Obama’s 2010 health and human services budget includes not one reference to comprehensive sex education, and says only that the budget “will fund models that stress the importance of abstinence while providing medically-accurate and age-appropriate information to youth who have already become sexually active.

So what about the youth who haven’t become sexually active yet? Are we going to wait until they’re already pregnant to give them medically accurate information about s ex?

32 replies on “This is Troubling”

  2. So this is “Troubling” and worth a blog Obama bash?

    But when Christopher Frizzelle was giving “props” to that child rapist a couple weeks ago you were “too busy doing your job?”

    Like people said at the time, you don’t have credibility on issues like this anymore.

  4. He was dinged on the campaign for advocating for sex ed for pre-teens, so he’s trying to cover his ass. Plus “comprehensive sex education” is librul code for “we hate abstinence-only sex ed” – its too easy to CTRL+F, as you noticed. Don’t worry, Obama is solid on this issue.

  5. Yes, Erica, just as you always suspected Obama is really ANTI-ABORTION! He’s just waiting to make teens carry babies they don’t want to full term!

    It’s weird how someone your age is more stuck in the early 90s Culture War idea that abortion is The.Biggest.Issue. That’s usually reserved for youngish Baby Boomers….people Obama’s age.

  6. Ugh ECB. I really think you spend half your day trying to think of a lame ass complaint you can make about Obama because he doesn’t fit into your unrealistically liberal world and beat Hillary.

  10. ECB, that’s what abortions are for.

    If we give them that information before they become sexually active, and they avoid pregnancy, then we deprive them of the opportunity to exercise their right to choose.

    What’s the deal, are you anti choice now?…

  11. Why are the commenters being so weirdly combative?

    What Erica points out is, in fact, troubling. They should have just left it at “will fund models that stress the importance of abstinence while providing medically-accurate and age-appropriate information.” Period. There is no need to segregate sexually active youth from the not-so-much. How are teachers of sex-ed going to know who’s sexually active anyway, and therefore eligible for medically accurate information–by asking the parents to sign permission slips? Ha.

  14. what the fuck is the deal with the commenters here? shit, people, so you don’t like ECB, fine, fucking relax. this is a perfectly valid post. the wording in the hhs budget complicate things unnecessarily, and is problematic for a variety of reasons, the logistics of knowing which teens are sexually active, having to define what the threshold for sexual activity is, ect… why would you spend your energy attacking someone for pointing out a good point?

  15. I really doubt schools are going to separate kids into the laid and the lame. I read that as saying emphasize abstinence in the program but also give medically accurate info. Sure the abstinence part is hokey, but its is not abstinence only.

    I think your reading to much into the phrasing.

  16. It shouldn’t be the job of taxpayers to fund comprehensive sex education. Such discussion can be part of a general heath class and the teacher can point to weath of materials and videos out on the Internet.

  17. Obama’s 2010 health and human services budget includes not one reference to comprehensive sex education,

    I don’t suppose there’s any point in suggesting, just as a matter of philosophical speculation, that this issue is best left to the states? I mean, just in the sense that having mandates like that handed down by the federal government tends to make religious fundamentalists pull their kids out of public school and homeschool them, so maybe local government has a better idea of what the local threshold for sexual enlightenment is?

    Just throwing that out there, so it can be thoroughly ignored.

  18. @16,

    I’m not sure having kids google how to fuck is going to get them the best info. Teaching kids about safe sex is as much the job of a school as teaching them any other life skill such as home ec, nutrition, pe, or music.

  19. It’s stealth language but I’m of the opinion that it’s just code for comprehensive sex ed. Good comprehensive sex ed has always taught abstinence while also providing teens with information about birth control, reproduction, and sexual relationships.

    The bit about teaching it to kids who are already sexually active basically means it’ll be addressed to kids 12 and older.

    Which is fine if you consider that teaching 10 year olds about condoms is going a little over the heads of children who probably aren’t even experience sexual desire.

  20. @17 i think that’s a potentially good point, but certain states, ie south dakota, would automatically opt for abstinence only education or worse. and there has been federal funding of abstinence ed for some time now. at this point, there isn’t a debate to be had, abstinence ed has been proven time and again to be disastrous, while medically accurate sex ed has been shown to be effective in every positive way. thus i would say that leaving it up to the states is a) ignoring the damage done over the last several years by shitty policy, and b) opening the door for furthering such clearly damaging policy. that wouldn’t be a very responsible way to run the health and human services department.

  21. @19 i feel like your assuming a lot about the mind set of those who wrote the hhs report. sure it could be language used to promote a greater audience for sex ed by, say, defining sexually active as masturbation and wet dreams, in which case you would have funding for comprehensive sex ed for 10 and 11 year olds. or the language could be construed to mean only kids who have already fucked, in which case you would be missing the point of sex ed entirely. my problem is that the language opens up for debate something that really shouldn’t be debated anymore. abstinence only sex ed thoroughly lost that debate. we need comprehensive sex ed, there shouldn’t be any ambiguity.

  22. @21 I agree, actually, that we need comprehensive sex ed. I’d also rather there not be any ambiguity about the fact that comprehensive sex ed works in a way abstinence only education does not.

    That said, relabeling comprehensive sex ed with this stealthy but accurately descriptive language probably doesn’t hurt all that much. Loyalty to the term “comprehensive sex ed” is pretty pointless compared to acknowledging the value of the contents.

    In other words, they didn’t say “Comprehensive Sex Ed” but they sure as heck meant it. Debate the contents, not the label.

  23. @22 i don’t really think anyone has loyalty to the phrase ‘comprehensive sex ed’ so much as they’re dedicated to the meaning of the phrase, ie, it’s content. at least that’s how i see it. but ‘youth who are already sexually active’ is a pretty crappy replacement label, i don’t see it as being very profound in content or clever in it’s supposed stealthiness. just open to interpretation.

  26. thus i would say that leaving it up to the states is a) ignoring the damage done over the last several years by shitty policy, and b) opening the door for furthering such clearly damaging policy.

    Yeah, the thing is, as far as a lot of Americans are concerned, the threshold question for what the Federal government can and can’t do isn’t, “Whether or not it’s a good idea.” It’s, “Whether or not that power is granted by the Constitution.”

    The notion that the unilateral exercise of Federal power should be excused because it saves lives and limits harm was the stated rationale for all the domestic spying shit the Bush administration pulled. And not only was that morally objectionable — it had significant negative political consequences for the people who advocated it. The same fate awaits those who try to advance what seem like “common sense” expansions of Federal power under a progressive agenda.

  27. “youth who have become sexually active” cannot possibly mean schools will be segregating kids by sexual activity. i mean really now, just think about the logistics of that for a second. it’s just not practical. i highly doubt it’s even possible.

    much more likely, it’s a poorly phrased way of avoiding this PR mess all over again. that is, directing sex ed at kids who are of the age when kids become sexually active. generally speaking, not singling them out individually.

  28. Why to you people continue to be surprised when Obama does exactly what he said he was going to do?
    This is exactly the position he took during the campaign.
    Was anyone on the Left actually paying attention or were your eyes too full of stars?

    Oh, and before you ask;
    THERE WILL NOT BE GAY MARRIAGE WHILE OBAMA IS PRESIDENT.

  29. @26, The taxing and spending clause gives congress the authority to attempt to coerce states via the use of federal funds. Sorry but Hamilton won on that one.

  32. obama is a smart man. smarter than most of us. he knows what he’s doing. he’s pacifying those of us who are appalled by the idea of teaching all the gory details of sex to 9 yr olds, while coming thru with the real education that the 12 and older set need. how about bitching about an actual problem, erica?

Comments are closed.