Sex-Ed Classes become latest Battleground

[katty]

excerpt:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114368617670711926-hONPSs7lmY41Px9rHx_zlPsZGTI_20070329.html?mod=blogs

...Earlier this month, Rhode Island's Department of Education instructed all school districts to refrain from using a federally funded abstinence curriculum in public schools. A spokesman for the department said officials were concerned because the program included "medically inaccurate information" as well as possible religious instruction.

The expansion of abstinence programs has been propelled by a steady increase in government funding. The funding started ramping up under the Clinton administration. Since 1998, the federal government has spent about $890 million on abstinence programs, including sex-ed courses taught in schools (as well as pregnancy crisis centers and government agencies). But the bulk of it -- $779 million -- has been spent since President George W. Bush took office in 2001. The government is slated to spend $176 million on abstinence programs this year -- up from nearly $167 million last year and $82 million in 2001.

Schools and other groups that accept the federal funding have to promote abstinence and play down the effectiveness of contraception. In January, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services effectively tightened its restrictions on what abstinence courses can teach. In a request for grant applications, new and detailed guidelines said that an acceptable curriculum should include teaching about "the potential psychological side effects (e.g., depression and suicide) associated with adolescent sexual activity" and stress points such as the following: "Non-marital sex in teen years may reduce the probability of a stable, happy marriage as an adult" and "Teen sexual activity is associated with decreased school completion, decreased educational attainment and decreased income potential."

These statements "misuse" scientific data, says John Santelli, a professor of pediatrics and of population and family health at Columbia University, as well as a former official at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "There may be some truth to the associations they draw, but their conclusions are confused," he says.

[Warpy]

1. Religious wack jobs are pretty funny

thinking if we don't tell kids about sex, they won't figure it all out on their own.

Their bodies are producing a bumper crop of sex hormones, folks. They are going to start to screw whether or not anybody likes it and whether or not anybody has talked to them about the mechanics of preventing some of the life threatening consequences.

Some parents think they can control children's bodies after the age of 15 or so. Sensible people call them fools.

[BR_Parkway]

2. $779,000,000 - how much for a poster that says "Don't F*CK" ?

[katty]

4. $ spent on shaming/abstainence is obscene--"just say NO"-yea,right

[ugarte]

3. Funny, I experienced depression as a teen from a lack of sexual activity

I never knew anyone whom sex made suicidal, unless it was a missed period.

[kurth]

5. Semen acts as an anti-depressant

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2457

[Orrex]

6. A strange dichotomy on the Right

"Don't teach kids about their genitals, or they'll want to use them."

and

"You have to teach kids about guns, or they'll want to use them."


Does this strike anyone else as a little strange?

[MountainLaurel]

7. Never thought of that before

But damn if you're not right. I think you should trademark that.

[Orrex]

8. Why, thank you!

Feel free to use it if it'll help you in discussions with crazed Righties!

:hi:

[MountainLaurel]

9. De nada

The analogy is particularly interesting to me because my younger brother shot himself with my father's gun when he was about 7 and nearly died. He was a curious kid with the sense of reality of your average 7 year old and had decided, with his best friend, to rob the bank in our town. :eyes: