Just Say No to Funding Abstinence-Only Programs

Politics is the art of compromise.  But there are compromises and there are compromises.  The Democrats in Congress are poised to vote to increase funding for abstinence programs, a multi-million dollar racket that takes federal money and puts it into the hands of religious crackpots.  All the research into these abstinence programs -- into which the Bush Administration has poured more than 1 billion dollars -- shows that they don't work.   So, in essence Congress enriches the Religious Right to fund their pet boondoggle.  

Talk about a waste of money.  We need sex education, not abstinence education.  Kids are going to have sex no matter what.  They need to be educated to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, not have their minds filled with religious dogma and propaganda.  

The bill is still being crafted; we still have time to let Congress know how incredibly stupid this is.  The ACLU says the vote on the bill will come next week so there is still time to let our elected representatives know how we feel about abstinence education.  Just say no.

Take action:

You can call your Congresscritter by calling the Congressional switchboard [phone], and give them your Representative's name, or your zip code.  

Use the ACLU form to send an email: Halt Funding Increase for Abstinence-Only "Education"

Use the Action Network's Population Connection form to email Obey, Pelosi, and Hoyer: The Democrats did WHAT?!

Or use the Advocate for Youth form to send an email to your Representative.  ('Tell the Democratic Leadership to end Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding!' is the first issue on the Take Action list.)

The National Family and Reproductive Health Association has a form that allows you to fax your member of Congress:    Urge Congress to Put "Prevention First"

NARAL has a page that lets you email your Senators and Rep:  Urge Congress to Make Sex Ed a Priority

More information:

Michael Reynolds, The Nation:   The Abstinence Gluttons  Learn all about the crackpots we are enriching with taxpayer dollars.

Laura Flanders, The Nation (via Common Dreams):  Idiot Liberals Strike Again  The inspiration for this post.  She says "Idiot liberals" because that's what Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (D-WI) called a military mom who went to his Congressional office to ask him to end the war.  

The Hill:  Harkin to tie stem cell research to spending bill  The fight isn't over yet:

Supporters of stem cell research refuse to give up on getting their legislation signed into law this year.

As President Bush prepares to veto the measure Congress sent him last week, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is planning to attach the pro-research legislation to the spending bill being crafted by his Appropriations labor subcommittee.

That raises the stakes on the so-called "Labor-H" spending bill. House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) has been trying to build a veto-proof majority for the bill, adding sweeteners to the bill such as an increase in abstinence-only education.

Bush already has threatened to veto spending bills that exceed his spending thresholds. Including legislation that repeals Bush’s 2001 stem cell research compromise could give him further incentive to nix the bill.

MSNBC:  Abstinence students still having sex
Study tracked 2,057 young people in government-funded programs No kidding.

Campus Progress:  Bad Science, Silly Gender Stereotypes, Dangerous Misinformation : Why Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Isn't Working

New Humanist:  Unbuckling the bible belt (Nov 01, 03)
Orlando Radice on Bush’s virgins  A Brit's take on our "value-laden pedagogy".

cross-posted at my blog, Main St. USA (with a few edits to comply with dailykos rules, ix-nay on the namecalling and all that.)

Yes, this is my first dailykos diary.  Be kind.

•  tip jar

  by hockeyrules on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:51:07 AM PDT

•  Funding abstinence programs

  is one of those sops to the wingnuts that their leaders can trumpet but is not going to draw a lot of fire.  Hence, BushCo pushes it and Congress funds it.

  I'm guessing that a Democratic president would cut down, but not kill, funding.

  by A Mad Mad World on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 09:57:44 AM PDT

  •  If we have to throw them sops

    Couldn't it be a sop that makes sense?  Money for church programs that feed hungry people would be fine with me.

    by hockeyrules on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:12:32 AM PDT

    •  They'd take it, but it's not the kind of sop

      that their leaders could hold in the air and crow, "See, we've got leaders that listen to us and our values!"

      If it is a value (like feeding the hungry) that the rest of the country shares then it just doesn't make them feel real special, you know?  It's gotta be something that's theirs and theirs only.

      That's the currency these people deal in:  we're different, we're persecuted for it and we want a government for us.

      Pathetic.

      by A Mad Mad World on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:57:07 AM PDT

•  Against abstanaince?

  Are you seriously suggesting that the Dems should take a firm stand against teen abstinence? Do you really think that would be a politically smart position?

  As long as there is funding for a range of items to reduce teen pregnancy who the heck cares if preaching abstinence is ONE of those items? Heck, I think all fathers of teenage daughters would be more than happy to support teen abstinence!

  The problem comes when abstinence is the ONLY initiative, because that is just hiding our heads in the sand. But I can't imagine having a problem with including abstinence in the smorgasboard of initiatives.

  BTW, passing legislation is always about giving "sops" to the the other side. It's called compromise. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Pork.

  by hwc on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:13:45 AM PDT

  •  That's not the question

    It's not about whether or not abstinence is taught.  It's about supporting comprehensive family life education programs that include information on ALL options, INCLUDING abstinence.  Those are the programs that work, as study after study have shown.

    As for the fathers of teen daughters, I'd advise them that teens receiving comprehensive sexuality education tend to wait longer to lose their virginity than teens who receive abstinence-only education.  

    by Bill W on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:32:10 AM PDT

    •  Are you saying

      It's not about whether or not abstinence is taught.  It's about supporting comprehensive family life education programs that include information on ALL options, INCLUDING abstinence.

       

      Are you suggesting that the Democrats in Congress have proposed legislation that only funds "abstinence-only" programs and includes no funding for more comprehensive programs? I find that very hard to believe.

      If the political cost of funding comprehensive programs is also funding some abstinence-only programs, so what? It's not like religious based "abstinence-only" programs are hurting anything. The only knock on them is that they may not be as effective as some other programs. Of course, there is an offsetting benefit of bringing people with different political views together in an effort to reduce teen pregnancy. That's democracy in action.

      From a purely political standpoint, I do not believe that Democrats benefit from dismissing the beliefs of religious constituencies.

      by hwc on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 12:15:33 PM PDT

      •  The problem is...

        ...a school district decides which program it wants to use.  If it picks an abstinence-only curriculum, the students in that district aren't going to get the more effective comprehensive curriculum.  Some of the grants I've read about in the past actually require a school to provide only abstinence information if they want to be eligible for the money.  I'm not sure if that's how the funding currently being considered works.

        As for religious constituencies, I'm not sure rejecting abstinence-only means rejecting their beliefs.  I don't have polling handy, but Americans strongly favor giving kids age-appropriate but comprehensive sex education, and I believe that support cuts across religious lines to a large degree.  If we make the case that comprehensive education results in teens waiting longer to engage in sex and fewer unwanted pregnancies, I don't see how even religious conservatives can argue with that.  

        (And I'm taking off now, so don't take my lack of further follow-up as rudeness.)

        by Bill W on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 02:12:47 PM PDT

      •  Why are we so ready to compromise on this issue?

        Hardcore Republicans don't compromise on abortion.  We've had six years of the global gag rule.  

        Why should we compromise on abstinence-only programs, that DON'T WORK, and only serve to transfer tax dollars into the hands of rich crackpots?  Plus it lets them at young, vulnerable kids.  Why are we so ready to compromise their lives?

        by hockeyrules on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 07:47:07 PM PDT

  •  I'll edit the title

    Fair point.  I'm talking about abstinence-only programs that preclude talking about contraception or safe sex.

    by hockeyrules on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:39:52 AM PDT

•  yeah, this is nasty and needs to be de-funded

  the whole program needs to go, ASAP.  It's a huge waste of money, or worse.  Teaching people something inaccurate, is basically lying to them.  This needs to go, there is no justification for it.

  thanks for the link to populationconnection.org - a great organization, used to be ZPG.

  by spicey on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 10:39:43 AM PDT

•  Chlamydia is not a flower.

  When I was in highschool in the 90's, they sat us in a room and showed us slides of starting to advanced sexually transmitted diseases in health class.  I can tell you, all hand-holding and flirting in the hallways was put on hold afterwards.    They told us that we really shouldn't be having sex, and that unprotected sex was dangerous.   Then they took us back to our classrooms and showed us how safer sex worked.  We paid attention, believe you me.

  You can't stop teenagers from fooling around- they always have and always will, but with education they'll be safer and more careful when they do so.  

  by SnowCountry on Fri Jun 15, 2007 at 11:26:24 AM PDT