Link via Drudge early this morning.
I doubt Rep. Waxman gives a rip about biased history textbooks or disputed facts in the curriculum of other subjects. The abstinence-only program is being criticised because it is abstinence-only which is so..... 1950? Puritanitical? Dark Ages?
I think the "scared straight" approach with respect to extramarital sex is acceptable. But hey, that's just me.
And some of the alleged inaccuracies are simply DeathCult propaganda.
The emotional aftermath of abortion -can- lead to suicide.
The physical aftermath -can- lead to sterility and breast cancer.
Scared straight or scared virginal?
I think abstinence-only education is the way to go, however the strictest adherence to accuracy in factual information must be done. If teenagers feel they are being lied to and worse, their intelligence insulted, by downright bogus information, the underlying motive, however good, will be dismissed.
Yeah, but this is -Waxman- we are talking about. Not the most noted speaker of truth and wisdom in this present age.
I saw this subject dealt with as part of "A Closer Look" on NBC News the other night. The "abstinance only" people got to make their case, and their detractors weren't entirely convincing. One quote went "consistent and careful use of condoms can help prevent the transmission of STDs." Well, it CAN, but it's no guarantee, and that's assuming the use is always "careful and consistent," which I'll bet is real tough in the back seat of a car.
The bottom line is, abstinence is the best prevention. The rest is just details. Condoms do NOT deter the emotional effects of a sexual liaison -- from which even mature adults, including married ones, are not immune. They're better equipped than teenagers though, dontcha think?
Or dontcha???