• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Eliminates Abstinence-Only Funding In Budget

F

FallingPianos

Huffington Post

President Obama's 2010 budget, released this afternoon, eliminates federal funding for a range of abstinence-only education programs.

Here's a release from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:

President Obama released his FY 2010 budget today and called for at least $164 million in funding for a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative. This includes competitive grants for evidence-based programs, research and evaluation, and an authorization for $50 million in new mandatory teen pregnancy prevention grants to states, tribes, and territories. The budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education and the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program.

Finally! :mrgreen:
 
Wow....finally a President who isn't afraid of education.
 
Wow... finally... :clap:
 
I've always been amazed at people that do not support the one proven method birth control and STD spreading.

OH THAT'S right, because it requires people to use "self restraint" and they get held "responsible" for their actions.

Something the above posters seem to have an allergic reaction to.
 
I've always been amazed at people that do not support the one proven method birth control and STD spreading.

Yes, because the government spending money to tell people to not have sex has proven to be soooo efficient. :roll:
 
I've always been amazed at people that do not support the one proven method birth control and STD spreading.

Say what?

Can you define "proven?"

"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.

FOXNews.com - Study Finds Abstinence-Only Programs Fail to Reduce Teen Sexual Behavior - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

And yes, that's Fox News.

I do think it's funny how the state that has gotten some of the most money, Texas has one of the highest STD and teen pregnancy rates.

Proven method you say Mr. V?

Well, if you're trying to prove that these programs are a colossal waste of money that actually results in the opposite effect of what you want, sure.

OH THAT'S right, because it requires people to use "self restraint" and they get held "responsible" for their actions.

Something the above posters seem to have an allergic reaction to.

Generally, it helps you if you read first what people write instead of just assuming whatever you want. What Obama did was cut funding for programs that have certifiably failed to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs. That does not mean we remove all abstinence ideas from sexual education.

For someone who decries federal waste, why are you promoting such programs when they do not work? That's worse then waste. At least waste generally gets something done. These programs utterly fail at their primary objective.

Furthermore, several studies have concluded that Abstinence-Only is actually WORSE as it does not factually teach kids reality. Explain to me how you expect our kids to make good choices when they are deliberately fed lies?

Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Yes, because the government spending money to tell people to not have sex has proven to be soooo efficient. :roll:

With all the societal messages from people like yourself saying "go ahead, just be safe about it?"

I was a virgin till I met my first wife and got married. I had parents that stressed the dangers, while handing me boxes of condoms. Guess what, if they had left it at "just have sex, be safe" I might have made a big mistake.


Abstinence education needs responsible adults/parents not enabling "friends".
 
Say what?

Can you define "proven?"



FOXNews.com - Study Finds Abstinence-Only Programs Fail to Reduce Teen Sexual Behavior - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

And yes, that's Fox News.

I do think it's funny how the state that has gotten some of the most money, Texas has one of the highest STD and teen pregnancy rates.

Proven method you say Mr. V?

Well, if you're trying to prove that these programs are a colossal waste of money that actually results in the opposite effect of what you want, sure.



Generally, it helps you if you read first what people write instead of just assuming whatever you want. What Obama did was cut funding for programs that have certifiably failed to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs. That does not mean we remove all abstinence ideas from sexual education.

For someone who decries federal waste, why are you promoting such programs when they do not work? That's worse then waste. At least waste generally gets something done. These programs utterly fail at their primary objective.

Furthermore, several studies have concluded that Abstinence-Only is actually WORSE as it does not factually teach kids reality. Explain to me how you expect our kids to make good choices when they are deliberately fed lies?

Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey OC, WHEN practiced, it works 100% of the time.

Enabling adults that push "have sex, use a condom"... you're the reason it fails.
 
Hey OC, WHEN practiced, it works 100% of the time.

Ya but it's rarely practiced. And abstinence-only education misleads people into believing that birth control is not effective, so when they DON'T practice abstinence they are less likely to use contraception.

MrVicchio said:
Enabling adults that push "have sex, use a condom"... you're the reason it fails.

Right. It's all the parents' fault that their kids don't wait until they're 45 to have sex. It's not hardwired into human biology or anything.
 
With all the societal messages from people like yourself saying "go ahead, just be safe about it?"

I was a virgin till I met my first wife and got married. I had parents that stressed the dangers, while handing me boxes of condoms. Guess what, if they had left it at "just have sex, be safe" I might have made a big mistake.

Abstinence education needs responsible adults/parents not enabling "friends".

So you married the first chick who gave you head. Now show us how your anecdotal evidence proves that abstinence only education actually works.
 
Hey OC, WHEN practiced, it works 100% of the time.

No question. However, you fail to make the distinction between abstinence-Only federal sex education programs and the concept of abstinence. The concept and the program are two entirely different things. And the program has certifiably failed to make good on its primary objective. Thus, it deserves to die. Why should the federal government spend money on a program that cannot even fulfill the #1 purpose it was created for? Pretty brain dead notion to me.

"Let's fund programs that don't do anything but waste federal dollars!"

Enabling adults that push "have sex, use a condom"... you're the reason it fails.

I take it you really have no idea how sex ed is taught in America do you?
 
Great, all we need to do now is eliminate all sex education from the federal budget. Let states do it if SOME people want it so badly. :roll: Either the government should fund both rather inefficiant methods, or the government should fund neither of them. Since I don't like taxes going down the drain in an economy such as this, I'd rather take the former.
 
Ya but it's rarely practiced. And abstinence-only education misleads people into believing that birth control is not effective, so when they DON'T practice abstinence they are less likely to use contraception.



Right. It's all the parents' fault that their kids don't wait until they're 45 to have sex. It's not hardwired into human biology or anything.

I don't buy the "they'll do it anyway" failed line of thinking. My wife now? Was 24 when we met, and a virgin.

Abstinence requires PERSONAL INTEGRITY. Any dog can hump, a mature human knows how to control themselves.

You all pushing to end Abstinence education... you have very little faith in people, I believe we CAN do better, but not by giving up. You all have given up.
 
Great, all we need to do now is eliminate all sex education from the federal budget. Let states do it if SOME people want it so badly. :roll: Either the government should fund both rather inefficiant methods, or the government should fund neither of them. Since I don't like taxes going down the drain in an economy such as this, I'd rather take the former.

It is in the interest of the federal government to push for sex education. In the long run it A) reduces the number of people who end up needing medical treatment for STDs and can't afford it(usually minorities) and B) unwanted pregnancies. This is not a states issue. It costs the government more to take care of an unwanted kid that it does to teach kids not to have sex without protection.
 
It is in the interest of the federal government to push for sex education. In the long run it A) reduces the number of people who end up needing medical treatment for STDs and can't afford it(usually minorities) and B) unwanted pregnancies. This is not a states issue. It costs the government more to take care of an unwanted kid that it does to teach kids not to have sex without protection.
burden of proof? How is it cost effective? Oh, and, why does it cost the government anything, other than going to public school.
 
Last edited:
Great, all we need to do now is eliminate all sex education from the federal budget. Let states do it if SOME people want it so badly. :roll: Either the government should fund both rather inefficiant methods, or the government should fund neither of them. Since I don't like taxes going down the drain in an economy such as this, I'd rather take the former.

Finlay! Someone that makes sense.

Quoted for truth.

Parents should be teaching the children about sex not the school. What the hell has happened to our society when we depend on some stranger in a school to teach our children about sex and intimacy?
 
It is in the interest of the federal government to push for sex education. In the long run it A) reduces the number of people who end up needing medical treatment for STDs and can't afford it(usually minorities) and B) unwanted pregnancies. This is not a states issue. It costs the government more to take care of an unwanted kid that it does to teach kids not to have sex without protection.

You want to post some evidence to back this info up? I think it is pretty much bull**** myself.
 
I don't buy the "they'll do it anyway" failed line of thinking.

No wonder why you support such failed programs. Empirical evidence all points that despite such programs, teenagers were just as likely to engage in sexual activities as those who did not have abstinence only sex ed. Thus, they will do it anyways.

My wife now? Was 24 when we met, and a virgin.

Oh yay! Personal stories filling in for actual reasoned, evidence based arguments!

Let's do all science funding on the basis of personal stories! :rofl

You all pushing to end Abstinence education... you have very little faith in people, I believe we CAN do better, but not by giving up. You all have given up.

No, what we have done is look at the evidence, the data, the facts. You are clinging to personal beliefs that do not hold true in the larger society. Policies should be made off of evidence. Not our personal feelings.

And how do you justify programs that deliberately lie to kids? How can you expect kids to make proper, good choices when they are working off a model that is fraudulent?

And if you really want to push abstinence, you should take a look at how the Dutch do it. It's on the cover comprehensive, but it's subtle push for mature use of abstinence only.
 
What a great idea Abstinence Only is. Lets censor reliable and up to date information and replace it with dogmatic religious undertones and chastity rings and have the student seek out information regarding sexual activities FROM THIER PEERS!!! Flordia is already seeing the after math of AO with dozens of teen pregnancies across the district, and a majority of the students believe bogus urban myth birth control methods like drinking mountain dew before sex prevents pregnancy, and having the girl on top prevents pregnancy.
 
burden of proof?

Sex ed reduces unwanted pregnancies :

Report Says Sex Ed Can Reduce Pregnancy, Jury Out on Ab-Only

A new report analyzing the impact evaluations of more than 100 teenage pregnancy prevention programs across the country that were judged to have employed rigorous research methods concludes that eight individual programs, and three different program models, demonstrated "high evidence of success"; the most effective individual program was able to affect teen sexual and contraceptive behavior for up to three years. Authored by Douglas Kirby and released May 30 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Emerging Answers examines a wide range of interventions to reduce teen pregnancy and childbearing, including some that do not directly address sex.

Comprehensive Sex Education is More Effective at Stopping the Spread of HIV Infection

It is estimated that more than half of all new HIV infections occur before the age of 25 and most are acquired through unprotected sexual intercourse. According to the experts on AIDS, many of these new infections occur because young people don’t have the knowledge or skills to protect themselves. To address this important health issue, the American Psychological Association (APA) is recommending that comprehensive and empirically supported sex education and HIV prevention programs become widely available to teach youth how to abstain from risky sexual behaviors and learn how they can protect themselves against HIV and other sexually
transmitted diseases.

STD higher among minorities :

Facts About STD You Need to Know

Although STDs are widespread across racial and ethnic groups, the rates tend to be higher among African Americans than white Americans.

Blacks remain the group most heavily affected by gonorrhea. In 2004, the gonorrhea rate among blacks was 19 times the rate among whites.

The rate of chlamydia among black women was nearly eight times the rate among white women. The rate among black men was more than 11 times that of white men.

Seriously. That you can't put this all together with the help of Google does not surprise me.

How is it cost effective?

It costs tax payers less to teach kids about sex then it does to feed the unwanted kids those kids might have.

Oh, and, why does it cost the government anything, other than going to public school.

Sex education PROGRAMS. Not classes.
 
Last edited:
Hey OC, WHEN practiced, it works 100% of the time.

Enabling adults that push "have sex, use a condom"... you're the reason it fails.

Oh yes Im at fault because me and my current girlfriend of two years have sex on a regular basis and decide to use protection both myself and her.


I don't buy the "they'll do it anyway" failed line of thinking. My wife now? Was 24 when we met, and a virgin.

Abstinence requires PERSONAL INTEGRITY. Any dog can hump, a mature human knows how to control themselves.

You all pushing to end Abstinence education... you have very little faith in people, I believe we CAN do better, but not by giving up. You all have given up.

Heres a bright idea:

Cut all sex education funding period and let PARENTS do some damm parenting.
 
Oh yes Im at fault because me and my current girlfriend of two years have sex on a regular basis and decide to use protection both myself and her.

That's your decision, and you are how old?



Heres a bright idea:

Cut all sex education funding period and let PARENTS do some damm parenting.

I'd support that. I'm very much against parents giving the Government control
 
It is in the interest of the federal government to push for sex education.

It is? When was the Constitution amended to allow federal spending on education?

In the long run it A) reduces the number of people who end up needing medical treatment for STDs and can't afford it(usually minorities)

When was the Constitution amended to authorize the federal government to pay for health care?

and B) unwanted pregnancies.

The pregnancy must have been wanted, they had sex, didn't they? Weren't they aware of the consequences of the horizontal bop? If she didn't want to get pregnant, why did she have unprotected sex? If he didn't want her knocked up, what was he doing in her?

This is not a states issue.

Actually, you should read the Tenth Amendment someday. A state's issue is exactly what education is.

It costs the government more to take care of an unwanted kid that it does to teach kids not to have sex without protection.

This conclusion is not related to your prior sentence. Also, who said the government (that means taxpayers who know how to not get knocked up) has to finance unwanted kids? Unwanted kids almost always have parents kicking around, and grand-parents that can be dunned for the costs, too. I've no idea why you people think strangers should bear the burden.
 
If you must know Im 24

Once you're 18 I don't give a damn what you do. You're old enough to make the decision and SHOULD be smart enough to decide, and to actually PRACTICE safe sex.


15 year old males are notoriously bad about condom use.
 
Back
Top Bottom