"Now the Democrats Are Funding Abstinence?"

[leftchick]

omg..... :argh:


http://www.alternet.org/story/53700


Back in November of 2006, after the Democrats won control of the House, what kind of odds do you think you would have gotten on the following scenario: With the Democrats in control, the appropriations cycle begins and the first big policy step the Democrats take on domestic reproductive health is to push through a 30 percent increase in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that prohibit information about condoms and birth control. Oh, and by the way, that increase (to $140 million) is larger than any put forward in the last three years of the Republican-led Congress.

"Huh?" you might ask.

Now, let me make the scenario even better -- or worse. What if you were told that just six weeks before the Appropriations Committee met, a major 10-year evaluation that Congress itself had mandated was released showing that abstinence-only programs had no impact on teen behavior? On top of that, what if you were told that the Society of Adolescent Medicine had released a report in 2006 stating that abstinence-only-programs "threaten fundamental human rights to health, information and life?"

And wait, there's more. When Democrat Henry Waxman was the ranking minority member on government oversight back in 2004, his staff did a report on the content of abstinence-only programs that showed over 80 percent of the programs contained "false or misleading information." All the way back in 2000, the Institute of Medicine, the nation's leading authority on public health, had called for the termination of abstinence-only programs because they represent "poor fiscal and public health policy."

Crying uncle yet? Don't, because there's still more.

[peacebird]

1. Why? good grief - WHAT are they thinking?

:grr:

[leftchick]

2. apparently all thought processes were lost

in Nov. 2006. :(

[Solly Mack]

3. I'm sure it was the best place to spend that money

::ducking::

[HockeyMom]

4. My Aunt and Uncle who married

at 38 and 45 would have gotten quite a hoot at that "Abstinence Only until Marriage".

[brentspeak]

5. Article is from AlterNet, a pro-Ralph Nader, anti-Democratic party site

[babylonsister]

7. Wow, that's the first time I've ever heard that about Alternet; why do they

constantly put HuffPo articles up there?
I post threads here from there quite often.

[leftchick]

8. BS

why don't you post a link refuting the substance of the article, instead of attacking the messenger. Get real! If it were actually "Anti-Democrat" DU would not allow it to be linked. Facts are facts even when you don't like them.

[Solly Mack]

10. oh bother...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4871675.html

"In a gesture to Republicans, Obey would boost programs favored by Republicans and Bush, such as a 25 percent increase for abstinence education. He also left in place restrictions on federal funding of abortions."

[leftchick]

11. Thank you Solly!

I have been dealing with health issues and have not been around much so this was news to me. And horrible news at that! Your link reinforces the gravity of the situation.......A Fucking Gesture To Republicans!!!! The only gesture they deserve is this!

[Solly Mack]

13. Welcome!!!

[tyedyeto]

15. Then look-up the bills themselves:

HR 1653, S 972

These bills are all about abstinance only education and increasing their funding for these programs. The Democrats have gone along with this.

Shame on them!

[valerief]

6. I wish the abstinence was war abstinence. nt

[Dogmudgeon]

9. You missed this story before?

On Edit: link to Michael Moore piece.

It's been posted several times. With many OMGs, tears, Grrrs, and other suchlike reactions.

But it's a "wowser" piece, like when Michael Moore accused Al Gore of killing a little girl -- or when the Freepers publish stories that Hillary Clinton held witches' covens in the White House. I'd prefer to see what the money was actually voted for before I start screaming "TRAITOR! WHORE!". But there are no links to the relevant bill, only a vague "According to Congressional Quarterly". Yet James Wagoner is the president of Advocates for Youth. He's a lobbyist of some kind, doubtless on "our side". He must surely be familiar with the need to provide attribution. And his own website was linked.

Politics is a very cynical game. I don't care all that much if they have to wheel and deal. I'd like to know what they were wheeling and dealing about, and way too many of the stories from Alternet are long on rhetoric and short on details. In too many instances, when I finally did find out the whole story, it turned out to be a turf fight in which the angry young radical was making his bones.

I, too, strongly oppose abstinence-only sex education programs, and do not expect to find that this is one of our party's finer moments. But a harshly-worded article doing in-house bashing without attribution makes me wonder what the real issue was. Those "Democrats are just as bad as Republicans" articles smack of the same hipster irony that helped destroy progressive power in this country over the last 40 years.

And, I'm sorry, but if James Wagoner won't give us any details or sources other than his own, and is trying to spin this story, then the man is a member of our own tribe of troglodytes. It's that simple.

--p!

[Solly Mack]

12. House Appropriations Committee has its own web site with the info

House Appropriations Committee

PDF of Budget
Page 2 of 4, very bottom - Abstinence Program Funding

Hope this is what you were looking for

[charlie]

14. Direct link to the numbers

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/LHHSChart.pdf

Column labelled "abstinence education." Almost $28 million added, a 24.5 percent increase.