Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Obama's budget cuts funding for abstinence-only sex education programs
NY Daily News ^ | Friday, May 8th 2009 | Michael Mcauliff

Posted on 05/08/2009 6:58:55 AM PDT by presidio9

The White House wants to get out of the business of telling youngsters "Just Say No to Sex."

President Obama is putting his own ideological stamp on federal spending in his proposed 2010 budget by cutting cash for abstinence-only sex ed programs.

He's taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.

"It's about time that evidence-based management - and sanity - return to family planning programs," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan).

Dumping the say-no-to-sex programs were a tiny fraction of the $17 billion Team Obama trimmed from its $3.4 trillion funding budget request.Overall, New Yorkers say Obama's budget helps the city - but raised several red flags.

One is Obama's plan to cut $600 million from the federal terrorism insurance program.

"This is a real mistake," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, saying he'd fight to keep the money.

The administration deems the program, which helps cover builders against terror attacks, an "excessive federal subsidy." It hopes the cuts encourage them to "mitigate terrorism risk" by "building safer buildings."

"It's a definite setback for rebuilding Ground Zero," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.). "It's the No. 1 terrorist target in the world. We need that federal backstop."

Lawmakers were pleased, though, that Obama is stepping up with $70 million to aid ill 9/11 responders.

In another area that sparked alarm, King panned Obama's move to end a program that paid the NYPD $18 million last year for help battling illegal immigration.

Lawmakers were also upset Obama scrapped plans to build a new presidential helicopter fleet in upstate Owego - $3.6 billion has already been spent.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; abstinence; agenda; bho; bho44; bhobudget; bhobudgetcuts; bhusseinobama; fornication; ifitfeelsgooddohim; maobama; obama; promiscuity; sexeducation; sexpositiveagenda; sexualimmorality; sexualizingchildren; sexualpromiscuity; teensex
This business of "abstinence-only sex education programs"

gets on my nerves, because it makes it look like the intention of the evil Bush theocracy was to ensure that no teenager would ever again know the the joys of putting a condom on a bananna in a tax-funded HS classroom. In fact, no matter how liberals try to brand it, the only purpose of this appropriation was to ensure that some of that tax money goes towards getting the message out that there is another way besides promicuity. Liberals, of course, believe that adults have zero influence on adolescents, and teenagers will be having sex not matter what we tell them, because that's what teenagers do.

1 posted on 05/08/2009 6:58:55 AM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Why do Catholics continue to fawn over this guy?


2 posted on 05/08/2009 7:02:40 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The more young unwed mothers you create, the more welfare recipients you create. The more welfare recipients you create, the more loyal Democrat voters you create.

Thus, Democrat sex-education must always focus on getting teenagers to have more sex, not less.


3 posted on 05/08/2009 7:08:06 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo (The GOP: The Big Tent with a Fifth Column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
He's taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.

How does replacing a 100 million dollar program with a 110 million dollar equate to a cut? No body questions this community organizer...

4 posted on 05/08/2009 7:09:17 AM PDT by JoanneSD (illegals represented without taxation.. Americans taxed without representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoanneSD

As if teen pregnancy was not already seriously in epidemic proprtions throughout the country. Obummer is insane.


5 posted on 05/08/2009 7:23:01 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JoanneSD

As if teen pregnancy was not already seriously in epidemic proprtions throughout the country. Obummer is insane.


6 posted on 05/08/2009 7:23:09 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; NYer; Coleus; narses; Salvation; Pyro7480
Why do Catholics continue to fawn over this guy?

You people are unbelieveable. Recently, a whole bunch of you have been using this political website for unprovoked attacks on the Catholic faith. It makes no sense.

Since you didn't already know this, as far as the Catholic Churhc is concerned, if you are not going to mass every Sunday, and obeying the 10 Commandments, and accepting the essential Catechisms (such as the one on abortion), you are not a practicing Catholic. No matter what the media says. For that matter, you may have inadervtantly excommunicated yourself by your actions. In other words, those polls that indicate Catholics "fawning over Obama" are talking about a lot of false Catholics. And even though they are, other denominations are even more supportive of the President. So why are you going out of your way to pick a fight with the Catholic faith on a political website? I don't get it.

7 posted on 05/08/2009 7:26:37 AM PDT by presidio9 ("a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world," -Lucy Pevensie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
You people are unbelieveable. Recently, a whole bunch of you have been using this political website for unprovoked attacks on the Catholic faith. It makes no sense.

I am not attacking the Catholic faith. I am attacking the faith of those Catholics who fawn over this guy. And there are a lot of them.

I am hoping that the Pope takes a hard line against those Bishops and Priests and parishoners who continue to defy the teachings of the church on abortion and other doctrines and starts denying those people communion.

The latest polls show that Catholics by and large are still fawning over Obama. Their faith in Obama seems to trump their faith in God.

8 posted on 05/08/2009 7:33:40 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Why do Catholics continue to fawn over this guy?

Because American "Catholics" are going the way of French "Catholics" more and more each year. Meaning, Catholic In Name Only.

9 posted on 05/08/2009 7:50:34 AM PDT by FreepShop1 (www.FreepShop.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Good. Abstinence is something that should be taught by parents and reinforced by a good, moral upbringing. Sex education should be just that - the biology of human reproduction, the science of sexually-transmitted diseases and a look at real-world, social implications.

Understanding sex doesn't make people want to have sex. Understanding that homosexual sex has high risk factors doesn't make people "turn gay". Information is never the problem - bad information or the lack of any information is.

Abstinence-only sex education implies that by avoiding discussion of sex, adults can regulate the information available to students and dissuade them from temptation. Which, frankly, is ridiculous in the age of the Internet and at a time when kids are hitting puberty younger and younger.

I'm no fan of Zero, but this is one battle that I'm happy to see social conservatives lose. That might seem contradictory. While I respect and support a conservative, moral, principled and value-based approach to government and society, abstinence-only sex education is an example of well-intentioned efforts being counter-productive.
10 posted on 05/08/2009 7:51:02 AM PDT by Reaganomical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

My bad. I have had at least five non-Catholics post direct attacks on the Catholic Church to me in the last week, so I am getting a little sick of it. The people who call themselves Catholics and then worship Obama are a problem, but a bigger problem is our culturally inclusive society that tells us you get to be whatever you identify yourself as. Bill thinks he a woman? Fine. Bill has his genitals surgically mutilated. Now he’s a woman. Mary sees was brought up a Catholic. Then she had an abortion, but doesn’t see anything wrong with that. She hasn’t been to Church in years. She says its because of all of the pedophilia. She doesn’t undestand why gay people can’t get married. She identifies herself as a Catholic, and she voted for Obama.


11 posted on 05/08/2009 7:51:06 AM PDT by presidio9 ("a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world," -Lucy Pevensie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Bingo.


12 posted on 05/08/2009 7:58:10 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Why do any professing Christians continue to fawn over this guy?

Then again, why did they fawn over him to begin with?

13 posted on 05/08/2009 8:00:33 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reaganomical
Abstinence-only sex education implies that by avoiding discussion of sex

How do you get from "abstinence-only" to "avoiding discussion of sex"?

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

14 posted on 05/08/2009 8:18:01 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

So let’s see... so far, he’s turned his back on Christianity, turned his back on abstinence, funded and encouraged abortion both in the United States and world-wide, nationalized the automobile industry, nationalized the banking industry, put caps on businessmen’s salaries, demoralized Wall Street, demoralized the CIA, cut the military budget, bowed to the Saudis, flipped off the Israelis, offered the Glad Hand to Fidel, played kissy-face with Iran and turned a blind eye to their nuclear weapons program... what am I leaving out?

Yep, it’s been a heck of a start. If present trends continue, by the time 2012 rolls around, we’ll have Red Guards parading in the streets and waving the Little Red Book as the urban proletariat is marched out to the farms to grow rice.


15 posted on 05/08/2009 8:21:40 AM PDT by Jack Hammer (here)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

Chavez too.


16 posted on 05/08/2009 8:40:19 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Campion

It makes perfect sense. A discussion of sex should be holistic - that includes condoms, birth control and all the stuff that makes social conservatives so uncomfortable. Why? Because they exist and ignoring reality is never the right answer.


17 posted on 05/08/2009 9:03:24 AM PDT by Reaganomical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Well after all. The sexual promiscuity and immorality advocates are among Maobama’s biggest voting blocs. BHO has to reward them so they’ll keep fawning over him.


18 posted on 05/08/2009 9:15:30 AM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganomical
A discussion of sex should be holistic

"Holistic"? Then you ought to include explicitly religious points of view, too, otherwise it's not really holistic.

But you can't do that in a public school. So it's already a given that you can't have a holistic discussion of sex, because explicitly religious values -- like mine -- aren't going to be permitted, except perhaps to be mocked and derided.

Given that my values and my value system are already written out of the picture, the least-objectionable position left to be taught is abstinence only.

I am, for the time being, blessed enough that I don't have to send my kids to government schools. I send them to schools which either explicitly teach my values, or which understand clearly that I pay the bills and my checks depend on my kids not being taught objectionable points of view.

19 posted on 05/08/2009 9:27:30 AM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

SEICUS and other “sex positive” agenda foundations encourage teen sex.

Positive.org has a “just say yes” campaign targeted at teens.

The falicy is they proclaim that “abstinence doesn’t work”. They lie. Elsewhere you can find them making statements that it is an “unhealthy” supression of sexual desires. They are against it in principle, not the practicality of it.


20 posted on 05/08/2009 9:47:59 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (If Liberals are so upset over torture, why did they mock John McCains stiff arms during the campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion

The sex positive agenda seeks to end all moral judgements over all sexual pairings, regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).

They oppose any of your “moral teachings”.

They believe Chrisitans are “sex negative”.

They are bigoted and hedonistic in their worldview.

There is a culturewar afoot and the President is standing on the Left side of it.


21 posted on 05/08/2009 9:50:30 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (If Liberals are so upset over torture, why did they mock John McCains stiff arms during the campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Reaganomical
Sex education should be just that - the biology of human reproduction, the science of sexually-transmitted diseases and a look at real-world, social implications.

Now that schools recognize the sexual relations between members of the same sex, all of that talk of reproduction and even coitus is "meaningless trivia" to them. They also "require" education in "safe" practices (Massachusetts has even taught kids about safe "fisting").

It's gone from biology and mechanics to positions and disease prevention "always clean your toys...", "rectal bleeding".

Consenting adults in private was a myth. It's in the classroom being taught to minors.

22 posted on 05/08/2009 9:53:30 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (If Liberals are so upset over torture, why did they mock John McCains stiff arms during the campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Reaganomical

Do you think it is the schools’ job to teach children about sex?


23 posted on 05/08/2009 4:16:25 PM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
What? You mean the sexual revolution is leading to bigger government? But we have people right here at FR who insist that it's reducing the size of government, and that it's purely a coincidence that A) liberals support the sexual revolution and B) liberals support big government and C) government has gotten bigger since the sexual revolution.

Of course, these same people tell us the homosexual agenda is also a reduction in the size of government.

24 posted on 05/08/2009 10:18:39 PM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (REALLY & TRULY updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

The best revolution is a generation of people without morals. After the revolution is done, dictatorship will be established.

Lenin did this and it worked.

But there’s a flipside:

It can also be used against communist countries, and after the revolution is done, freedom and democracy will be established.


25 posted on 06/17/2009 5:20:54 AM PDT by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
In fact, no matter how liberals try to brand it, the only purpose of this appropriation was to ensure that some of that tax money goes towards getting the message out that there is another way besides promicuity.

Hey, it worked so well for the Palin's, right? Programs that preach one solution and one solution only are pretty much useless, and that is true of programs which preach birth control only as well as ones who preach abstinence only. I have no problem with abstinence being one of the suggested guidelines in a government program, but for it to be the only one ignores the problem of teen pregnancy rather than deals with it.

26 posted on 06/17/2009 5:26:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson