No it’s not…knee jerks aren’t needed…
Figure it out.
I’m surprised that the Left - given their belief that guns are the cause of killing - doesn’t call for castration as the solution.
I did …its stupid…
Yeah. You need to take time out of science class and pay faux teachers teacher salaries or else the pill will be available only in California and condoms will cost $100 each. roll eyes.
“Gee doc I didn’t KNOW that condoms can prevent pregnancy. I thought they were just a fashion accesory men sometimes wear because they like the color.”
Faux teachers? What are you whining about?
Don’t think he was whining. What I consider “faux teachers” are those people who have never been in the classroom (think Board members and Legislatures) who none-the-less believe they are experts on what and how something should be taught because, after all, they were once a student.
It is not just sex ed programs that come from these faux teachers, but other policies that make teaching much harder than it needs be.
That’s fine…I dont disagree with that…I want to see his explanation
Five bucks says STDs will increase over time.
You just can’t suppress sex drive in those people that nature turns it up on.
But nor do people have to give up and be slaves to nature’s sex drive. Some people are fine with going with nature, which is okay if that’s what they want. But no one should feel they are entrapped with no way out.
Think of all the changes in the curriculum from 1910 to 1950,
from 1950 to 1970,
from 1970 to 2000, etc…
Suddenly our students don’t know about condoms and the pill and suddenly our teachers cannot implement the needed curriculum change without a federal government intrusion and federal government funding streams.
My BS detector doesn’t get alerted very much but it’s all flashing lights and sirens at the moment.
Sally can figure out her phone but she got pregnant because she didn’t know the pill and condoms prevent pregnancy.
Our teachers need to teach that stuff or she won’t know.
We need the federal government to pay more money or our schools won’t be able to teach add it to the curriculum.
No one believes any of that. Even James Comey couldn’t sell that bill of goods with a straight face.
Ronald Reagan mocked government programs by saying “He who eats my bread does my bidding.”
not only STDs but also pregnancy.
quick google search retrieved this review from 2011:
“Abstract: The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In an effort to reduce these rates, the U.S. government has funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, a public controversy remains over whether this investment has been successful and whether these programs should be continued. Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S. In alignment with the new evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative and the Precaution Adoption Process Model advocated by the National Institutes of Health, we propose the integration of comprehensive sex and STD education into the biology curriculum in middle and high school science classes and a parallel social studies curriculum that addresses risk-aversion behaviors and planning for the future.”
AFAIK, it is well established that abstinence only education does not work.
Great defense in a rape or sexual harassment case.
Sigh…schools are governed by local and state…your school boards controls your schools. Federal funds make up maybe at max 15% of all schools nationally.
So your opinion is schools shouldn’t or should be teaching this stuff?
I’m not following outside of your rant about funding
and a defense for those born with a sexual appetite for illegal activity. I expect the “born that way” defense will be used to change the laws of pedophilia. Libs already give young girls the credit for being able to make decisions about sex without their parents’ consent (see link below) So … bingo… the libs will say sex between adults and children is “consensual”, they will challenge the laws outlawing pedophilia as unconstitutional, and the US will be remade in the image of progressive liberalism. NAMBLA will celebrate.
“Most of those states do not distinguish by age in granting youth autonomous birth-control rights, which means kids as young as 11 could be given access.”
Just change the laws. That is what they will do.
First off I think our Federal Government being in this business is against the Constitutional scope of what it should be doing. In my opinion that is. That said, religuosly applied and or thought out abstinence only programs are like bringing an empty gun to war. If the government must play at such social engineering all methods to fight unwanted teen pregnancy should be on the table. After all, President Trump has, it appears, been initially successful with an “all options” approach to North Korea.
I do hope any teen pregnancy approach isn’t federal. Some states have higher rates than others.
That said, the whole “unwanted pregnancy” issue is more complicated than teens, as some states have low teen pregnancy rates.
As I pointed out in another thread, sometimes adult women, even women in their 40s and perimenopausal, or irregular due to problems like PCOS, become pregnant unexpectedly. Some medications weaken hormonal bc.
Does the Religious Right seriously expect adult married women to practice abstinence? Some even refuse contraceptive ed at such venues as Planned Parenthood. I do believe unplanned, possibly unwanted pregnancy, is more complicated than how many dollars are thrown at sex ed & free contraceptive programs and whether abstinence only or comprehensive sex ed is taught.
There was a study, I believe in the '90’s, by the Guttmacher Institute about “unwanted pregnancy”.
Pregnant woman goes for first obstetric visit, and one of the first questions asked is “Was this a planned pregnancy?”
Well, a research study had volunteers, or participating physicians in the study, ask did those women who had unwanted pregnancies, thus answered “no”, practice any birth control.
The vast majority replied “no”. Or they incorrectly or inconsistently used it. Most of these women were attempting, and obviously succeeding, in having a or another baby with the hope of holding onto a partner, or pushing a marriage. Did these women not have access to contraception? I don’t think so.
Would any comprehensive sex ed teach the hazards of using a baby to force marriage? Or talk about the human body in the years of declining reproduction, as in chances are declining, but not nonexistent?