posted on February 13, 2004 07:47:58 PM newBush Pushes Abstinence-Only Education
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press Writer
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.
posted on February 13, 2004 08:21:16 PM new
"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."
Yes, promote fundamentalist claptrap and the programs that actually have been proven over time to reduce risky behaviour get the axe. All in the name of the "Family". Killing kids by withholding valid scientifically based information does not and never will promote family values.
posted on February 13, 2004 09:11:22 PM new
This is what happens when the 'liberal' teachings won't add/allow the abstinence
only position to be taugh along with the birth control methods. It swings the other way....to represent the beliefs of the 'other side' of the scale.
It would be much more effective if all could be taught along side of each other...but that's not been allowed. So now those who feel this is the way they wish to see their children taught, are having their turn at what they want to see promoted.
And they are right in the area of abstinence
as being the only way to avoid all STD's. Like it or not...it's a fact.
posted on February 13, 2004 09:37:36 PM new
Another chin-in-the-air, sniff-sniff post from the tit-for-tat slap slap (and mad, mad, mad) world of LindaK...
posted on February 13, 2004 11:57:08 PM new
Forgive me if I can't believe the motive here is pure. I see more of a - "The little whores deserve it if they can't control themselves." Than a - "We would be remiss if we don't promote only the very best method."
Part of why I feel this way is the people involved have so much blood on their hands it is hard to see any depth of genuine concern for human life.
posted on February 14, 2004 09:01:55 AM new
It gets better: Yesterday the FDA inexplicably decided to delay over-the-counter approval of the "morning after" pill -- the one that is simply a high-powered birth control pill and prevents fertilization of an egg if taken within 72 hours after intercourse.
The FDA said that the delay isn't a political move at all, (even though it handily coincided with Bush's announcement of his new abstinence program) but then specifically cited the use of the pill by "sixteen and seventeen years olds" as the reason for the wait. Then the FDA spokesman let slip that such a "contentious, controversial matter" required the highest level of scrutiny.
Yep, it's a fine world indeed when our publicly funded federal agencies kowtow to the fundamentalist right-wing agenda.
posted on February 14, 2004 10:25:01 AM new
LindaK, if latex is ineffective as a barrier, please give your rationale as to why latex gloves are required wear when doing procedures that involve exposure to body fluids, unless a latex allergy is present? Can you explain why the HIV infection rate for occupational exposure is so low for health care personnel?
57 documented seroconversion out of out of 23,473 reported occupational exposures. 137 undocumented.
Sexophobia is no excuse to not educate kids on the best WAYS to protect themselves. And yes, in the comprehensive programs, abstinence IS discussed. The programs that work are comprehensive, including both protection, contraception, and abstinence. Abstinence is not presented as the only way, and that's what has the religious whackos pissed. Abstinence ONLY programs present exactly that, and cannot be taught alongside programs with fact based inclusive programs that have proven results over time since they are, by definition, non inclusive, and in addition, do not address the needs of homosexual teens.
Even the US Surgeon General concluded that Abstinence only programs are not useful for the 1/2 of Americas teens that are sexually active and that comprehensive programs have proven result.
Under the No Child Left Behin, the programs scintifically proven to be most effective are to receive the most funding. Abstinence only does not meet those standards. How effective can a program be if it leaves behind 1/2 its intended audience?
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 14, 2004 11:18:20 AM new
Teens Nationwide Promote Abstinence
ORLANDO, Fla. - Melissa Millis feels bombarded by everyday messages of sexual promiscuity, whether it's Janet Jackson's bare breast during the Super Bowl or her classmates' casual sex talk.
So Millis, a high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students across the nation plan to wear white T-shirts to school Friday, the day before Valentine's Day (news - web sites), to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the "Day of Purity," and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers.
"The way sex is talked about, it's so casual, like it's an everyday thing, like going to McDonald's," said Millis, 17.
The grass-roots effort is supported by Christian groups nationwide and organized by Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious rights group based in Orlando. It comes as President Bush (news - web sites) is pushing in his budget proposal to double federal funding for sexual abstinence programs.
But the Day of Purity is being watched with a wary eye by groups that promote sexual tolerance, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. The Day of Purity Web site accuses those groups of "a concerted effort in the schools and media to turn our youth away from traditional values."
"The word 'purity' in this context is morally self-righteous," said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda."
Eliza Byard, deputy executive director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said in an e-mail that her group applauded any effort to promote healthy sexual choices by young people.
"Unfortunately, this program seems to have a limited idea of what that means and doesn't appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need," she said.
Day of Purity touches on a controversial social issue — how to teach sex education in schools, said Bill Barker, a spokesman for Advocates for Youth, a Washington-based group that helps youth make responsible decisions about sex.
"You're walking into one of the fiercest debates out there," Barker said.
Participants said having the Day of Purity right before Valentine's Day is especially appropriate since teenagers often feel pressure to have sex with their girlfriends or boyfriends on the holiday.
"A lot of girls feel that in order to keep their relationship, they have to have sex," said Kelly Cruse, 16, who plans to pass out sexual abstinence literature at her high school in Illinois. "I think this need for acceptance is very destructive to a girl."
posted on February 14, 2004 12:26:33 PM newif latex is ineffective as a barrier
Are you reading words into my post that I didn't make, snowy? I don't believe I said that. Matter of fact, I'm SURE I didn't.
Latex products do NOT prevent passing STD's and HIV/AIDS 100% of the time....as abstinence does. They break, they leak when not used properly.
And the sad fact is that with all the 'protection' being taught...there are still people being infected with STDs and HIV/AIDs.
There is no reason, imo, that including abstinence, as PART of the program of
educating our young people should not have been included.
My post stated that the other side of this issue is now having a 'say' because the liberal side refused to also acknowledge that many parents ARE raising their children to not have casual sex. They have a different set of values. Their values, morals have long been pushed aside when the topic of sexual activity has been taught.
posted on February 14, 2004 12:31:30 PM new"So Millis, a high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students across the nation plan to wear white T-shirts to school Friday, the day before Valentine's Day (news - web sites), to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the "Day of Purity," and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers."
You see, right there Bear, sex is made out to be unpure, and I'm sure doing all this the day before Valentine's Day has some kind of subliminal meaning too. You don't see this as mind-control?
posted on February 14, 2004 12:34:13 PM new
The morning after pill was not tested on the younger crowd. Girls have died from taking it. Some felt there needed to be more testing on that age group before it was approved and found to be safe.
Heaven forbid the FDA would like to be sure it's safe for this age group, especially since these young girls will be taking it without parental knowledge...thanks to the liberals who think parents should have no say in what their own children do or use.
posted on February 14, 2004 12:39:28 PM new
KD - Unpure? LOL
Sorry, but that's something from the middle ages.
I don't believe it' looked at as 'unpure' by the majority....but rather as something special you share with someone special....not just sleeping with anyone and everyone. [casual sex]
Just like in all of life, there are varying degrees from 'saving yourself for marriage' to sleeping with everyone you meet.
posted on February 14, 2004 12:55:43 PM new
That's a lot of bunk, Linda. The "morning after" pill has been in use amongst females of all ages in Mexico (with no greater rate of ill-effects than those encountered by birth-control pill usage). Furthermore, more than 70 health groups, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say the morning after pill (MAP) is safe for over-the-counter distribution.
By dragging its feet for political reasons, the FDA is ensuring that women who have access to birth-control pills will continue to self-medicate with them unsafely, concocting potentially toxic "morning-after" pills on their own.
posted on February 14, 2004 01:02:13 PM new
yawn....more name calling..so beneith you pat.
I've never heard that drugs used and sold in Mexico had to undergo FDA approval. I'm sure you're aware they don't.
And it is a safety issue. I fully support the morning after pills...WHEN they are declared safe for the users. Go check your facts...these were never tested for their affect on young girls....women only. I don't support young girls being able to get abortions nor ANY medication without parental approval. Heck even the schools don't dispense aspirins, to young children, without prior approval.
And I've always felt taking away parental rights to medical information about ones own children has added to the breakdown of the American family.
posted on February 14, 2004 01:07:23 PM new
Linda, Bear's post said they're calling their effort the "Day of Purity". To me, that says if you're not a virgin you are unpure and maybe should be wearing the black t-shirts.
posted on February 14, 2004 01:09:33 PM new
Linda says:"My post stated that the other side of this issue is now having a 'say' because the liberal side refused to also acknowledge that many parents ARE raising their children to not have casual sex."
In the sixties when I was a teen we were all taught that casual sex was bad and abstinence was good.I still had sex when I was 17. My best friend was 16,we had pregnant girls in Jr High and high school..they were scuttled out of there before they could show though.Another friend was pregnant at our Hgih School graduation.
You can teach abstinence, and I am pretty sure that abstinence is always mentioned in sex ed classes here along with the other methods of birth control but kids are going to have sex no matter what they are taught.
Linda, I'd bet that you were also taught that sex was bad no sex was good and I'd be more than willing to bet that a lot of the people that you knew were having sex too.I'm SURE you weren't.Some kids will listen to the abstinence message and some won't. Most won't.I would rather those that don't at least learn about protecting themselves from disease and unwanted pregnancies.There are many that don't even pay attention to that part of the message. Kids will always believe they are invincible.Sad but true. All religions are equally right
posted on February 14, 2004 01:10:16 PM new
Try not to miss the point at least once a day, Linda:
The MAP has been in use in Mexico amongst women of all ages and no ill-effects not already associated with conventional birth-control pills have occurred.
If you think the FDA is some Grand Wizard of promoting safe drugs, go read up on Prozac...
posted on February 14, 2004 01:21:48 PM new
I totally agree with that, Linda. Abstinence is a choice. With truthful, unbias education about all aspects of sex, young people will be able to make smarter choices at an earlier age. The problem for me, is when children are used to promote a political aganda, and it's disguised as education.
posted on February 14, 2004 01:27:04 PM new
pat - Point is in OUR country the FDA approves our drugs....we have never decided which drugs are safe, and on who, because of what other countries do or don't do.
------
Robin - and I am pretty sure that abstinence is always mentioned in sex ed classes here along with the other methods of birth control but kids are going to have sex no matter what they are taught.
It's not being taught in most sex ed classes, that's what the 'righties' have been screaming about. I've read several articles that support that finding.
The problem, imo, began when sex ed was taken out of the home and put into the school environment. It belonged at home where values and morals could be taught according to each parents belief. I do not support the theory that liberal teachers have a right to teach beliefs that don't follow the values of any family.
It's not the government's place....it's the parents responsibility. But too many liberals felt the schools could do a better job than the parents were doing. And...maybe so in some cases. But the bigger problem arose when the views of the other, more conservative, parents about sexual activity was not being taught. That's where we are today.
Sexual activity has increased and at younger and younger ages. No one will ever convince me that didn't come from children being taught they don't have to respect their parents values/morals but rather sexual activity was 'okay' ...if it feels good do it kind of thinking.
Our generation, of young girls, was much more conservative in their sexual activity than young girls are today. Whether they were or weren't having sex. I don't think the way things are now has end up being to their benefit either.
posted on February 14, 2004 01:36:24 PM new
And the POINT is, Linda, that two advisory groups who report medical findings directly to the FDA, and to which the FDA looks for guidance when approving drugs, overwhelmingly recommended (last December) that the FDA approve MAP for over-the-counter status.
In more than 38 countries, women can walk into a store and get MAP without a prescription. No ill-effects have been reported.
It is right-wing Bush appointee FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan who is stalling its approval, and he is doing so for political reasons...
Edited to add: And, yes, Mark McClellan is related to White House press secretary Scott McClellan; they're brothers.
posted on February 14, 2004 01:37:33 PM new
Linda, how do you know that younger people are more involved in sexual activity than when you and I were kids? When you say "sexual activity", do you mean intercourse?
posted on February 14, 2004 01:37:58 PM newLinda, I'd bet that you were also taught that sex was bad no sex was good....No, matter of fact I wasn't taught sex was bad. I was raised by a mother who lovingly didn't want me to become pregnant nor earn a reputation for being easy. She taught me to 'value' the gift [of myself] that I would someday give to a man I loved. And she taught me about sexual urges and how just because I had them, didn't mean I had to act them out....with every Tom, Dick and Harry like so many of our young people are doing today.
posted on February 14, 2004 01:44:09 PM new
Pat - And when it was approved, without trials on this age group, young girls started dying...THAT'S when it was removed until it can be determined it's safe.
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on February 14, 2004 01:56:46 PM new
KD - Yes, I was referring to sexual intercourse and oral/anal sex too. Even though some think those aren't sex related.
As to the rest of your question, I'd only question how often you get out of the house. How often you are around young people. Things might be a little different in Canada, but I doubt there's that much difference. Take a look at how 9 - 11 year old girls are dressing. Read papers and learn how they're acting. Watch the TV shows and see how much sex is talked about/seen in movies and tv programs our young people watch and are influenced by. MTV is a good example of a program our young children watch and want to copy the behaviors of those stars they admire.
Work in a hospital, doctors office, Planned Parenthood clinic....you'll see the large numbers of sexually active young girls.
But even more than that is the number of different sexual partners these young people have. Not just sleeping with that 'someone special' while engaged or before marriage. That's why the number of STDs are growing so rapidly.
posted on February 14, 2004 02:00:55 PM newsexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS
That's not even rational thinking. Teens today are bombarded with TV ads, movies, music videos, books and magazines all about sex. To expose them to all of this and then tell them "Don't do it" just doesn't work. I think some seem to forget about raging hormones.
They should be taught abstinence along with safe sex as well as the dangers of smoking, drugs, and drinking and driving as well as everything else to try to make them responsible and informed.
