Monday, September 01, 2008
We should not attack Bristol Palin personally for her
out of wedlock pregnancy - since she is not running for office.
However, it is very clearly a relevant issue because her mother's sex ed policy is ignorance over education. There are thousands of Bristols who are pregnant or have STD's because of such "abstinence only" curriculms in schools.
So, it is legitimate to ask Sarah Palin if this real world experience has changed her views on such programs and does she now support science-based comprehenive sex ed? If not, why hasn't the pregnancy of her daughter forced her to reevaluate these programs and why would she now inflict such ignorance on the daughters of other people?
The truth is, abstinence only education is the wacky idea that if you teach our children nothing about sex - they won't have it. In actuality, they will still have it - but at an elevated risk for unsafe sex, pregnancy and STDs. This is hardly in the best interest of our children and puts political ideology ahead of sound science - and thus the health of our children.
How can such a damaging policy promote so-called "family values?"
49 Comments:
Can we raise the issue of out-of-wedlock pregnancy generally?
I ask because, as you may know, anti-gay marriage activists like Stanley Kurtz have pointed to the alleged increase of out-of-wedlock births in Scandinavian countries that have legalized gay marriage as evidence of the negative effect that gay marriage supposedly has on marriage generally.
I'm just curious if, given such a claim, do conservative Christians think that failure to oppose gay marriage may have contributed to the circumstances causing this out-of-wedlock pregnancy somehow? I did read something about Governor Palin vetoing legislation that would have removed all benefits available to same-sex partners...
Are "pro-family" activists willing to claim the link here between gay marriage and out-of-wedlock births that they claim everywhere else, or do different rules apply when the person is "one of their own"?
posted by , at
9/02/2008 7:07 AM
Stanley Kurtz has made yhis claim continually, but he can make it only by cooking the statistics, ignoring scandiavian cultural reality, and assuming that correlation, even if dubious, is the same as cause.
posted by , at
9/02/2008 11:02 AM
Apparently abstinence before marriage wasn't taught well enough in the Palin home.
There's no way of seeing alternate realities here. And out of wedlock pregnancy happens among those who go through comprehensive sex ed - but it is still more common among those who are less educated about sex in general. My gut feeling is that if Bristol had been encouraged to stay abstinent BUT she was also told if she were to make the "mistake" of having sex before marriage to use contraceptives, this would not have happened.
posted by Emily K, at
9/02/2008 11:32 AM
The reason abstinence-only education does not work, is because it demands perfection from imperfect human beings.
Even if one who went through sex ed does not use a condom every time, he or she decreases the risk for STD's and pregnancy each time one is used.
The abstinence only model almost ensures that bad consequences will come from sex.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
9/02/2008 4:38 PM
posted by , at
9/02/2008 6:46 PM
Good Grief, Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancies are a virtual given in most Fundie Families.
posted by , at
9/02/2008 6:50 PM
Anonymous said "What people like Wayne neglect to mention is that while studies show that 4.6 percent of the abstinence-pledged teens contracted an STD, this was 35 percent less than the 7 percent of non-pledged teens who also acquire one.".
Those statistics were from the study below. What anonymous conveniently fails to mention is the line immediately following the statistics he quoted:
"Those differences were not "statistically significant,"said lead author Peter S. Bearman, a professor at Columbia's Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy"
Further, "Although young people who sign a virginity pledge delay the initiation of sexual activity, marry at younger ages and have fewer sexual partners, they are also less likely to use condoms and more likely to experiment with oral and anal sex, said the researchers from Yale and Columbia universities"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48509-2005Mar18.html
Anonymous also failed to provide a link that backs up his claim that Palin's daughter took comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence only. Given the Bush government's aggressive promotion of abstinence only education anonymous's claim is highly doubtful.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/02/2008 8:29 PM
The really great thing about this is that the Republican Party has now forfeited the right to moralize about other people's sexuality. The only way this could be better is if it turned out that her eldest son was gay (and about to be kicked out of the military). :)
posted by , at
9/02/2008 8:45 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/06/more_evidence_on_failure_of_ab.php#more
The Bush administration continues to push for abstinence only sex education even while their own studies show that it's not only not reducing teen sexual activity, it's making that sexual activity less safe and more likely to result in pregnancy and disease. The Washington Post reports:
The nation's campaign to get more teenagers to delay sex and to use condoms is faltering, threatening to undermine the highly successful effort to reduce teen pregnancy and protect young people from sexually transmitted diseases, federal officials reported yesterday.
New data from a large government survey show that by every measure, a decade-long decline in sexual activity among high school students leveled off between 2001 and 2007, and that the rise in condom use by teens flattened out in 2003.
And the obvious reason why:
"Since we've started pushing abstinence, we have seen no change in the numbers on sexual activity," said John Santelli, chairman of the department of population and family health at Columbia University. "The other piece of it is: Abstinence education spends a good amount of time bashing condoms. So it's not surprising, if that's the message young people are getting, that we're seeing condom use start to decrease."
Study after study of kids in abstinence only sex ed has shown that while those programs may help kids delay having sex for a short time, it doesn't last long. Those studies also show that when those kids do start having sex, they're a lot less likely to use condoms and that significantly increases the risk of pregnancy and disease transmission. It's time to end this madness.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/02/2008 8:50 PM
Teenagers are horny and stupid, and are especially stupid while they are horny. Giving them tools to at least stay safe (or safer) while engaging in sexual activity is the most responsible thing to do. It's one thing for a kid to say "I believe in abstinence!" - a statement that needs very little comprehensive skill - and quite another to stick to that belief while fooling around with your significant other. Things happen, and Wayne is exactly right, it's perfection forced upon imperfect beings. Telling kids that condoms work only some of the time and that there is no truly effective contraceptive is irresponsible at best.
posted by Emily K, at
9/02/2008 8:52 PM
posted by , at
9/03/2008 10:47 AM
I smell a self-hating closeted LEMMING who just cant keep away from gay websites.
posted by , at
9/03/2008 11:35 AM
And I bet the 'abstinence only' freek is about as abstinent in his or her life as Ron Jeremy.
posted by , at
9/03/2008 11:39 AM
anonymous said "So if the lead author of a study claims that a difference isn't "statistically significant," when it manifestly is, Priya Lynn believes him. Why?".
He's an expert in statistics, you're a nobody moron. When he says its not statistically significant it isn't, you're just sucking wind. Let me explain it to your intellectually challeged self. There's something called the margin of error, when that margin of error equals or exceeds the difference between two statistics they are in statistical terms equal and your claim that abstinence programs are superior to comphrehensive programs is a lie.
Anonymous said "I did neglect to mention that she attended Wasilla High School, a government school, and received so-called "comprehensive sex education." Need help cleaning that egg off your face Ms. Priya Lynn?".
Actually this is the second time you make that unsupported claim. In both instances you've failed to provide a link that backs up your claim. Once again, given the Bush administrations fanatical push of abstinence only programs your claim is highly doubtful.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 1:23 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5711359&page=1
"Specifically, Palin has a record of opposing any school-based sexual education program other than those that adopt an abstinence-only approach. During her 2006 Alaska gubernatorial campaign, Palin responded to a question on sex education programs with the answer, "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.""
Clearly Bristol was taught abstinence only at home and it did not work.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 2:08 PM
posted by , at
9/03/2008 4:07 PM
Anonymous said "The margin of error you bring up is completely irrelevant and actually shows you didn't read the study or aren't smart enough to do the math.".
You've just proven you have no idea what you're talking about. You are undeniably a liar. The lead author on the study is an expert on statistics, you are a moronic nobody.
Anonymous said "Wasilla High School Principal Mark Okeson was asked a couple of days ago what type of sex curriculum existed. He said the school has a health curriculum that includes a sex education component that was NOT abstinence-only..lblah blah blah blah blah".
Three strikes and your out. This is the third time you've made that unsubstantiated claim. If you could have backed it up with a link you would have done so, you can't because you're almost certainly lying.
Anonymous said "Bristol Palin did receive contraceptive instruction sex ed in her government school.".
You have yet to prove that. Given Bush's and Palin's fanatical push of abstinance only programs your claim is extremely doubtful.
What we do know for sure is that in the Palin home abstinence only was taught and it clearly failed.
Anonymous said "Certainly, this much is undeniable: more girls get pregnant by thoroughly following the recommendations of birth control advocates than do girls who strictly adhere to an abstinence program.".
What's undeniable is that the vast majority of girls don't strictly adhere to an abstinence program because as Wayne said you can't expect perfection out of imperfect girls, its totally unrealistic and Bristol is a case in point.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 4:20 PM
And just as I thought, anonymous was lying:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/8550
When asked what type of sex curriculum existed at Wasilla, Assistant Principal Mark Okeson said the school has a health curriculum that includes a sex education component. When asked whether the curriculum was abstinence-only, Okeson said, “I’m not sure…I don’t believe so. This subject has not come up for a long time. I don’t believe we have an abstinence-only course.”
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 4:46 PM
Its easy to see why anonymous didn't want to post a link, he deals in lies and half-truths.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 4:52 PM
Need a towel to wipe that egg off your face, anonymous?
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 4:55 PM
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 5:04 PM
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 5:07 PM
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 5:08 PM
More Anonymous half truths: "He said the school strives for a sex ed curriculum that is "middle-of-the road," and that contraception was part of their curriculum."
NO, what he said was he believe that the school strives for a sex-ed curriculum that is “middle-of-the road,” and added, “I would ASSUME that contraception would be a part of any health curriculum.”
HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW. You lied about this just like your preposterous lie that the margin of error is irrelevant.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 5:09 PM
Thank you Priya Lynn for insisting on sources from anonymous. Many anonymous fundos spout whatever it is as if it were fact and most of the time is hot air and distortion of the truth. But that's the way the win elections: repeating lies often enough, they become truths!
Richard Schillen
posted by , at
9/03/2008 5:14 PM
No problem Richard, its pretty typical of fundies to cherry-pick statistics, misrepresent, outright lie and lie through ommission (not mention that the difference in std rates between pledgers and non-pledgers was not statistically significant). They count on no one double checking on them and often get away with it because most people can't be bothered to dig through the slew of crap they spew.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 5:24 PM
posted by , at
9/03/2008 6:12 PM
Nothing quite like false bravado when you've been spanked and exposed as a liar.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 6:31 PM
There's a reason why anonymous didn't post a link to the statistics he quoted or to the actual statments Okeson, he knew he was lying, spinning, and misrepresenting and if he posted actual links people would see that for themselves
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 6:37 PM
posted by , at
9/03/2008 6:37 PM
posted by , at
9/03/2008 6:40 PM
My reaction to the Bristol Palin "controversy" is one long yawn. In fact, if the yawn gets any bigger they'll have to assign it a hurricane name.
Look, I supported Hillary Clinton. I think it was an enormous mistake to nominate Barack Obama - who himself is untested, inexperienced, and unvetted. Because of this, I think John McCain will win. Only Hillary could have beaten him.
So my fellow Democrats already made a huge mistake. But they're making more. The more Democrats pound this drum on anything related to Bristol Palin, "family values," abortion, and sex eduction, the more votes they are garnering for McCain/Palin. Wake up!
This is a non-issue. From a political standpoint the Democrats would do well to drop it quickly and move on. This is the opening Republicans have been looking for, and Democrats are salivating as they walk the plank. How stupid!Again, WAKE UP!
posted by , at
9/03/2008 7:20 PM
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 7:22 PM
Anonymous said "Your links weren't even original sources, and they still demonstrated the Wasilla didn't teach abstinence-only!".
LOL, now you're desperate. An assistant principle saying "I'm not sure" when asked if his school teaches abstinence only is by no stretch of the imagination proof that it doesn't.
That's what you get when you religion warps your mind by conditioning you to believe things without evidence.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 7:23 PM
anonymous said "you ran away when I exposed you on other posts."
Actually I had thoroughly demolished your insanity and it was so apparent to all I didn't need to remain to continue to point out that the absurdities you were spouting were indeed absurdities.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 7:26 PM
And by the same token I take my leave of this post.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 7:30 PM
One more point before I go. Only a liar would say that a principal saying "I'm not sure" is proof that a school didn't teach abstinence only.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
9/03/2008 7:36 PM
Run now Priya Lynn. Reports are coming out proving you wrong! You must have seen them and now you take off. What an intellectual fraud you are. Stick around everyone - Priya Lynn's fall is coming!
posted by , at
9/03/2008 8:07 PM
posted by , at
9/03/2008 8:12 PM
The more sarah palin exposes herself to the public, the harder and faster the shit flies regarding her qualification to be VP. Plus, the "trump" card McCain had, Obama's "inexperience," has been rendered neutral. Women who once wanted to vote for Clinton don't appreciate Tokenism. We didn't risk our lives for the vote mere generations ago to be pandered to shamelessly like this. fivethirtyeight.com has been doing a great job providing insight into this republican fiasco from a centrist POV (my favorite kind) and so far the only thing Palin has done well for Mccain is get the evangelical vote - which, this time around, doesn't look like it will save the party.
And, as usual around here, the more someone realizes they're sinking, the louder they proclaim victory. Kinda reminds me of the ex-gay industry.
posted by Emily K, at
9/03/2008 9:04 PM
posted by , at
9/04/2008 12:39 AM
Putting my own personal opinion aside, this is what I predict could happen on an attack stand-point:
Whether school-provided comprehensive sex-ed was taught to Bristol or not, will not matter to certain people. When "Family Values" is emphasized, the Family part will be judged. Sarah Palin holds her Family Values™ up as a gold medal on her political record. It is then assumed that she leads her own family with those same Values™, teaching her children those Values™, which apparently include "abstinence-only" sex-ed and "pro-life" beliefs. Certain people could then say, "who cares if the school didn't educate her on this? Palin's family values on sex and sexuality are what matters, and she did not pass on her family values to her family (her children). If she cannot perpetuate those values to her OWN family, how could she perpetuate them to AMERICA'S families?"
It's a point one could make, and it could be effective, since, as Wayne has pointed out, the "thugs" seem to get elected.
posted by Emily K, at
9/04/2008 12:53 AM
Somebody should ask her what she thought of Dan Quayle's swipe at Murphy Brown on unwed mothers. Her party needs a reminder on their doublestandard and hypocrisy. Enough said!
posted by , at
9/04/2008 8:06 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
4/08/2009 11:03 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
1/15/2010 9:18 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
6/25/2010 12:17 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/13/2011 8:32 AM
posted by 福爾摩思多益雅思補習班(02) 2365-3288, at
4/04/2015 12:55 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
5/26/2015 7:10 AM
<< Home
