Reality Checking Ignorance Only Education

If the excellent website RH Reality Check isn’t on your bookmark or Google Reader list, it should be. Every day it brings me up to date on the good news, bad news, and interesting takes people are talking about concerning the big picture of reproductive health, rights, and justice. Not to mention handy information about things like how to knit a condom amulet, which would be much more useful than the abstinence only (non) sex (non) education that has been promoted by the (non) religious (non) right for the past decade or two.

Today, there’s Scott Swenson’s report on the encouraging trend by states to turn down funding for the now-discredited Federal abstinence only program, which never made any sense. I mean, ignorance has never really been bliss. That’s especially so when silence about sexual health and decision making is exacerbated by inaccurate teaching concerning the consequences of not just saying “no”, while failing to tell young people what “yes” means. Here’s Scott’s summary:

The Associated Press is just out with a major story about how in tough economic times, cash-strapped states are refusing federal tax dollars for abstinence-only programs. The story is one more in a long line of damning pieces of evidence about the failures of abstinence-only programs, the waste of tax dollars they represent, and should be a wake up call to Congress.

AP reporter Kevin Freking writes:

Skeptical states are shoving aside millions of federal dollars for abstinence education, walking away from the program the Bush administration touts for slowing teen sexual activity.

INTENTIONING

Sex, Power, Pandemics, and How Women
Will Take The Lead for (Everyone’s) Good

The new book from Gloria Feldt about the future, taking the leadership lessons learned from this disruption and creating a better world for all through the power of intention.

Barely half the states are still in, and two more say they are leaving.

Some $50 million has been budgeted for this year, and financially strapped states might be expected to want their share. But many have doubts that the program does much, if any good, and they’re frustrated by chronic uncertainty that it will even be kept in existence. They also have to chip in state money in order to receive the federal grants.

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, made his decision to leave based on the congressionally mandated curriculum, which teaches “the social, psychological and health gains of abstaining from sexual activity.” Instructors must teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects. “It was just too strict,” said Emily Hajek, policy adviser to Culver. “We believe local providers have the knowledge to teach what’s going to be best in those situations, what kind of information will help those young people be safe. You cannot be that prescriptive about how it has to be taught.”

A federal tally shows that participation in the program is down 40 percent over two years, with 28 states still in. Arizona and Iowa have announced their intention to forgo their share of the federal grant at the start of the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. (Read on for the rest of this article and a raft of others on the subject here…)

To connect the personal and the political here in a heartfeldt sort of way, John McCain has consistently supported wasting your tax dollars on the abstinence only programs, and suffice it to say he has a 0% rating on all reproductive health issues. Gong.

Barack Obama is a sponsor of the Prevention First Act that would provide for medically accurate sex education and, according to the questionnaire he answered for RH Reality Check, ” Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education. He believes that we should not continue to fund abstinence-only programs. Over the last decade, the federal government has spent $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on “abstinence-only” programs that have not been successful. While abstinence is one approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and STDs, Obama believes we should also support comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education.” Obama pfumfered around when asked the sex education question in one of the early presidential debates, so my guess is he leaves that discussion to Michelle at home, but from a policy perspective he’s a-ok.

So what do we do about it?

3 Comments

  1. stacy on June 25, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    I don’t even understand how federal funding of ‘abstinence only’ was option- it’s not scientifically or medically based and it sounds a lot more like a George BUsh’s religious preference than sound policy. It doesn’t even *sound* constitutional. But then again, under George Bush the CDC and HHS have pretty much become a joke. Julie Gerberding, MD of the CDC should be ashamed at what happened under her tenure.

    And then there’s the always inaccurate, morally-superior Chris Mathews doing everything he can to try to convince people the Democrats are the party of ‘abortion as birth control’:

    http://mediamatters.org/items/200806160006

    I sent him [Mathews] an email trying to point out that had he or one of his research assistants bothered to use google, he wouldn’t have uttered such factually-deficient clap-trap. I know, it’s five minutes of my life I will never get back, but it made me feel better…

  2. stacy on June 25, 2008 at 7:03 pm

    Firedoglake is covering this too, and some may be surprised it’s not just the Republicans throwing money behind the ‘abstinence only’ misinformation campaign.

    http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/25/why-is-dave-obey-d-wi-putting-our-children-at-risk/#more-26670

  3. Gloria Feldt on June 25, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    As I always say, your friends will do you in faster than your enemies. And the D’s have sold their soul for way less than a mess of pottage on repro rights so many times that it
    amazes me I keep my optimism about our ability to have an impact. Obey is one of many Democrats who aren’t pro-choice, and play footsie with the social conservatives on abortion, family planning, and sex education.

    The Clinton administration did many good things–they rescinded Bush I’s executive orders implementing the global gag rule and prohibiting importation of RU-486 for example. Even so, they struck a deal that started the massive state funding for abstinence-only programs as part of the welfare reform negotiations. And welfare reform itself has had some horrid consequences for low income women, but that’s yet another example of my main point.

    And sadly, ultimately, Clinton backed down and accepted a slightly watered-down global gag rule in exchange for continued funding for international family planning and other foreign operations funding, after his clout was so weakened by the Lewinsky episode that he couldn’t muster the votes to pass his own agenda.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.