THE TREATMENT SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Last night, the Senate Finance Committee tried to ensure that one of the failures of the Bush administration will live on--in sex-ed classes across the country. Orrin Hatch’s amendment to provide $50 million a year for abstinence-only education passed by one vote, 12-11, with Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad joining the Republicans to tip the balance. After Obama’s election, abstinence advocates feared that Bush’s massive federal program for abstinence-only education--totaling some $176 million a year--would be dismantled. And, indeed, Obama’s first budget eliminated federal funding for such programs, instead putting money into “evidence-based” teen pregnancy prevention programs. But now, the Finance Committee vote could mean that Bush’s legacy will continue well past Obama’s first term, funding the so-called Title V block grants to states through 2014.
The vote deals a blow to the advocates of comprehensive sex education, who have wielded definitive evidence that ab-only education is ineffective, misleading, and dangerous to the health of young people. (One of the most recent studies links ab-only education to a 10% decline in teen contraceptive use, for example—not surprising when some of the teaching material tells kids to believe that condoms aren’t effective at preventing HIV because latex is “porous.”) Even more tellingly, nearly half the states in the country have come to the same realization—23 states have rejected the federal funds for abstinence-only education, even in the midst of a deep fiscal crisis, having deemed such programs to be ineffective and the regulations for using the funding onerous. The states’ message to the federal government couldn’t be clearer: stop wasting money on programs that don’t work.
Unfortunately, the centrists and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee don’t seem to have gotten the memo. While they’ve gone out of their way to berate the cost of the health care bill, Hatch and his compatriots make an exception for a failed program that has amounted to an ideological prescription. “My first choice would be to not have the federal government involved in any way in these types of education programs,” Hatch admitted in a press statement today. “However, if the federal government is going to spend money on educating people about sexual decisions, the absence of an abstinence only education program has negative health consequences for our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.” In other words, if the federal government is going to go there, we might as well pile on.
On the upside, a Baucus amendment supporting a more comprehensive approach to sex education passed, 14 to 9, immediately after the Hatch amendment vote. The amendment will provide funding to a wide range of teen wellness programs, including those dealing with contraception and HIV/AIDS. And, notably, it will support abstinence education programs that are deemed “medically accurate and complete,” as The Washington Independent reports. The amendment is a step in the right direction--but it doesn’t make up for the fact that scientific evidence and the health of young people has lost, once more, to the distortions of conservative ideology. It’s just another reminder of how Obama’s Democratic majority can still come up short in the Senate.
4 comments
My mom's neighbor works as a dr. for the FDA. One time she was testifying to Congress about teen pregnancy prevention. A KS representative huffily informed her that abstinence is the surest way to prevent pregnancies, STDs, etc. I guess what bugs me about these people, and this isn't a new thought for me or most of you, is, are they abstinent? Did they save it for marriage? If not, how did they find out how to prevent pregnancies and STDs? What gives them the right to deny others that same knowledge?
- Juniper
September 30, 2009 at 1:30pm
juniper, you know a lot of these people probably were virgins when they got married. The only man my wife has ever been with is me. She had no difficulty finding out, after we were married, about how to prevent pregnancy. As to the STDs, she does have to trust me, there really is not much she can do about that. I am not saying this KS rep. is right, just that I can understand her viewpoint, she simply lacks the imagination to go beyond her own narrow viewpoint, the whole "abstinence worked for me."
- blackton
September 30, 2009 at 6:23pm
I heard a stat that fewer than 5% of people go to their weddings virgins. I don't recall if they meant couples, or individuals as with your wife (at least she saved herself for her future husband). Is that KS rep one of the 5%? If not, what was her age of first intercourse? The people who are being denied the sex ed are entering sexual relationships not as adults but as high-schoolers. They're likely to find someone else in their high school who also doesn't know sex ed, and won't have the advantage of meeting someone from an entirely different community who can clue them in. "She simply lacks the imagination to go beyond her own narrow viewpoint." Underlying that lack of imagination is a cynicism that easily lends itself to the hypocrisy I mentioned in my 1st post. By the way, the 1st time I opened this thread I also a picture of a pretty Asian woman that flashed momentarily. OK, now I see it again as I'm about to send this up.
- Juniper
October 1, 2009 at 9:52am
Oh, just because the KS rep and her ilk are self-proclaimed Christians, don't assume they're having any less sex, any later, than anyone else. I understand virginity towards marriage as more of a societal than religious construct. E. g., my husband's country, Nepal, a lot of women and even men are virgins until their wedding night just because they live at home until then, and the parents often find them a mate followed quickly by marriage. Even if they find their own mates and date for a while, living with one's disapproving parents isn't a recipe for spending the night. In this light I'm not surprised that your wife waited for you. If young Nepalis live independently here, in Australia, Canada or what have you, they're not waiting for marriage.
- Juniper
October 1, 2009 at 10:51am