Govt. funded sex-ed forbids teaching condom use. Science or religious politics?

[Chewbacca]

Why are we funding programs that aren't allowed to talk about condoms? Sounds like religion to me. I think we should only fund programs that offer a broad scientific veiwpoint that includes condom use as well as abstinance to prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancy. All or none sounds fair and balanced to me.

We should fund programs that represent the reality of our diverse and free society.

Face it lots of young people are having sex outside marriage and will do so no matter how much abstinance is pushed on them. We need to give a wide variety of infromation so people can make informed choices for themselves.

Here is the news piece that got my wheels turning on this issue, I have enboldend some keep points that caught my eye:

Story


When CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding presented a check for abstinence education to Metro Atlanta Youth for Christ last month, she reignited a debate over whether politics is trampling on public health.

Gerberding's endorsement of an abstinence-only program for at-risk teens -- she handed the Decatur-based religious organization an oversize check for $363,936 and praised its goals -- is the latest example of social conservatives in the Bush administration interfering with medical science, some say.

Officials of the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say the agency is merely supporting abstinence as one component of sex education.

But critics also cite letters from the CDC last month threatening to pull funding from HIV programs in San Francisco that "appear to encourage or promote sexual activity" and researchers' claims that they have been told to avoid sensitive language such as "gay" and "sex worker" in grant applications.

'Political element'

They also point to changes in information about condoms and abortion on Web sites of the CDC and the National Cancer Institute and transformations in the membership of scientific advisory committees that bring them more in line with the views of President Bush's supporters.

"Public health always has a political element," said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. "But we're moving from science with a big 's' and politics with a small 'p' to science with a small 's' and politics with a big 'p.' "

Department of Health and Human Services officials say they are presenting all sides of medical topics and that shifts in viewpoint are typical after changes in administration.

"If you asked any taxpayer, they would say balance is good," said Health and Human Services spokesman Bill Pierce.

Critics say Gerberding's visit to Metro Atlanta Youth for Christ is evidence that politics are undermining public health. The CDC -- part of Health and Human Services -- has long joined other institutions in calling for sex education approaches that include abstinence and monogamy as well as the use of condoms and other contraceptives for people who are sexually active.

"I'm concerned that this administration is legislating a particular view of morality rather than doing public health," said Tamara Kreinin, president of the New York-based Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

The check Gerberding gave out is part of a community-based abstinence education program started by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson in 2001. Grants are awarded to public and private agencies, including faith-based organizations.

Marriage the standard

According to Health and Human Services, the groups must agree to teach that "a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity" and that sex outside of marriage "is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects," among other points. They are not allowed to talk about condoms.

After awarding $20 million in 2001 and $40 million in 2002 for the programs, Thompson plans to give out $55 million this year and is hoping for $73 million next year.

Combined with other efforts, the grants are part of the Bush administration's goal of spending $135 million a year on abstinence-only education.

Awardees can't legally promote religion, but they often find ways to deliver Christian messages, said Louise Melling, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project. The ACLU successfully sued the state of Louisiana last year to block funding of an abstinence program that included skits with Jesus as a character and featured a chastity curriculum titled "God's Gift of Life."

"In some of these organizations, the dollars are used to preach," Melling said.

Kreinin, the sexuality council leader, said the abstinence-only programs may harm teens who are gay or lesbian, victims of sexual abuse or living in nontraditional households, so the very structure of their lives is being invalidated.

"It concerns me that the CDC would endorse a program that uses fear and shame to educate young people," Kreinin said.

CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said Gerberding presented the grant to Metro Atlanta Youth for Christ on behalf of Bush and Thompson. But "she's supportive of the work they're doing," he said. It "represents the very work that goes on as part of a comprehensive approach to sex education."

Rockdale Hospital and Health System in Conyers received $177,809 and the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta received $436,000 in the same round of grants. Both institutions will fund abstinence-only programs in public schools.

Metro Atlanta Youth for Christ will use the money to expand a program in which teen parents counsel at-risk youths about abstinence, said Larry Anderson, the agency's executive director. He said the effort is needed to balance other programs that focus on condoms.

"Kids are a lot stronger and more able to say no than we give them credit for," Anderson said. "I know very few kids who have learned to say no to anything and have been hurt by it."

The CDC's June 13 letters to the Stop AIDS Project in San Francisco and the city's health department also have renewed charges that the government is stifling public health.

The letters, sent after Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) complained to the CDC, warned that funding would be cut for HIV programs that seem to promote sexual activity.

The agency singled out three Stop AIDS workshops: a discussion of oral sex, tips "for safe and friendly relations with escorts," and a talk about anal sex called "Bootylicious."

Souder is using the CDC to harass Stop AIDS, said David Evans, the project's program director. He said the CDC has long supported HIV prevention messages tailored to local communities.

In the "hypersexualized" world of gay San Francisco, Evans said, "if we have workshops that are vanilla, people don't come."

Roland Foster, a Souder aide, said increasing rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases in San Francisco suggest that the Stop AIDS approaches are not effective. "We've seen no proof that they work," he said.

The CDC's Skinner said the Stop AIDS workshops violated a public health law that forbids funding for programs that encourage sexual activity.

Tiptoeing around

Meanwhile The New York Times, quoting mostly unnamed sources, reported in April that the National Institutes of Health was quietly advising scientists seeking funding for research on AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases to use euphemistic terms instead of words such as "gay," "sex worker" and "needle exchange."

Last fall, a CDC Web site that said condoms were "highly effective" in preventing HIV was altered to include an introduction containing more neutral language, stating that condoms "can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD."

The CDC said it updated the site with the latest research.

The National Cancer Institute, which had maintained that there were no data linking abortion and breast cancer, changed its Web site last fall to say the evidence was inconclusive, leading to charges that the Bush administration was giving in to abortion opponents.

After a scientific conference this year, the institute adopted a new statement saying women with abortions have the same risk for breast cancer as other women.

After Bush took office, the makeup of government advisory committees on AIDS, environmental health and other issues was shifted to reflect the administration's views, critics also have alleged.

"Actions directly affecting the public are being driven by ideology rather than by science," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and other Democrats wrote to Thompson last year in a letter about the committee changes.

Skinner said science comes before politics and that the CDC regards its three core values -- accountability, respect and integrity -- as paramount.

Pierce, the Health and Human Services spokesman, said Thompson had merely exercised his authority to appoint new members to advisory committees, as his predecessors had done.

[ 08-03-2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[True_Moose]

Just an example of people being unable to keep up with the times. Teenagers don't always listen when people say abstinence. They have overwhelming biological urges, especially us males. So why not give them education into safe sex, because if they're going to do it anyway, why not try and teach them to do it in a safe, healthy manner?

[Mouse]

I tend to think of it in these terms. If you wanted to stop all road traffic accidents, you would council everyone to walk everywhere. But in reality, that's not going to happen, so you try to manage the problem by education and legislation to attempt to keep traffic accidents within limits.

The same can be said of sex education. Of course, the council of perfection would be to only have sexual relations in the certain knowledge that both participants are 100% certified disease free and emotionally mature enough to cope with the implications and consequences of such a relationship.

However, the real world does not conform to ideals and IMHO we must protect our youth by giving them the widest possible information on the pros and cons of all aspects of sexual actuvity.

[ 08-02-2003, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

[Mr. Mopery]

No condoms, eh?

Well, since we know that some kids, no matter how well raised, will always give in to those THROBBING BIOLOGICAL URGES...why not just advocate oral sex?

I've never seen a baby pop out of somebody's mouth.

[Mr. Mopery]

Plus it teaches hygiene!

[antryg]

The Mr. Mackey sex education program.

Sex is bad! ....m'kay
Don't have sex! ....m'kay


I'll just wait for the govt. to send me my check for this in-depth program.

[Azred]

This is why Belle and I will be the ones in charge of TJ's sex education at the appropriate time and not anyone else. We have already decided to tell him the full and undiluted truth, what everything is, and what all the consequences could be. We both know that sex, if introduced at the incorrect time in a person's life or in an inappropriate way, can cause long-lasting psychological damage; thus, we plan on sparing him from suffering any such damage.
Bottom line, as parents it is our job to instruct him in this aspect of life, not some school program.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Mr. Mopery: No condoms, eh? Well, since we know that some kids, no matter how well raised, will always give in to those THROBBING BIOLOGICAL URGES...why not just advocate oral sex? I've never seen a baby pop out of somebody's mouth.

LOL, I do appreciate the humour here, but I must say for any ill-informed readers that while babies don't come from the mouth, sexual transmitted diseases sure can! Believe me, I know people who think oral sex is safe sex all the way. That is wrong!!!! Herpes is a big one here amongst others but there is even a slight risk of aids infection.

Heck I know people who think oral sex isnt "cheating" if they do it with someone other than their significant other. Stupid, but thats not the topic here.

I wholly endorse condoms, as "distastful" (*groan*) as it sounds for protection from stds during oral sex. You can get them for females as well as men and they make "tasteless" varieties as well as flavored.

Just call me Dr. Ruth from now on.
Of course one may never learn any this from one of these abstinece classes.

[ 08-03-2003, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Azred: This is why Belle and I will be the ones in charge of TJ's sex education at the appropriate time and not anyone else. We have already decided to tell him the full and undiluted truth, what everything is, and what all the consequences could be. We both know that sex, if introduced at the incorrect time in a person's life or in an inappropriate way, can cause long-lasting psychological damage; thus, we plan on sparing him from suffering any such damage. Bottom line, as parents it is our job to instruct him in this aspect of life, not some school program.

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I trust that makes my feelings clear about Azred's post. However I do feel that schools need to take their responsibility as well. Teaching only abstinance will never work and I'm 100% sure of that. Our society uses sex in everything it does. Most commercials have sexual references and the fashion industry certainly use it. And you can't shut youths out of the society. Religious values are to be taught at home or in church, NOT in school!

[Skunk]

This is totally bizare! Paying someone to teach kids how to use condoms is *MUCH CHEAPER* than paying the welfare for single parents or dealing with the costs that the spread of AIDS in the populace involves.

Someone didn't have his calculator with him...