Cause why should teens be the only ones who get fed lies about sex?
The government is planning on spending millions of federal dollars on abstinence programs for unmarried adults. Seriously.
"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."
Real shocking, coming from this administration.
The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.But Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.
Ahem. So even among adults, it’s women who are being targeted for abstinence. Unbelievable. Rebecca Traister puts it best:
Hey asshats, maybe that has something to do with the fact that you're also chipping away at our ability to get birth control and safe and legal abortions. Maybe if you considered throwing some of that government money toward making sex education, birth control and healthcare more widely available, you'd have more luck in ensuring that each and every one of those pregnant unmarried women is pregnant because she wants to be.
Indeed.
By the way, Horn is the same guy leading the charge to push women welfare recipients to get married rather than get jobs. So you know he has women’s best interests at heart. Ugh.
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Abstinence for grown-ups.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4223
The House Judiciary Committee has served a subpoena on the Department of Justice requesting all documents related to the recent firings of eight U.S. Attorneys. Christy Hardin Smith explains what Congress is seeking: In this case, the Judiciary C... Read More
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Make this shit a campaign issue.
Let's tell the voting public that the Republican party wants you to stop having sex, altogether.
If disenfranchisement won't motivate the youth vote, a republican war on fucking certainly will.
Oh for the love pf puppies, I'm ready to stop paying my taxes if my money's going to this ridiculous, pointless cause. What a stupid, stupid waste of money!
Can you just hear the Republicans scheming on this one? "Well, Bob, I'm afraid that someone out there is having fun...and we have to STOP THEM!!"
Oy.
Wow. Can you say "losing battle"? What will they throw money after next?
Where will they throw money after next? Good question EJ. I dunno, government classes for fetuses so they know how to properly vote?
The sheer stupidity and arrogance of this just boggles my mind. I can't believe we have to listen to this pap. I hope those in other countries are having a good laugh at us. I think this one's going to go down in the history books as "Look how out of control those wackadoo Republicans got!"
It's just another example of this administration being COMPLETELY out of touch with the real human beings they are supposed to govern.
Their whole careers are made up of soundbytes and ads, not good policy that improves the lives of Americans.
BS if you ask me.
As a young unmarried pregnant woman, I am really tired of people critizing those who are young, pregnant and unmarried. My college campus thought they would solve the problem of young motherhood on campus by making condoms avalible on site. Now some idiot thinks they are going to solve this problem by teaching people not to have sex for religious reasons? Here they actually teach chasity class to women who are in "crisis" pregnancies. I'm really tired of this. Its insulting. Maybe there are so many young, pregnant, unmarried women out there, because a) women are more fertile when they are below the age of 27 and b) marriage is insanely expensive and not always the best option for a pregnant woman. It's biology, the people in our society who are the most physically able to have children will get pregnant. Not all of them will choose or have access to abortions. Some of them may even choose to get pregnant. Should women be encouraged instead to wait until forty when they and their babies are at higher risks for complications? Sorry, but I don't think a generation of downs sydrome babies and aging parents would be a positive.
I completely agree, dhsredhead. Our society is built around the lifecycle of the 1950s male, and its response to feminism has been to grudingly say, "Well, women can play too, if they agree to abide by the rules we developed for the benefit of men who have a full-time wife at home, and if the years you're expected to put your head down and work your ass off just happen to coincide with your best years for child-bearing, well too bad for you, ladies! Tootles!" A society that was structured around the concept that women are full human beings and members of society would normalize career and educational tracks which involve taking time to have children whenever the woman wanted, earlier or later.
I feel that I'm on the flip side of your decision; I wish I could have had kids a couple years ago, and I know that professionally, it won't be feasible for another few years.