posted on March 6, 2004 09:07:39 AM new
This was discussed a few weeks back but I'll mention it again. I think President Bush’s sexual abstinence programs that will bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS is based on his own personal religious beliefs.
These programs haven't proved to be successful and in Minnesota sexual activity doubled among the young people taking part in it.
He is increasing funding for these programs but cutting back funding for AIDS education. I think this is a huge step backwards and he's trying to force his own beliefs on everyone.
posted on March 6, 2004 09:14:57 AM new
bunni - You are making the assumption that I approved of what Clinton did regarding DOMA. I didn't.
Again I will point out that I have made NO assumption. I ASKED how you see them differently. Not if you approved of one and not the other. How you saw them differently.
And the reason I ask is that all these 'religious' issues appear to me to only cause a stir since this president has been in office. But some of the same 'religious' issues didn't appear to be so important when clinton was in office. Like they were brushed aside....but when this President does the same thing...he takes continued flack for it and I believe it's only politically motivated.
As for the National Prayer Day thingie--well, I didn't think government should be doing that either--however you will notice that it was intended to be an interfaith observance.
Yes, I am aware of that....only I see it the same with President Bush. He does make everyone aware of 'his' religious beliefs, but I've seen absolutely no evidence of him promoting ONLY his religion as being the ONLY accepted one. Matter of fact I've heard him many times support ALL people of faith....including the right of all religions to practice their faith.
Clinton wasn't pushing to have his religion's prayers forced on everyone.
Nor is this President.
Just a short while ago, I posted links to the statements clinton made about their being no reason to put into law that all people have a guaranteed constitutional right, under our first amendment, to practice their religion. And that mainly was because, at that time, children weren't being allowed to pray in school....voluntarily...[not forced prayer]
When many felt their rights, and their childrens right, were being limited.
If you have seen statements where this President has EVER said anything against other religions, I'd sure be interested in reading it. Or where he has EVER stated his belief is the ONLY correct one.
posted on March 6, 2004 09:20:56 AM new
Kiara - What I'd like to point out to you is something I see being done here all the time.
Not singling you out....please understand that upfront.
Yes, President Bush does want abstinence taught along with all methods of birthcontrol. And if anyone takes a look at the recent STD rates, one can easily see why. They are escallating like crazy. His stand is the ONLY way to prevent the passage of STDs and prevent pregnany is by practicing abstinence.
IMO it only offers one more choice to be presented to our children. You know, just like the left wants all choices presented in the case of abortions?
And....what is usually discussed and associated with President Bush are statements/beliefs/opinions not taken from his words, but taken from generalizations that those on the VERY far right support. And because they tend to support this President...many take that he also espouses these radical beliefs.....many times when he has never said any such thing.
posted on March 6, 2004 09:24:55 AM new
Kiara - I think President Bush's sexual abstinence programs that will bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS is based on his own personal religious beliefs.
Okay fair enough. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of a quote from him where he says that he **ONLY**wants absinence to be taught. Because I've only seen his state that he's giving more funding so that the funds spent will equal closer to the amount of current funding going to teach/advocate all the other methods you present. Mind you, not statements from other's who are extremist right-wingers, but his own words.
posted on March 6, 2004 09:44:38 AM new
Okay, bunni - Please point me in the direction so I can take a look at that bill and who proposed it. Was it proposed in the House, Senate, what was it's # please.
Or if you have any direct quotes on this issue that Bush's actually said I'd sure like to see them.
posted on March 6, 2004 09:51:51 AM new
Bush does try to push things through based on his religious beliefs. He's even willing to change the Constitution to do so. And that's wrong. As president,he represents ALL the people, not just one segment of the population.
In my own small way, I am in a simlar position. I am a librarian. I buy books & other materials for my library. I can't and don't only buy materials that represent the viewpoint of only one part of our city. Some people in the community think fairy tales & books like "Harry Potter" are demonic--but others don't, so I buy them. I buy books on puberty & sex education with varying levels of candidness, because not everyone in the community sees eye to eye on just how condid such books should be. The list goes on & on. And I can't let my personal beliefs influence what I purchase. For instance, I am an athiest--but I buy books representing all kinds of religions. Because that's my job--I serve everyone in the community, not just the most numerous or the most vocal.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 6, 2004 09:59:17 AM newOkay, bunni - Please point me in the direction so I can take a look at that bill and who proposed it. Was it proposed in the House, Senate, what was it's # please.
Linda, [Bush} proposed it himself. Try doing a Google using the words Bush and abstinence. You will get several pages.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
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.
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.
posted on March 6, 2004 11:00:27 AM new
Okay...so neither of you, Kiara or Bunni, want to give me Bush's OWN words about how he wants no other form of birthcontrol discussed, period.
Kiara your article speaks to the issue that he's increasing funding so this can ALSO be taught...right along with the rest ....not in exclusion of.
Yes [to be clearer], I do know he wants to ADD to the sex education abstinanence only until marriage program. That's not what I'm disagreeing on.
I'm disagreeing on that he wants that to be the ONLY method of birthcontrol that's to be taught. He's not, imo. He wants it ADDED to the curriculum.
And until I see his own words saying differently I'm not in agreement.
Here's what he HAS said both on the subject of sexual education and on different religions.
Taken from his state of the union address to our nation.
beginning/
To encourage right choices, we must be willing to confront the dangers young people face -- even when they're difficult to talk about. Each year, about 3 million teenagers contract sexually-transmitted diseases that can harm them, or kill them, or prevent them from ever becoming parents. In my budget, I propose a grassroots campaign to help inform families about these medical risks. 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. (Applause.)
please note -- he's only saying he wants to ADD funding for this to be one alternative to the sexual education. To make the funding MORE equal. I don't read that anywhere as saying nothing else can be taught.
Decisions children now make can affect their health and character for the rest of their lives. All of us -- parents and schools and government -- must work together to counter the negative influence of the culture, and to send the right messages to our children.
then speaking to the subject of marriage
A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.
Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.
This bunni - is what I believe I mentioned to you before.....when I said 'they pushed his hand/force this action'[/i]
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, [b]without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.
Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)
The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight. (Applause.)
bunni - No where here do I see him supporting only HIS brand of religion[/i].
It's also important to strengthen our communities by unleashing the compassion of America's religious institutions. Religious charities of every creed are doing some of the most vital work in our country -- mentoring children, feeding the hungry, taking the hand of the lonely. Yet government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these groups, just because they have a cross or a Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions of dollars in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities. Tonight I ask you to codify this into law, so people of faith can know that the law will never discriminate against them again. (Applause.)
Re-elect President Bush!
[ edited by Linda_K on Mar 6, 2004 11:11 AM ]
posted on March 6, 2004 06:16:14 PM new
I may be wrong but from what I understand, the sexual abstinence programs that ban any discussion of contraception or STDs are the only programs taught in some states, depending on their law. In some states if school districts don’t comply they risk losing their funding. This is the only program that President Bush wants taught.
The sex education programs being taught in many states include sexual abstinence but students are fully informed on other matters of safe sex within that program, they aren’t taught two separate programs at one time.
posted on March 6, 2004 06:33:34 PM newAs president,he represents ALL the people, not just one segment of the population.
With the majority of the people in this country against queer marriage, he is doing the right thing, as indviduals they will be losing no rights what so ever, it will just clarify what the majority of this country wants that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman... it does not preclude any state from granting civil unions if they so desire.
posted on March 7, 2004 01:17:54 AM newGovernment Spends $12 on Safe Sex and Contraceptives for Every $1 Spent on Abstinence
by Melissa G. Pardue, Robert E. Rector, and Shannan Martin
Backgrounder #1718
January 14, 2004 | Executive Summary | |
Early this year, Congress will work to renew welfare reform by reauthorizing the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program. As part of this process, Congress will also seek to reauthorize the Title V abstinence education program that was created, along with TANF, in the original 1996 welfare reform act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).
It is expected that advocates of "safe sex" programs will use the welfare reform debate as an opportunity to push for additional federal funding for comprehensive sex education and contraception promotion programs in the name of reducing the occurrence of teen pregnancy and out-of-wedlock childbearing.
In fact, programs promoting contraceptive use already receive very large amounts of government funding. In 2002, the federal and state governments spent an estimated $1.73 billion on a wide variety of contraception promotion and pregnancy prevention programs.1 More than a third of that money ($653 million) was spent specifically to fund contraceptive programs for teens.2
By contrast, programs teaching teens to abstain from sexual activity received only an estimated $144.1 million in the same year. Overall, government spent $12 to promote contraception for every dollar spent to encourage abstinence.
In addition, most contraceptive promotion or comprehensive sex-ed curricula contain material that is alarming and offensive to most parents.
This funding asymmetry seems out of line with general social priorities. Early sexual activity has harmful effects on the health, psychological well-being, and long-term life prospects of teens, and these harmful effects will be reduced only slightly by contraceptive use.
Regrettably, relatively few teens receive a clear message about the harmful effects of early sexual activity; few are taught that society expects teens to delay sexual activity.
Instead, most safe sex/comprehensive sex-ed programs send the clear, if implicit, message that society expects and condones teen sexual activity. The main message is that it's okay for teens to have sex as long as they use condoms.
Any new monies devoted to preventing pregnancy should be directed not to amply funded contraception programs, but to abstinence education programs that teach teens to delay sexual activity, reveal the harm caused by casual sex with multiple partners, and help young people to prepare for fidelity, intimacy, and healthy marriage.
Government Funding for Contraceptive
Promotion and Services
Government-funded contraceptive programs promote the use of contraception for two purposes: to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to reduce the risk of infection by sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). To meet these goals, government contraceptive programs may provide contraceptive services, promote and encourage contraceptive use, or both.
A substantial amount of government funding is devoted to encouraging and facilitating contraceptive use among teens. Programs pursuing this goal are often called safe sex programs, comprehensive sex-ed programs, or STD prevention programs.
These programs are also misleadingly characterized as "abstinence plus" or "abstinence first" programs although, in fact, they contain little or no abstinence content.3
