« Got DI Comments? | Main | More AP Bias »
August 25, 2005
The ACLU Declares Jihad on Abstinence Education
In a direct attack against common sense, the ACLU has waged a relentless war against teaching kids the simple fact that if you don’t have sex, you don’t get pregnant or get STDs. The ACLU applauded a recent decision by the federal government to suspend funding to Silver Ring Thing because it was using the money to evangelize and convert people. While they are very correct that this was a misuse of funds, it is part of a larger campaign to kick abstinence education out of the schools as inherently religious. In fact, a recent study by Rep. Waxman (that has been debunked) cited religion as a primary concern about these programs. The ACLU agrees.
They cite evidence that abstinence education programs do not work. History disproves this as we haven’t had anything close to the rates of single mothers, teenage pregnancies, or STD infections before sex-ed was taught in schools. For centuries, if not millennia, telling people to reserve sex for marriage worked. If they want proof, look back 100 years. Abstinence works every time it’s tried.
The irony is that while suggesting there is proof that abstinence education does not work, Planned Parenthood (through their research arm) has inadvertently shown that sex-ed and easy access to birth control has not slowed unintended pregnancies, reduced abortion, or reduced STD infections. Their recent report says:
“54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.”
Easy access to contraception has INCREASED the rate of infections of AIDS in Africa. Condoms are unable to protect against the single biggest cause of cervical cancer, HPV. Sex-ed in schools is based around teaching children “Hey, its ok, go out, have fun, just use a condom and you’ll be ok.” There is no attempt to deal with the emotional maturity issues regarding sex which leaves children so unprepared that the rate of kids committing suicide increases with sexual activity. They talk about moral programming and how it is ineffective at teaching youth abstinence, but rely on moral programming to teach them to use condoms.
The facts are these: abstinence education works and throwing condoms at kids doesn’t. If you aren’t ready to be a daddy you might want to think about not having sex which is the only effective way to not become one.
Thanks to OTB, Stop The ACLU, Basil's Blog
Posted by John Bambenek at August 25, 2005 11:31 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://jcb.pentex-net.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/726
Comments
"In a direct attack against common sense, the ACLU has waged a relentless war against teaching kids the simple fact that if you don’t have sex, you don’t get pregnant or get STDs."
Your opening line shows sloppy thinking. Are you claiming that sex ed curricula somehow leave out the fact that sex leads to pregnancy, and gloss over the connection between sexual acts and sexually transmitted diseases? What do you think they talk about in class, then?
RESPONSE:
I'm not saying they aren't saying that, what I am saying is that teaching kids that contraception works at near 100% is wrong. Sex-ed is giving kids a false sense of security and encouraging them to add sex into relationships when they really aren't ready for it.
Posted by: Lisa at August 26, 2005 8:12 AM
Keeping them in the dark would be so much more effective. That way they can get their information the traditional way: from their peers, and from Daddy's porn stash.
A quick glance at Planned Parenthood's teen site will reveal that abstinence is right up at the top of their list of birth-control options.
RESPONSE:
Who said anything about keeping them in the dark? And daddy shouldn't have a porn stash to begin with. And since when have parents been as a group unreliable in raising their kids?
Posted by: Lisa at August 26, 2005 9:27 AM
"Sex-ed in schools is based around teaching children 'Hey, its ok, go out, have fun, just use a condom and you’ll be ok.'"
Obviously based on conjecture. My sex ed was mostly about 20 diseases that can kill you/make your genetalia rot away if you have sex, and how anyone may have these diseases without you knowing it, and how intercourse with someone is like getting plugged by all the other guys she's been with.
"For centuries, if not millennia, telling people to reserve sex for marriage worked. If they want proof, look back 100 years."
I don't know what you are talking about. Abortion was quite common (though very dangerous) in the early 1800s, and those pregnancies obviously weren't coming from women ready for children.
The reason it's pointless arguing with you fundamentalists is because pregnancies and diseases are really just a SIDE issue. If these effects were to go away based on 100% safe and effective contraceptives and 0% chance of spreading STDs you would still be opposed to pre-marital sex, so why not argue the underlying reasons?
Posted by: Yawn at August 26, 2005 3:54 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
