Federal Abstinence-Only programs: Another state "Just Says No" to millions of federal funds. Why?

Article title: "Iowa to Reject Federal Abstinence-Only Funds":
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary...

Following a state-briefing this week, Iowa Governor Chet Culver agreed to reject Title V federal abstinence only funds, Radio Iowa reports. Currently, 16 states have rejected the funding provided under Title V, which provides over $40 million a year for abstinence-only education programs across the US.

Rhonda Chittenden, executive director of an adolescent pregnancy prevention program in Iowa called FutureNet, said, "Iowa must end this poor fiscal and public health policy now. There is no reliable evidence to date that these abstinence-only programs impact the long-term behavioral outcomes at which they aim, such as the delay of sexual initiation and reduction of adolescent pregnancies and STI/HIV infections."

When can Americans "Just Say No" to federal funds being used to pay for unscientific and medically unsound programs, based on religious beliefs?

Ok, here goes,
I'm a conservative Republican.
Noooo, I didn;t say Right wing religous Republican. I said Conservative.
I think that this Abstinence only stuff is flying in the face of reason.
Does anyone really think that mottos are stronger than hormones?
Do they really think that because they are told, in Church, that it is immoral to have sex outside of marriage that kids will not experiment.
Those who preach this are flying in the face of human nature which is how God made us.
When the Bible was written kids were thru puberty by the time they were 13 or 14 and were starting to have families by 16.
By the time the New Testament evolved we were in the dark ages and there was no age of consent. Nature took its course.
Kids will do the deed and to base all of our prevention programs on wishful puritanical tthinking is stupid and cruel..
That's why there are so many abortions now.
That's why there is so much venereal disease.
Instead of facing reality we teach kids that sex is wrong and is bad. It may well be true at young ages and may even be true out of wedlock but that didn't stop the millions who have done it or will do it.
This Abstinence only crap is a punishment tour for those who don't accept Christian teachings about sex.
Let them suffer is the idea.

Because they don't work?

Abstinence doesn't work, so good for him.

Thank goodness, someone has stood up for their right to teach sex education at last.

That's very encouraging. Sadly, Missouri has gone in about the exact opposite direction. They don't allow any funding to go to any sex ed materials that say ANYTHING about abortion or come from an organization that in any way promotes abortion as "ok". So let's not teach them about sex and then force them to carry the babies they end up with out of ignorance of sex.

Brilliant.

I actually wrote to every elected official I could think of on that one.

Abstinence-only programs have never worked nor will they ever. Religion will continue to erode the freedoms of all in this country.

Baaaahhh! Baaahhhh! That's right little sheep!

because in every way the abstinence only programs have been proven a flawed strategy.

Hell, in Texas, they teach their little girls abstinence, and the girls interpret it to mean that they can give head but not have coitus. Kids want to ****. That's why we something called a population.
You can't tell them not to have hormones and think that solves a problem.

Abstinence only is a delusion from the usual deluded source, so called Christian America.

abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid STDs and pregnancy, that being said......burying your head in the sand and teraching this sh*t wont force kids to be abstinant. teach them self control and responsibility and you wil see a difference

Abstinence only was just a brick wall, Bushco never had any intentions of providing sex education grants. Brick wall as in red tape and another Bushco place to embezzle the American tax payers money.

Abstinence only is a total failure. Conservatives want us to abandon all liberal programs that "just don't work" but insist on keeping conservative ones that just don't work either. Go figure.

A combined approach with abstinance and birth control has been proven to be more effective than either one or the other alone. How about a little more common sense and a little less economic blackmail.

I wholeheartedly disagree with funds being used to promote ideological or religious beliefs. That being said, some of the more conservative parents are dissatisfied with the "sex as a fun hobby" stance of some sex ed programs (including one I was exposed to, in which the clueless teacher couldn't answer why it was that girls "always want to be in love first". Perhaps women are naturally inferior emotionally? But I digress.....)

My thought? Parents who have concerns need to know that they have the option to teach sex ed themselves. Teens with such involved parents are unlikely to be left alone for many hours after school, which is clearly part of what's causing teen pregnancy. If the parents raise no objection, a free, biology-based program of sex ed can be offered before or after school, which will teach the science behind effective birth control and reproductive matters.

In short? Parents have the right to object when one ideology is promoted to their children without their consent. Schools are to teach academics - not values. But "sex is a fun way to pass the time" IS a value, and is just as offensive to many folks as the "sex is only for married heteros" propaganda.

Sound knowledge and medical advice must be made available to the public, including curious teenagers, but teens are still under their parents' wings. Both liberal and conservative parents deserve the right to guide their child's education and developing values system. Make sex ed available, then leave it to parents to choose whether or not to present one set of values to their child over another set. Gay or sexually active teens grow depressed at the abstinence only nonsense, but romantically inclined girls get depressed at being assured that sex is "no big deal" - particulalry if a boy she wants to date has also just learned that it's "no big deal". Teachers should not be in the business of gambling with the emotions of young people in that manner.

We can say no when there really is a separation between church and state.

What is wrong with just teaching the truth? Abstinence don't hurt you none, but if your going to have sex, use a condom! Go to the health unit and get the patch!

Just say no to abstinece only programs.

Hooray for those who will turn down the money because the ideology got in the way of being truthful about sex, life and the science of prevention.

Abstinence is not a religious belief, it could be a smart one. Look around at all the girls that get knocked up in high school, their boyfriend leaves them and now they have kids. Or they become repeat abortionists. STDs are a problem too. This stuff ruins lives. Abstinence education won't work in the USA, what's more appealing, engaging in the behaviors advocated in all popular media, or not doing that because a teacher told you? A real abstinence program would leave us looking like the Middle East, w/ women completely covered and unable to socialize with men. That kind of clamp on freedom is unconstitutional. But still, don't kid yourself thinking that abstinence is a bad idea, even if no one follows it (myself included).

Another lib trying to make a point and costing his constituents alot of money in the process.;
VOTE THE BUM OUT