Eliminating Choice

This is exactly a perfect example of what Pope Benedict XVI has called "the dictatorship of relativism." The claim is being made in this article that abstinence programs do not work, yet there is no proof given that this true. Also, what really gets me is this statement: Some states found that the federal grant program had too many strings attached. Abstinence-only educators are asked to adhere to teaching points, including one that states that sex outside of marriage is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."

And the problem with learning this is? Oh, we don't want our kids to have a guilty conscience by having the truth affect them, so we're going to eliminate any information that might actually give them a choice to live a truly healthy, holy, and wholistic lifestyle. Instead, we will impose our agenda while claiming to offer a variety options, of which abstinence is one of many. Yes, yes, we'll discount the fact that many of these kids have raging hormones and that our society continually pushes sexually-promiscuous lifestyles without showing the great woundedness that occurs afterward, because they're just animals. And thus we'll treat them that way, by severing the most powerful gift that God has ever given to them from the rest of their life (aka their fertility/fruifulness).

The battle goes on....



Ohio could become 8th state to reject abstinence-only money
Congress studies paying for instruction on birth control, STDs

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Leila Atassi

Plain Dealer Reporter
Ohio might become the eighth state to reject federal money for abstinence-only sex education - a decision that public-policy groups say is part of a nationwide shift toward more-comprehensive sex-ed programs.

Gov. Ted Strickland last week proposed phasing out federal grants for abstinence-only instruction, following the lead of governors in California, Connecticut, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

Days later, a bipartisan group in Congress introduced a bill that would pay for programs that include instruction about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases, while also emphasizing abstinence before marriage.

"The abstinence-only approach has seen its day, and the support's really waning," said Bill Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States in Washington, D.C.

Smith and others attribute the shift away from abstinence-only instruction to new leadership in Congress.

The Responsible Education About Life Act is sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey.

The bill was first introduced in 2001 but gained little support in a Republican-led Congress that funneled about $175 million a year into abstinence-only programs across the country.

Some states found that the federal grant program had too many strings attached. Abstinence-only educators are asked to adhere to teaching points, including one that states that sex outside of marriage is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."

Other states dropped the program after new rules banned information about contraception and STD prevention, even to answer students' questions.

In Ohio, Strickland's two-year budget proposes to cut $500,000 needed to secure $1.6 million in federal grants for abstinence teaching and materials. He explained that he has seen no conclusive evidence that the abstinence-only programs delay sexual activity during teenage years.

Strickland does not plan to apply for federal money after the program ends Sept. 30.

"The governor believes that continuing to pay for a program that has not been proven to work is an unwise use of tax dollars, particularly when we're facing a very challenging or constrained budget environment," said Keith Dailey, spokesman for the governor.

But some of Ohio's Republican lawmakers already have said they will fight to restore the abstinence-only money. And pro-abstinence groups who receive federal money say that the governor's decision disregards high community demand for their programs.

"I think it's extremely unfortunate that our kids, who already live in a highly sexualized culture, won't have the opportunity to experience these programs," said State Rep. John White, a Republican from Kettering. "We should be able to provide educational choices for parents and school districts, and if you take that money away, those choices will dry up."

Cheryl Biddle, executive director of Summit County-based Abstinence the Better Choice, said her organization, which received nearly $250,000 in federal money in 2005, will find other ways to pay for its operations if the state does not reapply for the grants.

"We're very disappointed in the governor's decision," Biddle said.

"And I would invite him to attend an abstinence-until-marriage class in the Akron area so he could see how children and their families benefit magnificently from courses like ours and how immense the community support for abstinence programs really is."

But the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States predicts even more states will reject the federal grant money.

Smith said that is because abstinence-only programs don't work as well as proponents say they do.
"They've had their chance," he said. "They've fallen down miserably, and policy change is the result."