Why Restoring Abstinence Funding Isn't the End of the World

Thanks, Amy. Were you at the Finance Committee hearings today? Is there still a lot of infighting there? I was hoping earlier that you caught the Lincoln b-day song on video or cell phone. (will post ab. funding thoughts soon) thx

…and here we go: Points C, G, and esp. H may be the critical ones (the only ones?). Even Bristol Palin admitted as such about H / wait until you can afford it …afterwards. Ponder these flash-forward items:
- whither young couples marrying right out of high school with little financial help from poor relatives and without advanced skills / education?
- compare to a wealthier single woman who can raise a child on her own with or without her partner? Who fares better?
- if a marriage is in deep trouble – let alone abusive – will extra (or any) children necessarily improve the marriage?
- whither young women (and their children) in certain groups who marry extremely young, such as the rogue rural Mormon polygamist sects?
- re: divorce / context of marriage: do some heal better after a failed marriage, esp. an abusive one? Or should these be reconciled at ANY cost just to preserve the sanctity of marriage? …and the effects of divorce upon children?
- do these rules, esp. D, apply only to straight couples (since they can always marry)?
- babies are expensive. Do teens understand that? “Prom moms” will quickly learn.
.
I'd add a G1: teach how to understand and dismiss everyday mixed media messages about sexual / drug imagery. I'd also add a point I (which reinforces H): teach everyday consequences of having a baby, in marriage or not: the time, diapers, costs, and lifestyle changes, more joy but less carefree living for 18 years, and diapers …in graphic detail. THAT may cross more legs than using Hatch-approved funding to say Don't Do It. Even then, we'd need a Plan B, literally and figuratively (when, ahem, IF you're gonna, you need to do this…). This would be true Public Option Minus the “L”. But do add some forgiveness, please. Of course we remember Jesus forgiving the adulteress (let he who is without sin, etc.), but today way too many either cast rocks or get stoned. Thoughts, Amy? I'm done here, even if only the crickets are reading …g'night.

It may not be the end of the world, but it is annoying to see this relic of the Bush years continuing on to haunt us.
.
To have a politician ignore mounds of research showing the negative effects of abstinence only sex ed so that he can inflict wasteful spending on us (and this after months of bemoaning the Democrats fiscal imprudence) - it's infuriating.

Amy,

Deconstructiva has the basic elements, and I'll say it another way: as you suggest, nobody should be upset about this, except 1) people who hate wasting $50M in money for things that are proven to be ineffective; 2) people who hate misleading young people into ruining their lives by deliberately failing to provide them with information necessary to make good decisions; 3) people who believe that it is essential to good government that politicians and bureaucrats stop pandering to demonstrably false delusions of the theocons and evangelicals; 4) and people who think it is important that politicians stop wasting their time (and our money) on hypocritical posturing about religion while aggressively advocating torture, unjust wars and the decidedly unChristian denial of health care and education to poor people.

Apparently none of those things bother you, so, well, I guess you need to tell me to calm down and be happy about this waste of time, money and integrity.

At least I now know your philosophy of government and your respect for fact-driven decisionmaking.

From a typically spot-on piece by George Monbiot in the Guardian (before Ass-Hatch grabbed $50 million to flush down the toilet):

"The CDC has published a map of trends in the teenage birth rate. I ran it against a political map of the Union and found this: nine of the 10 states with the highest increase in teenage births voted Republican in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. (Eight of them voted for McCain in 2008.) Among them are the Christian conservative heartlands of Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Oklahoma. These are the places in which Bush's abstinence campaigns were most enthusiastically promoted...

Barack Obama's new budget aims to change all this, by investing in 'evidence-based' education programmes. The conservatives have gone ballistic: evidence is the enemy. They still insist that American children should be deprived of sex education, lied to about contraception and maintained in a state of medieval ignorance. If their own children end up with syphilis or unwanted babies, that, it seems, is a price they will pay for preserving their beliefs. The denialogues are now loudly insisting that STDs and pregnancies have risen because Bush's programme didn't go far enough. The further it went, the worse these problems got."

And while I'm at it, I'll throw in one of my all-time fav columns by Mon-B: Puritanism of the rich

And who'd'a'thunk I could fly 'Ass-Hatch' by the censors

"Finally, it's far from certain that the Hatch funding will survive to the final version of health care reform, should it become law. "

The other thing that is far from certain is whether Hatch would vote for this bill, even if he wrote the whole thing. However, I'm certain he will oppose any bill that includes a public option, that would largely be used by the poor. He is very clear about that.

It might not be the end of the world except for one rather meager detail.

Wasted federal spending is THE bogeyman of not only self-identified Republicans but of 'neutral' journalists everywhere. Michael Scherer himself devoted gallons of ink over which Presidential candidate was more willing to fight "pork' in the Federal Budget. It's utterly Convetion Wisdom that the Republicans oppose Government spending and taxes while Democrats support both. The truth is that Republicans LOVE Federal spending, they just don't feel obligated to pay for it.
.
If your going to tell us that 50 million thrown as a bone to the FRC doesn't matter, then you are clearly part of the problem.

Uhh, Amy-I seriously don't want to insult you, but WTF?
.
This is $250 million dollars we are talking about here, not the $50 million you make it seem like.
.
For those that don't know, this is 50 million a year each year until 2014 for a program proven not to friggin work. And Amy tells you its only 50 mil so its not the end of the world.
.
I realize this is a blog, but here this blogger manages to give you an idea of the full picture without telling you how you should feel about.
.
The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday night approved an amendment providing tens of millions of dollars to fund abstinence education programs for teens.
.
The proposal, offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), would provide $50 million per year through 2014 exclusively for abstinence education programs. The measure would effectively reinstate the controversial Title V program, which offered $50 million per year to states for abstinence education, but prohibited them from tapping the funds for other sex-ed subjects like contraception. The same prohibition would accompany the Hatch amendment. “Abstinence education works,” the Utah Republican said.
.
The vote was 12 to 11, with Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.) voting with every Republican to secure passage of the measure.
The proposal's success caught Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) off guard. The Finance Chairman had offered an alternative to Hatch's proposal, which would provide funding to a broader swath of teen wellness programs, including those addressing contraception, HIV/AIDS, healthy relationships and financial literacy.
.
Abstinence education programs could be included in Baucus's alternative, Finance Committee staff said, if it's deemed a “medically accurate and complete” strategy promoting teen health. Baucus, though, doesn't think that's the case. “Abstinence education programs, I think, have been ineffective,” he said.
.
The Baucus measure passed 14 to 9, providing a rare instance of a Republican amendment and the chairman's alternative passing the committee back to back. Baucus blamed the late hour for that anomaly. “We're getting to 10 o'clock,” he said. “[Strange] things start to happen after 10 o'clock.”
.
http://washingtonindependent.com/61415/senate-finance-committee-approves-amendment-providing-millions-for-abstinence-education

Abstinence-only education is horrendously ineffective and destructive, but point F is very true, and perhaps not stated strongly enough. If you take away all possible factors of kids growing up to be criminals and prisoners, such as location, socio-economic class, etc, whether or not a child grew up in a single-parent household or not is the biggest indicator. Ever looked at the percentage of prisoners who grew up without fathers?
.
Is there any wonder as to the lurch up in crime since the 1950s?

Jon Stewart gives the definitive response to this show of Democratic ineptitude.
.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority

Hatch's Christian morality stops somewhere north of the poverty line.

I'd like to propose that Hatch ignore his abstinence proposal and go f#%k himself.

Amendments like this being offered are what I call Pork!
Both party's are offering pork for their states regardless of how it affects other states or ordinary people or looking at what the bill will do over all.

Amendments to punish smokers and overweight people to help insurance companies charge more and forgetting that this bill is supposed to end previous conditions.

I have not seen any to regulate the Insurance Companies.

Why waste money on such prudishness?

It's the bridge to no sex.

Oh and point B: whose expectations are we talking about here? I have no expectations whatsoever about when people do or don't choose to have sex and I think that most adults would find the "no sex before marriage" to be outdated, to say the least. Why teach something that most people don't even believe anymore?

I'd rather put the $50M to publicly-funded abortions.

Amy Sullivan:
.
Are you aware that liberals aren't actually saying that abstinence-only funding is "the End of the World"?
.
We're actually saying that agency funding for and focus on the abstinence-only campaign is incompetent government.

Given the number of married adults who have self-reported to cheating on their spouces, I'm not sure how effective promoting D and E are going to be. After all, if you notice your own parents aren't living up to the standards that they are preaching it is kind of ridiculous to expect their children to.

Seriously, regardless of the points, these programs are somewhat insulting to kids' intelligence that they don't understand what's out there and around them. Were these points to be taught to 10 year olds or 16 year olds?

It never ceases to amaze me how childish adults become about speaking to their kids about sex. You would think that Boomers would have lost that prudishness because of the sexual revolution their generation went through. Instead they are still driven by Ozzy and Harriet stereotypes which they completely fail to live up to repeatedly.

God forbid that we actually teach kids the reality of sex, the real risks...and rewards (anyone here going to say they hate sex or actually waited to 21 to start having sex let alone until marriage?).

Gosh, Amy.

It's really $250M, not $50M? (htanks Cjapan)

And you used the strawman "Liberals think it's the end of the world?" (thanks SZ)

"The religion expert" of the Time staff could be an advocate for reconciling secular government and society with religious values. But not if that advocacy includes specious posturing featuring distorted strawmen, ignoring widely available facts and advocating government waste and hypocrisy.

Keep working on it. It could be a valuable role. How about "How do we reconcile our view of the value of human life with the military mission in Afghanistan? Is it possible to protect basic human rights (especially for women and girls) through military action in a hostile cultural and military environment? Is it justified under Just War Doctrine to occupy a country of 28M people for 10 years solely to prevent the possibility of a terror attack originating from that country? Is it fair to ask our soldiers to do this on our behalf?"

Or, "How do we reconcile mainstream Christian values with the conversion of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield system into for-profits over the last 20 years, and the resultant explosion in health insurance company profits?"

Or "Do Michael Moore's movies force us to reconsider whether we can follow Christ's teachings to care for one another in a fully free market, lassiez-faire system?"

The opportunities are endless - you just have to ignore the catnip from the right wing hypocrites, and deal honestly with religious teachings from the Judeo-Christian tradition, as well as other traditions.

But if you're going to view "religion" as "Orrin Hatch," then you're not really adding value.

There are so many things wrong with this kind of abstinence education. First of all, waiting until marriage doesn't work. People wait longer and longer now adays until they get married. I waited until I was 30 yrs old to get married. Do people really think someone is going to wait until they're 30 to have sex because they didn't want to get married? Also, what about gay kids? In most states they can't get married and even in the states where they can get married there is the constant threat that their marriages rights may be taken away like they did with Prop 8. Are gay kids suppose to be abstinent their whole lives? Do they deserve to die of STDs because no one thought they deserved sex ed because they can't get married legally? Also, even once someone is married your partner could one day cheat on you. It happens every day.

I favor comprehensive sex ed for kids. Sex ed that teaches them they are in control of their bodies and they need to make responsible decisions with their bodies. If they choose abstinence, then assist them with character and self-esteem building skills. However, they must also learn how to protect themselves should they CHOOSE to have sex, which most kids who say they will remain abstinence eventually choose.

Yep, the more I think about it, abstinence only education that teaches "wait until marriage" is a death sentence to gay children. I guess people just don't care about gay children or they think they don't exist.

"E. Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects"
.
WTF? That sounds like the reefer madness of sex ed
.
.
.
@ sacredh: lol x 2

I'm morally opposed to abstinence-only sex ed, because I believe it is ineffective and therefore leads to unwanted pregnancy and increased risk of abortion. How can the federal government ignore my deeply held beliefs and force me to pay taxes to fund such evil?

[...] Time: Why Restoring Abstinence Funding Isn’t the End of the World [...]