I just heard that a program that has been proven beyond a doubt to be ineffective and at times harmful - abstinence only - has been given some money by an addition to the health insurance support bill now going through Congress. Instead of trying to curb abortions they are actually causing more. They just don't get it.
But...there must be a way to tell young people that they dont have to have sex if they dont want especialy if they are pressured to have sex. And there must be a way to teach young people that sex doesnt nessesarily equate to love.
I agree with you, but there is a difference between educational programs that talk about abstinence as a part of the program and those that only talk about abstinence. I think the point is that, those 'abstinence only' programs are ineffective and don't give teenagers all of the information they need to be prepared for whatever decision they make.
Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right
Useless Knowledge: Allodoxaphobia - Fear of opinions
I just heard that a program that has been proven beyond a doubt to be ineffective and at times harmful - abstinence only - has been given some money by an addition to the health insurance support bill now going through Congress. Instead of trying to curb abortions they are actually causing more. They just don't get it.
But...there must be a way to tell young people that they dont have to have sex if they dont want especialy if they are pressured to have sex. And there must be a way to teach young people that sex doesnt nessesarily equate to love.
I agree with you, but there is a difference between educational programs that talk about abstinence as a part of the program and those that only talk about abstinence. I think the point is that, those 'abstinence only' programs are ineffective and don't give teenagers all of the information they need to be prepared for whatever decision they make.
Yes, abstinence only programs are not effective, but abstinence based (or abstience plus) are effective. Funding for these programs started many years ago and drastically increased under Clinton and have continued to increase since. I don't understand how this is currently being blamed on Republicans when Democrats have the majority.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
I just heard that a program that has been proven beyond a doubt to be ineffective and at times harmful - abstinence only - has been given some money by an addition to the health insurance support bill now going through Congress. Instead of trying to curb abortions they are actually causing more. They just don't get it.
But...there must be a way to tell young people that they dont have to have sex if they dont want especialy if they are pressured to have sex. And there must be a way to teach young people that sex doesnt nessesarily equate to love.
I agree with you, but there is a difference between educational programs that talk about abstinence as a part of the program and those that only talk about abstinence. I think the point is that, those 'abstinence only' programs are ineffective and don't give teenagers all of the information they need to be prepared for whatever decision they make.
Yes, abstinence only programs are not effective, but abstinence based (or abstience plus) are effective. Funding for these programs started many years ago and drastically increased under Clinton and have continued to increase since. I don't understand how this is currently being blamed on Republicans when Democrats have the majority.
Funding for abstinence only programs was significantly increased under the Bush administration. For more info, try this article. We know these programs aren't as effective as comprehensive sex education, thanks to numerous studies. We owe it to our children to use the most effective methods available.
I just heard that a program that has been proven beyond a doubt to be ineffective and at times harmful - abstinence only - has been given some money by an addition to the health insurance support bill now going through Congress. Instead of trying to curb abortions they are actually causing more. They just don't get it.
But...there must be a way to tell young people that they dont have to have sex if they dont want especialy if they are pressured to have sex. And there must be a way to teach young people that sex doesnt nessesarily equate to love.
I agree with you, but there is a difference between educational programs that talk about abstinence as a part of the program and those that only talk about abstinence. I think the point is that, those 'abstinence only' programs are ineffective and don't give teenagers all of the information they need to be prepared for whatever decision they make.
Yes, abstinence only programs are not effective, but abstinence based (or abstience plus) are effective. Funding for these programs started many years ago and drastically increased under Clinton and have continued to increase since. I don't understand how this is currently being blamed on Republicans when Democrats have the majority.
Funding for abstinence only programs was significantly increased under the Bush administration. For more info, try this article. We know these programs aren't as effective as comprehensive sex education, thanks to numerous studies. We owe it to our children to use the most effective methods available.
$50 million/year went to abstinence only programs starting in 1998 under Clinton's Welfare Act. Bush continued that funding (it was only supposed to last for five years) and increased it. The first significant increase in funding for abstinence only programs came in the 1996 Welfare Act signed by Clinton, although the first ever funding happened in 1982 under Reagan, but it was very limited.
I agree that sex ed should be comprehensive and don't believe in abstinence only programs, but do believe in abstinence based programs. It's highly irresponsible to not teach children that Abstinence is the only way to fully protect themselves as well as teach them how to use birth control. Those that state we shouldn't teach abstinence at all are doing our children a disservice as pregnancy is not the only risk out there. A broken condom could easily lead to HIV/AIDS.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
I just heard that a program that has been proven beyond a doubt to be ineffective and at times harmful - abstinence only - has been given some money by an addition to the health insurance support bill now going through Congress. Instead of trying to curb abortions they are actually causing more. They just don't get it.
But...there must be a way to tell young people that they dont have to have sex if they dont want especialy if they are pressured to have sex. And there must be a way to teach young people that sex doesnt nessesarily equate to love.
I agree with you, but there is a difference between educational programs that talk about abstinence as a part of the program and those that only talk about abstinence. I think the point is that, those 'abstinence only' programs are ineffective and don't give teenagers all of the information they need to be prepared for whatever decision they make.
Yes, abstinence only programs are not effective, but abstinence based (or abstience plus) are effective. Funding for these programs started many years ago and drastically increased under Clinton and have continued to increase since. I don't understand how this is currently being blamed on Republicans when Democrats have the majority.
Funding for abstinence only programs was significantly increased under the Bush administration. For more info, try this article. We know these programs aren't as effective as comprehensive sex education, thanks to numerous studies. We owe it to our children to use the most effective methods available.
$50 million/year went to abstinence only programs starting in 1998 under Clinton's Welfare Act. Bush continued that funding (it was only supposed to last for five years) and increased it. The first significant increase in funding for abstinence only programs came in the 1996 Welfare Act signed by Clinton, although the first ever funding happened in 1982 under Reagan, but it was very limited.
I agree that sex ed should be comprehensive and don't believe in abstinence only programs, but do believe in abstinence based programs. It's highly irresponsible to not teach children that Abstinence is the only way to fully protect themselves as well as teach them how to use birth control. Those that state we shouldn't teach abstinence at all are doing our children a disservice as pregnancy is not the only risk out there. A broken condom could easily lead to HIV/AIDS.
May I suggest that you read the article you cited? In particular:
Socially conservative legislators arrived at the narrow, eight-point definition (often referred to as the “A-H definition”), not through public health and social science research into effective programs, but as a reflection of their own conservative views. These ultra-conservative legislators were savvy enough to insert the obscure policy add-on into a “must-pass” piece of legislation at the center of the policy agenda of then President Clinton. Since then, the government’s investment in abstinence-only programming has grown enormously, reaching over one billion dollars in total.
It was socially conservative legislators who tacked it onto a piece Clinton's legislation that was "must pass." It was not Clinton who advocated for these programs.
I just heard that a program that has been proven beyond a doubt to be ineffective and at times harmful - abstinence only - has been given some money by an addition to the health insurance support bill now going through Congress. Instead of trying to curb abortions they are actually causing more. They just don't get it.
But...there must be a way to tell young people that they dont have to have sex if they dont want especialy if they are pressured to have sex. And there must be a way to teach young people that sex doesnt nessesarily equate to love.
I agree with you, but there is a difference between educational programs that talk about abstinence as a part of the program and those that only talk about abstinence. I think the point is that, those 'abstinence only' programs are ineffective and don't give teenagers all of the information they need to be prepared for whatever decision they make.
Yes, abstinence only programs are not effective, but abstinence based (or abstience plus) are effective. Funding for these programs started many years ago and drastically increased under Clinton and have continued to increase since. I don't understand how this is currently being blamed on Republicans when Democrats have the majority.
Funding for abstinence only programs was significantly increased under the Bush administration. For more info, try this article. We know these programs aren't as effective as comprehensive sex education, thanks to numerous studies. We owe it to our children to use the most effective methods available.
$50 million/year went to abstinence only programs starting in 1998 under Clinton's Welfare Act. Bush continued that funding (it was only supposed to last for five years) and increased it. The first significant increase in funding for abstinence only programs came in the 1996 Welfare Act signed by Clinton, although the first ever funding happened in 1982 under Reagan, but it was very limited.
I agree that sex ed should be comprehensive and don't believe in abstinence only programs, but do believe in abstinence based programs. It's highly irresponsible to not teach children that Abstinence is the only way to fully protect themselves as well as teach them how to use birth control. Those that state we shouldn't teach abstinence at all are doing our children a disservice as pregnancy is not the only risk out there. A broken condom could easily lead to HIV/AIDS.
May I suggest that you read the article you cited? In particular:
Socially conservative legislators arrived at the narrow, eight-point definition (often referred to as the “A-H definition”), not through public health and social science research into effective programs, but as a reflection of their own conservative views. These ultra-conservative legislators were savvy enough to insert the obscure policy add-on into a “must-pass” piece of legislation at the center of the policy agenda of then President Clinton. Since then, the government’s investment in abstinence-only programming has grown enormously, reaching over one billion dollars in total.
It was socially conservative legislators who tacked it onto a piece Clinton's legislation that was "must pass." It was not Clinton who advocated for these programs.
I did read it and while Clinton didn't advocate for it, he did choose to sign off on the Act with the monies being given to abstinence only programs. Currently, we have a Democrat majority and monies are still being funneled into abstinence only programs. No matter what MM states, the monies given to abstinence only programs is the fault or responsibility of both Democrats and Republicans.
"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
President clinton only had a Democratic majority in Congress his first 2 years in office, when he managed to get things like the Family Emergency Leave Act through. For the next 6 years, the Congress majority belonged to the Republicans. In fact, Newt Gingrich set out to prove to President clinton which one of them had the most power. AS Speaker of the House, one of his duties was to see that the President is given a Federal Budget Act to sign that authorizes things like the paychecks for everyone employed by the United States government, including the Armed Forces. Newt showed how powerful he was by submitting a Budget that he knew Clinton wouldn't agree to, and sent it late as well.
This gave Federal employees time off without pay, because without a signed budget, no Federal employee gets a paycheck. The only thing Newt didn't expect was for people to be disgusted with his ploy to show he had more power at the expense of our country.
Now do you understand? If Clinton had vetoed the abstinence funding, there were enough votes to overturn his veto and he had no desire to give those who backed it a chance for all the media coverage for their agenda a veto would have given them.
"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again." 'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." these are both from my father.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
