I will soon be heading to Florida to visit (((Wife)))’s family.  We do it this time of year as (((Wife))) and (((kids))) have a winter break this time of year to recognize “Abstinence Only Sex Education Doesn’t Work” Day.  Otherwise known as Christmas (and Saturnalia, Yule, Winter Solstice, and myriad others).  (This year, I do plan to actually count the crosses I see from I-81 in the Shenandoah and Cumberland Valleys.)

In honour of said “Abstinence Only Sex Education Doesn’t Work Day”, I give you this image (from Friendly Atheist (who’s not sure where it actually came from originally, so if anyone knows, let him know)):

Do you suppose that if Mary had actually been able to attend comprehensive sex education (otherwise known as abstinence plus actual facts), we could have avoided the last 2,000 years of nonsense?  Or would the Holy Spirit have gone all macho, insisting he didn’t want to wear a fucking raincoat?

*  Intentional mispelling from the Malay ‘amok’ (mad with rage) because yes, I am mocking many different aspects of organized religion within one short and shallow post.

Yep. It’s true. Fat Americans are dumb dumb dumb about how to make babies and how to use condoms. They know how to put their pee-pees in warm places and they’re pretty sure the rah-rah juice makes babies, but they’re also pretty sure that girl-folk don’t get pregnant until it’s their time.

Why am I writing like a child? Because Americans are children. And now, because so many school systems don’t seem to understand that children do things with their penises and vaginas — like have sex — regardless of whether they’ve been taught how to use a condom in school or been told to wait for God to give them the thumbs-up, we have a shocking amount of sexual fucktardedness running rampant in Fat America. And that’s just what we need: Teen dumb Fat Americans having dumb Fat American babies.

Yeah, yeah. Abstinence-only works. In La La Land. Check out this so-unbelievable-it-has-to-be-true article from CNN:

Most sexually active unmarried young adults believe pregnancy should be planned, but about half do not use contraception regularly, according to a study published Tuesday.

The survey of 1,800 people age 18 to 29 was conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

So here’s the abstinence-only zinger I referenced above:

The discrepancy between both wanting to plan pregnancy and having unprotected sex may have something to do with a focus in recent years on abstinence-only education, said Laura Lindberg, senior research associate at the nonprofit Guttmacher Institute.

“Abstinence-only curriculums have gone explicitly out of their way to teach misconceptions about contraception,” she said. “This generation of 20-somethings have missed many opportunities to get medically accurate and correct information.”

And of course there’s a rebuttal from a friend of Jesus:

But for abstinence education advocates, the problems stem from not enough focus on refraining from sex until marriage.

“I don’t think we’ll be able to overcome this problem unless we restore the social norm of not having sex and not getting pregnant before marriage,” said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. “Even when people are informed, they just don’t choose to consistently practice contraception.”

Social norm? Who is this guy kidding? When has there ever been in history a “social norm” for not busting a nut whenever? Doesn’t this guy know that there was the Marquis de Sade, and John Donne’s “The Flea,” and D.H. Lawrence? Maybe one of the founders of this Jesus-loving nation, born-out-of-wedlock Alexander Hamilton, could school Peter Sprigg, who in addition to being a senior fellow at FRC is also president of the Faerie Land of Make Believe.

Let’s not bullshit each other. Should dumb Fat American kids have sex? No. Are they going to? Yes. And, hey, if they protect themselves properly, who really cares? Give them the knowledge, man! If Levi Johnston knew how to use a condom there wouldn’t be another white trash baby with a stupid first name in this country.

What’s with the fear of sex, Fat Christian America? The idea that waiting for marriage until having sex is so profoundly childish — read: Christian — that it must have been formed by people who are afraid of their own bodies. That’s really the only explanation. Chalk it up to Jesus or God’s will, but that’s what, in Fat America, religion is: Fear disguised as a higher power.

Getting back to the article. Here’s some insane shit:

The numbers may reflect that while most people have heard of the pill and condoms, they have never been taught how to use the pill or where to get it, or how to put on a condom, said Dr. Yolanda Wimberly, assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at the Morehouse School of Medicine and an adolescent medicine specialist with Grady Health Systems in Atlanta, Georgia.

Myths about pregnancy and sexual activity continue to permeate circles of young people. For instance, 28 percent of men incorrectly believe they will get extra protection from wearing two condoms at once, a practice that actually leads to condom breakage. At the same time, 18 percent of men wrongly believe that having sex standing up reduces the chance that they will get a female partner pregnant.

The profound ignorance in Fat America of how sex works is on full display in this piece. Read the complete piece here.

And while we’re at it, here’s a look at another enemy of reason out there: Focus on the Family. Here’s some information from their website under the heading “We’re Retarded and spreading misinformation” “Abstinence.”

Looking at the history of teen birth rates, it can appear that rates have lowered significantly and that there’s less reason to educate our youth about sexuality.

Yikes.

With research discovering that the emotional effects of pre-marital sex can cause long-term consequences – one of these effects being the difficulty of emotionally bonding with one person in marriage after having had multiple sexual partners – there is considerable need for sexuality education.

And the research is available in this article, right? Or on their website? Of course not. Many references to the research exist, but not the research itself (while I don’t doubt it exists, I wonder if it’s comprehensive or even analyzed by people who can read).

But here’s my favorite part, a side-by-side comparison of Comprehensive Sex Ed. and Abstinence-Only Ed. It’s truly fascinating. A few choice picks from the Abstinence side:

“Children can achieve their goals and dreams without the distraction of consequences from sexual activity.”

Don’t most children of a certain age dream about sex and have a goal of getting laid? Or did I misinterpret the meaning of Porky’s?

“Pornography is dangerous to the individual and society.”

Are we still spreading that one? And from the Comprehensive side:

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and questioning life-styles are embraced.

What’s the problem here?

All forms of sexual activity are accepted.

I’m not sure bestiality is high on the acceptance scale, since we’re talking “all forms.” The entire comparison is below.

That’s right! Advocates of comprehensive sex education think that “Parents are not necessary in the sex education process.” What a bold-faced, gut-churning falsehood! Know what else is false? The idea that abstinence-only education works.

The radical Christian right (the folks who assassinate doctors, teach children lies about their bodies, try to force their special version of unreality into American public school classrooms and, basically, are trying to create an American Christian version of Iran) have a thing about sex.  Specifically, they are paranoid about sex.  They are afraid that somewhere, a woman might be enjoying the act.

Christian children, the children of radical Christians, are taught that sex is bad.  Physical contact is bad.  Physical pleasure is bad.   Being anything other than exactly what your parents say your preacher says the Bible says God says you should be is bad.  And touching yourself (or others) is bad.  Being human, in other words, is bad.

So what about hugs?  Are hugs okay?  Well, it depends on two things:  first, can you tolerate Christian Gangsta Rap?  Second, do you have a sense of humour?

This is making the rounds clogging up the intertube thingies:

Yes, God wants us to be compassionate and kind and tender with each other. Not only that, but he wants us to love our enemies and serve our neighbors. As long as there is no body on body action. I’m talking of course about a “full frontal hug,” one of those sinful abominations where you just wrap your arms around a friend and embrace them. That’s why Christians the world over have pioneered the “side hug.” In the side hug there’s no risk of two crotches touching. Instead of face to face, you go side to side, putting your arm around the person and your hip against their’s. Still having a hard time mastering it? Pretend you’re taking a photo and you’re both looking at the camera together. The side hug, or A frame as it is also called, is safe for the whole family, friendly and above all holy. I don’t know the exact scripture reference but try the book of Psalms. (from SCL (Stuff Christians Like))

The video is new (found via The Huffington Post), but the humourous idea of the Christian Side Hug appears to be about two years old.  I can see this catching on among Christian young’uns.  Well, not the young’uns.  More likely the narrow-minded authoritarians masquerading as right-wing Christian parents.  I guess the kids can do the side hug before or after (not both, that would be too much) some sweaty saddlebacking.

I confess that I find the pseudo-fallacious Christian side hug to be much less offensive than the Christian gangsta rap video.  Of course, that’s just me.

~~By  InsightAnalytical-GRL

In my previous post, Surprise, Surprise: Obama Advisor (Female) Thinks Sharia Law is “Misunderstood”, I made this caustic comment:

What’s up with this willingness by “liberal” women to sell out women?  We saw it with Ms. Magazine and all many female Democrats during the primaries.  Supposedly NOW chose a woman to head the organization who is ready for a fight, but I haven’t heard a peep out of her, have you?

I still feel the same way about Ms. Magazine and other so-called “progressive/liberal” women’s publications and Obama supporters who have managed to excuse the misogynistic vein which runs through the Obama crew.

However, I must update some of what’s going on with NOW and offer a bit of an apology to Terry O’Neill of NOW.  Today I saw in the a story in the Albuquerque Journal that piqued my interest in revisiting NOW.

This story was an AP piece, which means I can’t quote it nor link to it under penalty of legal action.

The gist of the story is that NOW’s new President , Terry O’Neill (elected in June 2009), has been working on trying to assess what health care “reform” will mean to women. (More on this further down)

But, the old story of creepy men has become a top concern due to the Roman Polanski arrest and David Letterman’s revelations about his dalliances with women employees.  O’Neill has been quick to respond to those who try to makes excuses for these louses. See below for links to O’Neill’s statements on both of these clods.

Amazingly the AP article reports that while O’Neill has recieved a surge of emails to NOW about the latest Letterman revelations, many of them criticize HER, calling her a “man-hater.”

Sigh.

O’Neill has been on Letterman’s case since June, when he spewed this, as described in the Atlantic:

Jun 12 2009, 9:50 am by Chris Good

NOW Condemns Letterman

After this week’s flap between Sarah Palin and David Letterman, which started when Letterman cracked a joke about Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” and another about her daughter getting “knocked up” by New York Yankee Alex Rodriguez, the National Organization for Women has condemned Letterman’s jokes and is asking its supporters to write to CBS and voice criticism.

Letterman was added to NOW’s Media Hall of Shame after this incident (see page 5). (You might be interested to see the latest additions to the list…Glenn Beck is currently the most recent addition, but lo and behold, there’s a dig at the Huffington Post for their games with women’s chests right underneath…)

On the subject of these crappy “reform” plans, I heard a two-second blurb on the radio “news” a few weeks ago about the restoration of funding for “abstinence only” education, which has been called a complete failure.  The Senate Finance Committee actually restored funding to this crap at the behest of Sen. Orrin Hatch with the help of two Democrats, Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) joining with all the Republicans on the Committee. JERKS!!

Read more about it at NOW’s call to action so that this garbage will be out of the final bill when reaches the Senate floor: Abstinence-Only Education Shouldn’t Make the Cut and also check out the Center for Public Integrity on who’s behind Sen. Hatch’s move for restoration and the kinds of money wasted on the lie-laden program.

Another Action Alert includes a broader discussion of  the “reform” plans and their impact on women: Bad Health Care Bill Penalizes Women: More Amendments Limiting Reproductive Health Care and Excessive Premium Rates for Older Women .

NOW is also supporting a single-payer system.

After the debacle of the 2009 Democratic primaries and NOW’s support of Obama, it’s good to see that Terry O’Neill seems to be more on target with a message that really is pro-women. This older “war horse” is doing exactly what she said she would do.

Of course, you may not see or hear much of her unless you look at the paper for a story buried under a piece about bears favoring minivans when they go out steal food at the national parks (yes, on page D4 of the Albuquerque Journal).

And for sure, you won’t see Terry O’Neill on TEE VEE very often, either.  After all, she’s OLD and her chest probably not up to snuff…

***

O’Neill Statements:

The Latest Letterman Controversy Raises Workplace Issues for Women (October 6, 2009)

NOW President Terry O’Neill Calls Polanski Furor “Dangerous Talk” That Could Set Back Women’s Rights/”Celebrity Culture Gone Haywire” Blurs Case, O’Neill Says (October 2, 2009)

I live in Tower District which also happens to be home the a relatively large but pleasant homeless population, a pack of wild dogs that chases anything with wheels and the local Planned Parenthood. Every so often I’ll pass by that conspicuously nondescript building and outside will be protesters, inevitably with children, holding signs saying “Abortion Kills” or “A heart starts beating X number of days after conception” or “Pray to end abortion”.

Now abortion does kill and a baby’s heart does start beating at some point and you can pray to end abortion to your hearts content… but none of that actually does anything to solve the problem. I can think of lots of fun phrases that would fit on cardboard signs that would actually reduce abortions however:

END ABSTINENCE-ONLY SEX EDUCATION

IMPROVE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN AND MINORITIES

END RAPE CULTURE

Yet somehow I doubt the other protesters would welcome me with open arms if I showed up holding signs with ideas to actually fix the issue…

To begin with I will readily admit that to me abstinence only education is an oxymoron. Teens have sex outside of marriage, there is ample proof of this and there really is very little that parents can do about this. Yes it is a good idea to teach teens that waiting until you are ready but expecting them to listen to you? That is another story.

I live in Texas where our abstinence ed program is obviously not working. We have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country (which happens to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the first world) and we have the highest rate of teens having more than ONE baby. Thankfully it seems like some places in the state are doing away with AO Sex Ed and moving to a more realistic approach to the topic.

The Washington Post had an article about how those virgin promise rings do not work and really it was pretty much common sense that they didnt, there did not need to be an article or study done on it. As a women who grew up religious with AO Ed. I can tell you that it doesnt work. Many of my friends and my friend’s siblings did end up pregnant before marriage and I firmly believe that many of them could have been avoided if we just knew how the hell to NOT get pregnant. Yet in our religion sex is evil unless it is done under the sanction of the church so we like to pretend that it does not happen. This is how I know that right now we have a 14 year old pregnant at my old church, with the dad being another 14 year old. Sad indeed. I will actually admit that I was having sex and did not know how babies came out of a woman. My ignorance in the topic was pretty bad and it was not until I got on the internet that I found out the truth about the birds and the bees. I was well into high school at that point.

Science agrees with me.  The APA says that Comprehensive Sex Ed is better at helping stop the spread of diseases like HIV.

The research on adolescents’ sexual behavior shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs that discuss the appropriate use of condoms do not accelerate sexual experiences. On the contrary, evidence suggests that such programs actually increase the number of adolescents who abstain from sex and also delay the onset of first sexual intercourse.

Knowledge is power.

With Kate we are taking a very open route. She knows how babies come out, she has seen the videos and was there when I was in labor with her brother. She know that daddies put babies inside of mommies and is not ashamed of asking if she has questions. I would like to keep it that way. My hopes are that my children do not grow up with the ignorance that I did and have to find out much later than they should have how to protect themselves. My hopes are that my kids can ask me anything and are comfortable with their bodies and with themselves.

We have started discussing with Kate about things that you do in private and how those are important to keep in your own room. She knows that nobody should touch right now unless it is a doctor or a parent. She is fully aware of the fact that her brother and her are different and has asked why that is so. We have explained in words that are appropriate for her age and that are honest about the differences and hope that as she grows older she will not be ashamed to ask more if we are not already giving her the education that she needs.

Religion is what many AO Ed. programs are based on and I believe that since religion should have no place in schools we should not have to have our tax dollars pay for these useless programs. Unfortunately, we are paying for them.

I am against abstinence only education because it is insulting to the children involved. It is not realistic. It is useless. It is also outright dangerous, because it allows us to put our children at greater risk for diseases and unwanted pregnancies. I firmly believe that it also makes it so that our children are more vulnerable to sexual predators.  While there is no full proof defense against abuse, education can be a great tool for our children. Our children depend on us to help them navigate through the world. I am against abstinence only education at the end of the day for no other reason than because sex is not shameful and our children should be taught how to enjoy it and how to be safe while doing so. Sex is part of human nature and part of life. Our society needs to get over the idea that sex is dirty and our children should be shielded from it, after all… how did they get here?

by smteixeirapoit

In The Washington Post, Jaclyn Friedman wrote an article entitled “He Trashes the Ladies. They Love Him For It.” In this article, Friedman provides a feminist critique of females that endorse Tucker Max.

In 2002, Tucker Max started a website detailing his “life as a self-involved, drunken womanizer”. Recently, his New York Times best-selling book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell turned into a movie. In this movie, he argues that “all women are whores” and that “fat girls aren’t real people”. Given these statements, Friedman questions: Why are some females fans of Tucker Max?

Currently, Tucker Max is promoting his new movie on college campuses. At film screenings, his audience tends to be about half female. Tucker Max uses this piece of information to combat his critics: “I am still waiting for a protester to answer the question: ‘If Tucker hates women, why does he have so many female fans? Why is half of each screening women?’”

Friedman offers several possible answers to this question. She argues that the current generation of college-aged females received abstinence-only education and was taught to “just say no”. Although these females understand that “no means no”, they lack direction on what to expect when they say “yes”.

Additionally, Friedman explains that up to ninety percent of eight- to sixteen-year-olds have viewed pornography online. Because of this, many females reject virginity and think that their only alternative is acting like a porn star.

Although Tucker Max’s female fans have identified sexual purity as a setup and have recognized power in claiming their sexual identities, they do not know how to assert their power while demanding respect from males. Tucker Max’s defenders employ rhetoric of female empowerment, but avoid discussing an important goal of feminism: to provide females realistic alternatives between “virgin” and “whore”.

On college campuses, sexual assault has reached crisis levels. Conservative estimates suggest that 150,000 females will be sexually assaulted on college campuses in the United States this academic year. Given this crisis, Friedman problematizes college campuses “allowing an ‘entertainer’ promoting the idea that female sexual consent is the ultimate prize in a drunken game to be won by any means necessary — no matter how much the students clamor for it”.

Read More

“Feminism” By Michele Barrett

“Feminist and Gender Media Studies: A Critical Overview” By Kaitlynn Mendes and Cynthia Carter

It surprises me (why, I don’t know, since it has happened often enough) when an anecdotal experience from my (rather boring) youth serves to perfectly illustrate something happening in the world today.  For instance, take this story of  narrow-minded authoritarian zealotry:

When I was in eighth grade (middle school in Maryland), there was a nice, quiet, and very, very religious girl a year younger than I.  I played little league (not capitalized because we weren’t part of Little League) baseball with her brother, so we knew each other.  Tangentially, but we did know each other. 

Her family attended a church over in West Virginia.  They billed themselves as a Christian bible church.  They were biblical literalists — very word in the King James version of the Bible was the absolute, literal and unchanged word of god. 

Of course, her church firmly believed that teachers in public schools should lead children (of whatever religion (or no religion)) in prayer.  They thought that Ronald Reagan was semi-divine and that Jimmy Carter was the anti-Christ.  They also believed that sex-education was for the parents, not the school.  After all, the school might teach that barrier-protection methods are, when done right and with redundancy, rather effective (which our sex-ed class did teach).  (Odd that they had no problem with praying to an imaginary sky-daddy (which not every one believed in), but had conniptions over the idea of some forms of education (human biology).)

This young lady became enamoured of an older man.  He was in tenth grade but already had his driver’s license (I think he failed a year (which is not necessarily a bad thing — I repeated my sophomore year of high school).  Her parents decided that, since he’s a good Christian, and a member of their church, this was a good thing.

I’m sure you know what happened next.  From what I heard, they were in the back seat of his car (a late ’70s Monte Carlo) and decided to ‘express their love for each other.’  Since she was going to be a virgin ’til marriage, and her boyfriend (from what I heard) convinced her that once he had an erection he had to use it or suffer, when that moment came, they were not prepared (and he was a boy scout, too). 

Five months later, she went to visit a relative.  Five months after that, she was back at home and her mother had presented the family with a little baby boy.  Cute kid.  Black hair.  Mom had red hair and dad was a blonde.   Not that anyone was fooled, of course.  We all knew what had happened.

So since her parents did not believe in contraception, and since she was not allowed to participate in a rather limited sex education class, she gave birth just after her 14th birthday. 

A study by a researcher at Drexel and Pitt’s medical school looked at the correlation between religiosity and teen pregnancy.  Religiosity was measured by biblical literalism.  Allowances were made for abortions and other factors.  And, big surprise, the more religious the state, the more teens giving birth.

This study (and all quotes are from MSMBC)

The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn’t successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise.

Researcher Strayhorn said,

“We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.”

As PZ Myers writes, “Fancy that. The adolescent sex drive is a power greater than Jesus.”

John Santelli of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University calls the study “well-done,” adding that the results are not surprising.

“The index of religiosity is tapping into more fundamentalist religious belief,” Santelli said. “I’m sure there are parts of New England that have very low teen birth rates, which have pretty high religious participation, but they’re probably less conservative, less fundamentalist type of congregations.”

So religiosity is not the determining factor.  There are plenty of more liberal Christians who actually tell their children the truth about sex and birth control.  It appears to be the fundamentalist and evangelical chunk which cant quite get the kids to understand the  connection between sex and babies, and the role of contraception.

So, once again, we have yet another study linking fundamentalist literalist Christian education practices with either higher teen birth rates or sexually transmitted disease rates.  I’m not sure which is more depressing:  the fact that I find it important to write about this subject so often, or the fact that narrow-minded authoritarian zealotry has replaced parenting in so many American families.

The girl who I knew (I lost track of her in high school) is now 42.  Her son is now about 28.  I wonder if she has figured out the relationship between fucking and pregnancy?  And I wonder if she passed that on to her children?

I think the giant winged porcupines are more likely.  No matter the orifice out of which it appears.

There was a time, long ago, last century, to be exact, that the Republican Party, the GOP, was a party of ideas.  The ideas were bullshit, but they had ideas.  Cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on everyone else, and the economy will improve.  Cut taxes and the tax revenue will increase.  Punish people for being poor and the poor will bootstrap themselves right up.  Deregulate industry and industry will  regulate itself.  These policies have given us huge deficits, a wider gap between rich and the rest of us, businesses bankrupting themselves for lack of regulation, and a government which does not have the money to provide the basic services Americans expect.  This is all the direct result of the GOP’s ideas.

Now, the GOP has become the party of no.  No ideas.  Just say no to everything.  Loudly. 

The GOP refuses, under any circumstances, to consider increasing taxes even up to the levels of the 1980s (you remember Reagan, right?).  Two wars, costing a couple of trillion dollars were started under Bush and, when payment came due, the GOP just said no.

The GOP refuses, under any circumstances, to consider comprehensive sex education as valid.  They approach sex the same way they approach drugs:  just say no.  And, no surprise, abstinence only sex education works just as well as Nancy Reagan’s ‘Just Say No.’

The GOP refuses, under any circumstances, to measure results of any of the party’s pet projects.  Whether it is AOSE, wars, tax cuts, deregulation, when if comes to metrics, the GOP just says no.  They say yes to faith, though.

The GOP refuses, under any circumstances, to accept that human rights apply to all humans.  The religiously-inspired demonization of the gay rights movement, blocking the right of adults to get married, and willingly jettisoning fifty years of international support of human rights to embrace torture (illegal under US and international law), the GOP just says no to human rights.

The GOP refuses, under any circumstances, to even admit that providing health insurance for all Americans would be a good thing.  Though it would reduce emergency room visits (saving money), reduce sick days for businesses (saving money), and, by insuring healthy young Americans, and spreading the risk, reduce the cost of insurance (saving money), the GOP just says no.

The GOP refuses, under any circumstances, to compromise on any legislation.  They bargained the stimulus package down until, though effective, we have merely slowed the descent and, when asked to vote for their ‘compromise’ they just said no.

The GOP refuse, under any circumstances, to allow the teaching of science in America’s classrooms.  It has become a virtual litmus test for a GOP candidate that, in order to win a primary, he (or she) must first disavow understanding or accepting the theory of evolution.

Now, the GOP refuses, under any circumstances, to allow the democratically elected President of the United States of America, Barrak Obama, to speak to school children about the importance of staying in school, working hard and getting a good education.  Read that again.  The Party of No has now decided, because they don’t like Obama (and fully half of Republicans don’t even think he is a legal President), to ask parents to hold their children out of school because they may hear something with which mom and dad disagree.  The GOP has now decided to just say no to education.

The party of no, the Grand Old Pary, the Republican Party, has, officially, jumped the shark.  Fonzie would be so proud.

The problems with abstinence-only education in the United States are well documented.  For example, see Emily’s post on her first-person experiences in Texas and the cutting of millions of dollars by the U.S. Congress from the misguided Bush administration program.  Well, the United States is not the only country that has taken steps to impose strict abstinence-only education.

The Council of Europe (CoE) is a parallel organization to the European Union.  It was established in 1949 and currently has 47 member states, compared to the 27 of the EU.  Some of its major goals are:

protection of human rights and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. It also promotes Europe’s cultural identity and addresses problems facing European society such as racism and xenophobia. It also issues recommendations and guidelines on themes such as health, education, culture and sport. Unlike EU legislation, its treaties are not directly binding in national law, unless ratified by the normal parliamentary procedures of the member state concerned.

All countries that are members of the CoE must comply with the European Social Charter’s provisions on education and health, one of which requires CoE members to provide children with mandatory “sexual education,” but does not clearly define how this should be achieved.

Croatia implemented an abstinence-only sex education program in many of its schools.  The curriculum teaches children that abstinence is the only guaranteed means of preventing sexually-transmitted diseases and pregnancy.  Feminist groups filed a suit against the Croatian government in 2007, alleging that the country’s sex education curriculum violates the CoE charter by failing to offer “comprehensive or adequate sexual and reproductive health education for children and young people.”  The groups alleged that “Key topics such as the use of effective contraception are often deliberately excluded and in some respects the information is inaccurate and replete with bias and discrimination” and that the curriculum “focuses on the negative aspects of contraception to the exclusion of any information about its medically proven benefits and advantages.”

Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, the European Committee for Social Rights has just ruled on the suits in favor of the Croatian government.  Thus, abstinence-only education is legal in Croatian schools and, presumably, the ruling allows any other CoE member to have its own such program.  (However, a pro-abstinence-only web site has said that the Croatian government “has since discontinued offering sex education curriculum itself,” while still allowing schools to use the program.)

For an interesting view of the consequences of Croatia’s abstinence-only education program, see a paper by Joan Budesa of UC Santa Barbara, presented under the auspices of the UCLA Center for the Study of Women.  Budesa says that:

the interjection of a church-backed sex education policy into the public sphere fuels the imagery of heterosexual nationalism among Croatian citizens. A movement that produces and reinforces notions of ethnoheterosexualism.  I use the term “ethno-heterosexual” to emphasize the particularities of the relationship between heterosexuality and Croatian nationalism. Borrowing from Joane Nagel’s concept of ethnosexuality, in which she claims that “ethnic boundaries are also sexual boundaries,” I extend the concept to foreground how the interplay between ethnicity and religion galvanize to produce a hyper-heterosexualized Croatian national body. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s theory of discourse, I interrogate how state and church apparatus channel power through ethnically charged heterosexual discourses to discipline citizen’s bodies. This perspective carves out a lens through which we can see how church-backed values map onto the social body, grounding ethno-heterosexuality as a form of social control that shores up Croatia’s institutional power.

The National HIV Prevention Inventory provides the first, comprehensive inventory of HIV prevention efforts at the state and local levels in the United States.  Based on a survey of 65 health departments, including all state and territorial jurisdictions and six U.S. cities, the Inventory is intended to offer a baseline picture of how HIV prevention is delivered across the country in an effort to provide policymakers, public health officials, community organizations, and others with a more in depth understanding of HIV prevention and the role played by health departments in its delivery.

Key Findings Include:

• Funding for HIV Prevention Has Been Relatively Flat in Recent Years; While Funding from CDC Represents Just Over Half the Nation’s Prevention Budget, States Provide Key Share
• Jurisdictions with Greater Numbers of People Living with HIV/AIDS Have the Largest Prevention Budgets, but do not Rank at the Top in Funding Per Person with HIV/AIDS
• An Array of HIV Prevention Services is Provided Across the Country, Including Health Education and Risk Reduction Activities, Partner Services, and HIV Testing
• Health Departments Are Increasingly Moving to Routine Population-Based HIV Screening, While Continuing More
  Targeted Efforts to Reach Those at Higher Risk
• Health Departments Face Numerous Challenges, Primarily Due to Funding Shortages, Which Affect Their
  Prevention Capacity and Have Resulted in Some Scaling Back

Health education that consists of only an abstinence-only message has disturbing consequences. By depriving teenagers of access to information about their health and bodies in schools, it makes them vulnerable to STD/s and unwanted early pregnancies. The problems of censoring sexual health education are reflected in a recent report released by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The report notes that positive trends in American teenagers’ sexual and reproductive health—declines in teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases—during the 1990s through 2005 have reversed in recent years. Some of the more alarming findings:

• Birth rates among adolescents had been decreasing annually from 1991 to 2005, but increased from 2005 to 2007, from 40 to 42.5 live births per 1,000 females.

• The annual rate of AIDS diagnoses reported among males, ages 15 to 19 has nearly doubled in the past ten years, from 1.3 cases per 100,000 in 1997 to 2.5 cases in 2006.

• Rates of occurrence for syphilis had been in decline for over 20 years. Yet, between 2004 to 2006 these rates for syphilis increased from 1.5 cases per 100,000 females in 2004 to 2.2 cases per 100,000 in 2006.

It’s clear, then, that the need for teenagers to know and understand their sexual health is at an all-time high right now.

So, what is the current state of sexual health education? With a new administration, things might be looking up. President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget greatly reduced federal funding for abstinence-only programs, replacing it with money for teen-pregnancy prevention programs which include discussions on birth control. Programs receiving the funding will have to pass rigorous evaluation standards to prove they have been effective in the past. Some money will also be available to develop and test new strategies for preventing teen pregnancy. Abstinence-only programs can apply for these funds, but will have to compete with other initiatives and prove their success.

We can only hope that public school students might finally have access to the comprehensive information they need about their health and bodies. As the CDC report indicates, there is too much at stake otherwise.

As the tweet I saw about this item said, YAY! YAY! YAY!:

The U.S. House, taking aim at one of former President George W. Bush’s signature initiatives, voted to slash funding for abstinence-only sex education programs.

The chamber voted 264-153 to approve an annual health and education spending bill that would eliminate a $99 million initiative providing grants to public and private organizations that encourage teens to abstain from premarital sex.

FINALLY.   So-called “abstinence-only” sex “education” (and calling it “education” is a real stretch) is not only ridiculous and self-defeating, but to the surprise of absolutely nobody with a functioning brain stem, has been proven completely ineffective.  During the benighted days of the Bush administration, when “ignorance-only” sex ed was pushed at the behest of the religious right, rates of teen pregnancy and STDs soared, especially in those states that emphasized abstinence over real sex education.  Proving once again that ignorance is anything but bliss.

No doubt the fundies will be in a demented lather about their pet project being shitcanned by the sinner-and-fornicator-controlled congress, but that’s tough.  Elections have consequences, and one of them is the long-overdue demise of garbage initiatives like “abstinence-only” sex “education”.  Besides, I totally agree with Jessica at Feministing:

But de-funding these programs is not enough. We have to undo the damage that’s been done to young people and support real solutions: If we want to lower the teen pregnancy rate, we need to demand that contraception be easily accessible and affordable to young people.

I can already hear the shrieks of unhinged outrage…

When I was 17 and in my senior year, my Texas high school held a mandatory assembly featuring some speaker who was an Abstinence Life Coach. The man was 35, a proud virgin, and pretty good at fear-mongering. He showed graphic STD slideshows, made a lot of awkward jokes, and waxed poetic about ‘true love.’ He also told a lot of tales about his ‘friends’ who died after having sex, and made us write “oaths” to remain virgins, which he then collected. He wanted everyone to remain “pure” until marriage. I can remember sitting in between two of my friends who were gay, and one of them wrote the following across his oath:  ”I can’t get married, you prick.”

Its true, he couldn’t– and still can’t in most states. And yes, the exclusion of non-heteronormative relationships clearly reflected privilege and ignorance, although let’s be real–  if an honest discussion about sex wasn’t going to happen, an honest discussion about different sexualities was definitely out of the question.

The entire production may have been ridiculous, but it was pretty much the extent of my sex education. I never put a condom on a banana, talked about The Pill, or even watched that infamous Miracle of Life movie. Luckily for everyone in my town, we were affluent, educated in other ways, and had no shortage of access to information about sex if we needed it. I knew that the same could not necessarily be said for other towns, other schools, or other groups of kids, trying to navigate being teenagers in a world of adults who are too nervous to be honest with them. Suffice it to say that I have a personal grudge against abstinence-only education.

Which brings me to why I’m in a good mood right now. The House has just voted to cut out $99 Million of investment in abstinence-only education.

Abstinence-only education is a dangerous campaign of misinformation that was born out of fear, bashfulness, and religious teachings. None of these things deserves a place in schools, especially not over the health of kids. Abstinence-only education purposely avoids facts about a natural human instinct, facts that can save lives or futures. How many studies do we have to go through to be convinced that abstinence education does not work ?

The aptly nicknamed Foes of Fucking (FoF) (I though that PhillyChief coined that, but it may have been the Grumpy Lion) claim that their goal is to eliminate abortions.  The radical Christian and political right, of course, couch it in family terms:  what about the children?  We have to protect the children! 

BULLSHIT!

These groups, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Institute, Democrats for Life, and others, claim that they are anti-abortion, pro-life, pro-family, pro-child.  What they actually are is anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-choice, anti-education, anti-modern.  The only thing that they are for is power  Power over others and the power to punish any who are different. 

They claim, based upon their beliefs, beliefs based upon a narrow-minded and zealous reading of certain bronze-age myths, that abortion is a sin.  That abortion is destroying America.  That abortion should be illegal.

So why do I also refer to them as anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-choice, anti-education, anti-modernity?  Because they really do not care one iota about abortion.  They want control. They want to force all Americans  — believers, non-believers, Christians, Muslims, Jews, everyone – to follow the same religiously-based rules that they do not follow.  You see, if they were actually against abortion, they would support anything — comprehensive sex education and birth control included — which reduces the need for abortion.  Instead, when a member of Democrats For Life in America comes out in favour of reducing abortions through methods which have proven to be effective, they kick him out. 

Tim Ryan (D) of Ohio was, until recently a member of the national advisory board of the DFLA.  They booted him, though, because he voted for a bill which included:

Prevention: Almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and four-in-ten unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Policies in the bill that help prevent unintended pregnancy include:

Grants for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Comprehensive Education (encouraging teens to delay sexual activity and providing age appropriate, factually and medically accurate and complete contraceptive information for teens) 

Support for After-School Programs 

Teen Pregnancy Prevention Incentive Grants 

Grants to Encourage Creative Approaches to Teen Pregnancy Prevention 

A National Initiative to Enlist Parents in Preventing Teen Pregnancy

Grants to Prevent Unplanned Pregnancy Among Community College Students

Restoration of Medicaid Entitlement to Coverage of Family Planning Services

Expanded Coverage of Family Planning under Medicaid for Low-Income Women

Increased Support for the Nation’s Title X Family Planning Program

Grants for Home Visits by Trained Home Visitors for Low-Income Families (to include contraceptive counseling)

A Public Awareness Campaign Regarding Resources Available to New Parents

Support: One of the two most common reasons women report having an abortion is that they cannot afford a child. Policies in the bill that support pregnant women who wish to carry their pregnancies to term and assist new families include:

Expanded Medicaid and CHIP Coverage of Mothers and Children (including expanded postpartum coverage and increased CHIP income eligibility for children) 

Coverage of Maternity Care

Improved Access to Prenatal Ultrasounds

A Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention Program for Women

Increased Support for Pregnant and Parenting Students 

Grants for a National Information Campaign on Adoption

Expanded Adoption Tax Credit Assistance

Increased Support for the WIC Program (extending certification periods for children, promoting and supporting breastfeeding, and increasing WIC funding)

Expanded Nutritional Support for Low-Income Parents

Increased Funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program

Grants for Home Visits by Trained Home Visitors for Low-Income Families (to include contraceptive counseling)

Many of the programs listed above either reduce the number of abortions or make for healthier mothers and children.  That does not matter.  He is not against contraception, so he’s out.

“We’re working in Congress with groups that agree with preventative options while [the DFLA] is getting left behind,” Ryan said. “I can’t figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don’t be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem.”

–snip–

Ryan said he tried to convince officials with Democrats For Life of America, which he referred to Monday as a “fringe group,” that the use of contraception is needed as part of any plan to reduce unintended pregnancies but that failed.

Are they are fringe group?  When one considers that among women who have ever had intercourse, 98% have used contraception, I think that qualifies as a fringe position, don’t you? 

The anti-sex zealots want a return to a mythical time when there were no STDs (that time may never have existed), a mythical time when all babies were born in wedlock (that didn’t even happen in Puritan Massachusetts), a mythical time when there was no premarital sex (again, that never happened on a societal level).  They are pushing this anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-choice, anti-education, anti-modern extremist position for  power.  Political power within the GOP.  Power over other people.  Power over women.  Power over children.  Power to punish.  Raw naked power.  And if you are not 100% with them, you are against them.

By this time, most of you (at the very least, the six regular readers I have) should know that I am a naturalist.  Which means, of course, that I do not by into the Genesis version of the creation of the world, the universe, life, or the myriad species inhabiting our earth.  And I view evolution as an established fact (it is only called a theory because we do not yet (and probably will never) know all of the exact details regarding every event). 

One of the reasons that I found evolution rather boring in the science classes I took was a neglect of sex.  Oh, the instructors (those who bothered to teach evolution) were big into adaptive and non-adaptive mutations, the small benefit that a mutation can create.  What they never mentioned, though, was that the mutation, in order to propagate through a population, must be passed on.  And the only way to do that within sexual beings (the so-called higher animals (including mammals (including primates (including humans)))) is to breed.  If you don’t create offspring, whatever mutation, good or bad, within your genes is lost.  What good is a slightly better animal if the ladies ain’t interested? 

Many of the adaptations within animals do not improve survivability.  What they do, though, is make mating more likely.  Those bizarre head pieces on some species of hadrosaurs?  Sex.  The bigger neck frill of a ceratopsian?  Sex.  The feathers and dances of the birds-of-paradise?  Sex.  The big rack on a Wapiti?  Sex.  The soft eyes, the big tits, the soft round ass of a female human?  Sex.  The broad shoulders, muscular chest and taught buttocks of a male human?  Sex.  It’s all about sex.

Sex is a biological drive.  This drive is not dependent upon psychological or intellectual maturity.  The only thing needed is physical maturity (which, with better nutrition, better medical care, and (possibly) the hormones in our food, is getting younger every generation since about 1900).  Which is unfortunate.  It means that boys and girls are ready to do their biological duty to the species, sexual reproduction, long before they are ready psychologically or intellectually.  The body wants it before the brain is ready.

One sure fire way to reduce (not eliminate — remember we are fighting millions of years of evolution (and we are the descendents of the ones who fucked successfully)) teen pregnancy is through comprehensive sex education.  My memory of sex ed was, basically, “The best way to avoid unintended consequences is to not do it.  If you do, here are ways to reduce the chances of unintended consequences.  And here are the possible unintended consequences.”

Of course, over the last decade, a horrible lie called abstinence-only-sex-education (AOSE from here on out) has been rammed down the throats of the children in many states.  Despite study after study showing not just the ineffectiveness of AOSE, but the dangerof AOSE.  Here is yet one more study showing that ‘just say no to millions of years of successful fucking’ does not work (and this is from the Guardian in the UK (odd that the ‘liberal’ American media isn’t making hay with this report))  (with my emphasis):

Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush’s evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US’s major public health body.

In a report that will surprise few of Bush’s critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.

The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

. . . .

Although the CDC does not attribute a cause,  groups that support comprehensive sex education have seized on the report as evidence of the failure of religiously-driven policies that shy away from teaching about contraception in favour of emphasising avoiding sexual contact.

Planned Parenthood said the CDC report is “alarming” and confirms that teenagers need “medically accurate, age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education”.

This report is, to say the least, damning.  Two generations of progress reducing unwanted pregnancies and disease has  been severely damaged, possibly reversed, by a faith-based approach to sex.  I refer to it as faith-based because the evidence that it does not work, time and again, has been ignored by (as Philly puts it) the FoF (Foes of Fucking).

Of course, the proponents of religious faith-based wishful thinking disagree.  They claim that “. . . the new report shows that there is too little not too much emphasis on discouraging sex before marriage.”  That’s right, folks.  It doesn’t work, so we need more of it.

This doesn’t surprise me at all.  This is a natural linear progression.  If you abandon education, facts, and reality, and embrace the myths, wishful thinking, ideology and fantasy of god(s) and the GOP, bad things happen.  In this case, more sexually transmitted disease and more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. 

But, then again, if you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that Genesis is a factual and scientific account of the history of the earth, that  a woman created sin in the world and corrupted everything, and that a mythical bronze-age psychopath takes a personal interest in your life, then I suppose believing that ‘just say no’ will trump millions of years of successful sex is understandable.

Kristi Hamrick teaching her American Values

I wrote about this topic recently, but an update is in order after the Guardian published this today:

Teen pregnancy and disease rates rose sharply during Bush years, agency finds

Teenage pregnancies and syphilis have risen sharply among a generation of American school girls who were urged to avoid sex before marriage under George Bush’s evangelically-driven education policy, according to a new report by the US’s major public health body.

In a report that will surprise few of Bush’s critics on the issue, the Centres for Disease Control says years of falling rates of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease infections under previous administrations were reversed or stalled in the Bush years. According to the CDC, birth rates among teenagers aged 15 or older had been in decline since 1991 but are up sharply in more than half of American states since 2005. The study also revealed that the number of teenage females with syphilis has risen by nearly half after a significant decrease while a two-decade fall in the gonorrhea infection rate is being reversed. The number of Aids cases in adolescent boys has nearly doubled.

The CDC says that southern states, where there is often the greatest emphasis on abstinence and religion, tend to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.

And how did the radical Theocrats take the news that their totally awesome social experiment (i.e., adults will stop fucking prior to marriage if we tell them that Jesus has a special plan for them) is a colossal failure? The same way the supporters of the Iraq war did back in 2007: “ZOMG, we’re so close – Double Down!!!”

But supporters of abstinence-based education said that the new report shows that there is too little not too much emphasis on discouraging sex before marriage.

Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for American Values, which describes itself as a supporter of traditional marriage and “against liberal education and cultural forces”, said the abstinence message is overwhelmed by a culture obsessed with sex.

“It is ridiculous to say that a program we nominally invest in has failed when it fails to overcome the most sexualised culture in world history. Education that emphasises abstinence as the best option for teens makes up a minuscule part of overall sex education in the United States,” she said.

“In every other area of public policy – food, drugs, alcohol – we tell children what is the best choice. It seems very bizarre that the sex education establishment rejects the idea that we should talk to kids about what is best for them. We don’t take vodka to drivers education because children will drink and drive.”

That’s right, Kristi thinks that BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars wastefully poured into completely ineffective abstinence-only programs, reflects only a “nominal investment.” In Kristi’s world, when the government has spent gobs of money on policy that is an irrefutable failure, the problem isn’t the inherently flawed policy, but the fact that the gobs of money thrown at it haven’t been truckloads of money.

But the nadir of Kristi’s reasoning has to be that last paragraph. Ew, boy. There’s so much stoopid crammed into that single statement, I don’t know where to start with the mockin’ and ridiculin’. Foremost, Kristi is either an idiot or a liar when she implies that normal, non-sectarian sex education doesn’t tell kids that their best option is to not have sex prior to marriage. But on its own, that message is as effective as telling adolescent boys that “hey, you won’t get anyone knocked up if you just stick to jerking off.” Commonsensical sex education which teaches kids the truth about their bodies, about sex, and about contraceptives is not the equivalent of handing kids a loaded gun.

Speaking of guns, I think a far better simile than Kristi’s ridiculous “we don’t give kids a plastic 2 Liter bottle of Silver Wolf after teaching them not to drink and drive” would be that sex education is like a hunters safety course. When I was a twelve year old boy, I attended compulsory classes where I learned of all the ghastly ways I could potentially kill my friends and family through the misuse of firearms. My point: teaching adolescents how to handle adult activities safely and intelligently does not encourage them to do the exact opposite. Why these Theocrats believe otherwise, I’ll never understand.

In the end, Liberals will always believe it’s our responsibility as adults to teach responsible behavior to our kids as they become adults, while the abstinence-only zealots advocate giving kids a loaded gun, a bible and a head full of superstitions and praying that no one gets shot. And of course, when someone does get “shot”, it’ll be the fault of the Liberals and their “sex-obsessed, Holly-weird” culture. As if Christian culture isn’t plenty sex-obsessed and weird, but that’s a topic for another post….

PS: Thank you, Barack Obama.

Kansas Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt is pleased as punch that President Obama wasn’t aborted and feels that fact is all credit to the U.S. government refusing to spot Ms. Dunham the cash to go and take care of her “special problem.”

Another excellent example of  the “save the fetus, abandon the child” mindset. Nevertheless, this incident is acutely offensive for several reasons: the typical Republican straight-to-video reasoning, its overt racism, and its arrival at the tail end of a weeklong bashfest of Affirmative Action.

What Tiahrt seeks is affirmative action for non-White fetuses while at the same time his colleagues continue to gnash and wail at the type of government intervention which might actually work to reverse the disproportionately high levels of poverty among non-White, non-fetuses.

This is the same group of socio-political concern trolls that fought expanding the income eligibility for S-CHIP, poured truckloads of U.S. tax revenues into ineffective abstinence sex education programs, and are currently ready to go “D-Day” all over healthcare reform. But, golly jeepers, why oh why are so many broke folks looking to get those nasty abortions?

Representative Tiahrt, the reason non-White fetuses are disproportionately aborted in this country is because non-Whites are disproportionately poorer and unable to afford contraceptives (or education on the use thereof), much less more unwanted children. In other words, you clueless theocratic clown, the issue is Poverty, not Abortion. It’s cause and effect, but then you Republicans do struggle with sciencey stuff.

If there’s at least one thing that Hilary Clinton ever said that was actually true, it was her simple proposal that abortion demand is indirectly proportionate to the amount of time our government spends preventing the procedure’s necessity in the first place. That means providing women and men with proper sex education and providing access to free contraception toward preventing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. In other words, treating them like the adults that they are.

But the notion of taking the millions BILLIONS of dollars wastefully poured into abstinence-only programs (which are completely ineffective), and diverting that money into commonsensical pregnancy prevention programs is stridently resisted by Republicans (as well as Blue Dog Democrats) for two reasons: religious dogma and lobbyist donations. Now the latter is morally reprehensible, but at least it’s rational. On the other hand, the former explains why legislators continue to support funneling tons of cash into such a black hole of ineptitude – BLIND, UNSCIENTIFIC FAITH. It will work, because in God’s world, it should work – so there! Ain’t that right Ed?

ED AINSWORTH (Whiteheart Communications) (Talking to Students): How many of you have watched the television show FRIENDS? Raise your hand.

SEVERSON (PBS Investigative Reporter): Ed Ainsworth is another abstinence-only advocate who lecturers nationwide. These are sixth graders at the Ropesville School near Lubbock, Texas.

First, he ridicules the “sex -is okay” culture that surrounds today’s teenagers, including prime-time TV programs like the sitcom, FRIENDS.

Mr. AINSWORTH (Talking to Students): Is that TV show about sex? It is about all of them having as much sex as they can with whoever they want to, right?

SEVERSON: He says the first time he had sex was the day he married Connie.

Ed, stunned by the news that most people find him ridiculous.

Mr. AINSWORTH (Talking to Students): If you have sex outside marriage, it will cost you. It may cost you physically with a pregnancy or a disease. It may cost you mentally and emotionally with your reputation. How you feel about yourself. It may cost you spiritually, and I know with my boundaries I can’t talk to you about the spiritual consequences because we are in school. But believe me, young people, there are tons of spiritual consequences.

SEVERSON: Ropesville, like hundreds of school districts across the country, receives federal funding for programs that are almost exclusively abstinence only. Over the past 5 years, the government has spent more than $800 million on such programs. Schools like Ropesville provide no comprehensive sex education, but invite abstinence-only lecturers like Ainsworth to fill the gap.

Mr. AINSWORTH (Talking to Students): I got up this morning and said, “Lord, all I want is one teenager. All I want is one. Help me change one life and I will be a success today.”

SEVERSON: Ainsworth is legally prohibited from mixing religion with his presentations, but like many on the lecture circuit, Ainsworth comes from an evangelical background and says if the kids are like him and have a close relationship with Christ, they’ll stay sexually pure. He has also been a youth pastor for 27 years.

[...]

SEVERSON: In 2002, some Lubbock high school students grew so alarmed at the surge of sexually transmitted diseases, they requested more sex education in schools — more comprehensive sex education. They were refused.

Erica Vales attended one of Ainsworth’s sessions.

ERICA VALES (Student): Like, he didn’t say anything about birth control. He just said the Bible says abstinence is better until marriage — that was in the assembly we took during school. He told us that.

Mr. AINSWORTH: I am not going to promote the use of condoms and those kinds of things, knowing that a student can listen to me and walk out of here and, albeit their choice, go have sex with someone who has AIDS, and use a condom, and die.

DARLENE WORKMAN (School Nurse, Vines High): I spent eight years handing out the protection. And you know what? They’re too young to be mature enough to use it.

SEVERSON: Darlene Workman is the school nurse at Vines High. She came here after quitting her job as a director of a family planning clinic in Michigan, where they taught comprehensive sex education and handed out condoms.

Nurse Workman, who makes career choices based on the reasoning of children

Ms. WORKMAN: One of my students came up to me and said, “Well, Ms. Workman, if you’re handing these out, that means you must think it’s okay for us to participate.” And I never in the world thought it was okay. So what I did was quit.

SEVERSON: One of the first things she did here was start an abstinence-only club. They are becoming increasingly prevalent throughout the country. This is David.

DAVID: When condoms are presented as a way to have safe sex and avoid the ramifications, they do encourage teens to have sex.

Ms. VALES: Well, it will encourage some people, but it will prevent a lot of pregnancies. Or even just telling girls about birth control. Because nobody ever talks about birth control.

Stuff that Nurse Workman finds more mature than contraceptives.

SEVERSON: A recent congressional study cast some doubt on the effectiveness of federally funded abstinence-only programs. The study found scientific inaccuracies in many of the textbooks, which, for instance, quote a much higher failure rate of condoms than is the case.

One textbook states that the HIV virus can be transmitted through tears, sweat, and saliva. Not true. Marilyn Morris says the study was biased and politically motivated.

Ms. MORRIS: Because I think they are people who are very, maybe, antireligious. And they looked at the abstinence message as a religious message. But for us, at Aim for Success, it is a health issue.

SEVERSON: Another study found that 88 percent of kids who had taken an abstinence pledge admitted having sexual intercourse before marriage, and that teens who contracted STDs were less likely to realize they had a disease.

Ms. SCOTT KITCHING: The more knowledge you have on the subject, the more equipped you are to handle that subject. If you look at studies in other countries, in Europe where sex education is comprehensive, you can see clearly that their rates are lower than ours.

SEVERSON: And in Texas, the STD rates keep rising steadily.

Ms. WORKMAN: That says we have a lot of work to do. It doesn’t say that we should hand out condoms, to me, at all. I think the churches need to get together. I think the community needs to get together. I think the parents need to take up to the plate — stand up to the plate and take some action here.

Yep. So I’m sure the next “serious issue” the Theocratic Republicans will take up re: health care reform will be something along the lines of “not one damned cent of American taxes should go to encourage promiscuity” when they seek to excise the provision of free contraceptives from the health care reform bill.

But remember people, the Theocrats are vewy, vewy concerned about all these lower-class folks choosing to have abortions and desperately want to help out by turning them into a criminal or perhaps an excommunicated sinner.

UPDATE (7/20): Republican Party = Really Fucking Clueless

UPDATE 2: (7/21): Rachel Maddow on Tiahrt’s connection with “The Family”. I’m going to write more on this special band of Chrisianist Theocrats later.

To view the full image, click the image above.