In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Congress Continues Attempts to Fund Abstinence-Only Education

Cara

Reusing this image because it’s just so appropriate . . .

Though I did indeed predict quite cynically last month that we weren’t going to just see funding for abstinence-only education dry up immediately, I will admit to still being quite disappointed with this latest development.

The draft of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act has just been released.  And with regards to funding for abstinence-only education funding, the news isn’t good.  Amplify has the details:

Despite the Senate Finance Committee’s recommendation for the House of Representatives to cut $28 million in funding for abstinence-only until marriage initiatives, the bill only cuts $14 million, leaving $94 million for these failed programs for the rest of the fiscal year.

This is despite President Obama’s public statements supporting comprehensive sex education, and his promise in the inaugural address to stop funding programs that don’t work. This is despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s public statement at Netroots Nation last year pledging to redirect abstinence-only funding.

The fact that the Democratic House leadership went exactly halfway towards the Senate’s recommendation is also alarming. Is this a sign that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership are willing to meet halfway towards the social conservatives’ abstinence-only agenda, despite the overwhelming evidence of its failure, the desperate need to cut funding in the budget, and a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate?

Good question.

Of course, if passed as is, this bill won’t be the first time that our Democratic Congress has decided to continue funding for abstinence-only education.  Except now they don’t have the “well, Bush would veto it anyway” tired excuse to justify the decision.  Really, as stated, I expected the drop off in funds to not be immediate, and gradual at best.  But this is getting a bit ridiculous.

Click here to tell Congress to stop funding this nonsense, and make sure to specifically mention this appropriations bill.  And while you’re at it, remember that the omnibus bill is not the only funding stream for abstinence-only education.  It’s in the federal budget, too.  So also click here to remind President Obama of his campaign promises, and ask him to zero out abstinence-only education in his 2010 budget.

Because, quite simply, American teens have a right to know about their bodies, and a right to information that will help them make smart choices and stay safe.

15 thoughts on Congress Continues Attempts to Fund Abstinence-Only Education

  1. Comprehensive sex education is like teaching someone to cross a street at a sidewalk after looking both ways and pressing the button to make the light change. Abstinence only sex education is like teaching someone that the button never changes the light, that cars don’t stop at crosswalks, and that they should wait until they’re old enough to drive before crossing the street. To put it in the most good faith manner possible, abstinence-only sex education is based on the assumption that if you tell someone to abstain, they will abstain; comprehensive sex education is based on the assumption that if you tell someone to abstain, they might abstain. As 95% of Americans have pre-marital sex, one does not need to be a sociologist to realize which one of these possibilities is more likely. Finally, since we all know what really motivates social consies, their advocacy of unsafe sex is a feature, not a bug.

    And yes, the picture is quite appropriate.

  2. If we threw billions behind either one, teenagers will continue to have sex, a boatload of STDs and pregnancies because even when armed with the information many will still act on impulse, be pressured into sex (unprotected or otherwise) while still others believe they are invincible and wont get pregnant. Abortion like teenage sex will ALWAYS occur no matter what. Instead of firing peole from government jobs they use this money to pay salaries and *gasp* stimulate the economy!

  3. I’d like to see people stop referring to this as abstinence only “education”. It’s not educational. It’s programming, and if we go by the premise that words have power, then disempowering this particular movement’s attempt at legitimacy by calling it what it truly is seems to be a step in the right direction.

    I don’t understand Phenicks (2) point. I don’t think anyone is advocating firing anyone. I think people are advocating that this money be retasked into things that we know work. We know abstinence only programming doesn’t work. At best, it might delay sexual initiation for a (very short – think weeks) time as compared to comprehensive sexual education, but when those students begin to have sex, they are more likely to have risky sex. Why? This is, I imagine, preaching to the choir, but it’s because condom use skills, communication between partners, condom negotiation, etc. aren’t innate skills. Like other skills, they have to be learned, and if no one bothers to provide accurate information, then adolescents will get their information from less reputable sources.

    Some adolescents may act on impulse, but I think the sturm and drang view of adolescence is, in many ways, insulting to adolescents. Many make very well planned and thought out decisions regarding their sexuality. Supplementing the processes in which they’re already engaging with accurate information and providing a platform for skills building before adolescents face real life situations with which they may not be completely equipped to deal in the most effective ways makes much more sense than having everyone bury their heads in the sand. We’ve been forced to try that for a while, and it didn’t work our particularly well for anyone.

    On a somewhat unrelated note, I’ve noticed Obama’s administration following along behind the Bush administration on a couple of things that I find troubling, such as denying habeus corpus to detainees held at facilities not on U.S. soil and being somewhat anemic in the face of calls for accountability regarding war crimes. I hope this isn’t the beginning of a frightening pattern of, well, not change.

  4. I must say- Regardless of how you think Sex Ed. should be taught, I think we can all agree that parents need to take more responsibility with it at home. Simply leaving it up for the school to teach your children is not nearly enough.

  5. I had one sex education conversation with my mother. The topic somehow came up while we were talking over the folding of laundry. She said “you learned about that at school, right?” I said “yes.” Cue end of “birds and bees” conversation with parents. My father wasn’t in the same room let alone part of the conversation. We never talked about it again.

    I believe that this experience is highly similar to many other families whose parents are immigrants from countries where these things are absolutely taboo to talk about. (The look on my mother’s face when I came home in Grade 7 and told her that we had co-ed sex education classes was priceless!) An assumption that parents will talk to their children about sex is invalid and wrong. If you have parents that will talk to you, that’s a privilege.

    THAT is exactly why I am so grateful for my comprehensive sex ed classes starting from Grade 1 (where they taught us how to recognize situations in which we are being taken advantage of and that boys have boy parts and girls have girl parts, but that’s ok) to Grade 10 (where we learned how to put a condom on an interesting shaped thing-a-ma-bob). But we learned, and that’s the important thing.

    That, Phenicks, is the part that matters. Yes, teens will have sex. Yes, they will act on impulse and think that ‘I’m the damned king of the world, nothing happens to me” But at least if they know what a condom does, how to put one on and what birth control is all about – they can ATTEMPT to protect themselves. Your comment indicates that there’s no hope, so why try. ALSO, you are being extremely unfair to teenagers. They are smarter than you give them credit for. The problem with abstinence only classes is that they give teenagers no credit.

    Depriving them of an education is depriving a generation being taught to be sexual from protecting themselves.

    And by the way, comprehensive sex ed doesn’t just teach teens about sexual intercourse.

  6. Abstinence only simply doesn’t work. Wouldn’t it just be perfect if we were all virgins until we married the man of our dreams and lived happily ever after with our 2 beautiful perfect children?

    Life happens. Abstinence should be taught but we also need to be realistic.

    And yes, teenagers are impulsive, but if I was smart enough 40 years ago to use birth control as a teenager, kids can be taught today. I felt that if I was old enough to have sex then I was old enough to take responsibility.

  9. Stop throwing money at programs that don’t work. We have data showing abstinence only programs have a high fail rate while comprehensive sex ed programs have a lower teen pregnancy rate. We need to treat std and teen pregnancy as public health issues. We know what works so that’s what we should fund. We need to give kids an understanding of how sex fits into a healthy life so that they can emotionally and physically protect themselves and plan their families. I have come to the conclusion that the men in Congress are arrested adolescents who think of women as girls who are either promiscuous sluts who should be punished for having sex or madonnas. It’s time to elect mature sane people to congress.

  10. What Div (#5) said. And thanks, Cara, for the links. Emails sent.

    Wouldn’t it just be perfect if we were all virgins until we married the man of our dreams and lived happily ever after with our 2 beautiful perfect children?

    No, not in my opinion.

  11. Sexuality is one of the greatest gifts God gave humanity. To not teach children is to deny them the information they need to use this beautiful gift in an appropriate fashion. Abstinance only is ludicrous and only serves those unable to reason and is a great dis-service to adolescents.

    I was a single father of two girls, and we spoke often of this issue and they always knew I was available and would give them honest information without embarrasment or shame. They are both well adjusted mothers now, and I had no problems at all with them growing up.

  12. My point is that instead of throwing money behind programs and praying they will work we should throw money into making sure people can keep their jobs. I’m not saying that ALL teenagers will get STDs and pregancies, I was a teenager not too long ago and neither happened to me BUT it will ALWAYS happen to some. Just as abortino will ALWAYS happen no matter how advanced birth control gets, the last resort will always be resorted to by SOME. That said, in a time like now when people are actually becoming homeless our economy is failing and the job loss and unemployment rate is sky high we need to focus more on getting more money (more people employed so more people pay taxes) than spending money on programs that wont put a dime back in the system.

  13. Phenicks:

    because teaching teens about birth control is a magical process by which pixies come out of nothing and bestow gifts of intelligence upon ready and waiting teenagers?

    Forgive the extreme sarcasm, but I don’t see how having thousands of jobs teaching kids the WRONG THING is NOT wasteful. That’s like saying I should get a job teaching kids Science from 100 years ago without taking into account that it’s depriving TODAY’S children of a real education. Any person who thinks that the Science of 100 years ago applies to the Science of today would be laughed out of a job interview in a science related field(assuming they make it past grade school). And that I should keep that job because it makes money.

    Supporting a failing system is not better than not supporting a system at all.

    BTW, I believe reeducating people (ie. training) is a very important part of picking up the economy – you know, so people can get OTHER jobs than which they previously had and help in different ways.

    Oh, and I forgot to address the “pixie” bit at the beginning of the post. Well, I’ll give it my best:

    people who teach comprehensive sex ed are also teachers and therefore also have jobs. and therefore make money and therefore spend money and therefore contribute to the economy. I’m not sure where you learned this wasn’t the case.

    And I know this is getting a little lengthy, but please Phenicks: the only program that we have to pray will work is “abstinence only.” There is massive amounts of proof that “comprehensive sex ed” works THE WAY IT IS INTENDED TO. (emphasis, not yelling).

  14. Pingback: Some news on reproductive rights in the United States « The Words on What…
  15. Pingback: Shared Items - March 9, 2009 — Hoyden About Town

Comments are currently closed.