Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Bush wants more money for "abstinence-only," even though...

Feb 14, 2004 1:22AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Bush wants more money for
Feb 14, 2004 2:51AM PST

Sometimes I wonder what century Mr. Bush lives in. He seems to want to apply copper age mans solutions to 21st century problems. I think there is a name for this kind of thinking in the textbooks...we should all get together and send the whitehouse an email which says "Hey it is 2004." And then hope, perhaps in vain, for the best!

- Collapse -
A tiny bit more research would show...
Feb 14, 2004 3:20AM PST

that the statement The Bush administration is proposing to double spending on sexual abstinence programs that bar any discussion of birth control or condoms to prevent pregnancy or AIDS despite a lack of evidence that such programs work.

is a bit less than accurate. He wants abstinence EMPHASIZED but has not mentioned "barring" mention of anything else. The author appears to be basing his whole "story" on a single comment within the SOTU speech. A lack (total) of any "source" for the story should be a major clue even for you Dave.

Abstinence doesn't work?

Ever even ONCE seen an STD transmitted between those abstaining from sex? Try to be honest now--EVER?

Ever seen a pregnancy among those abstaining from sex (we won't count rape as at leats the rapist was not abstaining)--EVER?

On the other hand ever seen an STD transmitted even though condoms were used? (what's that? You aren't saying YES very loud.)

Ever seen an unwanted pregnancy even though a condom was uses? (surely you can sound off like a man with that YES.)

- Collapse -
Re: A tiny bit more research would show...
Feb 14, 2004 12:59PM PST

Ed, now you're claiming that the AP is wrong? There is a specific program that is commonly called "abstinence only"," in that within that program other approaches to handling problems like STDs, teen pregnancies, etc. cannot be discussed -- only abstinence can. Until now (under Bush), funding for that program and traditional sex education programs was equal (there was zero funding for "abstinence-only" approaches before 2001). Now Bush wants to increase the funding for traditional programs by 0.5%, while doubling the funing for "abstinence-only" programs. And such programs do indeed bar discussion of contraception (at least before marriage -- I'm not clear on the details." Do a Google on "Bush abstinence only" and you'll learn this in detail.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Better check your sources...
Feb 15, 2004 12:23AM PST

Are you (or the author) mis-reading/stating the facts?

The "Global AIDs Bill" of 2003 for instance is cited for its "Abstinence only" terminology BUT it being misrepresented as it actually requires only that "a provision requiring that one-third of the bill's prevention funding go to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Twenty percent of the bill's $15 billion is slated to be spent on prevention efforts." That left two thirds of the available funds for other prevention measures.

The only "Abstinence Only" funding is INCREASING funds available to those organizations who do so from ALREADY EXISTING funding. He wants to increase those available funds by 33%--sounds good/bad until you realize that this figure would only increase the ceiling to 135 Million. This desired increase is NOT a result of any "Abstinence Only" policy of Bushes, it is increased funding for the "Abstinence Only" policy introduced by Congress and the Clinton administration in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. One of the few measures Clinton implemented that he also likes, Bush wants more funding available than the current $90 million which is only a very small percentage of the funds available for ALL TRADITIONAL prevention programs.

Quit simply taking the word of opinionated writers who fill your head with nonsense that you don't even bother checking up on before passing it on as fact. Take a few moments to CHECK THE FACTS.

YOU need to do a search on "Bush abstinence only"
PS - MOST of the links you will find in your search are going to be on rather biased sites and many will not have source info. Disregard the ones that are not willing to cite sources and pro or con you will find more credible information.

- Collapse -
Why is it that key phrases always seem to be left out?
Feb 14, 2004 7:14AM PST

'"We will double federal funding for abstinence programs, so schools can teach this fact of life: Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases."'. What is untrue about that statement?

'Advocates of comprehensive sex education said the shift,'. Gee, I can't imagine what those folks might say on this subject.

- Collapse -
Wouldn't it be nice ...
Feb 15, 2004 12:32AM PST

... if our children could be exposed to reasons for abstinence other than to avoid pregnancy and disease? Such as self esteem and moral (not religious) purpose that comes from not satisfying every little urge we get immediately?

Just a thought.

Evie Happy