Heritage: Twelve Anti-Family Gifts from Congress

[spursncowboys]

Twelve Anti-Family Gifts from Congress
by Katherine Bradley

As Congress wraps up its final business for the year, there are at least a dozen detrimental policies included in the omnibus spending bill recently signed into law by the President. Taken as a whole, these policies devalue human life, weaken civil society, and undermine the family. Unfortunately, these provisions have largely gone unnoticed by the general public.

The Dirty Dozen

The Fiscal Year 2010 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed by Congress includes a slew of offensive items:

1.Elimination of abstinence education. Despite polling showing the vast majority of parents want their children to be taught that abstinence is best,[1] the omnibus defunds the abstinence-based education program. In its place Congress creates another condom-based sex education program.

2.Spreading the wealth. The omnibus bill, as well as the other appropriation measures that have passed this year, represent a fulfillment of President Obama's promise to "spread the wealth." His 2010 budget reflects a 30 percent increase over President Bush's last year in office on means-tested welfare programs such as housing, food stamps, and health care. Unfortunately, these programs do little or nothing to help recipients move off of the welfare rolls and into jobs where they can achieve independence and provide for their families.

3.Needle exchange. Tucked into the health portion of the bill is an allowance of federal taxpayer funds to be used for needle exchange programs whereby drug addicts can get new needles for turning in used needles. Ostensibly to prevent the spread of infection, these programs settle for "harm reduction" rather than overcoming drug addiction. The provision does allow local health agencies and local law enforcement to "opt-out."

4.Planned Parenthood funding. Despite the country's towering deficit, the omnibus bill boosts Title X family planning funding by $10 million to $315.5 million. The largest recipient of Title X funds is Planned Parenthood.

5.United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Despite its stated mission to "ensure that every pregnancy is wanted," the UNFPA would receive $5 million more from U.S. taxpayers to, among other things, support China's mandatory one-child policy, under which millions of wanted pregnancies have been ended.

6.International family planning. Shortly after his inauguration, President Obama rescinded the "Mexico City policy," which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortion overseas. The omnibus bills would give these groups an additional $103 million.

7..Limiting free speech The omnibus bill drops a ban on federal funds being used to enforce or implement the "Fairness Doctrine." This policy would have the effect of shutting down conservative talk radio programs.

The section of the bill that funds the District of Columbia includes these disturbing provisions:

8.Ending the D.C. Scholarship Program. For five years, thousands of D.C. families have been able to send their children to safe and effective private schools. But the omnibus bill allows no new entrants into the program--despite a 2009 Department of Education report showing a statistically significant increase in reading scores for scholarship students.[2]

9.Public funding of abortion. The bill lifts a ban on D.C. using local funds to promote and fund abortions for District residents.

10.Taxpayer-financed domestic partner benefits. The bill lifts a longstanding ban on the use of federal taxpayer funds to pay for health care benefits for domestic partners of D.C. employees. Federal funds would also now be used for domestic partnership registration.

11.Legalized medical marijuana. The bill gives D.C. the ability to use local funds to start and implement a medical marijuana program. This comes at a time when, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles is attempting to reel in its program. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the city, with some 1,000 dispensaries cropping up since 2004.[3]

12.Needle exchange for drug abusers. A decade-long ban is lifted in the bill to allow D.C. to use local funds to run a needle exchange program for drug addicts. Unfortunately, a provision keeping these programs from within 1,000 feet of any school, day care, or youth center was stripped out in the final bill.

Unwelcome Christmas Gifts

The Christmas season is a time when Americans celebrate life, family, and community. Unfortunately, the 12 unwelcome Christmas gifts in the omnibus bill, signed into law by President Obama last week, undermine these pillars of American civil society.

Katherine Bradley is Visiting Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.


[1]See Robert E. Rector, Melissa G. Pardue, and Shannon Martin, "What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No.1722, January 28, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research
/Abstinence/bg1722.cfm.

[2]See Dan Lips, "D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Boost Reading Scores, Family Satisfaction," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No.2396, April 10, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm2391.cfm.

[3]Tamara Audi, "L.A. Agrees to Limit Medical Marijuana Dispensaries," The Wall Street Journal, December 9, 2009, at http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB126033084958883141.html (December 19, 2009).

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/wm2739.cfm

[boutons_deux]

Heritage = oil/gas/coal/capitalist stink tank

[Supergirl]

I'm good with all those things.

"Abstinence education" is an oxymoron. There is no education in teaching horny teenagers that the only way to prevent disease is to not have sex. That's criminally liable.

Needle exchanges are an incredibly important harm-reduction method of reducing the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. You wanna try and stop every junkie from shooting dope? Love to see you try. But 10 to 1 says you have slept with someone who's slept with someone who's slept with someone who shot dope, and if they don't use a clean needle you could get Hep C or HIV yourself.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I thought you said biased sources can't be trusted?

[spursncowboys]

I thought you said biased sources can't be trusted?

I would love to see a link of when I posted that. You decide for yourself what is credible or not. I gave the link with all their sourced data.

[baseline bum]

Katherine Bradley is Visiting Fellow in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.


You know something as full of shit and worthless as this pathetic list would have to be an Amway product.

[spursncowboys]

So the list is false? Which ones?

[Crookshanks]

Forget it spursncowboys - to our resident libs, that list is like their Christmas List and Barack Obama is their Santa Claus - mmm, mmm, mmm.

[Winehole23]

If you depend on federal policies to keep your family together -- or blame it for your family falling apart -- you deserve whatever you get.

[spursncowboys]

WH: Where do you get that reasoning? What exactly of these govt. funding bills does the real "old repub" agree with? Are they the ones you agree with? Why do you hate the any kind of traditional values, even when it coincides with your ideological value?

[Winehole23]

What exactly of these govt. funding bills does the real "old repub" agree with? None of it, presumably.


Are they the ones you agree with?What I agree with or disagree with is beside the point. My point is, I don't look to the government to help/protect my own family, or my views about it.

There's nothing conservative at all about the family values emphasis, its more a cultural wedge, based on phony nostalgia for a past that never existed, than a defense of any concrete tradition IMO.


Why do you hate the any kind of traditional values, even when it coincides with your ideological value?I don't hate the values, I hate the implication that the values themselves stand or fall with the government's support of them.

[boutons_deux]

conservatives and Repugs are pro-life, but are insist that poor babies don't have a right to live, so 1000s die every year due to no/poor peri-natal care and for-profit insurance out-of-reach.

It's very telling that "saving lives" has been totally absent from the either side's arguments. It's all about costs, with the USA being to fucking poor to provide health care and save the lives of its own citizens. A disgrace before all other industrial countries.

Universal health care is ANTI-FAMILY? Just another lie from the Repugs and conservatives.

[Winehole23]

Universal health care is ANTI-FAMILY? Just another lie from the Repugs and conservatives.Not stipulated, b_d. The beef in the OP is with the omnibus spending bill.

[Supergirl]

If you depend on federal policies to keep your family together -- or blame it for your family falling apart -- you deserve whatever you get.

amen to that.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I would love to see a link of when I posted that. You decide for yourself what is credible or not. I gave the link with all their sourced data.

So can biased sources be trusted?

[ChumpDumper]

3.Needle exchange

12.Needle exchange:lol

Had to really stretch to get the twelve, eh?

[Winehole23]

8-12 apply to DC only, and 5-6 relate to foreign aid.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit.

[baseline bum]

LOL Heritage losers

[spursncowboys]

None of it, presumably.

What I agree with or disagree with is beside the point. My point is, I don't look to the government to help/protect my own family, or my views about it.

There's nothing conservative at all about the family values emphasis, its more a cultural wedge, based on phony nostalgia for a past that never existed, than a defense of any concrete tradition IMO.

I don't hate the values, I hate the implication that the values themselves stand or fall with the government's support of them.
My point is what did your original point have to do with spending tax dollars to push their progressive values? I agree that anyone expecting the state to teach their kids what is right and wrong is in for trouble but I just don't know why you would put it here, when it had nothing to do with all these spending increases on social programs.

[spursncowboys]

I'm good with all those things.

"Abstinence education" is an oxymoron. There is no education in teaching horny teenagers that the only way to prevent disease is to not have sex. That's criminally liable.

Needle exchanges are an incredibly important harm-reduction method of reducing the spread of HIV and Hepatitis C. You wanna try and stop every junkie from shooting dope? Love to see you try. But 10 to 1 says you have slept with someone who's slept with someone who's slept with someone who shot dope, and if they don't use a clean needle you could get Hep C or HIV yourself.
Not all teenagers are having sex. Teenagers have the mental capacity to wait. I am not saying they will be forced, because they know everything and will do what they want. However it is ludicrous (in Tyson's voice) to think that teenagers cannot have self control and discipline their mind and body. There are studies done that time and time again show that kids who claim to not be sexually active, do better in school and are more focused. I don't find anything wrong with sexual health education, and think that abstinence should be there too.
If you are serious about not spreading STDs, then abstinence is the only one that is 100%. If you are irresponsible then you have to pay for the consequence. If I slept with someone and didn't wrap it up, I deserve what I get.
You won't teach kids the dangers before sex but are ok with giving them free needles to do something that destroys community?

[greyforest]

11.Legalized medical marijuana. The bill gives D.C. the ability to use local funds to start and implement a medical marijuana program. This comes at a time when, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles is attempting to reel in its program. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the city, with some 1,000 dispensaries cropping up since 2004.

hold on guys going to go disband my family cause of this

[Supergirl]

Not all teenagers are having sex. Teenagers have the mental capacity to wait. I am not saying they will be forced, because they know everything and will do what they want. However it is ludicrous (in Tyson's voice) to think that teenagers cannot have self control and discipline their mind and body. There are studies done that time and time again show that kids who claim to not be sexually active, do better in school and are more focused. I don't find anything wrong with sexual health education, and think that abstinence should be there too.
If you are serious about not spreading STDs, then abstinence is the only one that is 100%. If you are irresponsible then you have to pay for the consequence. If I slept with someone and didn't wrap it up, I deserve what I get.
You won't teach kids the dangers before sex but are ok with giving them free needles to do something that destroys community?

Um, I'm all about teaching kids the dangers of sex. Abstinence-only education is NOT. It provides kids with misinformation and lies, rather that useful information like how to properly use a condom and the wide variety of birth control and contraceptive options that are out there.

Teenagers are certainly capable of NOT having sex, and most importantly of making their minds up about whether they want to. Some teenagers choose not to have sex until later...most of those wait until college/early 20's, not marriage/monogamy. A small minority wait till marriage/monogamy.

It's just not realistic to expect MOST teenagers to wait, because most are not going to. Whether you provide them with accurate, life-saving information or not.

[admiralsnackbar]

Instantiating determinately broken policies based on ideological gonnds . Brilliant.

[Winehole23]

My point is what did your original point have to do with spending tax dollars to push their progressive values?The OP focused on the the progressive "attack" on family values; I attacked the defense of the same, as it is commonly understood. Suggesting that the character and stability of American families depends on politicians is patronizing and wrong.

Yes, liberals push their values with our tax dollars. Sadly conservatives, when in power, do much the same, rather than getting government the eff out of our lives.


I agree that anyone expecting the state to teach their kids what is right and wrong is in for trouble but I just don't know why you would put it here, when it had nothing to do with all these spending increases on social programs.I thought the problems was the values. That's what the OP was about. You seem to be moving the goal posts.

[spursncowboys]

The OP focused on the the progressive "attack" on family values; I attacked the defense of the same, as it is commonly understood. Suggesting that the character and stability of American families depends on politicians is patronizing and wrong.

Yes, liberals push their values with our tax dollars. Sadly conservatives, when in power, do much the same, rather than getting government the eff out of our lives.

I thought the problems was the values. That's what the OP was about. You seem to be moving the goal posts.

So instead of focusing your post on 90% of the op, or focus on one of the 12 bullets, you went after one sentence from the intro?

[spursncowboys]

Um, I'm all about teaching kids the dangers of sex. Abstinence-only education is NOT. It provides kids with misinformation and lies, rather that useful information like how to properly use a condom and the wide variety of birth control and contraceptive options that are out there.

Teenagers are certainly capable of NOT having sex, and most importantly of making their minds up about whether they want to. Some teenagers choose not to have sex until later...most of those wait until college/early 20's, not marriage/monogamy. A small minority wait till marriage/monogamy.

It's just not realistic to expect MOST teenagers to wait, because most are not going to. Whether you provide them with accurate, life-saving information or not.
What lies and misinformation does it have? Why do kids need to learn how to put on a condom, on tax payer money? You say that it is the kids choice to whether they want to have sex and then you say an abstinence program shouldn't be apart of sex ed. Sex ed was never supposed to be a how to. What studies do you have to show about the abstinence programs not lowering the sexual promiscuity of the students? You are talking out of your ass and using it as facts.

[Wild Cobra]

Why don't we just all accept the fact that government is too big, and wants to infringe on us too much.

We need to tell them to stop and let us live free lives. Stop doing things that are best decided by the state or local communities.

[Supergirl]

What lies and misinformation does it have? Why do kids need to learn how to put on a condom, on tax payer money? You say that it is the kids choice to whether they want to have sex and then you say an abstinence program shouldn't be apart of sex ed. Sex ed was never supposed to be a how to. What studies do you have to show about the abstinence programs not lowering the sexual promiscuity of the students? You are talking out of your ass and using it as facts.

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html

That's just the first couple articles that come up with a little Google search. It's pretty well-documented that abstinence-only sex ed is a complete waste of money and time because it does not do what it is supposed to: curb teen pregnancy rates and prevent the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sex ed has been known to do both those things. Go figure.

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html

That's just the first couple articles that come up with a little Google search. It's pretty well-documented that abstinence-only sex ed is a complete waste of money and time because it does not do what it is supposed to: curb teen pregnancy rates and prevent the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sex ed has been known to do both those things. Go figure.

All you have to do is tell kids not to have sex and they won't. Kids are really good listeners and always listen to their parents.

[Winehole23]

So instead of focusing your post on 90% of the op, or focus on one of the 12 bullets, you went after one sentence from the intro?That one sentence from the intro is the ideological thrust. The reason it gives to dislike the twelve bullet points is that they're "anti-family".

So yes, I attacked the framing and not the bullet points. Is there some kind of problem with that?

[Wild Cobra]

It's pretty well-documented that abstinence-only sex ed is a complete waste of money and time because it does not do what it is supposed to: curb teen pregnancy rates and prevent the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sex ed has been known to do both those things. Go figure.
First off, any time the word "comprehensive" is used by a liberal politician, expect the worse.

IMO:

I think we will all agree that abstinence only training is as bad as not teaching abstinence. Age appropriate sex education I don't think is the problem. However, there is too much that doesn't need to be taught that is, and to ages many consider inappropriate. The biggest problem I see is when the teaching infringes on the morals of the families. If a family wants no sex education taught, then there are options available for that, but then the peer pressure/outcast problems occur.

What I have a problem is the schools going too far in sex education and making it sound like condoms prevent pregnancy and disease. All forms of birth control have an unacceptable failure rate even when used properly. Worse yet, how may people use them properly?

Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent. Abortion can be mentioned, but then the moral ramifications of using it as birth control need to be discussed also.

Pregnancy without marriage used to be a social stigma. This prevented more problems that acceptance does. Our society is spiraling out of control in moral values, in so many ways. I just hope God doesn't make me live long enough to see the destruction of this nation.

[baseline bum]

What I have a problem is the schools going too far in sex education and making it sound like condoms prevent pregnancy and disease. All forms of birth control have an unacceptable failure rate even when used properly.


An HIV infection rate of <1% per year among couples with one partner known to have HIV is pretty convincing to me that the failure rate for condoms with regard to STD transmission is unacceptably over-hyped. That's pretty low when you're already conditioning on having one party as a carrier of the virus, considering you're most likely talking about a minimum 50 lays (but probably more like 100+ on average).



Condom Facts and Figures (http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_200308_Condoms.htm)
August 2003

Condoms are a key part of HIV prevention, as is abstinence and being faithful to one’s partner. All these three strategies make up the “ABC” of HIV/AIDS prevention. With consistent and correct use of condoms, there is a near zero risk of HIV. Studies on couples where one partner is infected show that with consistent condom use, HIV infection rates for the uninfected partner are below 1% per year.

Condoms are also effective barriers against other diseases such as herpes simplex, hepatitis B, chlamydia and gonorrhea. They also prevent pregnancy, although not as effectively. However, pregnancies reported with condom use are often due to user failure rather than product failure.

High rates of condom use have resulted in dramatic drops in the numbers of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). After condom use rates rose among Thai sex workers from 14% in 1989 to 94% five years later, STIs dropped from 400,000 to 30,000 per year. Condom use in Thailand and Cambodia has resulted in drops of HIV rates of more than 80% since the peak of the epidemics.

Nearly everywhere in Asia, more efforts are needed to promote condoms – they may be unavailable or costly, and there may be little public knowledge about their benefits. In many areas, the majority of sex workers are not using condoms consistently. Another study in rural China a few years ago found only 12% knew condoms helped prevent disease. Making

Even countries that have heavily promoted condoms still need to do more. In Thailand for example, where condom accessibility and knowledge is good, the use of condoms is still not as high during casual sex encounters or among hilltribes such as the Hmong or Lahu.

The supply of condoms nearly always falls far below the need across Asia. In China, for example, more than a billion condoms are needed for the sex industry, using the official estimate of six million sex workers. Currently, only about 1.5 billion condoms are produced in the country. In Myanmar, about 50 million condoms per year are required if all needs were met for family planning and disease prevention – several times as many as there are available.

Condoms can be promoted by governments through a variety of ways:

* Subsidize the costs of condoms, or lower their price by reducing taxes on them
* Make condoms more convenient to get hold of, by making them available in more stores, pharmacies, truck stops, bars and hotels
* Make condoms more socially acceptable so people feel less embarrassed to buy them
* Improve public knowledge about the benefits of condoms and how to use them

The way in which condoms are made accessible has a great impact on whether or not they are acquired.

Vending machines can allow easy access. There may also be a need to market condoms to make them more attractive. Many men may make excuses not to wear condoms. However, why people don't use them and why they say they don't use them may be two different issues. They may complain condoms inhibit sexual gratification and interfere with intercourse, but in reality may be too embarrassed to use them or associate them with "dirty" sex.

Knowledge abour how to use a condom is often poor. To use a condom correctly:

* Make sure that the condom is of good quality and not past its shelf-life
* Open the packet carefully so the condom does not tear
* Squeeze the the tip of the condom before unrolling it on to the erect penis
* After ejaculation, hold the rim of the condom and pull the penis out when still hard
* Do not use oil-based lubricants (stick to water-based such as KY Jelly).




Worse yet, how may people use them properly?


If only there was some way to educate people on use of contraceptives.



Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.


For an alleged libertarian, you sure like the government dictating social policy. Kids just need to be told the truth; you can't talk down to them and expect them to pay any attention.

Sex education should be able to be done easily in one day. You tell kids the truth:

anal sex is extremely dangerous unprotected because anal tissue is so easily torn and can also cause wounds to the cock, thus allowing blood/blood and blood/semen to mix
vaginal sex is still pretty risky unprotected
condom use drastically reduces the passage of HIV and is extremely effective at stopping pregnancies (3% failure rate over a year for couples, according to the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/)).
HIV can be transmitted during oral sex if the person has cuts in his/her mouth
The other STDs like Herpes, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, etc. are pretty easily passed through oral sex


If any parent has a problem with their kid being taught reality, of course give them the option to shelter their child from the evil truth.

[Wild Cobra]

An HIV infection rate of <1% per year among couples with one partner known to have HIV is pretty convincing to me that the failure rate for condoms with regard to STD transmission is unacceptably over-hyped. That's pretty low when you're already conditioning on having one party as a carrier of the virus, considering you're most likely talking about a minimum 50 lays (but probably more like 100+ on average).

Anyone accepting a near 1% rate of contracting such a thing deserve to die for stupidity.

Would you place your head in a guillotine if there was only a 1% chance someone would release the blade?

Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 round revolver?

Is it right to take that gamble of having an unwanted baby?

[Wild Cobra]

For an alleged libertarian, you sure like the government dictating social policy. Kids just need to be told the truth; you can't talk down to them and expect them to pay any attention.

I agree the truth needs to be told. I never said otherwise. the dishonesty is when, in the teaching of sex education, it's described as safe. Sure, you may like the odds, but does that mean everyone does? Do you think the 14 yr. old that thought she was safe, is ready to have a baby if she is one of the lucky lottery winners of the <1% solution?

As for my libertarianism, that goes hand in hand with responsibility. Irresponsibility should not be supported by social welfare. I don't like the schools being dictated by the governments in the first place. I cannot disband the Department of Education, but I might be able to influence how tax dollars are spent that shouldn't be in the first place. Now if someone elses lack of responsibility impacts what my tax dollars are spent on, then it does give me cause to try to change it.

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone accepting a near 1% rate of contracting such a thing deserve to die for stupidity.

Would you place your head in a guillotine if there was only a 1% chance someone would release the blade?

Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 round revolver?

Is it right to take that gamble of having an unwanted baby?Have you used a condom when you didn't know the status of your partner?

Are you celibate now that you are single?

[baseline bum]

Anyone accepting a near 1% rate of contracting such a thing deserve to die for stupidity.

Would you place your head in a guillotine if there was only a 1% chance someone would release the blade?

Would you play Russian Roulette with a 100 round revolver?

Is it right to take that gamble of having an unwanted baby?

No, which is why I wouldn't fuck someone who I knew had HIV. I find it kind of funny that you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a conditional probability though.

[baseline bum]

As for my libertarianism, that goes hand in hand with responsibility. Irresponsibility should not be supported by social welfare. I don't like the schools being dictated by the governments in the first place. I cannot disband the Department of Education, but I might be able to influence how tax dollars are spent that shouldn't be in the first place. Now if someone elses lack of responsibility impacts what my tax dollars are spent on, then it does give me cause to try to change it.

Nothing you said goes hand in hand with libertarianism.

[greyforest]

11.Legalized medical marijuana. The bill gives D.C. the ability to use local funds to start and implement a medical marijuana program. This comes at a time when, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles is attempting to reel in its program. Medical marijuana dispensaries have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the city, with some 1,000 dispensaries cropping up since 2004.[3]

i'm sorry i'm still laughing at this. i wonder how many families have been destroyed directly from weed laws. probably millions.

[Spurminator]

They're coming for your children!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Won't someone please think of the children!

[admiralsnackbar]

When common disease-control measures are put in place, I can't feel that only the most paranoiac and lazy-minded rail against the imposed "strictures" of comprehensive sex-education.

Birth-control education both helps to curb the proliferation of incurable viruses like herpes, HPV, and HIV, not to mention lesser -- but serious-- infections like syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. In the case of the viruses, you're looking at citizens saved from a lifetime of expensive care for themselves and their children (often tax-payer funded), while in the case of bacterial infection prevention, you're simply looking at public moneys saved on citizens in scheduled "one-shot" ways.

There's no question that abstinence would be the best measure, but it doesn't work -- in sex, in drugs, in culturally "deviant" behaviour... you name it.

Legislating super-rational impulses like sexuality is a waste of money because sexuality cannot be diminished by condemnation, as time has proven time and again. Abstinence education has made HIV explode in Africa. EXPLODE.

The explanation of birth control to kids doesn't risk those who are committed to abtinence, only those who are already moved or given to engage in risky behavior to begin with. When you compare the cost of bith-control programs to orphanages and medical treatment for herpes-blinded children and HIV-positive kids, handing out condoms is, at most benign, and at least cost-effective. Why? Parents and individuals themselves are the only ones with any effect on the outcome of teenage lust. Legislating teen libidos is like putting gas on a fine. May that clash with beliefs of some? Sure. Do I, as a taxpayer feel bad about their moral outrage? Not a whit.

I wish I had the time to address how asinine and conveniently phrased every item in the OP wedge-issue-thon was posted, but this is all I can get done this morning.

Merry post X mas from mine to yours.

[Wild Cobra]

No, which is why I wouldn't fuck someone who I knew had HIV. I find it kind of funny that you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a conditional probability though.
You simply miss my point.

I don't believe it is the governments responsibility to dictate what is and is not taught in our schools.

I do believe it is improper to teach sex education in a manner that gives students a false sense of security.

I do not believe it is the public responsibility to pay for individuals who make bad choices in life. Personal responsibility means stay out of my wallet.

Nothing you said goes hand in hand with libertarianism.
Sure it does. I believe in state and local rights. Not nationalism, which you seem to. What you say goes with socialism, because you are saying I am wrong with personal responsibility. That means the tax payers pay the tab for these unwanted pregnancies.

I fail to see what I say disagrees with libertarianism. The part of libertarianism I respect is the freedoms as long as it doesn't infringe on others. If you say as a libertarian, I can not say people who end up on welfare for their actions is not libertarianism, I say you are wrong. To say I am wrong is to say libertarians are socialists.

I made that distinction clear from the start. Responsibility so that tax dollars are not used to support peoples bad choices.

[admiralsnackbar]

I do believe it is improper to teach sex education in a manner that gives students a false sense of security.



But certainly the answer cannot be to pretend children are not at risk, or to neglect to inform them how they can diminish their risk, can it?

Abstinence-teaching sounds like a good solution, but obviously -- empirically -- doesn't work, so something needs to give. A compromise is needed.

[Wild Cobra]

But certainly the answer cannot be to pretend children are not at risk, or to neglect to inform them how they can diminish their risk, can it?

Abstinence-teaching sounds like a good solution, but obviously -- empirically -- doesn't work, so something needs to give. A compromise is needed.
If you have actually read my posts, you see I never called for abstinence only teaching.

Where the fuck did you get that idea?

I specifically said in my first post on the topic:

I think we will all agree that abstinence only training is as bad as not teaching abstinence.
Can you comprehend English?

[admiralsnackbar]

:lol Tell you what, WC : when you bother to read my posts, I'll extend you the same courtesy, how's that? Just be glad I didn't rail on about poor wittle Joe McCarthy for no reason.

Here's the thing though: you say you don't preach abstinence, but you also favor a Libertarian self-reliance with respect to sexual conduct that doesn't draw from the public coffers. Isn't that just the accountant's version of saying you support abstinence? You think giving kids access to free contraception is in any way more expensive to the state than creating untold welfare families and sick people? Why is it so hard to accept that kids are going to fuck the way the sun rises and the tides roll -- we're wired for that. Some more than others, I agree. But some every time.

[baseline bum]

You simply miss my point.

I don't believe it is the governments responsibility to dictate what is and is not taught in our schools.

I do believe it is improper to teach sex education in a manner that gives students a false sense of security.

I do not believe it is the public responsibility to pay for individuals who make bad choices in life. Personal responsibility means stay out of my wallet.


You're rationalizing an ends justify the means argument for having a government pushing a socially conservative agenda. There is absolutely nothing libertarian about that. I mean, here's your exact words:


Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.

You're playing both sides of the fence, one minute railing against government and then the next point saying since you pay taxes, they should push your dogma. And I did not miss your point, which seemed to be that you strawmanned an argument about conditional probabilities into one involving unconstrained probabilities.

I also find it insane that your main emphasis when talking about condom use is always their infallibility as opposed to the fact their use drops your chances of getting an STD by two orders of magnitude. No one claims its perfect, only that it's extremely effective. You're using the exact same techniques mouse uses when he rails against natural selection since it's not 100% bullet-proof.



Sure it does. I believe in state and local rights. Not nationalism, which you seem to. What you say goes with socialism, because you are saying I am wrong with personal responsibility. That means the tax payers pay the tab for these unwanted pregnancies.


What a joke. I believe in socialism because I think the actual stats should be taught and the moral judgments left to the individuals? My stance on sex education is far more libertarian than yours.



I fail to see what I say disagrees with libertarianism. The part of libertarianism I respect is the freedoms as long as it doesn't infringe on others. If you say as a libertarian, I can not say people who end up on welfare for their actions is not libertarianism, I say you are wrong. To say I am wrong is to say libertarians are socialists.


This quote of yours below goes completely against libertarianism.


Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the thing though: you say you don't preach abstinence, but you also favor a Libertarian self-reliance with respect to sexual conduct that doesn't draw from the public coffers. Isn't that just the accountant's version of saying you support abstinence?

No. If the parents of children or the children can support their own unwanted child, then I say fine. I am entirely against social programs except for those who are handicapped in some form that keeps them from supporting themselves, or need short term assistance to get back on their feet. That's why we have programs like unemployment insurance.


You think giving kids access to free contraception is in any way more expensive to the state than creating untold welfare families and sick people?
If the community or state does so, then fine. Just get the federal government out of things that belong to the states.

Do you believe in States Rights at all?

Why is it so hard to accept that kids are going to fuck the way the sun rises and the tides roll -- we're wired for that. Some more than others, I agree. But some every time.

I know that. I was like that myself.

Did you miss my point about properly teaching the ramification? Not giving children a sense of false security?

[Wild Cobra]

You're rationalizing an ends justify the means argument for having a government pushing a socially conservative agenda. There is absolutely nothing libertarian about that. I mean, here's your exact words:

Bullshit. I don't want a conservative or liberal agenda pushed.


[QUOTE]Kids need to be persuaded that sex is not proper until marriage, or when they can take on the responsibility of being a parent.
No, you're right. I had a temporary brain cramp and forgot you liberals beielve in living off the generosity of the government. I also forgot that too many people now get married without the means to support themselves.

OK, you got me in forgetting how stupid you libtards are.


You're playing both sides of the fence, one minute railing against government and then the next point saying since you pay taxes, they should push your dogma.
Call it that if you want, but I do not believe that I shouldn't have a voice in saying my tax dollars are used for proper purposes, and not socialistic agendas. Should I be happy that we already have a larger government than what we should have because of socialism? I don't want to see socialism increase, I want to see it decrease.

Again, are you claiming as a libertarian, I should be a socialist?

And I did not miss your point, which seemed to be that you strawmanned an argument about conditional probabilities into one involving unconstrained probabilities.

Sorry you don't understand. Not my problem.


I also find it insane that your main emphasis when talking about condom use is always their infallibility as opposed to the fact their use drops your chances of getting an STD by two orders of magnitude.

I am not saying they don't reduce risks of pregnancy or disease. I am completely aware they do.

Again, do you know what a false sense of security is? If we have to endure sex education that goes beyond what some parents want, then at least be honest with the kids, of what the ramifications are when they do fail. Is that asking too much?


No one claims its perfect, only that it's extremely effective. You're using the exact same techniques mouse uses when he rails against natural selection since it's not 100% bullet-proof.

We are talking about small risks that aren't small at all if someone contracts AIDS, Herpes, or gets pregnant. These things change a person's entire life.


What a joke. I believe in socialism because I think the actual stats should be taught and the moral judgments left to the individuals? My stance on sex education is far more libertarian than yours.

Well, there are different types of libertarians. You must be the type that says "fuck the consequences."

[admiralsnackbar]

All I'll say about state rights is that any state that repeatedly embraces failed policies is doomed to failure. Ideology is one thing. Reality quite another.




Did you miss my point about properly teaching the ramification? Not giving children a sense of false security?

First, you'd have to prove teachers are teaching a false sense of security. It wasn't all that long ago that I took sex ed, which consisted of week-long segments devoted to the horrors of each of the STDs, along with some glossing over the intricacies of intercourse in order to light upon the terrors of teen pregnancy. There certainly weren't any kama sutra i'm-ok-you're-ok shenanigans going on, just a nondescript cardboard box of condoms on the teacher's desk, where they were sure to not be pocketed. And surprise surprise, two girls in my class got pregnant. Oops.

So whereof comes this false sense of security you so vehemently claim is being foisted on the young? Or is it just that young people want to fuck, and many are simply too young and intellectually ill-equipped to grasp the ramifications of their actions no matter how expertly they are instructed? Anti-tobacco brainwashing starts earlier and lasts longer than sex ed, yet some of these poor saps start smoking anyway. Viva la imbecilité.

[baseline bum]

No, you're right. I had a temporary brain cramp and forgot you liberals beielve in living off the generosity of the government. I also forgot that too many people now get married without the means to support themselves.


I think I had a brain cramp in thinking you wanted to discuss an issue instead of just throwing shit against the wall.

[Winehole23]

I think I had a brain cramp in thinking you wanted to discuss an issue instead of just throwing shit against the wall.WC proceeds straight to abstraction, skipping the details.

You start off by denying what the other poster said. Then you try to institute loyalty to an arbitrary, sometimes completely made up, desideratum. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/DESIDERATUM)

[spursncowboys]

http://www.openeducation.net/2009/01/05/abstinence-only-sex-education-statistics-final-nail-in-the-coffin/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html

That's just the first couple articles that come up with a little Google search. It's pretty well-documented that abstinence-only sex ed is a complete waste of money and time because it does not do what it is supposed to: curb teen pregnancy rates and prevent the spread of disease. On the other hand, comprehensive sex ed has been known to do both those things. Go figure.
I have noticed that you keep saying abstinence only programs. No one has ever stated that. Maybe that is your distorted view of what is goingon. I doubt you have really looked into what the programs are and are just against them. That is completely in line with your average open mindedness on this board.

Conventional "safe sex" programs (sometimes erroneously called "abstinence plus" programs) place little or no emphasis on encouraging young people to abstain from early sexual activity. Instead, such programs strongly promote condom use and implicitly condone sexual activity among teens. Nearly all such programs contain material and messages that would be alarming and offensive to the overwhelming majority of parents.
Your links just reiterate what you said. Which is a lie.
Since condom use has been on the rise, so has stds.


Effective Abstinence Programs

Critics of abstinence education often assert that while abstinence education that exclusively promotes abstaining from premarital sex is a good idea in theory, there is no evidence that such education can actually reduce sexual activity among young people. Such criticism is erroneous. There are currently 10 scientific evaluations (described below) that demonstrate the effectiveness of abstinence programs in altering sexual behavior.18 Each of the programs evaluated is a real abstinence (or what is conventionally termed an "abstinence only") program; that is, the program does not provide contraceptives or encourage their use.

The abstinence programs and their evaluations are as follows:

Virginity Pledge Programs. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Michael Resnick and others entitled "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health" shows that "abstinence pledge" programs are dramatically effective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers in grades 7 through 12.19 Based on a large national sample of adolescents, the study concludes that "Adolescents who reported having taken a pledge to remain a virgin were at significantly lower risk of early age of sexual debut."20
In fact, the study found that participating in an abstinence program and taking a formal pledge of virginity were by far the most significant factors in a youth's delaying early sexual activity. The study compared students who had taken a formal pledge of virginity with students who had not taken a pledge but were otherwise identical in terms of race, income, school performance, degree of religiousness, and other social and demographic factors. Based on this analysis, the authors discovered that the level of sexual activity among students who had taken a formal pledge of virginity was one-fourth the level of that of their counterparts who had not taken a pledge. Overall, nearly 16 percent of girls and 10 percent of boys were found to have taken a virginity pledge.

Not Me, Not Now. Not Me, Not Now is a community-wide abstinence intervention targeted to 9- to 14-year-olds in Monroe County, New York, which includes the city of Rochester. The Not Me, Not Now program devised a mass communications strategy to promote the abstinence message through paid TV and radio advertising, billboards, posters distributed in schools, educational materials for parents, an interactive Web site, and educational sessions in school and community settings. The program sought to communicate five themes: raising awareness of the problem of teen pregnancy, increasing an understanding of the negative consequences of teen pregnancy, developing resistance to peer pressure, promoting parent-child communication, and promoting abstinence among teens.
Not Me, Not Now was effective in reaching early teen listeners, with some 95 percent of the target audience within the county reporting that they had seen a Not Me, Not Now ad. During the intervention period, the program achieved a statistically significant positive shift in attitudes among pre-teens and early teens in the county. The sexual activity rate of 15-year-olds across the county (as reported in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey21 ) dropped by a statistically significant amount from 46.6 percent to 31.6 percent during the intervention period. Finally, the pregnancy rate for girls aged 15 through 17 in Monroe County fell by a statistically significant amount, from 63.4 pregnancies per 1,000 girls to 49.5 pregnancies per 1,000. The teen pregnancy rate fell more rapidly in Monroe County than in comparison counties and in upstate New York in general, and the difference in the rate of decrease was statistically significant.22

Operation Keepsake. Operation Keepsake is an abstinence program for 12- and 13-year-old children in Cleveland, Ohio. Some 77 percent of the children in the program were black or Hispanic. An evaluation of the program in 2001, involving a sample of over 800 students, found that "Operation Keepsake had a clear and sustainable impact on...abstinence beliefs." The evaluation showed that the program reduced the rate of onset of sexual activity (loss of virginity) by roughly two-thirds relative to comparable students in control schools who did not participate in the program. In addition, the program reduced by about one-fifth the rate of current sexual activity among those with prior sexual experience.23

Abstinence by Choice. Abstinence by Choice operates in 20 schools in the Little Rock area of Arkansas. The program targets 7th, 8th, and 9th grade students and reaches about 4,000 youths each year. A recent evaluation, involving a sample of nearly 1,000 students, shows that the program has been highly effective in changing the attitudes that are directly linked to early sexual activity. Moreover, the program reduced the sexual activity rates of girls by approximately 40 percent (from 10.2 percent to 5.9 percent) and the rate for boys by approximately 30 percent (from 22.8 percent to 15.8 percent) when compared with similar students who had not been exposed to the program. (The sexual activity rate of students in the program was compared with the rate of sexual activity among control students in the same grade in the same schools prior to the commencement of the program.)24

Virginity Pledge Movement. A 2001 evaluation of the effectiveness of the virginity pledge movement using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health finds that virginity pledge programs are highly effective in helping adolescents to delay sexual activity. According to the authors of the study:
Adolescents who pledge, controlling for all of the usual characteristics of adolescents and their social contexts that are associated with the transition to sex, are much less likely than adolescents who do not pledge, to have intercourse. The delay effect is substantial and robust. Pledging delays intercourse for a long time.25
The study, based on a sample of more than 5,000 students, concludes that taking a virginity pledge reduces by one-third the probability that an adolescent will begin sexual activity compared with other adolescents of the same gender and age, after controlling for a host of other factors linked to sexual activity rates such as physical maturity, parental disapproval of sexual activity, school achievement, and race. When taking a virginity pledge is combined with strong parental disapproval of sexual activity, the probability of initiation of sexual activity is reduced by 75 percent or more.

Teen Aid and Sex Respect. An evaluation of the Teen Aid and Sex Respect abstinence programs in three school districts in Utah showed that both programs were effective among the students who were at the greatest risk of initiating sexual activity. Approximately 7,000 high school and middle school students participated in the evaluation. To determine the effects of the programs, students in schools with the abstinence programs were compared with students in similar control schools within the same school district. Statistical adjustments were applied to further control for any initial differences between program participants and control students. The programs together were shown to reduce the rate of initiation of sexual activity among at-risk high school students by over a third when compared with a control group of similar students who were not exposed to the program.26 Statistically significant changes in behavior were not found among junior high students.

When high school and junior high school students were examined together, Sex Respect was shown to reduce the rate of initiation of sexual activity among at-risk students by 25 percent when compared with a control group of similar students who were not exposed to the program. Teen Aid was found to reduce the initiation of sex activity by some 17 percent. A third non-abstinence program, Values and Choices, which offered non-directive or value-free instruction in sex education and decision-making, was found to have no impact on sexual behavior.

Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality (FACTS). An evaluation performed for the national Title XX abstinence program examined the effectiveness of the Family Accountability Communicating Teen Sexuality abstinence program in reducing teen sexual activity. The evaluation assessed the FACTS program by comparing a sample of students who participated in the program with a group of comparable students in separate control schools who did not participate in the program. The experimental and control students together comprised a sample of 308 students. The evaluation found the FACTS program to be highly effective in delaying the onset of sexual activity. Students who participated in the program were 30 percent to 50 percent less likely to commence sexual activity than were those who did not participate.27

Postponing Sexual Involvement (PSI). Postponing Sexual Involvement was an abstinence program developed by Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, and provided to low-income 8th grade students. A study published in Family Planning Perspectives, based on a sample of 536 low-income students, showed that the PSI program was effective in altering sexual behavior.28 A comparison of the program participants with a control population of comparable low-income minority students who did not participate showed that PSI reduced the rate of initiation of sexual activity during the 8th grade by some 60 percent for boys and over 95 percent for girls.29 As the study explained:
The program had a pronounced effect on the behavior of both boys and girls who had not been sexually involved before the program.... By the end of eighth grade, boys who had not had the program were more than three times as likely to have begun having sex as were boys who had the program.... Girls who had not had the program were as much as 15 times more likely to have begun having sex as were girls who had had the program.30
The effects of the program lasted into the next school year even though no additional sessions were provided. By the end of the 9th grade, boys and girls who had participated in PSI were still some 35 percent less likely to have commenced sexual activity than were those who had not participated in the abstinence program.31

Project Taking Charge. Project Taking Charge is a six-week abstinence curriculum delivered in home economics classes during the school year. It was designed for use in low-income communities with high rates of teen pregnancy. The curriculum contains these elements: self-development; basic information about sexual biology (anatomy, physiology, and pregnancy); vocational goal-setting; family communication; and values instruction on the importance of delaying sexual activity until marriage. The effect of the program has been evaluated in two sites: Wilmington, Delaware, and West Point, Mississippi. The evaluation was based on a small sample of 91 adolescents. Control and experimental groups were created by randomly assigning classrooms to either receive or not receive the program. The students were assessed immediately before and after the program and through a six-month follow-up.

In the six-month follow-up, Project Taking Charge was shown to have had a statistically significant effect in increasing adolescents' knowledge of the problems associated with teen pregnancy, the problems of sexually transmitted diseases, and reproductive biology. The program was also shown to reduce the rate of onset of sexual activity by 50 percent relative to the students in the control group, although the authors urge caution in the interpretation of these numbers due to the small size of the evaluation sample.32

Teen Aid Family Life Education Project. The Teen Aid Family Life Education Project is a widely used abstinence education program for high school and junior high students. An evaluation of the effectiveness of Teen Aid, involving a sample of over 1,300 students, was performed in 21 schools in California, Idaho, Oregon, Mississippi, Utah, and Washington. The Teen Aid program was shown to have a statistically significant effect in reducing the rate of initiation of sexual activity (loss of virginity) among high-risk high school students, compared with similar students in control schools. Among at-risk high school students who participated in the program, the rate of initiation of sexual activity was cut by more than one-fourth, from 37 percent to 27 percent. A similar pattern of reduction was found among at-risk junior high school students, but the effects did not achieve statistical significance. The program did not have statistically significant effects among lower-risk students.33

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm

[baseline bum]

So you're saying condom use increases STDs? I can't tell, because you're always all over the place.

[Marcus Bryant]

Twelve Anti-Family Gifts from Congress
by Katherine Bradley



1.[B]Elimination of abstinence education.

How about the state doesn't "educate" children about sex whatsoever?


2.Spreading the wealth.

Well, sure. But it's not like the GOP hasn't done its part in regards to this.




3.Needle exchange.

Sure, we shouldn't subsidize drug users. We shouldn't criminalize them either.




4.Planned Parenthood funding.

Agreed.



5.United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

Agreed.



6.International family planning.

How about we ban all "funding" to the UN?



7..Limiting free speech

Agreed. Limiting speech because it is popular is fucking stupid. And unconstitutional.




8.Ending the D.C. Scholarship Program.

No subsidization for private schools. And down with public schools.





9.Public funding of abortion.

Agreed. Time to end subsidization of all health procedures.




10.Taxpayer-financed domestic partner benefits.


No benefits for any public servant's "partner."



11.Legalized medical marijuana.


Disagree with the subsidization, but not the legalization.




12.Needle exchange for drug abusers.

Same as above, but the 1,000 feet ban is stupid. Unless the money wasted on public school security isn't.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course, I disagree with the assumption that the state should be expected to be "pro-family."

As well as the assumption that the state has the right whatsoever to interfere with families whatsoever. It's amazing what we accept so blindly, as long as it's posited as emanating from "experts" and/or wrapped in the flag.

[spursncowboys]

How about the state doesn't "educate" children about sex whatsoever?



Well, sure. But it's not like the GOP hasn't done its part in regards to this.




Sure, we shouldn't subsidize drug users. We shouldn't criminalize them either.




Agreed.



Agreed.



How about we ban all "funding" to the UN?



Agreed. Limiting speech because it is popular is fucking stupid. And unconstitutional.




No subsidization for private schools. And down with public schools.




Agreed. Time to end subsidization of all health procedures.




No benefits for any public servant's "partner."



Disagree with the subsidization, but not the legalization.




Same as above, but the 1,000 feet ban is stupid. Unless the money wasted on public school security isn't.
I agree with all.

[nuclearfm]

Our society is spiraling out of control in moral values, in so many ways. I just hope God doesn't make me live long enough to see the destruction of this nation.

:lol :lmao:downspin:

YOU SPEND ALL DAY IN A DISCUSSION FORUM. You're complaining about this country being destroyed, yet you yourself are utter non-contributor?

rOtEQB-9tvk