Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Conservatism: Spreading The Disease

March 12, 2008 By joeltpatterson

It’s not just that the conservatives made a mistake about Ab-Only–it is that the conservatives’ goal was never to reduce disease, never to fight the viruses and bacteria that parasitically destroy people’s health.

The goal was pork for conservatives:


Anne and Gordon Badgley, who received $9 million in federal grants for their nonprofit, Heritage Community Services, also set up Badgley Enterprises to market and sell their abstinence-only curriculum, Heritage Keepers. While Heritage’s IRS 990s are sketchy and marked by vague expenses, even a student loan repayment, they clearly show that the Badgleys pocketed $174,201 from the taxpayer-funded nonprofit by buying the curriculum from their own private company.

You could present the evidence of widespread STDs among young people to a conservative to change their mind about it, but it’s very hard to change a person’s mind when their salary depends on them keeping their belief.

You might try to blame this on George Bush, but his heir apparent, John McCain, wants to keep abstinence-only programs, wasting our money and growing the microbes.  

The New York Times Web site reported the following exchange with a reporter in Iowa in March 2007:

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

McCain is lying through his teeth here.  In the 1960s, every sailor in the USN was taught how to prevent VD.  But he’s going to keep letting the disease spread, if it helps him win conservative votes.

h/t d at LGM.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: abstinence, conservatism, mccain, national, pork, public-health

Comments

  1. kbusch says

    March 12, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    The New York Times article to which you linked first was particularly alarming.

    <

    p>Social conservatives seem to be so strongly convinced that abstinence only education should work that they find empirical evidence unconvincing.

    <

    p>The spread of HPV is a tragedy — and the idea that one shouldn’t immunize against it so that it encourages abstinence is morally repugnant, but that’s what these monsters advocate.

    • syphax says

      March 12, 2008 at 10:40 pm

      … is for godless wimps.

      <

      p>I’m all for personal responsibility, but people need access to options to make good choices.

      <

      p>Add this one to Bush’s legacy.

      • jconway says

        March 13, 2008 at 4:38 pm

        Personally as someone who has taken modern sex ed classes as recently as three years ago abstinence was never even discussed as an option. Instead we learned how easy it is to get an abortion, how easy it is to put on condoms, we learned about sex toys which in my view contribute little to preventing STDs, and we learned about why gay people deserve equality.

        <

        p>Perhaps this is skewed since I went to high school in Cambridge but I do think abstinence only is wrong, especially when it is not coupled with safe sex options, on the other hand I think bringing things like sex toys and abortion into the discussion create a sense that sex is a consequence free endeavor. There was never any talk of love, never any talk of knowing your partner, never any talk of at least waiting until your in a long term emotional relationship. It was merely reducing sex to a mechanical and physical act that had literally mechanical devices to ensure maximum safety and pleasure. Voters support abstinence education since the broad majority of people are in loving relationships with their sexual partners and dislike this notion of reducing sex and people to commodities that can be mechanically integrated.

        <

        p>There definitely needs to be a balance and teaching the kind of secular morality that intimate sexuality ought to be within the context of love something preachers and psychologists agree is essential to emotional health and well being, in addition to safe sex practices, would be the ideal way to go.

        <

        p>On a lighter note the article made me feel much less sad about being single for three years since I might have dodged a bullet.  

        • kbusch says

          March 13, 2008 at 4:41 pm

          We don’t have to “think” this anymore. We know it empirically.

          • jconway says

            March 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm

            Im not utilitarian and liberals ought not to be. We should proudly defend, protect, and expand the dignity of the human being whenever we can. This includes issues of sexuality, and I think it is far more important than our children are taught that their bodies are not just mere tools for pleasure but are in fact very important parts of them that ought to flourish under an atmosphere of respect within an emotional relationship.

            <

            p>Numbers are important but if we stick only to numbers the social conservatives win, since we remove any talk of dignity, respect, or philosophy from the table and its dangerous to stick only to numbers.  

            • kbusch says

              March 13, 2008 at 6:58 pm

              You and I don’t need to frame and campaign. That was my point. You and I should care about numbers when we discuss policy.

              <

              p>And I don’t favor crass utilitarianism but deontological and virtue ethics have their problems too. I’d almost say, following Churchill, that utilitarian ethics are the worst ethics except for all the others. That’s speaking from a policy perspective.

              <

              p>I’m so Rockridgian in my perspective that I may begin to look like George Lakoff soon. No argument on the importance of rhetoric to reveal the truth. However, smudging the empirical and rhetorical levels of the discussion is a nice way to go fruitlessly in circles.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on A valedictoryI joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on A valedictoryThat’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

Twitter feed is not available at the moment.

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2025 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.