Obama at his inauguration: “We will restore science to its rightful place…” It’s a promise that he’s making good on:
The President’s FY2010 budget was released this morning (you can search through all 1376 pages here) and among the proposed changes it includes is the elimination of Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) funding. Under the Bush administration, CBAE grants went to programs that teach kids the only way to prevent pregnancy and avoid sexually-transmitted infections is to postpone sex until marriage. Budget language explicitly prevented those programs from providing students “any other education regarding sexual conduct.”
This is why kids who’d had abstinence-only sex ed were such disasters once they became sexually active: they knew nothing about birth control, nothing about sex, nothing about anything. Well, it looks like the era of sex miseducation is over:
The Obama budget eliminates the main federal funding streams for abstinence-only education (some of which have been around since welfare reform) and replaces them with $110 million in competitive grants to “fund teen pregnancy prevention programs,” with at least $75 million reserved for “programs that replicate the elements of one or more teenage pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven through rigorous evaluation to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), or reduce teenage pregnancy.” It also authorizes $50 million in new mandatory teen pregnancy prevention grants to states.
Good news. Thanks, Mr. President.
Yay Obama! He must have watched Dan on Larry King!
About fucking time! The idea that keeping kids ignorant will keep them safe is quite possibly the dumbest idea ever promoted by the Christian Right.
Hurray! It’s too bad that President Obama hates gays, though. 🙁
Great news indeed!
Now, if they would just let Dan write a textbook (or distribute relevant sections of his work – or a work by Dan for that target audience hint, hint), how much better off we’d all be.
Let common sense and science (finally) prevail!
Uh-oh. Looks like logic has invaded the White House.
Dan,
be sure to share your ideas about anal sex for teenagers with Obama. I’m sure he and Michelle will be very interested. Don’t forget to give them candid scientific information about leakage and STDs.
Sterilization in exchange for monster truck pull or NASCAR tickets would work.
Dan,
I am not so sure that teaching kids birth control actually works either. With out-of-wedlock births at 71% in the black community and hovering around 30% in the white community and most of those children going to public schools where birth control information is available anyway it might not have any effect at all. These rates were still high even before Bush’s Abstinance Only program was unveiled.
Also, I’d be careful with the science only approach. Objective science like nature can come to some conclusions that political liberals would find quite disapproving.
A “science only” approach will tell you that the rectum is not a sex organ and that using it as such is an anatomical perversion that carries negative health consequences.
yay! this is amazingly wonderful news!
About time already!
But… this doesn’t mean the end of saddlebacking, does it?
Yes, @9, and here’s some more breaking news for you: Smoking and drinking aren’t good for you either.
Now excuse me while I go have a drink, a smoke, and stick things up my ass that don’t belong there.
12
Then I’m sure you’ll understand when we impose restrictions on anal sex similar to those on smoking and drinking…
@9 I’d like to add: refrain from masturbating! the hand is clearly not a sex organ, and you’re likely to suffer negative health consequences like blindness.
AND FOR GOD’S SAKE NO TITTY FUCKING!
Fuck, YEAH! (pun intended)
@13 (and @9 assuming you’re the same person)
like age restrictions? Already got ’em – statutory rape.
How about an analogue to public drinking laws? Shit, got those too! – public indecency.
what other restrictions did you have in mind? blue laws against buttsex on sundays? How about a 25-foot ‘no buttsex’ law around entrances to public buildings? This is fun!
We already have restrictions on sex (of all kinds) because everyone already knows that sex (of all kinds) is like smoking and drinking – it’s fun and carries the possibility for negative as well as positive personal and societal consequences.
Not to mention, #9, that normal intercourse can lead to similar issues. It’s all about how experience and precaution.
Anyway, pretty sure that science wouldn’t call anything a perversion. See the praying mantis’ mating rituals for details.
Oh hooray!
I’ll never forget how terrified I was of sex when I was in jr. high because, according to my abstinence-loving teachers, HIV *would* come through the “natural” holes in a condom. Not “could, assuming your partner is positive.” Would.
17
Yes, but normal sex is, well- ‘normal’.
@18 They freaking told you that?!?! WTF!!! Sorry I have heard that they say crazy things but I have never talked to anyone who experienced them… OMG… Thank you thank you thank you for my libral hippie sex positive parental units!!
Hooray! Great news! It is awesome to see this country swing back to sanity after all those years of suffering under the religious idiots. Now please get on some of those promises to the gay community, Mr. President!
I’m glad to hear it.
Personally i think sex should be kept private, with that said, I think sex is like smoking, the more you smoke the more you smoke.
Whether it is because it is thrilling or momentarily satisfying is hard to say.
The idea that a person is just going do a little, or take a little drag, doesn’t work.
So a person who tries to not smoke has to stay away from other smokers, so it might be like that with sex, you will have to lock yourself up away from attractive people. Then, if you are not in a couple you have to deal with explaining why you are or aren’t gay, not that you happen to be abstaining.*
* Actually, this is a comment someone left on Meghan McCain’s blog today. It was too good not to share. [TheDailyBeast; “The GOP Doesn’t Understand Sex” http://is.gd/xxke ]
So Mr #9 and #13,
Please tell us all about the “negative health consequences” you experienced in the prolonged and excessive sexual abuse of your rectum.
And furthermore, please describe in detail any other “anatomical perversions” you may have visited upon yourself…
I ask because it is quite obvious you speak from experience… Prolonged. Excessive. Experience.
19:
Yes, circular logic is very easy.
@9:
Don’t forget about the “negative health consequences” that come from childbirth! It’s so traumatizing to a woman’s body that it actually forces her to be hospitalized! All that ripping and shredding of flesh … talk about your “anatomical perversions”!
What a trivial topic to upset the religious right about. Doesn’t Obama have more important things to worry about other than encouraging our kids to have sex?
I am really happy for this, but this is the kind of leadership Obama needs to show on DADT.
You girls get very touchy when someone questions the ButtSex
@28:
sure i get a touchy about “the ButtSex”, it’s one of those crazy things where education helps, you might want to avail yourself of some of that, just saying a bit of education about a subject that you are so obviously interested in, would go a long way.
the info is there, and if ya wanna seek, you shall find– young butt-wan.