Don't have sex until you're 30, Your tax dollars at work

casey

Abstinence message goes beyond teens
Updated 10/31/2006 8:32 AM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this

By Sharon Jayson, USA TODAY

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

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.

But Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.

Government data released last month show that 998,262 births in 2004 were to unmarried women 19-29, the ages with the most births to unmarried women.

"The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are "to identify groups ... most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range." Previous guidelines didn't mention targeting of an age group.

"We wanted to remind states they could use these funds not only to target adolescents," Horn said. "It's a reminder."

Last year, 46 states applied for the federal abstinence-education money, to fund programs in schools, neighborhood clubs and faith-based organizations.

Sarah Brown, director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, says abstinence programs are among many messages that have helped reduce teen pregnancy rates. But "the notion that the federal government is supporting millions of dollars worth of messages to people who are grown adults about how to conduct their sex life is a very divisive policy," she says.

"We would oppose any program that stigmatizes unmarried people," adds Nicky Grist, executive director of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, a non-profit organization based in Brooklyn, N.Y., that advocates for the rights of unmarried people.

For last year's state grants, Congress appropriated $50 million. A similar amount is expected for 2007, but the money has not yet been allocated, according to the Administration for Children and Families.

"I think the program should talk about the problem with out-of- wedlock childbearing — not about your sex life," Brown says. "If you use contraception effectively and consistently, you will not be in the pool of out-of-wedlock births."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-30-abstinence-message_x.htm

know1

I agree with the abstinence message, but I do think this is just more evidence that we are completely over-taxed in this country.

callen

we are becoming more and more liberal...and nothing the right can do will stop it.....including wasting conservatives money to fight it....ironic really.

hippiemom

callen wrote:

we are becoming more and more liberal...and nothing the right can do will stop it.....including wasting conservatives money to fight it....ironic really.

If it were just conservatives' money being wasted, I wouldn't care. But when they want to use MY money for this kind of rubbish, I get pissed off.

callen

hippiemom wrote:

If it were just conservatives' money being wasted, I wouldn't care. But when they want to use MY money for this kind of rubbish, I get pissed off.

me too...but you know...I'm trying not to be soo pissed off anymore...trying to get something positive out of everything....and listening to the local kids in neighborhood last night...and realized the right wing conservatives/holy rollers are loosing...big time. This is like their last horah...truth and justice will ultimately prevail. (-;

know1

hippiemom wrote:

If it were just conservatives' money being wasted, I wouldn't care. But when they want to use MY money for this kind of rubbish, I get pissed off.

I know how you feel. I think about 90% (or maybe more) of my money is being wasted on rubbish.

know1

callen wrote:

truth and justice will ultimately prevail. (-;

I understand the premise whereby you feel tax money is wasted on this, but is it really wrong to be abstinent?

hippiemom

know1 wrote:

I understand the premise whereby you feel tax money is wasted on this, but is it really wrong to be abstinent?

There's nothing wrong with it at all, but it's unrealistic in the extreme to expect that vast numbers of single people in their 20s aren't going to have any sex.

prism

Woo-Hoo....I'm old enough to boink as much as i want.



this is just a plain rediculous waste of $

know1

hippiemom wrote:

There's nothing wrong with it at all, but it's unrealistic in the extreme to expect that vast numbers of single people in their 20s aren't going to have any sex.

My comment was directed to the "truth and justice will ultimately prevail" comment. It wasn't an attempt to discuss the validity of the program.

decides2dream

*shakes head*
seriously....WTF?!
what an absolute waste. b/c sure, the abstinence only program has been SUCH a success with the younger ages :rolleyes:...makes perfect sense to throw $$$ at an even older agegroup where it is more than likely to have even LESS positive effect.

morons. honestly, who thinks of this utter shite? why not use these funds where they might actually help the problems? like....education and access to birth control? nah, far too sensible....


ridiculous.

PaperPlates

I propose IQ tests in order to be allowed to copulate. Would solve ALOT of problems.

decides2dream

PaperPlates wrote:

I propose IQ tests in order to be allowed to copulate. Would solve ALOT of problems.

don't you mean...a lot? haha.
sorry, i couldn't resist due to the content of your post.



well, if such funds were spent to educate rather than regulate...perhaps we'd be far better off in that area as well. an educated fuck, far better.

ThumbingMyWay32

God, I hate taxes.

soulsinging

PaperPlates wrote:

I propose IQ tests in order to be allowed to copulate. Would solve ALOT of problems.

im all for sterilizing people below certain iq levels, people who prove incapable of meeting even the pathetically mediocre standards of an american public school, anyone who believes the book of genesis belongs beside evolution in a textbook, people who think saddam hussein had something to do with 9/11, people who believe the US government planned 9/11, and many many others.

callen

know1 wrote:

I understand the premise whereby you feel tax money is wasted on this, but is it really wrong to be abstinent?

sex is a good thing...not a bad thing...if two consenting adults want to have......so fkn what. okay, was that like a pun or something...(-;

kills me when someone imposes their morals on someone else...please.

callen

know1 wrote:

My comment was directed to the "truth and justice will ultimately prevail" comment. It wasn't an attempt to discuss the validity of the program.

thats not what you posted in response to my comments.

know1

callen wrote:

sex is a good thing...not a bad thing...if two consenting adults want to have......so fkn what. okay, was that like a pun or something...(-;

kills me when someone imposes their morals on someone else...please.

I'm not disagreeing with you about sex or imposing anything. I'm asking if people are taking the opposite stand - that abstinence is a bad thing?

callen

soulsinging wrote:

im all for sterilizing people below certain iq levels, people who prove incapable of meeting even the pathetically mediocre standards of an american public school, anyone who believes the book of genesis belongs beside evolution in a textbook, people who think saddam hussein had something to do with 9/11, people who believe the US government planned 9/11, and many many others.

arsch off...so true. how bout adding people that drive Escalades, Expeditions, Excursions, Yukons and Tahoes....(-: ....

know1

callen wrote:

thats not what you posted in response to my comments.

So are you saying that it's wrong to be abstinent? That's my question.

callen

know1 wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you about sex or imposing anything. I'm asking if people are taking the opposite stand - that abstinence is a bad thing?

sorry...my bad. No I think abstinence is a good thing if thats what you want...and I very much respect it.