That's why it really f*cking makes me angry that everyone is saying, "Oh, Huckabee, great guy, charming!" He's nuts. It's sad that he's messianic b/c he actually is fair enough to say, "We have to take care of kids AFTER gestation, too" but he is a theo-con. He is the least distasteful among the theo-cons (actually I'd say Ron Paul is...the things he's said about the war and our losing war on drugs...he's like the sole human being in a company of smug/stupid automatons). But that's like saying he's the least pungent turd in the pile.

So who has the power to unbundle the funding for abstinence-only education from other programs? That seems like the first hurdle to overcome before we can push that unfounded shit behind us and move towards funding and implementing comprehensive, proven, well-rounded, open, and healthy sex education.

As far as I can tell there isn't any one person who has the power to demand something be "unbundled." Even though one person proposes a bill, there is a lot of interference from the leadership and others before/if it is allowed to be voted on. I think the Congress has to work together (gasp!) to structure something suitable. And then of course, the President has to put the best interests of the people over pandering to their base and not veto it.
Children having abstinence-only sex ed continuously inflicted on them really makes me want to cry. Having worked in AIDS outreach, I've seen the impact and I don't understand how politicians can look at themselves in the mirror or sleep at night, knowing they have the power to make real progress towards stemming the transmission of STDs and the occurence of teen pregnancy. I too would like to see a politician openly rail against the deadly misinformation put out by abstinence-only sex ed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Kucinich is anti-choice. Being a batshit crazy liberal does not a reproductive-rights advocate make.

ARGHFUCKBLARGHFUCK! How is it possible that anyone could advocate for abstinence only education? No only is it wicked sexist, it is dangerous! So I get abstinence only grow up, meet a nice guy, get married, do it, have a kid, send it to school, it gets abstinance only, has sex, gets pregnant/the clap/AIDS/ Herpes....whatever...and I, the irresponsible and ill-informed parent, have NO idea what to do about this. In fact it is likely I have been taught my child is a sinner. So I treat my child like a sinner. NICE!

ARGH!

def what xxhelenaxx said about Mike Huckabee...everyone gives him a pass, it makes me crazy. Ron Paul too....How can you call yourself a libertarian and endorse the propaganda that is abstinence only education? I should have figured though. The Washington Post ran a profile of him last Sunday, casually mentioning that he's anti-abortion, without bothering to point how this completely contradicts what it means to be libertarian. His position is that it should be left up to the states. Please explain to me how that's libertarian? I guess he's all about getting government out of your life - unless you're a woman, and then your state government should be able to tell you what to do with your uterus. Just further proof that libertarian has become code for conservative who is too embarrassed to call themselves one. (I know I know, he says sane things about the war on drugs and the war in Iraq, the hypocrisy on abortion really kills it for me though)

I think it's kind of ironic how abortion has become such a wedge issue for some people, but reproductive rights really doesn't factor in when calling someone a liberal or a conservative. When Mike Huckabee was promoting his book on The Daily Show (before he was a presidential candidate), Jon Stewart actually said that the book could have been written by a liberal. And the audience applauded when Huckabee stated that while life begins at conception, it doesn't end at birth, so he supports social welfare that give children a good (although not accurate, apparently) education and safe neighborhoods. As for Ron Paul, I listen to Air America Radio, and it's amazing how many people call into Thom Hartman and Randi Rhodes and exclaim their their support for Ron Paul because of him being against the war in Iraq. But Paul is an ultra-conservative who doesn't support public funded abortion not because he's a libertarian and doesn't support public funded anything, but because he's an anti-choice right wing nut. Being left of that fascist George W. Bush on a couple of issues doesn't make you a liberal.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Kucinich is anti-choice. Being a batshit crazy liberal does not a reproductive-rights advocate make.

Like Ann said, that abstinence-only education extension bill was part of a bill that would also extend Transitional Medical Assistance to people who still need Medicaid for a little while after finding a job that puts them at an income level high enough to no longer be eligible for Medicaid. Most Democrats voted yay, and most Republicans voted nay, because of it. That doesn't mean that Kucinich supports abstinence-only education or that the Republicans who voted nay are for comprehensive sex-ed. All who voted were put in a position to decide which was more important to them and to the people they represent -- that's how every congressional vote is. Kucinich made a judgment call and believed that extending Medicaid coverage to poor single mothers and their kids was more beneficial to the country than making a political statement about the dangers of abstinence-only education. Do you think people on Medicaid are more concerned about inaccurate sex education than about being able to see a doctor when they're sick? If I were a representative, I would have voted the same way.

I wasn't referring to Kucinich's voting on that one particular bill - he has a long history of being anti-choice.

And ditto on your on Ron Paul point. Enough with the liberal love fest of that guy JUST because he's against the Iraq war. I've had to have a very serious scolding with some of my most progressive friends (all male, by the way) about what a conservative anti-choice asshole he is. It's amazing how that doesn't even occur to them until it's pointed out. I mean, the war's important, obviously, but using your position on the war to hide the fact that you're trying to dismantle basic human rights is, well, very Bush-like.

I should point out, I despise Huckabee and am terrified of how numb people are to his history, but I still think Ron Paul is nuts and don't take him seriously. Still, I was surprised at what he said about drugs.

God...do people even give a f*ck that the leading members of the G.O.P is now raging a war on contraception, out in the open, and have been getting bolder and bolder since Bush took office?

It's unconscionable...Mitt Romney, Huckabee, all of them smile like martyrs and hold themselves as crusaders for humanity by endorsing a position that would f*ck over women and frankly, children.

I'm actually as concerned about what the increasing decriminalization/obstacles to contraception would do to kids (born to parents who don't want them)as I am to women.

To say nothing of sexually transmitted infections...

God, when I think of these f*ckers getting away with this I feel like screaming and beating my head against a wall. Why isn't the media taking them to town for it?

Huckabee was my governor for ten years. I never saw a condom during my high school years. That was scary.

So I'm trying to send a trackback but it's not working...it is saying "invalid connection." I'll keep investigating...

So anyway, here's my "retro" manual trackback discussion.
Thanks for the heads up on this candidate summary!!

Kucinich on abortion...

"I've had a journey on the issue [of reproductive rights]. A year ago, before I became a candidate for President, I broke from a voting record that had not been pro-choice. After hearing from many women in my own life, and from women and men in my community and across the country, I began a more intensive dialogue on the issue. A lot of women opened their hearts to me. That dialogue led me to wholeheartedly support a woman's right to choose.

Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

I have come to believe that it's not simply about the right to choose, but about a woman's role in society as being free and having agency and having the ability to make her own decisions. That a woman can't be free unless she has this right.

Source: Campaign website, www.Kucinich.org, "On The Issues" Apr 1, 2003

Ok, so I'm trying to think of this from a practical point of view, starting with the (hopefully agree-upon) premise that comprehensive sex-ed should be taught in school. First, for goodness' sake, we've got to get rid of extra funding for ab-only sex ed, and use the funding now dedicated to such blather to fund all sex ed. However, I don't think that requiring that any and all sex-ed be comprehensive is ever going to fly, and I don't even know if I believe it should be by law. So maybe private and religious schools should be able to choose not to teach comprehensive sex-ed. In public schools, parents could choose to opt out of the comprehensive program in favor of ab-only, or opt out entirely (as they were allowed to do at my school where we WERE taught ab-only). Funds could then be allocated to classes on a per-student basis for each of the programs.

I guess this would only work if the righty-tighties would cease trying to force their own morality on everyone else. I'll hold my breath.

We're all in agreement of this fundamental idea:

WHEN PEOPLE ARE INFORMED, THEY MAKE BETTER DECISIONS!

The Christian right (especially the Evangelical movement) believes that keeping people ignorant about sex is going to stop them from doing this, but even when there was no real sexual education, people were having sex.

Even in Victorian England, one of the most sexually repressive societies in history, there was a huge sexual underground movement.

Republicans believe that if you ignore something, it is not there. (we've also seen this in their policy with gays in the military and their ability to hand a national budget deficit) In reality, it just gets to be a more serious issue, and eventually festers and causes more longer term problems.

This is one of the major flaws of the modern Republican party. I would love to see someone argue that abstinence only education will stop teen sex. After all the "Crack is Whack" campaign peaked in Baltimore at the same time as the academics.

You know, it's true what they say:

The children's do learn.

Wouldn't it be nice if we taught them things that were true.

Correction:

The "Crack is Whack" campaign peaked in Baltimore at the same time as the epidemic.

Here's hoping that the media will press the Republican presidential candidates, during the Republican primaries, to disclose whether they agree or disagree that a constitutional right of privacy prohibits states from criminalizing use or possession of contraceptive devices. Fred Thompson, in particular, is reported to have claimed that Roe v. Wade was "fabricated from whole cloth". That comment puts into play whether Griswold v. Connecticut, the progenitor of Roe, correctly recognized a right of privacy broad enough to invalidate the Connecticut statute that prohibited married adults from using contraceptive devices.

The Republican candidates have developed canned shtick regarding Roe; however, to be asked about the rationale of Griswold while courting the sex-control brigades would probably make a few heads explode.

I'll be writing this to Women's eNews as well, but I have to say: This article made it seem like the phony middle-ground "abstinence plus" is a reasonable thing to mention. However, the definition of it is the definition that actually goes with comprehensive sex ed: "Out of that tug of war, compromisers have for a couple of years been promoting a middle way: "abstinence-plus," which mentions abstinence within a broader discussion of safe sex." Um, comprehensive sed ed totally includes abstinence. Federally-funded abstinence only has stipulations that preclude teachers from mentioning contraception, except in cases of explaining how poorly it works, basically.