Sex Why Can’t Congressional Democrats Abstain From Stupidity?
posted by on November 7 at 14:30 PM
You would have thought that this April headline would have shamed the president and Congress out of pouring money into abstinence “education.” No such luck. Well, another study is out, this one from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, and they’re telling us something we already know: abstinence-only sex-ed doesn’t work.
Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.“At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners” among teenagers, the study concluded.
The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having “positive outcomes” including teenagers “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.”
So bullshit, religious-indoctination masquerading as sex-ed doesn’t stop or slow teenage sexual activity. But comprehensive, realistic sex-ed does—and it increases the use of contraceptives, which means fewer abortions. We shouldn’t expect the religious wackadoodles to accept reality—not while evolution and an “old” earth are still keep them up nights—but surely Democrats, who criticized abstinence education as an expensive waste before taking power in ‘06, aren’t having it.
Right?
Wrong. Congressional Dems are preparing to throw more money at abstinence-only sex-ed—more money than George W. Bush asked for.
A spending bill before Congress for the Department of Health and Human Services would provide $141 million in assistance for community-based, abstinence-only sex education programs, $4 million more than what President Bush had requested.
We really do need a third party in this country—a real one, not one that exists solely to milk Ralph Nader’s prostate once every four years.
What the fuck?
So, let me just make sure I'm understanding you here.
You spend seven years bitching about everyone who voted for Nader, all the while complaining bitterly about Republicans.
When Democrats take over the Congress you complain bitterly about them.
Your solution is a third party. But that's not grossly inconsistent because the Green Party that supported Nader in 2000 wasn't a "real" third party.
Dude, stick to sex advice. When it comes to politics you're just another soccer mom.
I don't understand it anymore. Focus on local politics--that'll make you sane. Oh wait. . .
Wait ... What?
Are you kidding me?
Your solution is a third party. But that's not grossly inconsistent because the Green Party that supported Nader in 2000 wasn't a "real" third party.
The Green Party is a real party? Really?
The true solution is a left-wing party that is both progressive *and* realistic.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
We need a third party like we need a balanced budget. That said, it's not gonna happen.
I'd settle for a second party.
"So bullshit, religious-indoctination masquerading as sex-ed doesn't stop or slow teenage sexual activity. But comprehensive, realistic sex-ed does--and it increases the use of contraceptives, which means fewer abortions."
Dan, I think you're overlooking something: to these nutjobs, contraception IS abortion.
flaming: I totally knew you were going to say that, you Wellstone supporter you.
Dan,
It's called the Green Party. Most of the crazies went off with Nader in 2004.
The next real party is going to be conservative. There is a real chance that the Republican party will implode. If that happens, something will arise to take its place.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).