Spending Tax Dollars To Tell Adults Not To Have Sex?
That’s how the normally even-handed Glenn Reynolds classifies this news from the federal governments human services bureaucrats:
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it’s a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.
“They’ve stepped over the line of common sense,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. “To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It’s an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health.”
Abstinence education programs, which have focused on preteens and teens, teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex.
The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.
As a conservative I’m not especially enamored with the government spending my tax dollars to tell other people how to live their lives. That being said, I think describing abstinence programs as “telling people not to have sex” is a little too simplistic.
Abstinence education, at least that which I’m aware of, means telling people not to have sex until they’re either married on in a long-term, committed relationship. The message of abstinence is, essentially, don’t be promiscuous. Which shouldn’t really be all that controversial to anyone who is in favor of advocating personal responsibility. It is certainly not controversial to urge people to exercise moderation in other activities like drinking alcohol or eating, why should it be controversial to urge moderation in sex? Certainly I think that such counsel is better for people then the message that is implied by handing out bundles of free condoms.
After all, irresponsible sex (even “safe sex” with condoms) can have health and financial consequences every bit as serious as overeating and/or alcohol abuse.
Chief RZ
Hairy Polemic
Hawk
Bike Bubba
2Hotel9
The Whistler
robert108
Bat One
Pomerdorgrad
Proof
