Dear Governor Easley: Just Say No
Much has been written about the abstinence-only debacle, including many calls to our elected leaders to turn down federally dollars for this destructive approach to education. Today, Paige Johnson, of Planned Parenthood of North Carolina, has a good wrap-up of the issue, with a clear call to Governor Easley to take both a principled and a pragmatic stand. Her column is at NC Policy Watch.
To help young adults gain access to lifesaving information that will prepare them for a healthy tomorrow, Governor Easley should reject the Federal Government’s highly restrictive Title V Abstinence Only Sex Education money and establish state support for comprehensive sex education.
..
In the sex education debate, Governor Easley does not have to stand alone. Fourteen states, including most recently Virginia, have rejected Federal Title V money because they understand that it is tied to biased Federal mandates that do nothing to help prepare young people for a successful future.
..
Until 1996 (when Robin Hayes mucked things up), North Carolina recognized and understood the need to teach students about the benefits of birth control and prevention of sexually transmitted infections. Most North Carolinians, who attended middle school or high school prior to 1996, remember receiving comprehensive sex education.
..
Recently, several major studies have demonstrated that abstinence-only programs are ineffective in changing teenagers’ sexual behavior. Most notably, a 10-year federally funded evaluation initiated by Congress proved abstinence-only education makes little difference in the lives of young people.
..
Roughly one-half of our high school students admit to having sex even after receiving “abstinence until marriage only” sex education. Other statistics point to the consequences of this gap. Every day in North Carolina, 53 teenage girls, 15 to 19 years of age, become pregnant. In 2006, 405 young girls in North Carolina, ages 10 to 14 became pregnant. The HIV and sexually transmitted disease rates for African Americans are approximately 10 times the rates of whites.
There's much more in Paige's excellent column. Stop by Progressive Pulse and give it a read. Then send a message to Governor Easley asking him to do the right thing and put a stop to the use of abstinence-only dollars here in North Carolina.
Thanks.
BlueNC is dedicated to making North Carolina a more progressive and prosperous state. If your intention is to disrupt this effort, please find somewhere else to express your opinions.
Like?
Comments
Too "progressive" for our own good
Glad you picked up on Paige's column; it is excellent. The column is actually on the Policy Watch web site under the "Progressive Voices" section not the "Progressive Pulse" blog. Just clarifying in case someone was visiting the blog site and couldn't find the column.
CBS news is reporting on the other states that turned down abstinence-only dollars.
Thanks, Plum
So many nooks and crannies to keep track of over there!
It's really sad that doing
It's really sad that doing something proactive for teen health is seen as "progressive" instead of just plain common sense. *sigh*
Abstinence-only programs don't work, as anyone who pays attention already knows.
Public school systems in NC *can* offer a comprehensive sex-ed program, but it has to be approved by the school board.
The conservatives actually go so far as to bus in opposition from out-of-state. So the hearings get stacked with astroturfers (faux grassroots), and the voices for common sense and reality are often drowned out. And it's the kids who pay the price.
--
Get angry. Get involved.
Most parents that I know would opt for the common sense approach
No one wants to be a grandparent while your child is still in high school, and no one wants their child to contract a preventable disease. I would much rather see the "abstinence-only" program be something that parents had to sign their children into, and the rest of the children could get the education.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Given enough time, how would evolution solve this problem?
Would those who believed in abstinence only be less fit and eventually be outcompeted by those who don't. Or, would they produce more offspring and survive better? I guess it depends on what happens to humanity. If we get a "Day After" global warming scenario, then us liberals who only average 1 kid might be in trouble.
{/tongue in cheek}
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Unless our offspring were the ones
smart enough to have prepared and been ready with proper equipment and adaptations....:)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Support truth and respect, not ignorance.
Good for Paige, as usual!
It's well past time for us to support comprehensive, medically accurate health and sexuality education in our community teen pregnancy prevention programs and in our schools.
"Abstinence-only" too easily becomes "ignorance-only". We need instead the approach better known as "abstinence-based" or "abstinence-plus". Yes, encourage young people to postpone sexual activity, but recognize the reality that almost everyone will eventually want and need accurate information on contraceptive methods as well. That's the way to protect the health and future of our young people.
I will continue to speak up for this change in our state policies.
Dan Besse
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor
www.danbesse2008.org
Dan Besse
What does Easley have to lose?
if he could make the statements he did about the children of illegal immigrants, I can't see how it would cost him to reject the absurdity of the "abstinence only" concept.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
This is cool...
an issue where I am in complete agreement. The federal government has no business giving money, with or without strings, to schools for education. Passing an educational agenda down from Washington is unconstitutional and unnecessary.
There's nothing wrong (and everything right) with our state and local governments charting a course and funding local education in a way that reflects local priorities and resources. It's not like the federal government has the money to give us, anyway -- it's bankrupt, and as of today one Federal Reserve Note only buys 1/889 oz of gold. Trying to borrow and print more money to teach abstinence or occupy Iraq only makes our grocery bills worse, and continues eviscerating the middle class. When will we learn?
Hmmm... could we pay teachers in Plenties?
BJ
William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District
Totally disagree
The federal government can and should offer funds to public schools. The public schools can and should decide if the restrictions and conditions put on the funds are worth the the benefit of having the funds. (Cost vs. Benefit.) It's easy to sit in a wealthy school district and say "the feds have no business giving the schools money", but when you visit a county that has no money - like, say, Hoke, then Federal funds become incredibly important in educating children. Title 1 money is hugely important in the poorer counties in NC. I don't trust state legislators to see beyond their own counties to provide equal educational opportunity for all children in the state. They are driven by the interests of who will vote for them, and that is driven by what they bring home to their districts.
As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I don't really trust people who aren't educators, or at least have a background in education, to know how to handle educational funding. But see, I like the idea that we have the Department of Public Instruction in Raleigh, and the US Department of Education. I like that there are several levels of folks who are all invested in the idea that we have to educate our children. Is it top-heavy? Perhaps, at times. Especially in Washington when Republicans appoint people who don't belong in the field.
I'm rambling. I need coffee. Bottom line is - if you take federal funding away from schools - some counties in NC would have a difficult time keeping their schools open - as things stand now. And you thought the LLeandro case was a killer.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
... but why do we need to go begging in WASHINGTON?
Exactly. What does Washington, DC know about educating kids in Washington, NC? Not a whole lot.
It's not just top-heavy, it's unmanageable. Who's on first? Who's the boss? Who has "jurisdiction"? And is it really worth fearing the competence (or incompetence) of appointed bureaucrats and their lobbyist cronies in Washington?
When we're taking money from Washington, it ALWAYS comes with strings. Why even bother, especially when incompetent politicians are appointing people who don't belong in the field? Just think -- eliminate the Dept of Education, keep the money we would have sent to Washington from leaving North Carolina in the first place, and we could do sex ed in a way that meets our local needs and priorities! Oh, and if you're concerned about Mississippi not having enough money for its public schools, we can have a bake sale and mail a check to Jackson, no strings attached. :-)
Why not have Raleigh play the redistribution game? Can't we handle education as a state? Remember, the federal government is (gulp) broke! Oh, it can give you money, all right... but it's paper money that is borrowed from China or Saudi Arabia, or printed by virtue of a worthless check written by our Federal Reserve to buy a Treasury Bond at auction. That kind of "money" just makes our prices go up.
There are two types of people in the world: those who understand fractional reserve banking in the context of a monopolistically-managed fiat currency, and those who wonder why prices keep going up, why we're always at war with something, why our civil liberties keep disappearing, and why the American middle class is on the endangered species list:
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/01/09/what-is-the-government-doing-with-our-money/
William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District
Raleigh
I said, and I thought I made it clear, I don't trust the state legislature to make equitable distribution. Federal funds, like Title I, come directly to the local school board, and decisions on how those funds are spent, within the guidelines of Title I, are made by local officials, who are best equipped to know how to meet the needs of their own children. Why remove that local control and put it a level up in Raleigh?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
But where does Washington get its money?
... and here's to bringing back a state government we can trust!
:-)
BJ
William (B.J.) Lawson, M.D.
Congressional Candidate, North Carolina's 4th District
but why take the local control away from local folks?
and yes - here's to restoring a state government that we can trust. I think that Speaker Hackney has gone a long way to doing that. :)
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi