«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
Sex-Ed Hearing: Not So Sexy
It's hard to believe a hearing on sex could be so dull. This morning, the vaunted Henry Waxman convened a marathon hearing before his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to "assess" the evidence on abstinence-only sex education, on which the federal government has spent more than $1.3 billion in recent years. The program requires states that take the money to refrain from teaching about contraception in school unless it's to talk about scary STDs and condom failure rates, while encouraging young people to avoid sex until marriage, an expectation that 95 percent of Americans fail to meet.
As oversight hearings go, this one turned out to be a snoozer, in large part because there's not much news here. About a bazillion studies have all found that not only does abstinence-only education not work to reduce unwed pregnancy or STDs, but that it perpetuates false information about the reliability of the things that do work, disparages gays and lesbians, promotes religion in public schools, and demeans women.
The federal program has produced one major success: giving life to a bunch of loony fringe religious groups that wouldn’t exist but for those federal funds. Many of these groups got their start as "crisis pregnancy centers" that used dubious tactics to dissuade young women from having abortions. But their views were largely left off the panel, a fact that irked Republicans who accused Waxman of stacking the hearing solely with critics. Indiana Rep. Mark Souder complained that Waxman had failed to invite such witnesses as the doctors who treat girls infected with STDs "while using condoms." He fumed about liberals who are promoting a "radical sexual economy" as part of their attack on abstinence programs, and suggested that teaching kids about birth control and condoms was part of that depraved agenda.
Despite a heavy line of up of public health officials on the schedule, Waxman kicked off the "oversight" hearing with testimony from two of his own colleagues, Rep. Lois Capps, a former school nurse from California who once taught sex ed, and Sen. Sam Brownback, whose only credentials on the issue seemed to be his parenting of five children. (Waxman even swore them in.) Nonetheless, a surprising number of members showed up to pelt questions at the pair, including our own DC Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who wasted most of her time talking about how nice it was to work with Brownback on some previous marriage issues. (True to form, though, she also razzed Brownback for failing to vote for D.C. statehood.) Souter managed to make Brownback look like a moderate after asking if it would be appropriate to ask 9-year-olds whether such things as masturbation, oral sex and naked cuddling qualified as abstinence, which he claimed was common in traditional sex ed classes. Of course, Capps and Brownback said no.
Despite attempts by Democrats to get Brownback to concede that federal dollars might be better spent, it was clear that Brownback and the other Republicans in the room weren't going to be swayed by anything resembling science, or even their traditional opposition to federal spending. They stayed on message, which seemed to be that abstinence-only funding ought to continue because regular sex ed doesn't work either. "The parents of this country want their children to be abstinent," Brownback insisted.
I confess to hearing the call of the "asparagus festival" going on in the Rayburn building cafeteria and leaving before the meatier part of the hearing began, as it took more than an hour and a half just to finish up with Brownback. The administration witness wasn't slated to go on until the very end, which was hours away. But it was clear from the get-go that the hearing would change few minds and produce few new pieces of information. (A webcast of the hearing is available here.) Democrats don't seem ready or able to put an end to the boondoggle on this one, despite the consensus that it is, in fact, an ideologically driven waste of money. Instead, they have introduced legislation in both the House and Senate to provide federal funding for comprehensive sex-ed that would actually give kids something besides a virginity pledge to help them avoid early pregnancy and pernicious diseases.
Comments
No surprises, all around.
If you don't want kids to have sex, get them married. That totally screwed up my sex life!
Posted by: kirkbrew on 04/23/08 at 5:12 PM Respond
Yes, a colossal waste of government money on a drop dead dumb program that clearly would never, ever work.
How much did it cost, by the way??
It was an outlet for the loony religious right. The Waco brigade. Oops, the wacko brigade.
Bush has still pledged his undying support. Unbelieveable. Er, I take that back. It's just another example of how out of touch he is.
Posted by: Rosaria on 04/23/08 at 8:54 PM Respond
The program that they are talking about is called Be Proud Be Responsible... I have gotten involved in this debate because my eldest son is about to have sex education. I have looked at a lot of programs on both sides of the debate and am not a fan of a teacher telling my son that it is okay to shower with some one - call me old fashion or what ever else. I saw one article that stated someone on the panel asked if Abstinence education was proven scientifically accurate would the scientific panel approve of it 5 out of 7 said NO - I am getting so sick of the politicians who are just looking out for their wallets and not my child. As I review this subject more and more I find myself drifting to the right - I don't know which is better but I'm trying to get informed even more now as it personally effects me.....
Posted by: JPL on 04/24/08 at 5:16 AM Respond
Abstinence-only sex education will work -- once we arrest mother nature.
Posted by: Johnathan Ivan on 04/24/08 at 6:56 AM Respond
As noted in the link to "a bazillion studies" and other research I have looked at, kids who get abstinence only education are more likely to not use condoms or other protective barriers when they do have premarital sex. Since 95% of kids are having sex before marriage anyway, they need real rather than distorted information on the effectiveness of protection.
Posted by: JP on 04/24/08 at 7:25 AM Respond
classic republican thing to do. i hate their self righteousness in saying that liberals are pushing for a radical sex society. if the goal is to prevent teen pregnancies and stop the spread of stds, then clearly abstinence only education is not the best plan of action
Posted by: GPS on 04/24/08 at 3:07 PM Respond
When will this country ever EVOLVE into a civilised nation that has the courage and knowledge not to mix religious ideologies into politics?
Posted by: Patty on 04/24/08 at 3:11 PM Respond
To the mother with the son about to enter a course: What do you mean when you speak of teaching abstinence as being proven as scientifically accurate? There's reason to believe that a focus on abstinence prevents sexual contact. Some studies indicate that states in which there is a focus on abstinence, with little discussion of birth control, have higher teen pregnancy rates. Telling a boy not to do something does not ensure that the boy will not do it.
You mention that a teacher will be saying that it's ok to shower with someone--do you mean that any discussion of sex will seem to encourage these showers? (I take it that "to shower" is a euphemism for having sex.) I hate to say it, but I fear that your son will receive information and encouragement about sex from many sources that he will not tell you about, such as the locker-room, the internet, and movies. These sources may not be the best places for accurate or responsible information. A teacher will be going by a textbook that is probably written by a physician.
Posted by: Jacob Johnson on 04/24/08 at 4:05 PM Respond
I don't know about you, but not once in sex ed did I look at a cutaway drawing of the female reproductive system and think "damn, I GOTTA get me some of that!"
I went through sex ed at the age of 11 and didn't lose my virginity until the tender age of 26.
Truth is, sex ed made me realize that sex was a risky activity, and that proper precautions should be taken to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Also, you wouldn't believe how many people still think stuff like "you can't get pregnant the first time."
Posted by: Chris on 04/25/08 at 7:10 AM Respond
Just say no to abstinence-only sex education.
Posted by: Boo Radley on 04/25/08 at 10:15 AM Respond
All my kids have gone through sex-ed in public school systems here in california. I can safely say that most kids think fo it the same wway i did in the 80's. Just like any other class, it had no real affect on the life of a high schooler.
Every kid knows about rubbers, etc, so nothing has changed since the 50's. Except when it comes to the minority youth...!!!
80% born to UNWED mothers..? since the majority of minorities are from liberal areas, how is it that the liberal information has helped kill marriage and sky rocketed unwed births...? Maybe i am stupid, but how is it that there are higher rates of unwed births in liberal areas and less in conservative areas..? Answer that one people..?
And don't just spout some emotional crap, if you look at the numbers, it is TRUE..!!!
Bill
Posted by: Bill Nigh on 04/26/08 at 1:28 PM Respond
Hey Bill the last thing I herd about areas with high unwed mother and STD rates said it was the worst in bible belt country, where the adults lie about sex and the kids only trust themselves and do what they (or more likely their hormones) want.
Posted by: Michael Z. on 04/26/08 at 9:09 PM Respond
I know plenty of responsible parent couples who chose to not marry. Nice construing of 'information'...
This program is pathetic.
And certainly isn't winning my vote for the "right" (ie ignorant).
Posted by: Muffy Jo on 04/26/08 at 10:57 PM Respond
Hey Muffy,
Why would someone "choose" to have children and NOT get marrid..? Has society fallen apart so much that your friends WANT to have bas***d kids..?
Many liberal people think that it is OK for single peopel to just pick some random person and have children and NOT get married. This is NOT ok, and is part of what is leading to the downfall of the family..:-(
VERY SAD...!!!!
Bill
Posted by: Bill Nigh on 04/28/08 at 8:18 AM Respond
Sorry Bill, but marriage is not a requirement to having children. I have a child due soon with my girlfriend of 8 years and do not see how marriage would add anything to the situation. Entering into marriage solely because of a child is the worst thing you could do, why subject him/her to the stresses of an unhappy marriage.
And regarding your "bastard Kids" comment, dont be such a dick.
Posted by: Jeff on 04/28/08 at 1:21 PM Respond
Jeff Bill can't be anything but a massive dick, that's just how trolls like him are.
Posted by: Michael Z. on 04/28/08 at 3:47 PM Respond
Ok Jeff,
Do you prefer illegitimate..? Baby momma or baby daddy..?
Is that what you prefer your offspring to refer to you forever..? How can you rationalize your Choice to make you children carry that forever? You don't love your wife; oh excuse me, current long time girl friend, enough to make an honest woman of her..?
And what woman would stay with some guy for 8 yrs and not realize that he was doing nothing but using her...?
But you probably think, why buy the milk, when you can drink for free...?
I have two daughters and if you think I would let them shack-up with some guy who didn't think enough to marry her, you are whacked....!!!
You are propagating the evil in our country that IS leading to the downfall of the family.
I know several couples in your situation and guess what, at some point in time the guy finds a younger piece of tail and tells the woman and child, BYE...!!! And since they have no connection (i.e. MARRIAGE) he just happily humps his way down the road. Sound familiar..?
Maybe you can be different, but you have absolutely NO leg to stand on when I comes to NOT marrying the, soon to be baby momma.
You are a sad excuse for an honorable man..:-(
Bill
Posted by: Bill Nigh on 04/29/08 at 9:28 AM Respond
Wow, those remarks would get you punched in the face (and legitimately!) in the real world. Lucky you're on the internet, eh Bill "Nigh"?
Posted by: LOL on 04/29/08 at 8:31 PM Respond
Actually no LOL,
This VERY subject is pretty much one of the topics when we have a bar-b-que with married couples and there kids, for some reason the erosion of the moral family bothers MANY people greatly. I guess it might be old school morals, but then like I said; it is what is wrong with sanctity of marriage today. The way that the younger generation has twisted right from wrong.
Very sad...:-(
And by the way, it is the girlfriends FATHER who should be punching the babies daddy in the face, and teaching him how to respect a young woman. But even that idea is probably too old school for you.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Nigh on 04/29/08 at 9:03 PM Respond
Well, as a bast*rd, and as someone in a committed, very happy relationship for 10 years before getting married, I resent, and am appalled at your lack of sympathy, intelligence or understanding of basic human emotions. The only people who have EVER referred to me as a bastard are ignorant, un-informed, self righteous bastards like yourself. No one in my life, my work or my community has EVER said anything even remotely as henious as what you are posting. What's that say about how "sad" society is getting? That people like you, who think they have a direct line to the "right" way to live, cannot have enough empathy with their fellow human beings to look past the labels to the person behind them. WAKE UP, and smell the future pal, you and your kind are dwindling. You can get as pissed off as you want, you can blame people like me for all your problems, and rest easy in the assurance that "in the next life" you'll be respected and loved... too bad in this one you're just an ass...
drop dead and hurry up to your heaven...mine will be lacking ignorant a**holes like yourself.
Posted by: The bast*rd on 05/02/08 at 7:20 PM Respond
ARCHIVE
April 20, 2008 - April 26, 2008
April 13, 2008 - April 19, 2008
April 6, 2008 - April 12, 2008
March 30, 2008 - April 5, 2008
March 23, 2008 - March 29, 2008
March 16, 2008 - March 22, 2008
March 9, 2008 - March 15, 2008
February 24, 2008 - March 1, 2008
February 17, 2008 - February 23, 2008
February 10, 2008 - February 16, 2008
February 3, 2008 - February 9, 2008
January 27, 2008 - February 2, 2008
January 20, 2008 - January 26, 2008
January 13, 2008 - January 19, 2008
January 6, 2008 - January 12, 2008
December 30, 2007 - January 5, 2008
December 23, 2007 - December 29, 2007
December 16, 2007 - December 22, 2007
December 9, 2007 - December 15, 2007
December 2, 2007 - December 8, 2007
November 25, 2007 - December 1, 2007
November 18, 2007 - November 24, 2007
November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007
November 4, 2007 - November 10, 2007
October 28, 2007 - November 3, 2007
October 21, 2007 - October 27, 2007
October 14, 2007 - October 20, 2007
October 7, 2007 - October 13, 2007
September 30, 2007 - October 6, 2007
September 23, 2007 - September 29, 2007
September 16, 2007 - September 22, 2007
September 9, 2007 - September 15, 2007
September 2, 2007 - September 8, 2007
RECENT COMMENTS
Sex-Ed Hearing: Not So Sexy (21)
The bast*rd wrote:
Well, as a bast*rd, and as someone in a committed, very ha...
[more]
Rev. Wright: A Neverending Cross for Obama To Bear (78)
failasuf wrote:
I don't disagree with Rev Wright's comments, but I do disa...
[more]
Friday Afternoon RumInt: New Bush Iran Finding? (4)
Rowan Berkeley wrote:
Support for MeK, Jundullah, etc., has been around for a wh...
[more]
Wow, Kentucky, I Don't Know What to Say... (8)
InTheCourseOfHumanEvents wrote:
Well ya know sometimes I'm suprised there aren't some folk...
[more]
NYC's New Reefer Madness (16)
Owl16 wrote:
Black kids can get away with smoking mj in the public scho...
[more]
Obama Gets Hit By a Gravelanche (3)
Michael Z. wrote:
What was Gravel smoking when came up with this steaming lo...
[more]
Perspective, Please (3)
Michael Z. wrote:
People who drop the KKK card in reference to Barack or his...
[more]
MoJo Wins National Magazine Award (2)
Kaulka wrote:
Silly question... but is the sculpture supposed to be an...
[more]
McCain Defends Gas Tax Holiday With More Hackery (2)
Ed in Lousiana wrote:
Figure it out yourself...To save $70 in the three summer d...
[more]
A Tale of Clintonian Spin: Trying to Blow Past the Weathermen Question (88)
rixhex56 wrote:
dhinds,
I'm always amazed at how people can't remain obje...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: JP on 04/23/08 at 3:38 PM Respond