Sunday, February 01, 2009
It almost makes me want to buy a cupcake for the cause.
Pursuant to the Democrats’ sweep of Congress and now the new face in the White House, the “abstinence-only” movement is on its own.
When dominant in Washington, Republicans couldn’t find extra money to devote to cleaner water, security-exposed ports or levees that worked. They could, however, find ever-mounting millions for sexual abstinence programs. This funding continued though study after study found abstinence-only approaches of dubious value, particularly when serving as alternatives to comprehensive sex education, which is another word for basic biology.
Comprehensive sex education would, at age-appropriate levels, inform youngsters about contraception — how the birth-control pill works, or the IUD, or injections of Depo Provera.
Abstinence-only programs don’t address such things, except to advise students on the general fallibility of birth control. Condoms are treated as a public enemy on a par with AIDS.
The McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Project — MCCAP — at one time was rolling in dough, roughly $1 million a year, to foster abstinence programs in schools and otherwise to spread the message.
Now it’s on the ropes because grants have run out. Fundraisers are planned.
I’ll admit to being of two minds about MCCAP’s efforts. On one hand, its well-produced TV commercials and eye-catching billboards have conveyed important messages about sexuality, peer pressure and making good decisions.
On the other hand, presenting abstinence training as an alternative to reproductive biology was and is a bad idea.
Now the high tide for abstinence education has ebbed. With it — the return of real sex education? We can only hope.
This is not the only front where the absolutism of abstinence has lost precedence. And good for us all.
President Obama has reversed policies that undermined international family planning efforts that the United States used to lead.
Now, instead of “just say no,” the message our leadership will facilitate will be, “Let’s be real — and smart.” It will mean empowering family planning organizations to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Obama has reversed the rule against funding international organizations that so much as advocate abortion rights.
Of course, these were the organizations, like the International Planned Parenthood Federation, that do the most to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby entirely obviating the abortion dilemma.
That self-defeating contradiction never bothered proponents of the Reagan-era gag rule in the slightest.
Someone will say that Obama’s directive now means taxpayer dollars will fund abortion. Nope. That’s against the law.
We can trust that in addition to promoting contraception, family planning associations will hammer home the dangers of unchecked promiscuity in the age of AIDS.
The health benefits of abstinence before marriage cannot be denied. But abstinence only? That is called living in denial.
Locally, I would support the efforts of abstinence-information crusaders as long as their efforts weren’t used to supplant real sex education.
By golly, I’d buy a blintz for the cause.
But when it comes to helping young people understand their bodies and regulate their urges, my tax dollar is better invested in programs that answer all the questions they have, not programs that make some of the answers off-limits.
John Young’s column appears Thursday and Sunday. E-mail: jyoung@wacotrib.com.
Comments
By Jenny Hurley
Feb 1, 2009 3:37 PM | Link to this
Abstinence only grants has been something that has had me irritated for 8 years. Over those years, George Bush gave out $1.6 BILLION to churches and school, etc. to promote abstinence only. When I saw churches get $1 MILLION or more to do this, and schools getting hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars, I knew that it was buying the Evangelical vote for the Republicans. They should have been ashamed of themselves and if a Church or school cannot promote abstinence when they have rooms, parking lots, teachers, etc., then the churches should have lost their tax free status.
By D.Lay
Feb 1, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this
Six of one and a half dozen of the other, plus two. One of the problems in this particular births lie in the doctor who performed the procedure that resulted in the eight births. Just because a person has enough brain power and persistence to become a doctor doesn't speak well of his judgment. And where were the parents who permitted or tried to discourage their daughter to be impregnated, thus in birthing the eight, bringing the total to fourteen babies?
By Robbie
Feb 1, 2009 8:28 AM | Link to this
BDDH, I'd say that she was being irresponsible, and that a personal decision she made had real and ever-lasting consequences. We can only guess at her intentions, or those of her parents, for her having so many children. They made a choice. As a result, I hope that she is able to be a good mother to those children.
Much of this debate is vernacular word games. Most people understand and realize that abortion is the modus operandi of "family planning." That's the end game. Abortion is abused and often used as a mothod of birth control. It should bot be. It takes life. In fairness to the abstenence only crowd, I'm, personally, not sure of anyone ever having an abortion that did not previously engage in sex. Abstinence is, and always will be, the only way to prevent a pregnancy or STD 100% of the time.
"Abstinence-only" education is not. It is a way of restating that abstinence is the only way to assuredly prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases. The knowledge of anatomy and the systems that create life is important. So is the provision of knowledge on the prevention of disease and pregnancy. That is no more important than the education of the consequences of engaging the activities that cause disease and pregnancy.
"Comprehensive" sex education is not. It seeks to leave out the notion that abstinence absolutely stops those consequences from occuring. If it is to be truly comprehensive and inclusive of all aspects of sex education, that point needs to be driven home in the process of that education.
In the end, it should be a matter of the community, the parents, and the individual school boards as to the curriculum taught in their respective schools. This debate needs to be settled at taht level because it directly effects the people of that particular community. The lobying at the state and federal level by groups that think they know what is best for our children is the dispicable act being played out here. John Young's op-ed would be a good persuasive argument to present to the school board of his children. The debate belongs in the school, not in the halls of Congress.
By BDDH
Feb 1, 2009 7:27 AM | Link to this
I agree, Mr. Young. I have watched as certain groups demonize Planned Parenthood organizations claiming that they encourage abortions, which they don't; they encourage family PLANNING. One thing that puzzles me, though. Where do those who criticize Planned Parenthood stand on the issue of the unmarried mother who just gave birth to 8 babies when she already had 6 under age 7?
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.