Posted on 03/07/2005 8:16:17 PM PST by Libloather
Abstinence funds debate heats up on Senate panel
By Cheryl Wetzstein and Marion Baillot
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A debate about the strict definition of a $50 million-a-year abstinence education grant program is expected tomorrow when a Senate panel convenes to discuss the 1996 welfare law.
Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, is expected to offer an amendment that would allow states to use their Title V abstinence education funds "how they see fit," says one sex education advocate.
At least one Republican on the panel is expected to support Mr. Baucus.
Others on the committee, however, including chairman Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, are seen as strong supporters of the Title V program, including its strict eight-point definition that says funds must be used only to promote premarital sexual abstinence.
**SNIP**
"Abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way... I don't think we need any studies [to prove that]," Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary for children and families in the Department of Health and Human Services, said last week at a Capitol Hill "Abstinence Day" event sponsored by the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and Focus on the Family.
**SNIP**
Proponents of sex education say there is scant evidence that abstinence education works and states -- which must match $3 of $4 in federal abstinence funding -- should have more flexibility in choosing their sex education programs.
**SNIP**
Last week, the DC Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy held a "best practices" sex education conference that highlighted the Advocates for Youth's "Rights, Respect, Responsibility" campaign.
The campaign is based on Europe's forthright style of sex education and confidential health services for teens.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Abstinence works every time it's tried. 100% Fullproof. Teaching it must be pretty hard...
They can spend billions on boondoggles, but not one red cent for something that really works. Incredible.
It's also the perfect solution for the cure to AIDS!
"If abstinence caught on among teens the pregnancy rate would drop [...]"
That is one big 'if'. I'm 33 now, but I remember when I was a 16 year old boy. Jesus Christ himself could have told us how great abstinence was in health class. If the opportunity for sex presented herself right after that class, me and every other boy of that age would have taken the opportunity. I won't speak for teenage girls, but teenage boys are only as abstinent as their opportunities. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs their head checked.
Abstinence-only education is, for this reason, one giant boondoggle.
Only after the schools have done an excellent job of teaching mathematics, science, and languages should they become involved in this sociology-sex-ed-silliness.
Well I am with you there, I was one opportunistic sucker. I did have quite a few friends that weren't though. I do admire them still today.
It really should be parents teaching their own children abstinence.
But if the schools are going to force sex ed on kids, abstinence is the only completely safe, foolproof method of protecting against disease and unwanted pregnancy.
And @33, you're the proud papa of how many teenage girls who present that opportunity for sex?
"And @33, you're the proud papa of how many teenage girls who present that opportunity for sex?"
Having never been a teenage girl, I won't speculate on how teenage girls think. Best to keep sex ed out of the schools entirely and make sure the lil' dummies know math and science.
"But if the schools are going to force sex ed on kids, abstinence is the only completely safe, foolproof method of protecting against disease and unwanted pregnancy."
Except that none of the boys are going to be abstinent if they have the choice. The "fools" have a raging case of hormones that no amount of talk is going to forestall, so abstinence is not foolproof at all. Frankly, if we are going to spend any tax money on this crap, I'd just as soon give the kids condoms. Sure condoms fail sometimes, but they are cheaper than TANF payments to unwed mothers.
That's kewl and all but, at 33, you're the proud papa of how many teenage girls who present that opportunity for sex?
After class? During class. Hoping abstinence will catch on is like thinking one day we will experience a sudden outbreak of health.
So in your estimation teens have become nothing more than rutting beasts. When I was 16 none of my peers had had sex. Your attitude is shared by far too many. I'll bet you were never privy to an abstinence program.
Maybe in today's society it is, but I can remember a time when abstinence was taken seriously, and the abortion rate was way down. So, society changed.
All boys are a mass of raging hormones, but those were kept in line by a girl's older brothers, or an uncle, father, etc.
Those were different times, but abstinence worked most of the time. Nobody got diseased, and the girls who did get pregnant didn't do abortions. It was a more religious time in America.
"Those were different times, but abstinence worked most of the time. Nobody got diseased, and the girls who did get pregnant didn't do abortions. It was a more religious time in America."
And my guess is that the schools in that particular golden age didn't do abstinence education. So it was society as a whole as opposed to a few hours spent in school on abstinence (if this ever was the case - I'm not sure I believe it).
"I was 16 none of my peers had had sex."
They must not have made it on to a team. LOL.
We didn't do any kind of sex education in school. That would have been unthinkable at that time.
Yes, it was society as a whole that set the standards for the children to follow. If society changes the rules change too, and you wind up with an educational system that expands itself into the social arena with dubious results.
Did some girls get pregnant at that time? Yes, but the social stigma was severe enough that one family I know of actually moved away.
I personally never knew a girl that had an abortion although it was rumored that such things happened.
I do remember a lot of young guys getting beatings from older brothers who took their role as their sister's "guardian" very seriously.
A girl was expected to be a virgin on her marriage day. It was her father's job to make sure she didn't "stray", and girls understood what was in store for them if they did.
But, that was a different time.
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.