03/14/2009 01:14:16 PM EST

Sex education debate: Obama considering a cut in abstinence-only funding

posted by AnaKasparian

As soon word got out that Alaskan Govenor Sarah Palin had a pregnant 17-year-old daughter, harsh criticisms of sex education began. While right-wing Republicans like Palin completely support abstinence-only education in public schools, her daughter served as living proof that teen abstinence may not be a realistic expectation. In fact, Palin's daughter uttered the words herself.

After giving birth to her son Tripp, Bristol Palin agreed to an interview with FOX News, where she blatantly admitted that teen abstinence is "not realistic at all." Currently abstinence-only education supporters are holding on for dear life, as President Barack Obama is considering a cut in the program's funding. The National Abstinence Education Association has been lobbying Congress in hopes to stop Obama from cutting $42 million in funding compared to what former President George Bush asked for in the final months of his term. Obama's current stimulus package cuts the funding by $14.2 million.

Read the rest by clicking HERE!!!!

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
< No Show on Friday, March 13th! | Schedule Change and Information About the Show! >
 Display:
Sex education debate: Obama considering a cut in abstinence-only funding | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Yep (none / 0)
You're exactly right Ana. Abstinence only might sound nice in a perfect world, but it's a practical absurdity in most cases.

And that's not an opinion, it's a fact supported by non-biased research. So if anyone wants to disagree, they need to put their opinions aside and look at the studies.

Of course if they do that honestly they'll have to change their views, which is a difficult thing. Instead they'll probably bury their heads in the sand and ignore reality.

by Tom Hanc on 03/14/2009 02:24:18 PM EST

Eliminate this wasteful spending! (none / 0)
Does any other country on earth promote abstinence? Of course it doesn't work! It's opposed to human nature. Each and every dollar spent on "abstinence only" programs is a wasted dollar.

by OldGerman on 03/14/2009 02:54:41 PM EST

Birth Control (none / 0)

Birth Control should be FREE, or at least insanely cheap. Why does Blue Cross Blue Shield charge policy holders $50 a month for the Ortho Evra patch?

$600 a year for a patch that increases compliance significantly compared to having to take a pill every day? That's absurd, and that's WITH insurance. Even $30 a month is absurd in this economy (and yes, the patch is also more effective at preventing pregnancy than less expensive condoms, unless the woman weighs more than 198 pounds). But yes, STD's may still be a concern of course.

At any rate, the same conservatives who rail about "deadbeats on government programs" with their tax dollars also bitch about having to pay for birth control. Those idiots don't see the connection between unwanted pregnancy (which is generally terrible for the parents, the kid(s) and society) and spending even MORE tax money in the long run.

Never mind the fact that good birth control is the best way to reduce the number of abortions. It's the most obvious win-win in the world. And no, kids won't start fucking like rabbits just because birth control is available. They're ALREADY fucking like rabbits without birth control.

by Tom Hanc on 03/14/2009 03:29:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Easy (none / 0)

Health Insurance has no reason to promote the patch/the pill.  It only prevents you from getting preggers, not from getting a STD.

If you get preggers then sure they will have to pay some $$ for the birth, but after that you have to start paying premiums for the child and its mo money for the HMO.

 

If however you get an STD then the insurance company is on the hook for the bills to treat it and there is no upside for the insurance company.

 

So I can see how they would want to discourage women from using a form of birth control that is bad for the insurance company from a financial point of view.

by 5kfun on 03/15/2009 12:03:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Proves my point (none / 0)
That's a great example of how a profit motive can trump what's best for the individual policy holder, not to mention society overall.

by Tom Hanc on 03/15/2009 12:11:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
HMOs (none / 0)

HMOs don't exist to do what is best for their policy holder, they exist to do what is best for their shareholder.

by 5kfun on 03/15/2009 12:16:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's a problem (none / 0)

That's fine for making shoes and TV's and whatever, but when it comes to defense (police and fire departments and military) and heath, it's a huge fundamental issue.

That's also partly why I'm not comfortable with military contractors in Iraq. There are some areas where privitization works very well, but this isn't one of them.

by Tom Hanc on 03/15/2009 12:25:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's a good point (none / 0)
"If you get preggers then sure they will have to pay some $$ for the birth, but after that you have to start paying premiums for the child and its mo money for the HMO."

It explains why they'd not cover preventative costs (e.g. the pill) it's an "investment" in future customers. I guess that's why they pay for Viagra as well but not the pill.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 03/15/2009 12:30:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The other reason (none / 0)

People assume health insurance companies love preventative care because it will reduce costs in the long run. Except that any given (private) health insurance provider knows you aren't likely to be with them for your entire life.

This is especially true these days where people increasingly have several job changes. The insurance company doesn't see the point in spending money to reduce costs on people that are unlikely to be their customers in 10 years (or whatever).

by Tom Hanc on 03/15/2009 01:30:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Abstinence only does not work, why keep it at all? (none / 0)
Unfortunately because of republican economics over the  last 8 years, we NEED to cute funds for all kinds of programs, both good AND bad. There should be no controversy over this decision, I would be happier if Obama cut ALL funding for this bad program that just does not work, but I'll admit at that point I would see a controversy. But cutting funding for this program shouldn’t be considered at all "controversial". Belts need to be tightened, period. There are alot of good programs out there that are not getting as much funding, and this situation was forced on us because of republicans voted into office. So the people who should whine the least should be conservatives.

It’s funny to me how republicans claim to want less spending and less government involvement, but don’t want to see funding for "abstinence only programs eliminated". Why not let the private sector handle this program, this is what republicans always preach no?

by Smokin on 03/14/2009 09:13:21 PM EST

Abstinence only does not work, why keep it at all? (none / 0)
Because RWnuts don't want people to have access to birth control, condoms, abortions or sex ed but still be able to blame them for getting pregnant.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 03/15/2009 12:28:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sex education debate: Obama considering a cut in abstinence-only funding | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: