New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard - Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)

- Political Discussion (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/political-discussion.html)

- - Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/57413-groups-angry-deval-axes-abstinence-cash.html)

Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash

Save the Children! :D

Just do it! Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash

By Jessica Fargen
Boston Herald Health & Medical Reporter

http://news.bostonherald.com/images/...tp07132007.jpg
Boston Urban Youth Foundation coordinator Calvin Chu, center. (Staff photo by Mark Garfinkel)

Friday, July 13, 2007

Legislators and conservative groups are gearing up for a showdown on Beacon Hill after Gov. Deval Patrick slashed a $700,000 federal abstinence grant from the budget, dealing a huge blow to a Dorchester group that provides the bulk of the state’s abstinence education.

“We’ll have to scale way back, which would be really tragic,” said Rebecca Ray, director of Healthy Futures in Dorchester, which teaches 7,000 middle schoolers a year to wait until marriage to have sex. “Teachers and students have been calling the governor saying, ‘Please don’t cut it.’ It’s the youth who are going to lose out if this program goes away.”

The group, which contracts with the state to administer the grant, would lose $500,000, about half its annual budget. The remaining $200,000 pays for a state-run evaluation of the program.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRe...icleid=1011057

Re: Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash

Good, here's something we can all agree on.

Ineffective programs should be cut.
Abstinence education is innefective.
Ipso facto...

Re: Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo (Post 461119)

Good, here's something we can all agree on.

Ineffective programs should be cut.
Abstinence education is innefective.
Ipso facto...

Why would you say it's ineffective? I read today that fewer teenagers are having sex. Do you think it's bad to tell teens the benefits of abstaining? I don't think abstinence alone is the answer. To think so would be unrealistic. As I've said on almost all issues, a comprehensive policy is what's best. However, these funds would have certainly helped continue a trend, and message, that is beneficial to our youth.

Report: Teen Birth Rate Hits Record Low

Jul 13, 7:17 AM (ET)

By JENNIFER C. KERR

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fewer high school students are having sex these days, and more are using condoms. The teen birth rate has hit a record low.

More young people are finishing high school, too, and more little kids are being read to, according to the latest government snapshot on the well-being of the nation's children. It's good news on a number of key wellness indicators, experts said of the report being released Friday.

"The implications for the population are quite positive in terms of their health and their well-being," said Edward Sondik, director of the National Center for Health Statistics. "The lower figure on teens having sex means the risk of sexually transmitted diseases is lower."

In 2005, 47 percent of high school students - 6.7 million - reported having had sexual intercourse, down from 54 percent in 1991. The rate of those who reported having had sex has remained the same since 2003.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070713/D8QBLV6G0.html

Re: Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash

That doesn't say anything about abstinence eduction. Maybe general sex education's working, but studies consistently show that teens who go through abstinence-only education are just as likely to have sex before marriage as ones who don't.

Re: Groups angry as Deval axes abstinence cash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo (Post 461148)

Personally, I'm an abstinence-plus person. Never the less, abstinence education has been a part of federally funded sex ed since the 80's. Kids are going to have sex, we all know that. Kids are also going to use drugs and drink booze, yet we still try to send the message not to. I do believe in comprehensive policy, but I'd have taken the funds, and not rejected them, since the state is going to have to use it's own regardless, only now, to a more expensive degree.