NYT: Debate Hinges on Condoms' Effectiveness (abstinence v. safe-sex)

[DeepModem Mom]

Debate Hinges on Condoms' Effectiveness
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 29, 2005
Filed at 9:26 a.m. ET


TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- Everyone knows condoms prevent pregnancy and protect against sexually transmitted diseases. But how well do they work?

That question is at the center of a debate over whether the labels on condom packages should be changed.

On one side are abstinence advocates, including a conservative congressman who is blocking appointment of a new federal drug agency chief until the labels are changed. On the other side are ''safe sex'' advocates who fear label changes could undermine confidence in condoms and increase the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Each side has some truth in its argument: Condoms are very effective against the AIDS virus, but data for their effectiveness against some other STDs is surprisingly spotty.

''They do not provide 100 percent protection, but for people who are sexually active they are the best and the only method we have for preventing these diseases,'' said Heather Boonstra, a public policy official with the Alan Guttmacher Institute....Boonstra said Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, a physician from Oklahoma, and the abstinence-promoting Medical Institute for Sexual Health are ''manipulating this data to drive home their own anti-condom, anti-contraceptive message.''...


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Condom-Clash.html

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Other STD's don't have an incredibly high fatality rate.

Even if condoms are just effective at lowering unwanted pregnancy and preventing HIV infection, who cares if they aren't as good at preventing simple bacterial infections?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Exactly! nt

[HockeyMom]

3. Motives

They are against ALL methods of birth control; outside of marriage AND inside of marriage. Read what they are teaching our children in the administration's Abstinence Only Until Marriage "Education".

Birth Control Pill and IUD's have a 25% failure rate (read between lines: they cause ABORTION). Condoms not only fail to prevent pregnancies too, but also fail to prevent STD's, AIDS, and cause CANCER (purpose of sex is to make babies - PERIOD). They are teaching that, no matter what your AGE, if you are unmarried, you don't have sex at all. Read their literature. If you don't ever get married, then you are celibate for the rest of your life.

Second question? What happens when you DO get married? What does the "official" administration line say? BE FAITHFUL. Duh? So if you are faithful in marriage, then you won't NEED BIRTH CONTROL? ROFL Just make as many babies as "God decides you should have."? STOP having sex INSIDE MARRIAGE when you don't want anymore kids?

Just look at what Health Plan Bush put into effect for Government Employees in Illinois; a CATHOLIC Health Plan. That should tell you all you need know about how Bush feels about birth control.

That is why this administration does not WANT to talk about their stance on birth control. To quote a statement from one Freeper in answer to a staunch Fundie Pro lifer, "You start trying to legislate your religious views on birth control and you are shooting the pro life movement in the foot. You will NEVER get the people in this country to accept banning all birth control methods other than Natural Family Planning inside of marriage."

Just go on any christian family site (Concerned Women, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc.) and you will see what they advocate. It is all religious based. And Bush is lock, step, and barrel with them.

I hope the people in this country WAKE UP to what this "christian" agenda is all about. Do they really want to go back to the Middle Ages?

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Excellent summary, HockeyMom -- thanks! nt