control pills + expanded access to condoms + reduction in teenage marriage + reduction in teenage married desire for children). We’ll ignore the well known economic results of a strong 90s economy on all sorts of social “ills” like drug use, crime, school dropouts, and teenage pregnancy.
Look at the reasons the Administration doesn’t seek the grant:
<
p>
1: There’s no difference in teen behavior after several years following the ‘abstinence only’ education.
<
p>
2: The Administration is afraid that teens will be confused about the use of birth control.
<
p>
Look at the findings from the referenced study:
<
p>
1: There’s no difference in teen behavior after several years following the ‘abstinence only’ education.
<
p>
2: There’s no difference in knowledge or use of birth control, STDs and no greater risk to those students who take the ‘abstinence only’ eduation. In other words, the Administration, COMPLETELY IGNORES this aspect of the very study it cites for its policy decision.
<
p>
3: The study group kids were more likely to recognize that birth control pills did not prevent STDs.
<
p>
4: To DWEIR’s point, teen pregancies are down over the past decade. Cause unknown.
<
p>
Based on the few facts, what’s the policy call with respect to the $700K from the Feds?
<
p>
a: Continue it, because it appears to do no harm and maybe some good and it’s $700K from the Feds. Free money!
<
p>
b: Discontinue it, because, despite the fancy gov’ment study, kids might be confused and we’d rather spend our own money on our programs that may work, although we don’t know.
All this time, I thought that liberalism was controlling public education. How wrong could I be! I had no idea there was a lobbyist actually trying to push the concept of abstinence into the curriculum. I can only hope that some of this supplemental abstinence education conincides with the Day of Silence!
<
p>
All this time, I thought that we were just ignoring what good research tells us about what works. Afterall, we’ve ignored what we know about effective reading instruction so that we could force the feds to give it up for whole language. And we gladly raised our own taxes to pay for fuzzy math programs even while colleges were telling us increasing numbers of incoming students needed remedial work. And best of all we march along like the children behind in Hamelin to the tunes of “universal preschool”, “whole child”, and “abolishing MCAS/NCLB” because those messages make us feel good.
<
p>
How wrong I was! There is now one study that shows four abstinence only programs resulted in no change in sexual behavior. It must not work! Let’s get rid of it!
<
p>
How wrong I was about the anti-intellecutalism of public education! I’m not even going to read the report summary which told of better results when it came to identifying STDs and knowing that the pill didn’t prevent them! Instead, I’m going to construct my own knowledge — that’s all the rage these days — and make statments such as “Teachers are not allowed to mention any other option if you accept this “abstinence only” federal funding” and “I know abstinence education is ineffective, I know it’s part of the right wing agenda, I know the administration’s position is entirely correct”. That was easy!
<
p>
Most importantly, I am not going to look at historical data of teen pregnancy rates. I’m not going to notice that there has been a sharp decline since the early 1990s, and I’m certainly not going to try to find out if this had anything to do with the addition of abstinence only messages that came out in the late 1980s. Thanks for that reminder, stomv! I almost forgot to forget!
<
p>
Here’s the quote:
<
p>
<
p>
Or to paraphrase, if you want to teach real sex-ed, do it somewhere else at some other time, and then only if the law requires it!
It is not uncommon for grants to have language attached to ensure monies are used for the explicit purpose intended by the grant. This is reasonable, no?
<
p>
Your statement goes overboard. Perhaps you don’t understand how it works here in MA? First, a recap, you said:
<
p>
“Teachers are not allowed to mention any other option if you accept this “abstinence only” federal funding”
<
p>
In order for that to be true, a School Committee, either directly or through its administration, would need to approve an abstinence only curriculum. If the district policy required a health education to conform to the MA frameworks, then under the scope of this grant, abstinence only education would need to be offered in a separate place and at a separate time than the other sex education. These choices, despite past political action, remain under local control.
<
p>
To further uncomplicate the issue, in MA these grants have been awarded to private organizations, not school districts. So, the scope of the grant applies to, in this case, Healthy Futures (or simillar), not the school district, and certainly not the teachers.
“If the district policy required a health education to conform to the MA frameworks…” It sounds like you are much closer to the trenches in this battle. My concern is that if there is no comprehensive sex-ed “policy”, then the kids are sadly out of luck. Just wondering now how this works, if this “gag” money is only going to private organizations, then why does anybody in state government have anything to say about it?
I believe the state applied for the grant. Until recently, the grant money wasn’t used in the schools.
<
p>
Other governmental entities or eligible organizations could have applied for the grant directly. But having the state receive the grant and then pass the funds along is not uncommon.
<
p>
As for your concern of not having a comprehensive sex-ed “policy”, there is a state health curriculum. But as with other areas of the curriculum, it is up to each district to determine what they will teach. So, if there isn’t a policy in place in your district, bring it up with your School Committee, principal, or Superintendent.
Nah. Must have been the abstinence only education. That’s it, never mind.
<
p>
Your handy historical data shows a steady decrease since 1991, that pretty much at the height of AIDS consciousness. Do you think that that more people started practicing “safe sex” instead of abstinence?
<
p>
Do you have a specific study about abstinence?
<
p>
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Actually, AIDS was my guess when I saw the data, too. It is striking, isn’t it? After decades of sex education, and little progress to show for it, all of a sudden this steep drop.
<
p>
I did not claim that this drop was do to abstinence-only education, although I do think that it is possible the increase in the abstinence message is part of the answer. Recall that during the Clinton administration, HHS Director Donna Shalala included abstinence education as part of the department’s strategy.
<
p>
My point was that we should be trying to determine why this drop happened and let that guide our policy decisions.
<
p>
As for this particular grant… You don’t need to look far for criticism of popular culture, kids growing up too fast, and negligent parents. Here we have parents who are truly concerned about their children, and who are concerned that the school curriculum is giving too much information, too soon. They also believe that the so-called “healthy” attitudes about sexuality are resulting in more risky experimentation at a younger age.
<
p>
It isn’t always easy to find out exactly what is being taught. I’ve heard from parents who weren’t given notice about coverage controversial topics until the day before the unit. That’s not right.
<
p>
Schools should not be in competition with concerned, involved, supportive parents regarding personal values. I’m actually surprised that some posters here — so keenly aware of how it is for gays to live in the world of heterosexual images — aren’t more sensitive that children who believe in abstinence can feel similarly isolated. Are there just not enough tax dollars to go around, or do you think you can share this small slice?
…it’s the abstinence only that is being rejected.
<
p>
Abstinence only “wait until marriage” sex-education is tantamount to child abuse.
Have you seen this?
<
p>
Your last statement helps me understand even more why parents want to limit what messages they get from public schools.
<
p>
Thank you, Jim C — OpenMass is awesome! I already knew about this bill. It’s been talked about here and here.
But being able to find the actual bill is extremely helpful.
<
p>
…are there any federal grant programs that are not abstinence only? Meaning, could a school get money to teach abstinence one day but then have full ex education the next day, unlike abstinence only.
<
p>
I read “federal grant program for abstinence education” as abstinence only, because I have not heard of any other federal funds available for abstinence education.
Although independent school districts are eligible to apply, the grant being discussed is not from the Department of Education. It is from the Department of Health and Human Services. Here is more information about that departments grant programs. In MA, I believe the state applied and then doled out the funds.
<
p>
I couldn’t find any other grants for sex education, although that might be covered under the “services” component of some of the other HHS department grants.
Reading the language, even though I didn’t see the word “only” in there, I still got the feeling that these are abstinence only programs.
<
p>
<
p>
Now, in Massachusetts where the average age of marriage is 27, a program that promotes abstinence until marriage seems like it would be an unmittigated disaster.
<
p>
Also, since Massachusetts is the only state that alows Same Sex Marriage, this program would not serve any of the young people in the gay community. They deserve to know how to prevent infection just as much as anyone else.
<
p>
@tblade
First, thank you for the level of civility you’ve extended. I’m saddened that so much of the discussion here is laced with such hatred and prejudice against parents who want the option to enroll their child in an abstinence-only program. In my experience, these people are not trying to push their values onto others, they simply don’t want their own children corrupted by a curriculum that in any way condones sexual activity or experimentation.
<
p>
These people aren’t backwards or ignorant, nor do they want their children to be. I know that extreme examples can be found, including grant-recieving programs that gave misinformation. But equally appalling examples can be found on the other side, with graphic sexual “how to” manuals being given out to teenagers.
<
p>
But to your comment… I believe the 1996 act was simply abstinence, and not abstinence-only. As evidence, I’ll point you the Promising Strategies cited by the HHSD. See specifically the program titled “Postponing Sexual Involvement” that does include information about contraception. I make no judgement on the quality of these programs based on the limited information provided.
<
p>
From what I’ve read, this promotion of abstinence in 1996 followed a nearly 30-year policy of funding Planned Parenthood and SIECUS agenda.
<
p>
The newer grants are specifically abstinence-only, as you have noted earlier.
There is no reason to shy away from the information that Abstinence is 100% effective against pregnancy, HIV, and STDs. This should be hammered home every time a talk about sex is given.
<
p>
One thing I’ve seen about abstinence only that I find distasteful and delusional is its scare-tactic insistence of abstinence from ALL sexual activity. I’ve seen girls whose virginity pledges require them to abstain from French kissing until their wedding night. Masturbation is out, too. I have also seen abstinence only programs (as you allude to) that teach that HIV can be spread through sweat and condoms are 0 percent effective in preventing HIV transmission. In high schools, there needs to be frank discussions of scientific facts on sexuality and the pros and cons of all the basic forms of sexual expression.
<
p>
Yes, kids have heard about manual stimulation and oral sex before high school, but they need to hear accurate information regarding all of the alternatives to intercourse, and from adult professionals, not their friends or their first girl/boyfriend. If a woman gives a man a blow job while using a condom, she will not get pregnant and not get HIV. What is wrong with a 15-year-old learning this, if the first message they hear is abstinence? Even if it is thought that a high school kid should not know this, they really need to know this before college!
<
p>
Whether a kid is taught in the most conservative or most liberal sex-ed class, there will always be sexual pressure on teenagers. It doesn’t matter how correct the decision to abstain is, at any age, there will always be situations in which it is hard to say no. Is there anyone on this board who can honestly say that they have gone their whole life with out having a sexual encounter which they know they should have abstained from but didn’t? Is there not anyone here who has not made a mistake with whom they participated in sexual activity or perhaps had unsafe sex when they shouldn’t? If you can answer yes, let me tell you that is not reality for a great many people. Remember that deciding to have sex is not like choosing what type of toppings you want on your pizza. Abstinence only education makes it sound so easy just to decide not to have sex. There are intense emotional, physical and hormonal activity going on inside a person right before the moment one decides to have sex. If we as “mature adults” can’t always prevent ourselves from giving into carnal desire, how can we thrust that expectation of maturity on teenagers and young adults? Let’s also not forget that these kids are in high school one day and the next day they are free and 18. The only person that can make decisions about sexual activity at any age (save rape) is the individual.
<
p>
I will concede, only for the sake of this discussion, that the “right answer” for teenagers is to abstain from sex until the “right time”. In this case, two 17-year-olds having sex would be a hypothetical mistake. Given that abstinence only education does not give full and accurate information on HIV/STD infection, pregnancy prevention, and intercourse alternatives, there is an increased potential for these 17-year-olds to make a mistake that will be paid for every day for the rest of their lives. Why not say to the teenagers in our society, “abstinence is best, but you are only human. If you slip up, here is how you can reduce the consequences. Yes, I don’t want you having sex, but I really don’t want you to be a teenage parent or to contract an STD. If you have genuine questions, come talk to adults who will have compassion and empathy for you rather than those who will heap shame and disdain upon you.”? What’s wrong with that?
<
p>
Why should we be telling our kids that they deserve to pay the rest of their lives for a “mistake” made at 15, 16, 17, especially when that consequence is highly preventable. Many religious proponents of abstinence only are unequivocal in saying they believe that sex should have consequences and young people should pay for the rest of their lives. That is why I say abstinence only is child abuse. I also say that abstinence only is so overwhelmingly based in religion (it’s the health science version of intelligent design – religion cloaked in just enough secularity to get into public schools), and religion has no place in public schools.
<
p>
Abstinence is outrageously effective in preventing pregnancy, STDs, HIV. It’s a great message. It just cannot be the only message.
<
p>
<
p>
But to adress money for abstinece (sans only) education. I don’t trust anything from the Bush administration. So if it says abstinence, I will hear abstinence only unless explicitly spelled out otherwise.
<
p>
I have no problem with a federally funded abstinence program; I like the ideas of support strategies to keep kids from being pressured into sex prematurely, etc. But it must be provided as a supplemnt to a realistic, comprehensive sex education program.