Here's a link to the article at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22277576/)

I'd like to start by saying, I didn't even know that the government has a fund that supplies states up to $50 million annually to abstinence only sex education. This is seperate from another $176 million that the federal government spends every year in teaching abstinence only, a figure which the federal government is considering increasing by another $28 million next year.

The interesting thing here is that more and more states are saying no thanks to the funding. Evidently, there's two caveats to receiving the funding, which is why many states are opting out:

1. The state has to match whatever funding it receives from the federal government. So if you get $1 million from the federal government, the state must spend another $1 million in state taxes towards the program as well.

2. As the name implies, the funding can only be used as part of an abstinence only sex education program. It cannot be used in conjunction with a program that teaches about contraception and the like.

What I find most shocking is that many state governments are coming up with a very logical position here: That abstinence only sex education programs are not as effective in reducing teen pregnancies as comprehensive sex education programs. The article sites some statistics to back this position up, but intuitively it seems true; i.e., if abstinence education reduces teen pregnancies, and contraception education reduces teen pregnancies, then using the two in conjunction would seem to have to be more effective than using one of the methods alone.

The basic conclusion by many state legislatures is that the requirement to match the funding for a program that is not as effective as a comprehensive program is enough for them to turn down the funding completely.

I also find it surprising which states are and which states are not taking the money. As you'd expect, liberal California is not taking the money. But some are surprising. I live in pretty liberal Maryland and we ARE talking the funding. But fairly conservative Virginia is saying no thanks to the money. What is this country coming to? Are we actually turning a corner in letting reason trump religious mores on this issue?

Are we actually turning a corner in letting reason trump religious mores on this issue?Hey, let's not get hasty, here! I'm sure that the politicians that are moving away from abstinence only education are really just caving into pressure from the condom lobby.

I'm sure that the politicians that are moving away from abstinence only education are really just caving into pressure from the condom lobby.

I don't agree with abstinence only sex education for one simple reason: What about those that refuse to abstain from sex? Yes, I believe that abstinence is the best form of contraception, but there has to be precautions that can be taken. Anything that does not include this is not likely to be effective. Let's be honest, these youth are at the age where they are sick of the words "Thou Shalt Not"...

I remember the clip of an exchange between Rachel Maddow and some pro-Absitinence lady (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/24107/1/abrams_sex_ed_120407.wmv) (.wmv file) on tv. It went along the line:

Maddow & host: It doesn't work.
Ms. pro-abstinence: Oh yes it does.
Maddow & host: But where there is abstinence education teenage pregnancy is on the rise etc.
Ms. pro-abstinence: These findings that say otherwise are the result of 'selective science', they're wrong, and if anything only suggest there isn't enough abstinence education yet. Teens need more indoctrination and repetition. There are statistics that prove how well it works.
Host: What statistics?
Ms. pro-abstinence: Well, ours...

Speak about faith based initiatives. To see them work, you simply have to believe in them.

Gnarff, you're aware that I was being sarcastic, right? I know I didn't use any smilies, but it is me, after all. I thought my sarcasm on the issue would be self evident. :)

I consider any sex-ed that sugar-coats or omits certain methods to be misleading, and possibly dangerous - particularly one that has only abstinence. Well, yes, if you don't have sex you can't get pregnant, duh! Unfortunately, quite a few young people have already decided - or will decide at some point - that they do want to get laid, so if any agency is not responding to this majority it is not doing a good job.

Aldeth mentions the two drawbacks of the scheme as far as the states are concerned, and they are not trifling either. Every dollar the state government takes ties one of its own in a program of dubious efficiency and dubious popularity - because I'm pretty sure there are quite a few people in the US of A who consider abstinence-only programs a titanic load of **** . Suuure, nearly every parent would like that its little angel does not "get around" to begin with, but I think most of them would certainly prefer that they use protection when (not if) they do have sex.

Besides, I thought the whole purpose of sex education is to know more about sex, not that you shouldn't have it or how bad it is. There are media enough to convince you otherwise :P

I read yesterday that two states applied for the funds, but stated in their application that they planned to use the money in a comprehensive program of sex ed - effectively disqualifying themselves. The surprising part was that one of the states was the oh-so-red Ohio.

Maybe there will be a grassroots movement towards common sense?

I believe that abstinence is the best form of contraception, but there has to be precautions that can be taken. Anything that does not include this is not likely to be effective.

Despite the fact that you were responding to Drew's sarcasm, this is actually a point where you and I are in agreement Gnarff. I don't have a problem teaching (or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say preaching) abstinence. Sex education in most states starts when the kids are around 10-12 years old. In that age range I think that abstinence programs can be more successful, and also because I don't think kids that young should be having sex. However, what can be successfully implemented with someone who is 12, cannot be done with the same results with someone who is 16.

I most agree with the politician in the article (who I think was from Ohio) who said he has a problem with abstinence only. Sure, it's fine to teach abstinence, but I cannot believe the pro-abstinence people (like the one Ragusa cites) could actually argue that abstinence only is more effective than a comprehensive program. It's not that abstinence only is completely ineffective - it does work for some people. What the studies show, however, is the people who don't abstain are less likely to use contraception when having sex if they received abstinence only sex ed.

The other thing is that Ms. pro-Abstinence replied on the remark that the abstinence only programs only stress the alleged failure rate of condoms that the programs give the teens all the information they need - and that means they want to keep it at the level of: Condom's will fail! They are not safe! It can't protect you from both pregnancy and STDs (where the opposition to HPV vaccination comes in handy, thanks to that approach it complements the abstinence only (not-)sex education by providing one more thing to scare teens with)! Don't even try! Booh!

The funny thing is that the line 'when it doesn't work, it's just because there isn't enough of it' is a standard in-your-face-brazen response whenever some harebrained Bush scheme goes bad: Public shootings don't show that there are too many guns on the streets, but that there are not enough (so that other citizens could have killed the shooter)! Post-Katrina reconstruction is not FUBARed as a result of the Bushies dismantling FEMA - if anything it shows that there hasn't yet been enough of first response market privatised (in which case the holy market would have guaranteed smooth and (cost-)efficient response) :rolleyes: Give me any scheme, and I'll cook you up some of that spin in an instant.

Rags, your link is broken. Again. Please fix or dosomefink.

AMaster,
I changed it for another file, anyway, and you have to save-file-as-it-to-then-view-it ... :p

I read yesterday that two states applied for the funds, but stated in their application that they planned to use the money in a comprehensive program of sex ed - effectively disqualifying themselves. The surprising part was that one of the states was the oh-so-red Ohio.

Is Ohio that conservative? I thought that since it was such a battleground in 2004, it would normally be hanging in the air.

Maybe there will be a grassroots movement towards common sense?

I should hope so. It is terrifying when common sense has to be applied from above :rolleyes: .

Anyway, I heard that there was some opposition to the HPV vaccines, but considered it a fringe movement to say the very least. It would take a hell of a nutjob or a conspiracy buff to oppose such vaccinations.

AMaster,
I changed it for another file, anyway, and you have to save-file-as-it-to-then-view-it ... :p

I did. The file was a whole 30 kb. However, I'm a clever lad, and found it on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Xy-RQgLFI)

Honestly, I would think that for guys, sex ed should include a detailed description of an invasive swab test. Get all the facts out there...

AMAster,
never mind then. The new link does work though.