Bush : Abstinence-only Sex Education ...
Feb 13, 2:56 AM (ET)
By MARK SHERMAN
(AP) President Bush waves to onlookers at his arrival at the 193rd Special Operations Wing of the...
Full Image
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.
A study by researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on declining birth and pregnancy rates among teenagers concludes that prevention programs should emphasize abstinence and contraception.
"Both are important," said Dr. John Santelli, the lead author of the study, which has not been published.
In Minnesota, a study found that sexual activity doubled among junior high school students taking part in an abstinence-only program. The independent study, commissioned by the state's health department, recommended broadening the program to include more information about contraception.
Independent researchers who are studying abstinence-only programs for the federal government said in their first report two years ago that no reliable evidence exists whether the programs work. They are expected to issue an update soon.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush said, "We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases."
Bush would spend $270 million on abstinence-only education, compared with $100 million annually when he took office.
The president also would move the programs into the same agency within the Health and Human Services Department that oversees religious-based programs and the president's proposal to promote marriage.
Advocates of comprehensive sex education said the shift, coupled with the additional money, is part of Bush's election-year appeal to conservatives.
They said the administration's proposal flies in the face of research that credits both abstinence and contraception with reducing the teenage birth rate by 30 percent in the past decade to historic lows.
"This is money, hundreds of millions of dollars that we could better spend on children and people who need the help," Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., told HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson at a hearing on the president's budget proposal.
James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a group that promotes education about birth control and condom use, said abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of information about the effectiveness of condoms in stopping the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. "These programs have really evolved into anti-condom programs," Wagoner said.
Yet supporters of the abstinence programs said teens should be hearing more about refraining from sex.
"Kids in society are saturated with information about contraception and messages about encouraging casual, permissive sex," said Robert Rector, who helped write the administration's abstinence education program.
Rector discounted the Minnesota study as unscientific and said the CDC research does not give enough credit to abstinence.
The comprehensive sex education promoted by Advocates for Youth and other groups focuses on safe sex, not abstinence, said Rector, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank. Wagoner rejected the assertion and pointed to his group's Web site, which praises abstinence.
"Abstinence is the only 100 percent effective method for avoiding unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV," the site says.
Comments
I support abstinence-till-death programs for the exact same target audience.
I predict we'll see positive results after one generation.
This is just another case of Bush pushing his right-wing, conservative, religious agenda. Everywhere he goes, he tries to make America more and more fundamentalist, without officially declaring his reasons. He figures that if he can't force people to accept Christianity in name, he can force them to abide by its strict, archaic moral code. I don't like it one bit.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
No, plenty of kids still end up doing drugs when they grow up.
There aren't tons of kids puffing in high school anymore?
Originally posted by giant
There aren't tons of kids puffing in high school anymore?
Having graduated less than a year ago, I can tell you that not only are there still kids doing it, now there are more.
Luca... I think this country could use a good dose of Jesus...we're pretty far off track. However, I do see your point, Bush has his way of pushing Christianity on America, but I don't see a huge problem with that. Morals are sorely lacking today, like I sad, we could use a good dose of Jesus. I'm not saying it's right what he is doing, I'm just stating my point. He is a Republican after all, conservatives tend to drag religion into politics more so than liberals, thats the way it's always been. I applaud Bush for sticking up for what is right.
The idea that Christian theology is somehow wrong by asserting itself through the normal pathways of Democracy is idoicy.
Children are now becoming sexually active in their early teens. This is distructive to their development, as well as their eternal souls. The pagans (I use this term to group Athiests with agnostics, etc) on these forums would have our youth crawling on all fours rutting in the gutter before they accept a self-conscious Methodist President excercise his consitutional rights.
Sickening.
People are going to say that religion has no place in politics, but that is saying that morals have no place in politics either...which isn't true. Politics should be based on what is right in the eyes of the politician, not what is going to put more money in their pocket, and that so often is what politicians focus on now. Bush has been so much different than the typical politician. The man read from the Holy Bible in a national TV address, that took balls. I love Bush for the morals that he puts into his politics, he has more guts than almost anyone else out there. Yes, he steps on peoples toes, no, he isn't PC, but that's what I've been waiting for for SO long. A politician who isn't afraid to be moral.
Back OT...dmz is correct about the negative effects of young teens being sexually active. They are way too young to be responsible for their actions, sex is a huge deal, but so many people now think that it isn't. It's sad that something so amazing, something that should only be shared between a mature man and woman who are in love and married is now being shared by two 12 year olds who hit puberty last week.
I agree that we should teach abstinence, but since kids wont listen because they know best
Originally posted by Ganondorf
The only thing sickening is the government spending my money to tell kids (one day, my kids) how to live their personal lives, based on nothing more than the president's personal opinion. Not only do I disagree with the message, but there is no basis for the program's existence. Much like DARE.
EXACTLY!
Programs like this will never work! If anything, I'll probably make it worse in the cities that adopt crap like this.
IMO of course.
Originally posted by Ganondorf
The only thing sickening is the government spending my money to tell kids (one day, my kids) how to live their personal lives, based on nothing more than the president's personal opinion. Not only do I disagree with the message, but there is no basis for the program's existence. Much like DARE.
Therein lies the problem however. I don't know what kind of a parent you are (or will be) and I'm not trying to pass judgment on you by any means, but the fact is, many parents leave it up to schools to teach their kids everything, including morals. Quite a few parents out there just let the schools do the dirty work, so there has to be programs like that. Parents don't have the "birds and bees" talk with kids anymore, they don't tell their kids not to drink, smoke, or do drugs, someone has to do it! So they leave it up to the schools.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
^^What he (dmz) said^^ (kind of)
People are going to say that religion has no place in politics, but that is saying that morals have no place in politics either...which isn't true. Politics should be based on what is right in the eyes of the politician, not what is going to put more money in their pocket, and that so often is what politicians focus on now. Bush has been so much different than the typical politician. The man read from the Holy Bible in a national TV address, that took balls. I love Bush for the morals that he puts into his politics, he has more guts than almost anyone else out there. Yes, he steps on peoples toes, no, he isn't PC, but that's what I've been waiting for for SO long. A politician who isn't afraid to be moral.
Back OT...dmz is correct about the negative effects of young teens being sexually active. They are way too young to be responsible for their actions, sex is a huge deal, but so many people now think that it isn't. It's sad that something so amazing, something that should only be shared between a mature man and woman who are in love and married is now being shared by two 12 year olds who hit puberty last week.
I agree that we should teach abstinence, but since kids wont listen because they know best
Yes, let's all channel our natural sex drives into an unnatural obsession with Jesus and take all of our repressed sexual energy and focus it onto driving everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus INSANE with the constant attempts to force him down our throat. Of course, as I said before, those that concede and take Jesus down their throat are somehow then condemned and refused the ability to get married.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
Therein lies the problem however. I don't know what kind of a parent you are (or will be) and I'm not trying to pass judgment on you by any means, but the fact is, many parents leave it up to schools to teach their kids everything, including morals. Quite a few parents out there just let the schools do the dirty work, so there has to be programs like that. Parents don't have the "birds and bees" talk with kids anymore, they don't tell their kids not to drink, smoke, or do drugs, someone has to do it! So they leave it up to the schools.
Gee, how about spending some money on an ad campaign saying "PARENTS, DO YOUR FVCKING JOB! WE WON'T ANYMORE" then? That ok?
Originally posted by DMBand0026
Therein lies the problem however. I don't know what kind of a parent you are (or will be) and I'm not trying to pass judgment on you by any means, but the fact is, many parents leave it up to schools to teach their kids everything, including morals. Quite a few parents out there just let the schools do the dirty work, so there has to be programs like that. Parents don't have the "birds and bees" talk with kids anymore, they don't tell their kids not to drink, smoke, or do drugs, someone has to do it! So they leave it up to the schools.
Sex education should not be limited to the off-chance that good parents will discuss the full range of options concerning sexual and reproductive health. It belongs in schools as a necessary part of an informed and subsequently healthy society. Anything less is repressive, dangerous, and completely irresponsible for the unfortunate students who need the knowledge, don't get it, and make disastrous mistakes. Ask yourself how you feel about that.
and back to the religious aspect, we pagans (well, i guess i can't speak for all of us, but this pagan) don't want to be bugged about religion. i ne'er much cared for jesus. i don't think i need a dose. and i'd appreciate it if the religious didn't try to force him onto me. i dont want religious doctrine pushed at my house. i know whats good for me. religion aint it. abstinence certiainly aint neither.
I do think it is important to make sure kids are moral. I don't think morality should be thrown by the wayside, or that kids should be "crawling on all fours rutting in the gutter before they accept a self-conscious Methodist President." But I think that there is a line between basic morality and pushing your specific religious beliefs. The President can set the tone for a nation, and perhaps Bush wants to set a tone of making America morally superior to how it has been in previous years. That's fine. But he is pushing specific aspects of religious doctrine. He thinks that he can be the one not only to decide what direction America moves in, but also how we will carry out that goal. Who is he to be telling parents how to raise their children? If it's anything beyond telling them to teach their children proper morals, conduct, and behavior (without explicitly defining such things), then he's overstepping his bounds. That's doubly true if he tries to actually make policy about it.
I'm also of the belief that the more authority figures push their beliefs, the more resistance will be seen from the younger generations. Almost every one of my brother's friends (he is 15) is quite anti-Bush. Now, you could say that their thoughts are largely influenced by their parents. But at their age, they are thinking about sex a lot. If Bush tries to push abstinence, it will not get him anywhere among many of the kids who he thinks are the problem. Perhaps some of the parents will like him more, but I don't think it'll actually accomplish anything.
See? In the end, all it will do is gather more votes for him. It will not significantly reduce teen pregnancies; if anything, they would increase. I think Bush needs to step off his moral high horse and quit telling everyone how to live. I don't want to be converted and he's the last person I'd want trying to do so.
If you put a penis into a vagina, there is a good chance that a pregnancy will result. One significant possible result of pregnancy is at least one child (pregnancy can be avoided by proper use of contraceptives). Another significant possible result of putting a penis into a vagina (or any other body part) is deadly disease (there are slightly reliable countermeasures to this). If you want to be certatin of avoiding pregnancy and/or certain types of disease, the best option by far is to not put a penis into a vagina or other body part.
Why that aspect of sex education is so taboo I will never understand. I mean, it hardly sounds "hot", and if you hammer that home enough, you may get a convert or ten.
Why must the whole thing be about morality? Why the sanctimony?
Morals and ethics aren't the same thing. And politics is full of ****ing morals, and a complete lack of ethics. Morals have no place in politics. Ethics do.
Politics should be secular. Plain and simple. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. Logic and ethics will save us. God won't.
Originally posted by GregInMex
One thing that, for some bizzare reason, never seems to make it through the moral fog is this:
If you put a penis into a vagina, there is a good chance that a pregnancy will result. One significant possible result of pregnancy is at least one child (pregnancy can be avoided by proper use of contraceptives). Another significant possible result of putting a penis into a vagina (or any other body part) is deadly disease (there are slightly reliable countermeasures to this). If you want to be certatin of avoiding pregnancy and/or certain types of disease, the best option by far is to not put a penis into a vagina or other body part.
Why that aspect of sex education is so taboo I will never understand. I mean, it hardly sounds "hot", and if you hammer that home enough, you may get a convert or ten.
Why must the whole thing be about morality? Why the sanctimony?
Prevent Teen Pregnancy with BLOWJOBS AND ANAL!