Ed Rendell Accepts Federal Abstinence-Only Sex Education Funds for Pennsylvania Schools

I was shocked to hear a radio report this morning that Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania has decided to accept funding for abstinence-only sex education from the Bush administration for programs in school districts that want them. Re-defining the word "commitment", Rendell's spokeperson said that the governor remained committed to comprehensive sex education, but that certain communities, for moral reasons "or what have you", want abstinence-only programs.

Abstinence-only sex education often contains "major errors and distortions" (often called "lies" in the vernacular) and has been shown to be useless - kids exposed to it have the same sexual behavior as those who receive no sex ed at all. What it does is provide a purely political benefit for right-wing religious voters who hate sex, and wish to visit punishment on teens who engage in it. The radio report I heard claimed that new safeguards had been put in place to assure the scientific accuracy of the information that would be provided to the kids. Unless they intend to put monitors in every classroom to make sure right-wing instructors don't deviate from the text, I don't know how they intend to enforce that promise.

I am very, very angry at the Rendell administration right now.

Comments

[Mold]

The Commonwealth needs cheap and stoopid labour. Teen sex does the job. Unwed baby mommies tend to have little, if any, education or resources. Their children will have maws wonderful example to model and early sexuality tends to early deaths and multiple offspring.

So, you'll have baby factories that self-terminate. The utter lack of intellect will fill the coffers of the nearest fundie church and the pastors will have young'uns to indoctrinate...or impregnate...

[Sparkle Plenty]

Plus, what entities profit from the materials districts purchase to teach these lies. It's a scam, man.
.

[kevin]

Parents should be the primary source of any sex education for their children. So parents are free to teach their children about condoms and protection if they so desire.

[wenchacha]

"Parents should be the primary source of any sex education for their children. So parents are free to teach their children about condoms and protection if they so desire.

Posted by: kevin | September 01, 2008 at 11:16 AM"

It worked for the Palin family.

[Rick]

kevin, families aren't always good at this stuff. My parents *never* talked to me about sex; the only reason I found out what a condom is before it mattered was sex ed class. And I'm not the only one.

[Green Eagle]

From a 2006 questionnaire:

"3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP (Sarah Palin): Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

How'd that work out for you, Sarah?

[pbg]

Could somebody plese tell me what abstinence only sex education consists of?
Is it, "hey kids if you don't have sex you won't get pregnant"?
How much of the school year does that take?
If it's "hy kids this is how babies are made and this here's the G-spot but don't do any of it until you're married?"
"I can understand a course like that, but I don't think that's what it is.
Honestly, do they just scare them for a year? Or try to?

[gil mann]

Rick: yours and pretty much everybody else's.

This is a disgrace. Boy, good thing we fetishized the living shit out of "Democrats who are comfortable talking about their faith," huh?

[deb]

uh, yeah. is he palin's new bff?

wtf?

[Zoe Strauss]

An absolute disgrace.

[phdchick]

"Could somebody plese tell me what abstinence only sex education consists of?"

it varies depending on the state, the school district, etc. most districts contract out sex ed curriculum development; depending on the local politics sometimes the developers are good, reputable organizations (for ex., in Philadelphia i think the Health Federation has the job).

but in many districts that provide abstinence-only education, they contract out to independent speakers (sometimes with a clear evangelical christian message) who may have little to no actual health-related training. often the curriculum isn't just "don't have sex," it's "don't have sex because you are then dirty, unclean, worthless, and will never be able to sustain a relationship as an adult." i have no problem with helping teens to delay sexual activity until they are old enough to make good, healthy choices, but these programs are really terrible. and, of course, they don't work.

probably the best organization tracking this crap is SIECUS. you can find info about the programs at: http://www.siecus.org/. and BTW they have a press release in response to Rendell's caving.