Consider this. What would you do if your president said that there was some evidence that child immunizations were the cause of some medical problems and he was no longer funding them. In fact, he was providing more funding for "alternative" programs that pledged to keep kids safe from polio and rhubella sans immunization. What would you do?
I suspect that most conservatives would say that was dangerous public policy that flew in the face of accepted knowledge on disease and endangered children's lives.
The analogy is not perfect, but it points exactly to what the Bush administration is doing with sex ed. As Nicholas Kristof points out (thanks, btw, to Bad Catholic for the link):
"You see, for all the carnage in President Bush's budget, one program is being showered with additional cash - almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It's 'abstinence only' sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration's much more notorious sex scandal."
The research shows that the abstinence only programs do not stop kids from having sex. It might be delayed a year, but they are still having sex. And they are far more likely to have unprotected sex when they do.
Make no mistake about it, this is not a wash. This is not just a different way of doing policy that conservatives have won by controlling all branches of government. It isn't just an academic or moral discussion about premarital sex. It is a policy that ignores evidence and puts kids at risk--just as much as if it were suggesting that these kids not be immunized. Or if they were telling parents to not buy car seats. Sure, the kids might be fine in their parent's arms, but the evidence says that the odds are in their favor in a well-made car seat. They might not contract polio, but the odds are in their favor if they are immunized.
They might not have premaritial sex, but the odds are in their favor if they have the tools in hand to make that decision understanding the risks and options of contraceptives.
But Bush is pushing this for his conservative evangelical supporters. Nevermind that he didn't follow that abstinence only program as a kid, understand that he is only pandering here. You can change that and still support him as president (as much as that thought boggles my mind.)
Write your rep and senator and urge them to oppose this. Write the President. Tell him you supported his war, that you voted for his reelection. And tell them you support abstinence and want kids to not be sexually active, but these ab only programs are dangerous and real children will die if we enact them. More than if we don't. It is really that serious.
3 comments:
Thank you, Streak. You can only imagine how much of this I see every day. Although I worry for the pregnant girls, I worry more for the disease that I know exists in my school but that I never will see.
I wrote a little about this not too long ago, you can read about it if you'd like.
We know what works to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we know what works to reduce AIDS infections, we know what works to reduce abortions. What we lack is the political solidarity to do what is effective even if it means stepping on a few sacred cowpatties.
It is incredibly frustrating. It's as if people stop at the "perfect world" idea and assume that "of course, abstinence is the right thing." Like I said, I don't have a problem with abstinence, but think that these types of programs don't reflect either a realistic view of how kids view either sex or how they see programs like this. When it comes down to it, education is better than avoidance.
Post a Comment