Remember how overjoyed we were that one of the federal abstinence-only funding streams was about to dry up?
Well, surprise surprise, yesterday Congress passed legislation extending Title V funding for abstinence-only sex ed. While mainstream media outlets were still reporting that Democrats had let the funding expire (or not mentioning it at all), the conservative groups were already busy crowing about the extension -- and rallying the Purity Ballers to ask their legislators to continue the funding past the end of this fiscal year.
Ummm... so if Rep. John Dingell, the Democrat who heads the committee with jurisdiction over Title V funding, realizes that abstinence-only has been "a colossal failure," where were the Democrats on this?
Also, where are the comprehensive sex ed and repro health groups? I haven't heard a peep from them. Whether they decide to issue an action alert or not, in the coming three months we need to be asking our Democratic Senators and Representatives to live up to their word and let this abstinence-only money expire for good.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Abstinence-only funding extended.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5607
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
557 days until the next administration.
I am a little confused by the clerk page. It appears that mostly Dems voted Yea to continue the abstinence only funding, and mostly Reps voted Nay. Could someone please explain, or correct me if I'm reading this wrong?
If the Democrats aren't solidly pro-choice, I don't see the difference between them and the Republicans. And now that more and more Republicans are jumping ship on the war, I really think the Dems are in trouble for the 08 election.
BabyPop, the Title V funding is attached to a bill that funds the Transitional Medical Assistance program, which provides Medicaid to families leaving welfare. So that's why you have Democrats supporting the legislation as a whole, even with the abstinence funding tacked on.
I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes here, but I would wager a guess that the Title V funding was added back on (despite the Dems' pledge to let it expire) in order to get more Republicans to back the Medicaid funding.
What the fuck.
Time for a third party.
Thanks for the breakdown, Ann. Christ...GOP says NO ABORTIONS NO SEX AND NO HEALTHCARE ONCE THOSE BABIES ARE BORN. Icky.
ann, you got it -
it's not reasonable, it's politics!
same thing is happening with the Title X increase - the concurrent ab-only increase there is pretty much an attempt to secure a veto-proof majority by pulling in some repubs.
I'm glad to live in Massachusetts - Deval Patrick vetoed abstinence-only education from the MA FY 2008 budget today...
I'm an intern at Naral Pro-Choice Mass. and we're supporting a bill called An Act Relative to Comprehensive Health Education. The bill is being sponsored by over 100 organizations that make up a group called Care for Youth. The bill will set up health class in Mass. public schools. The sex education section of it is comprehensive. Anyway in related news our governor Deval Patrick vetoed ab. ony funding in Mass. just today! Good News.
Here's what drives me (especially) wild about abstinence-only advocates.
Yes, I understand you believe people should wait to have sex until they're contractually signed to one another by God.
However. People are having sex, and going to continue having sex, no matter what you believe. No matter how much you argue your point, PEOPLE WILL KEEP HAVING SEX.
So what are you going to do about it? Oh, right. Condemn them, guilt them, judge them-- but most importantly, keep them nice and ignorant about sexual health, with the hope that they all die from sexually transmitted diseases. Or, ya know-- wind up with unwanted pregnancies, who will then grow up into a new generation of sexually ignorant individuals.
Makes perfect sense to me. : /
"However. People are having sex, and going to continue having sex, no matter what you believe. No matter how much you argue your point, PEOPLE WILL KEEP HAVING SEX."
...and even many of the ones who agree with the point will eventually have sex.
"Or, ya know-- wind up with unwanted pregnancies, who will then grow up into a new generation of sexually ignorant individuals."
Maybe that's part of the "abstinence-only" goal, instead of an ignored side effect, since "abstinence-only" sex ed seems to usually promote having unprotected marital sex as much as it promotes not having sex?
Ab-only ed is about refusing to condone a sinful act. As far as the ab-only crowd is concerned, pregnancy is a punishment for sin, so are STDs. I mean,these are the same people who claimed AIDS was a punishment for homosexuality. None of tha rational arguments against ab-only are going to faze them because they all boil down to helping sinners avoid the consequences.
This is an important point to remember when trying to combat it. This is a religious doctrine for these people. They're simply not going to be willing to negotiate away from their stand or listen to reason and give up on the idea.
One of my friends in high school got pregnant because she thought that if she only had sex once a month that she wouldn't get pregnant. Abstinence-only education does not work, period. When kids are not told how to have sex responsibly, and are therefore forced to figure this stuff out on their own, it's a recipe for disaster.