Maine Turns Down the Dough
In these interesting times, the party in control in Washington happens to be the party that thinks the federal government should make people's decisions for them, not only at the personal level but at the state level as well. But sometimes there are loopholes.
For instance, the party in power wants to control sex education at the local level. Well, not "control" it exactly, more like eradicate it. They would like for schools to teach nothing at all about sex, except how to avoid it. But they can't really order ignorant-until-marriage education in a state's schools, so they have to make federal funding dependent on whether a state complies with their wishes or not. You want the dough, you lower your standards to the federal level. Most states go for it, some don't.
Well, yes, that does bother some people, that little problem that abstinence-only education programs are ineffective and teach things that are ... well, crazy. But, y'know, you can get that money... boy, that's a tough one, free money and stupid education for your kids versus pay for it yourself and teach them something ... what's a state to do?
Oh, here's a good point, from this same article:
Really, I just included that part because I know how the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum will love it. I'd be pretty sure that "Plain Truth for Main Youth" has nothing to do with Herbert W. Armstrong's magazine The Plain Truth, which they might approve of. But SIECUS -- hoo boy, we know how that sets them off. You can drive by their house at night yelling "Ya mutha joined SIECUS!" and they won't be able to get back to sleep. (Or even better: "Ya mutha's in GLSEN!") And that ACLU, y'know, that's some bad stuff, promoting those civil rights all over the place, instead of good American freedom.
From the same article, just for your information:
So good to know they're looking out for us and our kids...
For instance, the party in power wants to control sex education at the local level. Well, not "control" it exactly, more like eradicate it. They would like for schools to teach nothing at all about sex, except how to avoid it. But they can't really order ignorant-until-marriage education in a state's schools, so they have to make federal funding dependent on whether a state complies with their wishes or not. You want the dough, you lower your standards to the federal level. Most states go for it, some don't.
Maine has stepped out of the collection line of states getting federal money to help subsidize sex education, joining California and Pennsylvania in saying, “No, thanks.”
Citing a potential conflict with a 2002 state law that mandates teaching teenagers everything from self-restraint to contraception, Maine declined about $160,000 in federal money for fiscal 2006.
Maine would have had to pitch in about $120,000 had it accepted the federal money, and it would have had to focus sex education programs financed by the money on abstinence exclusively.
The state also refused to allow Heritage of Maine, a nonprofit, abstinence-education group, to put on its programs in Maine public schools. Heritage’s programs, which are financed with a three-year, $1.5 million federal grant, are instead being conducted only in private schools.
Much of the debate over abstinence-only programs centers on their effectiveness or lack thereof. Groups opposed to the federal programs often cite a December 2004 study by the staff of U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) that found that 11 of 13 federally funded abstinence programs contained medically inaccurate information. States abstain from federal sex ed money
Well, yes, that does bother some people, that little problem that abstinence-only education programs are ineffective and teach things that are ... well, crazy. But, y'know, you can get that money... boy, that's a tough one, free money and stupid education for your kids versus pay for it yourself and teach them something ... what's a state to do?
California has never accepted the federal money, which is provided under the 1996 welfare reform law, and Pennsylvania first turned it down in 2004. Officials from both states cited the programs’ ineffectiveness in their decisions.
Maine’s decision to just say no to the just say no-ers ended seven years of involvement in the federal grant program. The state had previously used the money to fund an ad campaign that encouraged teen abstinence and parental involvement in their children’s choices regarding sex.
Oh, here's a good point, from this same article:
Maine’s decision has garnered praise from opponents of abstinence-only programs such as Plain Truth for Maine Youth, SIECUS and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Really, I just included that part because I know how the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum will love it. I'd be pretty sure that "Plain Truth for Main Youth" has nothing to do with Herbert W. Armstrong's magazine The Plain Truth, which they might approve of. But SIECUS -- hoo boy, we know how that sets them off. You can drive by their house at night yelling "Ya mutha joined SIECUS!" and they won't be able to get back to sleep. (Or even better: "Ya mutha's in GLSEN!") And that ACLU, y'know, that's some bad stuff, promoting those civil rights all over the place, instead of good American freedom.
From the same article, just for your information:
About $50 million per year in federal funds to promote abstinence is available to state governments, which receive between $75,000 and $4 million per year through the program, SIECUS statistics show. Overall federal funding for abstinence-only programs has increased an average of $22.1 million per year since 2000, according to statistics compiled by SIECUS. The proposed amount for fiscal 2006 is $206 million, up from $170.5 million in fiscal 2005.
So good to know they're looking out for us and our kids...
posted by JimK at 12:23 PM
6 Comments:
"For instance, the party in power wants to control sex education at the local level. Well, not "control" it exactly, more like eradicate it. They would like for schools to teach nothing at all about sex, except how to avoid it. But they can't really order ignorant-until-marriage education in a state's schools, so they have to make federal funding dependent on whether a state complies with their wishes or not. You want the dough, you lower your standards to the federal level. Most states go for it, some don't."
Which has Maryland done, Jim? Have they refused the money or have they eradicated sex ed?
anonymous said, "Have they refused the money or have they eradicated sex ed?
Why not look it up?
http://www.siecus.org/
"anon free"
Because I don't think abstinence-only programs are required to receive Federal funds, as this post seems to imply.
Anonymous said...
Because I don't think abstinence-only programs are required to receive Federal funds, as this post seems to imply.
Not only are Abstinence-only programs required to receive federal funding but the law states seven specific items that must be included.
You will find the text of the law in this 251 page pdf file. It begins at the bottom of page 249. Gee, you don't suppose they stuck in at the last minute do you?
Here's what it says:
Section 912 ABSTINENCE EDCUATION
Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following section:
‘‘SEPARATE PROGRAM FOR ABSTINENCE EDUCATION
‘‘SEC. 510. (a) For the purpose described in subsection (b), the Secretary shall, for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent fiscal 42 USC 710. 42 USC 608a. 26 USC 32 note. 110 STAT. 2354 PUBLIC LAW 104–193—AUG. 22, 1996 year, allot to each State which has transmitted an application for the fiscal year under section 505(a) an amount equal to the
product of—
‘‘(1) the amount appropriated in subsection (d) for the fiscal year; and
‘‘(2) the percentage determined for the State under section 502(c)(1)(B)(ii).
‘‘(b)(1) The purpose of an allotment under subsection (a) to a State is to enable the State to provide abstinence education, and at the option of the State, where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock.
‘‘(2) For purposes of this section, the term ‘abstinence education’ means an educational or motivational program which—
‘‘(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
‘‘(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
‘‘(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
‘‘(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
‘‘(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
‘‘(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
‘‘(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
‘‘(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
‘‘(c)(1) Sections 503, 507, and 508 apply to allotments under subsection (a) to the same extent and in the same manner as such sections apply to allotments under section 502(c).
‘‘(2) Sections 505 and 506 apply to allotments under subsection (a) to the extent determined by the Secretary to be appropriate.
‘‘(d) For the purpose of allotments under subsection (a), there is appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an additional $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1998 through 2002. The appropriation under the preceding sentence for a fiscal year is made on October 1 of the fiscal year.’’
Christine
Here's an announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services, showing these specific requirements to receive federal funding were still in effect in 2005.
And here's the White House Proposed FY 2006 Federal Budget which states, "In support of this initiative, by 2008 funding for these [Abstinence Only Education] programs will increase to a total of $270 million."
Christine
Ooops!
Here's the correct link to the DHHS announcement.
Christine
Post a Comment
<< Home