New Senate bill contains $50 million for "abstinence only" education?

[madfloridian]

From McJoan a Daily Kos:

Abstinence only still lives

A number of studies have cast some serious doubt about the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education and as a result, congressional Democrats -- who have bristled at the program for years -- cut off all federal funding.

But then Hatch stepped in. During a committee health reform debate, he cited his own supportive studies and proposed an amendment restoring $50 million for the controversial program for the next five years. It passed with the help of two Democrats -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln, from Arkansas, and Kent Conrad, from North Dakota -- much to the chagrin of Senate liberals.

"I sure do not want the abstinence education to be short-changed," Hatch said during the hearing.

The committee passed a second amendment supported by the Democratic chairman that created a separate $50 million program for comprehensive sex-ed, which combines information about abstinence, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptives.

As the Senate nears a final vote, both programs remain in the legislation.

On edit: I bolded more. There are two programs.

I guess I should not be surprised that so many of the comments rejoice over a failed program being funded at 50 million.

50 million of my taxpayer money still going to this failed program?

We did the same thing in 2007 in our then Democratically-controlled congress.

"The Democratic leadership of the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Service, and Education (LHHS) Sub-Committee set science and commonsense aside by increasing the funding for discredited abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Despite a congressionally mandated report that found these programs do not work to help teens delay sexual initiation, House leadership allocated $141 million (an increase of $27.8 million) to continue feeding America's young people misinformation.

[ixion]

1. Hurray! More Bush-era change!

who is in the majority again?

[mzmolly]

2. Let's hope that comes out in committee.

:puke:

[Donnachaidh]

3. *snicker*

bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!! :rofl:

[ipaint]

4. Wasn't getting rid of that on Obama's Major Accomplishments List

that's posted to rebut all dissent.

[Donnachaidh]

6. you mean that posted 30000 times website they keep dragging in?

heh. heheheheheh :rofl:

[madfloridian]

5. More on it.

From December 19 Feministing blog:

http://community.feministing.com/2009/12/why-is-abstinence-only-sex-ed.html

"What! Senator Ried, WHY! This is bad news.

Senator Harry Ried fought ab-only education for years during the Bush administration, and introduced the Prevention First Act to redirect money from ab-only programs to comprehensive sex ed.

My question is why is ab-only back in the health care bill!?

The answer is that Harry Ried wants the bill to pass, no matter what, even if it sacrifices the public option and restores abstinence-only sex education. He put back ab-only because he wants to get Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln and North Dakota's Kent Conrad to vote for the trillion dollar Health Care Reform overhaul. In a political move, Harry Ried traded $50 million dollars in abstinence-only funding for the hope of Senator Lincoln and Conrad voting for HCR overhaul. This is not the way I want my government to work."

Yes, the Reid is spelled wrong, but the idea is right.

It was a political move, catering to those who want ignorance about sex realities.

[johnaries]

7. This is NOT "abstinence only". Look at your own quote.

The committee passed a second amendment supported by the Democratic chairman that created a separate $50 million program for comprehensive sex-ed, which combines information about abstinence, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptives.

How is that "abstinence only"? :shrug:

[ProSense]

8. "$50 million program for comprehensive sex-ed"

That's really easy to miss.


:sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

12. That is not what it said. You are in "gotcha" mode all the time.

Just relax.

[Blue State Blues]

11. 2 programs, $50 million each

One, comprehensive sex-ed (proven effective).

The other, still in the bill, abstinence only (proven not to work).

[defendandprotect]

48. And the "comprehensive" also includes "abstinence" teaching !!!!

[FreakinDJ]

9. That's a nice change

[suffragette]

10. Slip sliding away

farther and farther from what he said he would support in 2007.

"New public plan" for healthcare.
Turning the page on abstinence only.

And for those of you about to say it. Yeah, I get that Congress put in or took out those provisions.

But Obama should be making a stronger case, as strong as the one he made in this 2007 speech and the subsequent questions he answered to Planned Parenthood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUl99id2SvM

[madfloridian]

13. There are 2 programs. There is no excuse for having abstinence only still funded.

I edited and bolded the part for the gotcha folks.

[defendandprotect]

49. And there's no excuse for subsidizing the Vatican's "faith-based" organizations ....

[customerserviceguy]

14. I'm surprised that abstenence education is still taken seriously

I've shut the yap of many a right winger with the argument, "If Bristol Palin could get pregnant with such a set of caring parents like Todd and Sarah Palin teaching her abstinence-only, then what hope do kids who have practically zero parental supervision have?"

They just don't have an answer for that one.

[defendandprotect]

50. No one takes it seriously; most right wing garbage gets done despite

evidence that it's garbage ---

like Charter schools which, btw, Obama is backing!!!

[L0oniX]

15. There's nothing like having rich morans in office ...Hatch = asscarrot.

[LostInAnomie]

16. Are we that desperate to shit on Obama that we refuse to read the content of the articles we post?

This is not "abstinence only". It's not even close. It's comprehensive sex ed. If you are talking about STD's, and methods of contraception how can some people not understand that excludes the idea of "abstinence only".

Sure, the topic of abstinence will be discussed, as it should, but it will not be the exclusive topic of the curriculum.

People are pretty fucking desperate to play Gotcha on here. It's pathetic.

[madfloridian]

18. Wrong there are 2 bills. Both highlighted for your pleasure.

"But then Hatch stepped in. During a committee health reform debate, he cited his own supportive studies and proposed an amendment restoring $50 million for the controversial program for the next five years. It passed with the help of two Democrats -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln, from Arkansas, and Kent Conrad, from North Dakota -- much to the chagrin of Senate liberals.

"I sure do not want the abstinence education to be short-changed," Hatch said during the hearing.

The committee passed a second amendment supported by the Democratic chairman that created a separate $50 million program for comprehensive sex-ed, which combines information about abstinence, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptives.

As the Senate nears a final vote, both programs remain in the legislation."

[LostInAnomie]

20. Sounds like the Senate Democrats essentailly fixed the problem in the bill.

They created a $50M program to teach everything else. If contraception and prevention of STD's are taught as well, that negates the idea of abstinence only.

[madfloridian]

21. "As the Senate nears a final vote, both programs remain in the legislation."

Could you tell me when they took it out?

[LostInAnomie]

28. They didn't take it out, but they negated it.

It would be like a senator passing an amendment to a bill funding "Capitalism Only" education, and then other senators passed an amendment for the education of every other economic system.

If every other economic system is being taught also, it defeats the purpose of "Capitalism Only".

If comprehensive sex ed. is being taught along-side abstinence programs, it defeats the purpose of the abstinence programs and turns it into a normal sex ed. class.

Now, there is a chance to strip it from the bill since there is no reason for it.

[madfloridian]

30. Prove to me it was negated, and I will ask the post be locked.

But I surely don't see anything to verify what you said. And I have been searching.

[anigbrowl]

31. By, definition, it can't be abstinence ONLY if other sex ed is also taught

'Abstinence only' implies abstinence and...nothing else.

[madfloridian]

36. There were 2 bills. I want proof there is just one now.

[LostInAnomie]

37. There doesn't have to be just one if one of the amendments renders the other null.

Comprehensive Sex Ed. and Abstinence Only are mutually exclusive. You cannot have one if you have the other. the Comprehensive Sex Ed. amendment rendered the Abstinence Only bill null because other aspects of sex will be taught.

[madfloridian]

38. I wait for your proof in writing.

We were supposed to accept the Stupak and Nelson abortion stuff so as to just get along.

I am tired of the catering to the religious right.

I can not just take your word that it is out now.

[LostInAnomie]

40. I give up.

I cannot make you understand what the Democrats did. They made it impossible for Hatch's amendment to be implemented even if it stays in. The proof is in the article you posted. Two amendments, mutually exclusive of each other. Either Hatch's amendment will be removed, or it will stay in and be absolutely pointless.

[anigbrowl]

41. That is illogical.

You have got this issue wrong and you simply don't want to admit it.

I am OK with abstinence being taught as one method of avoiding pregnancy. Do I think it's an effective one? No, but some people do buy into it and it is one strategy that generally works for anyone who applies it. I am not OK with it being the only method taught. Which it isn't, if there is also a provision for comprehensive sex education involving other methods of contraception.

You are presenting a classic false dilemma, as if the sole alternative to abstinence-only education were no teaching of abstinence at all.

[LostInAnomie]

32. I can't force you to put 2 and 2 together.

This is as simple as I can make it: Senator Bob makes an amendment saying schools will ONLY teach "A" to the exclusion of everything else. Senator Steve makes an amendment in the same bill saying schools will teach "B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z". Both amendments pass in the bill. If "B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z" are being taught along-side "A", it completely negates the point of the "Only A" amendment since "A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z" will all be taught.

The Abstinence Only amendment is "A". The Comprehensive Sex Ed. is ""B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z".

If you can't figure that out, I can't help you anymore.

[TheKentuckian]

46. How is it a "fix" to waste 50 million dollars just because you also

use 50 million for a rational purpose? Seems much more like we had a 100 million to spend on something very important and pissed half of it down a rathole.

[Hannah Bell]

24. there are TWO $50 million programs.

But then Hatch stepped in. During a committee health reform debate, he cited his own supportive studies and proposed an amendment restoring $50 million for the controversial program for the next five years. It passed with the help of two Democrats -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln, from Arkansas, and Kent Conrad, from North Dakota -- much to the chagrin of Senate liberals.

"I sure do not want the abstinence education to be short-changed," Hatch said during the hearing.

The committee passed a second amendment supported by the Democratic chairman that created a SEPARATE $50 million program for comprehensive sex-ed, which combines information about abstinence, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptives.

[Echo In Light]

17. Have they got that shit in The Netherlands too?

[madfloridian]

19. Read it before you attack. There are 2 bills.

"But then Hatch stepped in. During a committee health reform debate, he cited his own supportive studies and proposed an amendment restoring $50 million for the controversial program for the next five years. It passed with the help of two Democrats -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln, from Arkansas, and Kent Conrad, from North Dakota -- much to the chagrin of Senate liberals.

"I sure do not want the abstinence education to be short-changed," Hatch said during the hearing.

The committee passed a second amendment supported by the Democratic chairman that created a separate $50 million program for comprehensive sex-ed, which combines information about abstinence, sexually transmitted diseases and contraceptives.

As the Senate nears a final vote, both programs remain in the legislation."

[Echo In Light]

22. Why the fuck would ANY $ be spent on fundie bullshit like that?

... especially couched within "comprehensive" sexual education?

[AllentownJake]

25. Conservadems

Easy answer.

[David Zephyr]

23. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

$50 million for "abstinence only" and prohibition against abortion funding.

Pathetic.

[Ignis]

26. Ah well, if only OUR side controlled Congress for a change.

Wait ... we DO?! :wow:

[Echo In Light]

27. The parade of rationales, justifications & back pedaling is something to behold

[Ignis]

29. "But we just don't have the votes!"

:eyes: Yeah, I believed that one for the past 8 years. Try a new one, guys.

[madfloridian]

33. Dec. 23 on CNN

" Malveaux: You mentioned that, you said they bought the votes and they’re buying people off and they’re bribing them because of what they’ve gotten. But you, you actually had 50 million that was added to the bill an amendment for abstinence only education. How was that any different?

Hatch: I didn’t do that for me, I did it for children throughout our society.

Malveaux: Certainly, you have a cause that you believe in. There is a price tag with that. "

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-suzanne-malveaux-goes-after-orrin-hatch-over-health-care/

I would like verification that it is no longer part of the bill.

[Unvanguard]

34. That can be (and has a good chance of being) removed in conference. Here's hoping. n/t

[madfloridian]

35. I am hoping also. But we need to know so we can push.

I hope it will no longer be a part of the bill.

[Karmadillo]

39. We just need to get this bill out of the Senate. The White House will fix it in the conf--Oh. Wait.

That's the Insurance Industry Bailout Bill talking point. Are we allowed to recycle it for this one?

[liberal N proud]

42. And it still did not get a republican fundie vote

:wtf:

[madfloridian]

43. They took abstinence only funding out of the appropriations bill.

And put it in the health care bill?

http://alibi.com/index.php?story=30208&scn=news&fullstory=y

From Jenny Black
President/CEO Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, Inc.

"Last week our Congress passed the 2010 Appropriations bill, which takes some important steps in the right direction for New Mexicans. We applaud the bill’s elimination of ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage funding; instead, the bill funds medically accurate, evidence-based comprehensive sex education. It seems that Congress is catching up with what we at Planned Parenthood have known all along—that a comprehensive approach to sex education is the most effective way to reduce unintended pregnancies in women of all ages."

[madfloridian]

44. Verification from WP it is still in the Senate bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/26/AR2009122600762.html?hpid=topnews

"Proponents of sex education classes that focus on encouraging teenagers to remain virgins until marriage are hoping that the rescue plan for the nation's health-care system will also save their programs, which are facing extinction because of a cutoff of federal funding.

The health-care reform legislation pending in the Senate includes $50 million for programs that states could use to try to reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among adolescents by teaching to them to delay when they start having sex.

Under the federal budget signed by President Obama, such programs would no longer have funds targeted for them.

"We're optimistic," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, which is lobbying to maintain funding for the programs. "Nothing is certain, but we're hopeful."

[Caundy]

45. Interesting ... Only $50m

Rather than spend the $50m on abstinence programs, why don't we spend the money on teaching our children about safe sex, the proper use of birth control, the ramifications of not being careful, and counseling of those who are victims of religious ignorance. Failed programs like abstinence education is like putting candy in front of a child and saying to him, "You can only look at the candy, not touch it. If you do touch it, well, enjoy."

[defendandprotect]

47. Think this is a 100% increase . . . from previous $25 million to $50 million!!!!

PLUS we are subsidizing the Vatican's "faith-based" religions ---

We might recognize that religion is dying -- and that's why it needs government

recognition and to attach itself to the teats of government $$$.

Btw, there's evidently an investigation under way examining whether the CHURCH used

"faith-based" taxpayer money to pay off pedophile lawsuits!!!

[defendandprotect]

51. LATE K&R

[meow2u3]

52. Abstinence-only education summed up: Just say no--or else!

I don't mind educating teens on the benefits of abstinence, just as long as boys are taught, too. Abstinence-only education is aimed almost exclusively at girls, thereby creating the same sexist double standards women have been trying to fight for decades. I also don't like the approach abstinence-only education uses: negative, demeaning, and condescending lectures that kids ignore.

But scaring kids into not having relations only creates the problem it seeks to solve: unwanted pregnancies, STD's, broken hearts, sexual mistrust between men and women, etc., not to mention tempting kids with "forbidden fruit." Plus, the overtly fundamentalist overtones turn me, a practicing Catholic, off. Nevertheless, there are sound, secular benefits to abstaining from sex: it's 99.99999% effective against unwanted pregnancy (save for the rare instances of parthogenesis or "accidental" artificial insemination); it's tough to get an STD or cervical cancer if you don't have sex, except in cases of rape, especially drug-induced rape; HIV risk is lowered dramatically; and you don't have to go around hating your ex-lover if you break up.

Kids need to learn that sexual activity is an adult behavior with very adult consequences, and if they're too young or immature to handle such consequence, they should delay sex.

Personally, I feel free to be myself by abstaining from sexual activity. I don't have to worry about pleasing some man who may just be using me for his own pleasure at my expense. I don't have to waste extra money on some method of birth control that might fail, mess with my hormone balance, or put me at extra risk for cancer; and I don't have to worry about getting some STD. Granted, it's difficult and frustrating at first, and I do get lonely at times. You can say what you want about me, but at least I practice what I preach.

[pattmarty]

53. The more I hear about all the different "amendments" added to............

.......this already shitty bill, the more I am against it. I just can't understand for the life of me why SOME so called liberals support this piece of shit. The more we hear, the worse it gets.

[Tailormyst]

54. I regret believing that have the Dems in control meant things would change.

They haven't. Not in any meaningful way. That's what I am most angry about. I dared to believe.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. KICK

[cbdo2007]

56. Let's ask the people who voted for this if they waited to get married to have sex.

And can anyone find a list of the names/organizations who get this money? Let's ask those church leaders if they waited until after marriage to have sex. I've found in my experience that the majority of people who TEACH abstinence education didn't themselves wait to have sex.

I"m pretty sure this is all a big scam and that the money gets funnelled back to the politicians or to their favorites churches.