Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Now the Democrats Are Funding Abstinence?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 06:50 AM
Original message
Now the Democrats Are Funding Abstinence?
http://www.alternet.org/sex/53700/

Now the Democrats Are Funding Abstinence?

By James Wagoner, TomPaine.com. Posted June 11, 2007.

In the interest of "avoiding controversy," Democratic House Appropriations Chair David Obey has become one of the largest funders of the famous vast right-wing conspiracy, adding $140 million for abstinence education.

Back in November of 2006, after the Democrats won control of the House, what kind of odds do you think you would have gotten on the following scenario: With the Democrats in control, the appropriations cycle begins and the first big policy step the Democrats take on domestic reproductive health is to push through a 30 percent increase in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that prohibit information about condoms and birth control. Oh, and by the way, that increase (to $140 million) is larger than any put forward in the last three years of the Republican-led Congress.

"Huh?" you might ask.

Now, let me make the scenario even better -- or worse. What if you were told that just six weeks before the Appropriations Committee met, a major 10-year evaluation that Congress itself had mandated was released showing that abstinence-only programs had no impact on teen behavior? On top of that, what if you were told that the Society of Adolescent Medicine had released a report in 2006 stating that abstinence-only-programs "threaten fundamental human rights to health, information and life?"

And wait, there's more. When Democrat Henry Waxman was the ranking minority member on government oversight back in 2004, his staff did a report on the content of abstinence-only programs that showed over 80 percent of the programs contained "false or misleading information." All the way back in 2000, the Institute of Medicine, the nation's leading authority on public health, had called for the termination of abstinence-only programs because they represent "poor fiscal and public health policy."

Crying uncle yet? Don't, because there's still more.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. They funded effing war, fercripessale, why be surprised at them funding abstinence?
The Democratic Party moves closer and closer every day toward being a second Republican Party. I am disappointed and disgusted with the lot of them.

To be honest, I feel I am at a real cross-road at this moment in time where this Party is concerned. I don't know which way I'll go, but all this DINO bullsh*t is really driving me to make a decision.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. at the same time they are cutting funding for Alzeimers research
wtf is going on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. ...
...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NMMNG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. Gah!
:banghead:

Why, why, why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewRisingSun Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-11-07 07:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. Any chance this might be...
... just some strategic maneuvering? You know, vote to get this silly stuff out of committee just so it can be voted down on the full House floor, but in exchange you also get some stuff you actually want voted out of committee that otherwise you wouldn't?

As outrageous as it seems, let's wait what happens when the full House votes on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC