Hardcore Conk Bible Belt Red State Leads in Teen Pregnancy

[dbackjon]

But, didn't you say that Clinton signed the "Abstinence Only" legislation in 1996?

Probably - one of the disapointing areas of the Clinton era. Trying to pretend he had morality

[D1B]

But, didn't you say that Clinton signed the "Abstinence Only" legislation in 1996?

Sure did. So did these folks.

[img]Socially%20conservative%20legislators%20arrived%20at%20the%20narrow,%20eight-point%20definition%20(often%20referred%20to%20as%20the%20“A-H%20definition”),%20not%20through%20public%20health%20and%20social%20science%20research%20into%20effective%20programs,%20but%20as%20a%20reflection%20of%20their%20own%20conservative%20views.%20These%20ultra-conservative%20legislators%20were%20savvy%20enough%20to%20insert%20the%20obscure%20policy%20add-on%20into%20a%20“must-pass”%20piece%20of%20legislation%20at%20the%20center%20of%20the%20policy%20agenda%20of%20then%20President%20Clinton.%20Since%20then,%20the%20government’s%20investment%20in%20abstinence-only%20programming%20has%20grown%20enormously,%20reaching%20over%20one%20billion%20dollars%20in%20total.%20Now%20after%20a%20decade%20of%20extravagant%20funding,%20the%20government’s%20own%20long-term%20research%20has%20clearly%20shown%20that%20abstinence-only%20programs%20do%20not%20delay%20sexual%20initiation%20nor%20do%20they%20reduce%20rates%20of%20either%20teen%20pregnancy%20or%20sexually%20transmitted%20infections%20(STIs).[/img]

[D1B]

But, didn't you say that Clinton signed the "Abstinence Only" legislation in 1996?

Sure did. Sad but not the whole story.

For over a quarter century, the federal government has supported abstinence-only education programs that censor information to youth. Federal support of such programs began in 1982 with a limited pool of funding through the Adolescent Family Life Act. Then beginning in 1996, funding for abstinence-only and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (hereafter, collectively called abstinence-only) grew exponentially with the enactment of welfare reform (P.L. 104-193). The law contained a little noticed mandate of $50 million a year to fund abstinence-only programs. In fact, the law amended the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant legislation (Title V of the Social Security Act) and was groundbreaking, both for its funding level and also for its unprecedented, eight-point definition of abstinence education. This definition (see below) has remained at the core of all federal abstinence-only funding streams, including the newest and, arguably, the most controversial – Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).

Socially conservative legislators arrived at the narrow, eight-point definition (often referred to as the “A-H definition”), not through public health and social science research into effective programs, but as a reflection of their own conservative views. These ultra-conservative legislators were savvy enough to insert the obscure policy add-on into a “must-pass” piece of legislation at the center of the policy agenda of then President Clinton. Since then, the government’s investment in abstinence-only programming has grown enormously, reaching over one billion dollars in total. Now after a decade of extravagant funding, the government’s own long-term research has clearly shown that abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation nor do they reduce rates of either teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

[houndawg]

But, didn't you say that Clinton signed the "Abstinence Only" legislation in 1996?

Sure did. Sad but not the whole story.

For over a quarter century, the federal government has supported abstinence-only education programs that censor information to youth. Federal support of such programs began in 1982 with a limited pool of funding through the Adolescent Family Life Act. Then beginning in 1996, funding for abstinence-only and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (hereafter, collectively called abstinence-only) grew exponentially with the enactment of welfare reform (P.L. 104-193). The law contained a little noticed mandate of $50 million a year to fund abstinence-only programs. In fact, the law amended the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant legislation (Title V of the Social Security Act) and was groundbreaking, both for its funding level and also for its unprecedented, eight-point definition of abstinence education. This definition (see below) has remained at the core of all federal abstinence-only funding streams, including the newest and, arguably, the most controversial – Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).

Socially conservative legislators arrived at the narrow, eight-point definition (often referred to as the “A-H definition”), not through public health and social science research into effective programs, but as a reflection of their own conservative views. These ultra-conservative legislators were savvy enough to insert the obscure policy add-on into a “must-pass” piece of legislation at the center of the policy agenda of then President Clinton. Since then, the government’s investment in abstinence-only programming has grown enormously, reaching over one billion dollars in total. Now after a decade of extravagant funding, the government’s own long-term research has clearly shown that abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation nor do they reduce rates of either teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

It takes a billion dollars for these geniuses to figure out that if you tell teenagers not to have sex they won't listen to you?

[D1B]

Sure did. Sad but not the whole story.

It takes a billion dollars for these geniuses to figure out that if you tell teenagers not to have sex they won't listen to you?

Yep, this is what happens when a major political party is owned by religious fanatics.

[AZGrizFan]

It takes a billion dollars for these geniuses to figure out that if you tell teenagers not to have sex they won't listen to you?

Yep, this is what happens when a major political party is owned by religious fanatics.

As opposed to the party of Surrender.

[Ibanez]

But, didn't you say that Clinton signed the "Abstinence Only" legislation in 1996?

Probably - one of the disapointing areas of the Clinton era. Trying to pretend he had morality

What about his marriage protection act?

[dbackjon]

Probably - one of the disapointing areas of the Clinton era. Trying to pretend he had morality

What about his marriage protection act?

Disapointing, but may have staved off a Federal Constitutional Amendment...

[AZGrizFan]

What about his marriage protection act?

Disapointing, but may have staved off a Federal Constitutional Amendment...

What about "don't ask, don't tell"?

[dbackjon]

Disapointing, but may have staved off a Federal Constitutional Amendment...

What about "don't ask, don't tell"?

Better than what was before...

[Ibanez]

You know what, if i'm fighting for my life, I could care less if a member of my fire team was a homosexual.

[AZGrizFan]

You know what, if i'm fighting for my life, I could care less if a member of my fire team was a homosexual.

Oh, me either, Mark. Just curious as to Jon's take on it. Personally, DADT was a complete failure in my opinion. If he had a spine, he'd have told military leaders to buck up and realize that gay people can shoot just as straight (no pun intended) as straight people can.

[dbackjon]

You know what, if i'm fighting for my life, I could care less if a member of my fire team was a homosexual.

Oh, me either, Mark. Just curious as to Jon's take on it. Personally, DADT was a complete failure in my opinion. If he had a spine, he'd have told military leaders to buck up and realize that gay people can shoot just as straight (no pun intended) as straight people can.

I agree - but being able to serve and and not have to lie was an improvement. Clinton wanting to do away with it, but ran into too much opposition - from conservatives in BOTH Parties, that he backed down.

DADT, while better, is still a failure that puts the nation at risk.

[BigApp]

thanks for the thread hijack guys, but let me say this:

If you haven't been in it, you won't understand: The U.S. Military is not the appropriate place for social experimentation.

And JROTC doesn't count.

[AZGrizFan]

thanks for the thread hijack guys, but let me say this:

If you haven't been in it, you won't understand: The U.S. Military is not the appropriate place for social experimentation.

Yeah. The thread was hijacked, sorry about that. But, after 22 years in the military I can say with a fair amount of expertise that most people on my ship wouldn't have cared a bit if someone was homosexual. 600 guys on board, so roughly 60 of them were probably gay ANYWAYS. They were there, but it was under the DADT policy. In three years on board, we had exactly ONE claim of sexual harassment.

People need to come out of the dark ages.

[dbackjon]

thanks for the thread hijack guys, but let me say this:

If you haven't been in it, you won't understand: The U.S. Military is not the appropriate place for social experimentation.

Damn that Harry Truman for integrating the military

[Cap'n Cat]

Yep, this is what happens when a major political party is owned by religious fanatics.

As opposed to the party of Surrender.

Hmmm. Kinda seems like a "post of surrender".

[AZGrizFan]

As opposed to the party of Surrender.

Hmmm. Kinda seems like a "post of surrender".

Actually, quite the opposite. As expected with the ADHD party of America, otherwise known as the Democratic party, they'd rather surrender morals than go the right route that actually requires a little WORK and doesn't produce immediate results. Just like war. Just like France.

You guys are as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

[D1B]

As opposed to the party of Surrender.

Hmmm. Kinda seems like a "post of surrender".

Tman's gone. AZ can't think on his own without him.

[D1B]

Hmmm. Kinda seems like a "post of surrender".

Actually, quite the opposite. As expected with the ADHD party of America, otherwise known as the Democratic party, they'd rather surrender morals than go the right route that actually requires a little WORK and doesn't produce immediate results. Just like war. Just like France.

Yeah, like diplomacy in the middle east (Iraq). Now this is a surrender post.

[AZGrizFan]

Actually, quite the opposite. As expected with the ADHD party of America, otherwise known as the Democratic party, they'd rather surrender morals than go the right route that actually requires a little WORK and doesn't produce immediate results. Just like war. Just like France.

Yeah, like diplomacy in the middle east (Iraq). Now this is a surrender post.

Hmmm...seems to me we have one more Democratic style government in the middle east than we had during Slick Willy's presidency. But then again, you wouldn't admit progress by conks if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts.

And I knew you'd surrender eventually.

[D1B]

Yeah, like diplomacy in the middle east (Iraq). Now this is a surrender post.

Hmmm...seems to me we have one more Democratic style government in the middle east than we had during Slick Willy's presidency. But then again, you wouldn't admit progress by conks if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts.

And I knew you'd surrender eventually.

You actually think Iraq is really "democratic style"!!!!!!! Holy shit, you ARE clueless.

[AZGrizFan]

Hmmm...seems to me we have one more Democratic style government in the middle east than we had during Slick Willy's presidency. But then again, you wouldn't admit progress by conks if it walked up and kicked you in the nuts.

And I knew you'd surrender eventually.

You actually think Iraq is really "democratic style"!!!!!!! Holy shit, you ARE clueless.

They're alot closer to that than they were 10 years ago....alot closer to that than Iran or Syria. But, as I said, you wouldn't recognize progress if it kicked you in the nuts....I wouldn't expect you to recognize it here....

[Cap'n Cat]

Now, Z, you do know you did seem to take an issue-avoiding 180 degree jag with that "surrender party" thing.




"This is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you, little Tommy."

[AZGrizFan]

Now, Z, you do know you did seem to take an issue-avoiding 180 degree jag with that "surrender party" thing.




"This is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you, little Tommy."

This THREAD has taken a 180 degree jag. Hardly the fault of me.




Wait. That sounded very donk of me, not taking responsibility. Jesus, I've been around you fellers too long!