Good: Senate Finance Committee Restores $50m in Abstinence Education Funding

Thanks in small (yet significant) part to those of you who took part in the APP effort of last week to support Title V funding for abstinence education - the Senate Finance Committee came through and, by the narrowest margin, made the right call!

In a late Tuesday vote, members of the Senate Finance Committee narrowly approved an amendment to restore some of the abstinence education funds President Barack Obama and abortion advocates in Congress have removed from budget bills.

Sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, the amendment reinstates $50 million a year in abstinence funding through Title V state block grant programs.

Hatch hailed the vote, which saw members of the panel vote 12-11 for his amendment.

... “It is encouraging that the hard work of grassroots constituencies from across the country have prevailed to ensure these common-sense programs will continue,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of NAEA.

Huber told LifeNews.com that the amendment will still need a floor vote in the Senate, so her organization's job of promoting abstinence funding continues. (LifeNews)

President Obama had removed the abstinence education funding in his budget proposal.

Surprise, surprise.

Palin's Pregnant Daughter

Most of you have probably heard the news, which broke over the labor day weekend.

Fr. Z has a post on how the media is using this as an opportunity to criticize, of all things, abstinence education.

Diogenes, meanwhile, wins the "so obvious we all probably would have missed it" award:

Congratulations, Sarah Palin. You've got the New York Times talking-- on page 1, above the fold-- about whether it's wise for a mother of growing children to hold a demanding full-time job. Somehow I don't think a liberal Democratic candidate could have accomplished that.

Congratulations, Bristol Palin. You've got the Boston Globe worried about out-of-wedlock pregnancies.

Exactly. Suddenly these issues are important to liberal media-types, and now they are quickly adopting positions opposite to their usual ones, because ... they want to criticize the conservative veep pick.

I guess this is another example of people trying to claim moral values in an election year.

On a parallel, but not unrelated note, Brian Saint-Paul looks into the embarassing lack of vetting and forethought that is evidenced by these Palin details emerging so soon after her public selection.

Liberals decry government TV ad promoting teen abstinence

The latest TV public service message produced by 4parents.gov tries to support parents in talking to their kids about sex, and about "waiting 'till marriage" to have it.

I've been reading through the criticisms this ad has been receiving on such liberal blogs as Think Progress (not the most uplifting material, mind you, and often very vulgar).

It's amazing how hopping mad they get about the idea of the government promoting abstinence. (And also: what exactly is so wrong with telling parents to talk to their kids about sex?)

Their first general motif is "no one can be expected to make it to marriage without having sex, therefore the only option is to give them prophylactics." In the same sentence as criticizing "fundamentalists Christians", they themselves operate on a fundamentally false a priori.

Their second claim is that a recent federal report (large PDF file) concluded that current abstinence programs have had no effect on rates of sexual activity. From this report they have decided that all abstinence programs are futile, thanks to their enlightened humanism.

Actually, what the report demonstrates is that the current abstinence programs, trying to operate within a deluge of opposed mass media, lack of parental involvement, and virulent advocacy from groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the like ... are not working.

Reading through the report's Conclusion, there's plenty facts in it that the liberal blogs fail to mention. For instance, abstinence programs do not - as some have claimed - increase the chances of contracting an STD (p. 83). Neither is it accurate to say that there have been no gains in promoting abstinence. Instead, the report claims these gains are not statistically significant.

There are also gains in correct knowledge about STDs and the myths surrounding birth control (many teens apparently have been led to believe that birth control pills prevents STDs - it doesn't. And they accuse us of spreading misinformation).

The liberal blogs also, conveniently, fail to mention that final summary paragraph of the report:

This evaluation highlights the challenge faced by programs aiming to reduce adolescent sexual activity. Nationally, about half of all high school youth report having had sex, and more than one in five students report having had four or more sexual partners by the time they complete high school. One-quarter of sexually active adolescents nationwide have an STD, and many STDs are lifelong viral infections with no cure. Findings from this study speak to the continued need for rigorous research on how to combat the high rate of teen sexual activity and its negative consequences.

Given this situation, the liberals' answer is ... more condoms?! My, that's facing facts honestly.

Granted, I'm not trying to endorse abstinence programs as they are currently taught. I know very little about the situation. I do know, however, that addressing the cause of a problem (sexual promiscuity) is better than addressing the symptoms of a problem (teen pregnancy and rampant STDs), so - in theory - abstinence, simply from an abstract point of view, would seem better suited to addressing the probem.

Of course, at the same time, abstinence cut-off from an adequate understanding of human sexuality, marriage, family, anthropology and theology is a very weak construct. No wonder it's failing.