NY Times Bites off More than It Can Skew

The Coach's Team ^ | 5/23/18 | Tony Perkins

[Oldpuppymax]

Fake news is alive and well -- and thriving on the pages of America's biggest newspapers. No wonder more people are tuning out the media. They don't trust it. And outlets like the New York Times aren't giving them any reason to try.

At some point, the Times's editorial board must have gotten together and decided to reprint every lie ever told about abstinence education. The result was May 5th's work of fiction, a breathtakingly dishonest, 602-word crime scene of journalism that justifies America's growing distrust of the press. About the only thing that was accurate about the column was its placement: on the opinion page, where it can't be passed off as legitimate news.

Still, the editors' agenda was obvious – discrediting a sex-ed approach that's popular, effective, and grossly underfunded. They barely got the byline in before the absurdities began, starting with the Times's insistence that HHS is somehow "advancing an anti-science, ideological agenda" by trying to level the funding field for abstinence. "The department last year prematurely ended grants to some teen pregnancy prevention programs, claiming weak evidence of success. More recently, it set new funding rules that favor an abstinence-only approach," they complain.

If anyone's ignoring science, it's the Times. Barack Obama's own HHS admitted outright that his contraception-first strategy was a billion-dollar failure. More than 80 percent of the students in his programs fared either worse or no better than their peers. Hardly the stuff of "weak evidence." According to the last administration, Obama's approach was a disaster -- resulting in more pregnancies, more sexual initiation and more oral sex1.

Not surprisingly, the Trump administration doesn't think programs that encourage pregnancy are the wisest use of federal funds. So it rewrote the rules, shifting a very modest amount of money...

[Truthoverpower]

Look
The primAry difference between liberals and conservatives IS sex and interpersonal intimacy
Liberals promote the idea that sex is just for pleasure
With anyone. Anytime No consequences
Whoops ! Made a baby. Kill it
NOTHING ON PLANET EARTH could be further from the truth
And the vast destruction degeneracy and harm that this 1960s view has wrought is astounding

[MrEdd]

Absolutely true.

And only the people who are social liberals to the same extent as the New York Times promote that thinking in the public square.

Some of them may be fiscal conservatives and they may not want to pay taxes, but if they see someone attractive all they can think about is that “they would hit it.” And oh the sound and fury should you suggest that there are and should be negative consequences for that.

And what if one of a potential pair is a minor?

Well (to the social liberal) the law is completely wrong.

It just isn’t fair that laws are written to require sexual prey to be old enough to support a child before being fair game in the sexual meat market. They demand to be able to stalk that piece of ass as soon as the parts work.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Oldpuppymax. The lying Partisan Media Shills don't even bother to stagger the intro dates when they start puking up the latest DNC talking points.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks for posting this profoundly important article.

A lot of people wrongly assume that "profoundly" would be an overblown adjective to apply to something as (they think) inherently trivial as young people's sexual choices. That's because of their view that sex is, per se, superficial. One of the fast-food appetizers, and/or a lifestyle entertainment option.

It's exactly this assumption that leads to the notable disasters of the so-called Sexual Revolution.

Any young person who hasn't already been interiorly ruined by this culture, knows that sex and love is body and soul important: a big deal. Abstinence Ed is a giant step in the right direction because it at least "allows for" increasing respect for a significant and consequential treasure --- a treasure which this culture throws in the trash.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[TBP]

If you see it in the New York Times, presume it's a lie.

[2harddrive]

Don’t worry about the ignorant Twitter “ruling” by the so-called “Judge”. All President Trump has to do is IGNORE the so-called “Judge” and block whomever he WANTS. The so-called “Judge” has violated the separation-of-powers doctrine, and the impotent “Judge” can in no way enforce his so-called “ruling” anyway. PERIOD!

[packrat35]

That’s my general rule.