Anti-Abortion Clause Tucked Into Spending Bill

Collect all of the state quarters the classy way. Just 29 more.

not to get too far off topic but, in response to the first point, which "academics"? would this include teachings of evolution? there are definitely christian types out there who would like to see that banned. what about history? if yes, whose interpretation of it should be used? (for example, was the rise of communism a valiant struggle to free the working classes from oppression or an attempt by godless heathens to take over the world?) who draws the line on what academics are acceptable and which aren't? isn't sex ed just a combination of biology and social studies?

in response to the second point: you didn't answer the question. what is the married couple to do if a) yes, they are "allowed" to have sex because they are married but b) they are not allowed to use birth control (in the extreme case because it has been banned) and c) they (for whatever reason) don't want to have children? abstinence would still be their only (church sanctioned) option. you are de facto saying that sex is only for procreation and should only happen when people want to have kids. (unless you are suggesting that married couples who don't want kids should just stick to manual/oral stimulation and maybe a bit of back door action?)

goddammit! i fucking hate the way this government is running!

Thats is some damn fine logic there tannhauser.
Some parents do teach their children sex ed. Some do not. Do we let those not properly educated stumble around in the dark (more of your tax dollars wasted on unwanted, un-raised kids, etc) ? The same for drug education - can we assume you dont want your tax dollars wasted on informing kids of the dangers of alcohol and tobacco abuse (and the related waste of your tax dollars treating lung cancer etc)?
Let me guess, your tax dollars should not be wasted on medical treatment for those who can not afford it? Well then, there are many other costs associated with ignorance in these non-academic areas.

I dont think you (or I) are morally or ethically required to educate or help people who engage in ignorant behavior. But it does not make life better for anyone to ignore it. Invest a little in preventative eduction, or invest a lot in medical costs, prisons, etc.


[Edited on Nov 21, 2004 by dspsg]

Ugh. Well, I love Barbara Boxer. Keep fighting, lady.

Oh when will they stop sneaking shit in uner different bills? It is a womans choice.
I was worried as hell when Jenny got pregnant (medical reasons), and I cant tell you how glad I am to be a father (this Christmas)!
Having a child has really made me focus my life.

I did look and couldn't locate that item. I high-lighted what was significant about what you put up though Infra.

What you gave me s5 was a longwinded philosophical piece that is replete with dogmatic assertions and devoid of supporting data

Advocates for Youth looks as if they picked and choosed. I would submit that it is far from comprehensive or thorough. the age of the subjects in these studies varies too much

In response to the Kaiser Foundation, all it states is that of the 6 studies mentioned one was a failure and the other five had problems in the protocols. the study sited has been updated here

excerpt:

hence my assertion above in reference to the advocates for youth study

A thorough peer reviewed study determined condom use as a negative factor and asserted abstinence, not condom use, caused the teen birthrate decline

source: Mohn, et al, “An Analysis of the Causes of the Decline In Non-marital birth and Pregnancy Rates for Teens from 1991 to 1995,” Adolescent and Family Health, Volume 3, Number 1

I haven't been able to track the source data for the one CDC item you put up. I rarely if ever trust another's chracterization of scientific data. Link it if you can Cairo and I will respond accordingly

s5, I let this slide for a while .You want to accuse me of running, I'm back. It's your game



[Edited on Nov 26, 2004 by Tannhauser]

Actually, it is there. Search for "Abstinence-Only Support Varies Widely Among States" and it should come up as the first result. (The prevention news updates include multiple articles, each of which is indexed on the NPIN as a separate item.)

Here's a direct link for your convenience.

In context, the portion that you cited refers to the study done by SIECUS, not the CDC. (That portion does point out, tho, that there appears to be no statistically significant correlation between increased funding for abstinence-only programs and lower teen pregnancy rates.) I highlighted the portion the referenced the CDC study.

Maybe I misunderstood you. What exactly did you mean when you wrote that s5 "couldn't be more wrong?"

Edited to add:

In connection with the article that you cited regarding the efficacy of abstinence in reducing teen pregnancies, those who are interested in perusing the original report can find it here (follow the teen birthrate link).

It's notable that the links page for The Physicians Consortium references groups such as the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation. The attitudes of these groups toward comprehensive sex education, drawn from their own publications, are worth reading in this connection.

The publication in which this report appeared, Adolescent & Family Health, is itself a publication of the Institute for Youth Development. The appearance of the study in that journal is hardly surprising given the goals and views of the IYD.


[Edited on Nov 26, 2004 by Infra]

People here have sighted SIECUS and Kaiser. They are far from non-partisan. I haven't made issue of that. Secondly, you still don't have the CDC study. You have Siecus's exceprt from it. What matters is that their methodology be sound and not necessarily their ideology leanings. I cite Guttermacher institute statistics when their methodology is sound. Critique the study and not the group.

I said s5 was wrong about the efficacy of abstinece based programs.

True. My point in raising those issues regarding the study you cited, however, is that the mention of a peer-reviewed journal implies objective review in publication decisions. In this case, it was a study published in a journal run by the IYD, and the study specifically supported the goals and views of the IYD. That is part of the context and needs to be noted.

This applies equally to SIECUS and Kaiser, of course.

True -- I'll work on providing some more direct CDC data. My point in providing the link, tho, was that you wrote that you couldn't find it on the site.

Edit: the actual CDC statistical data is here; follow the links for the abortion and youth risk behavior surveillance reports. The STD surveillance data is also directly available.

One statistical interpretation of this data is here (related to the earlier link provided by Cairo). If you can find other links dealing with this data, please list them.

That's precisely the reason that I provided the link to the original report.

Then let me ask you to clarify. Are you stating that he was wrong about the increase of STD transmission and teen pregnancy, or about his later correction that the jury was still out on abstinence-only programs?

By writing "couldn't be more wrong," are you implying that the abstinence-only programs do, in fact, reduce STD transmission and teen pregnancy?


[Edited on Nov 26, 2004 by Infra]

It was in reference to their efficacy in general. All of the studies that came my way in regards to the efficacy of abstinence based programs (on both sides) have been flawed in some way and hardly definitive or reliable. The one I sited from IYD seemed to me to be the only complete and reliable one I could find. It has the benefit of being peer reviewed as well.

I site Emerging Answers given that it's predecessor study was sited by the Kaiser fact sheet and it contradicts it earilier findings. Like the other things posted most of them are just not complete enough to be reliable. I have found that to be the case on both sides.

The one objection that I would have to this argument is that the study doesn't actually vouch for the efficacy of abstinence-only programs. It mounts a substantial challenge to the idea that declining teen birth rates are due to increased contraceptive use, and it presents a good argument that the primary factor involved in that is increased abstinence. However, it also states that the factors involved in increased abstinence are numerous (generational attitudes, increased HIV/AIDS awareness, etc.) and that the attribution of these results to abstinence-only programs is inconclusive.

From the AYS link:

The CDC link is a survey the serves to characterize behaviors. I don't see anything linking anything to sex ed programs of either side.

I went to try to look at the IYS and I can't get it to work. Your link doesn't work either. Microsoft put some auto updates that have screw up my computer. The issue was the increase in the practice of abstinence as a cause for the decline. I the study I believe Title V hadn't been brought into effect. I would look if I could to check.

Yep. Based on the CDC MMWR data from that period, that's pretty much all that can be said: that there's a suggestive relationship there, but no definite causal relationship yet.

I'm not saying that this is the strongest argument for or against these programs, but you wanted studies that were either from the CDC or used that data, hence the link.

As I wrote, it's the CDC statistical data. All of the studies that I've been able to find (pro or con) have evaluated this data in a sex ed program context but haven't been done by the CDC itself; I've found references to CDC studies but no direct links to them. If/when I find them I'll post links, and I assume that you'll do the same with ones you come across.

The study went through 1997/8, which was the start of the Title V funding program, IIRC.

I agree that the practice of abstinence was found to be the cause of the decline, but the study named several factors involved in the increased abstinence phenomenon and devotes several pages to examining them. From the executive summary:

This is consistent with the other studies mentioned in this thread, actually, aside from specific state studies (such as the one I linked in my initial response) that have shown either no statistical change or increased teen pregnancy rates post-1998; most have shown that attitudes toward abstinence and intentions to abstain increased over the short term, although long-term effects were suspect (ref: Cairo's AFY link). I'm not sure if there was any examination of the long-term vs. short-term effects in the Consortium report, although I don't recall any discussion of it.... I'll need to read it again.

It would be interesting to see a follow-up study in relation to risk factors and STD transmission from this same group, tho, since those elements weren't addressed -- especially considering that this is pointed out as being one of the main weaknesses of abstinence-only programs. (I.e., people who go through them delay first intercourse and have fewer partners, but are also less likely to use condoms when they are sexually active.)


[Edited on Nov 26, 2004 by Infra]