Mickey Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 As part of the 1996 welfare reform act, 50 million bucks was appropriated to fund state initiatives to promote abstinence as the only acceptable choice for teens. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Who could be against promoting abstinence for kids? Well, in the first 5 years of the program, all the states but California participated in the program. California was ahead of the curve and already had its own program in effect back in the early 1990's. By 1996 they had to admit that it was a failure and finally pulled the plug on this "feel-good", no pun intended, program. A report on the effect of these programs was due out last year but still has not been released. A final report on the effectiveness of these programs was to be out next summer but since the first report is already almost 2 years late, I imagine the final study will be delayed even further. How many here think that if the programs were successfull they wouldn't rush the numbers out asap? The program provides the the feds will put in $4 for every $3 the states kick in. Basically, that has drummed up around $90 million each year for these programs. Although a comprehensive report hasn't been issued yet, some states have released reports on how their programs are doing. Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Maryland, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri and Nebraska have published some data and of course, we can see how California did in their own program. Four of those ten reported increased sexual activity comparing pre- and post program levels. Three more concluded that there was no impact on sexual activity and three more had reported no data on this issue. Basically 7 show no effect or things actually getting worse and 3 have not reported. The CDC's most recent study on teen pregnancy, including those terminated by abortion covered four years, from 1992-1995. This is before the abstinence program started which was much later. The study already showed decreasing rates across the board which was a relief. Interestingly, the ten states with the highest rates in the last year of the study are, from highest to lowest: Nevada, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, NY, Ten, and Arkansas (aren't those all "red" states besides NY?). The states with the lowest rates were, from lowest to highest: ND, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah, Maine, Wisconsin, SD, Idaho, Vermont and Pennsylvania (I think the red-blue is 5-5 there, a dead heat). The ten states with the best reduction over the period of the study are: Vermont, Wisconsin, Conn, Pa, SD, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota (the blues take that one 6-4). CDC Teen Pregnancy Rates As laudable as an abstinence only program may sound, it looks like states were lowering rates without this expensive program. Even worse it looks more and more like these programs are just another big waste of money by state and local governments. The report is being delayed, a good sign that it has nothing good to report and the numbers we do have are pretty bad. Of course, what is a few hundred million here or there wasted? It just shows you that the Republican elite can just as happily waste money on ill conceived social engineering projects as well meaning liberals. What I would like to see is who did each state hire to establish and run these things and who was passing out those plum jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Just another huge difference between the 2 political parties that are bankrupting this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 As part of the 1996 welfare reform act, 50 million bucks was appropriated to fund state initiatives to promote abstinence as the only acceptable choice for teens. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Who could be against promoting abstinence for kids? Well, in the first 5 years of the program, all the states but California participated in the program. California was ahead of the curve and already had its own program in effect back in the early 1990's. By 1996 they had to admit that it was a failure and finally pulled the plug on this "feel-good", no pun intended, program. A report on the effect of these programs was due out last year but still has not been released. A final report on the effectiveness of these programs was to be out next summer but since the first report is already almost 2 years late, I imagine the final study will be delayed even further. How many here think that if the programs were successfull they wouldn't rush the numbers out asap? The program provides the the feds will put in $4 for every $3 the states kick in. Basically, that has drummed up around $90 million each year for these programs. Although a comprehensive report hasn't been issued yet, some states have released reports on how their programs are doing. Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Maryland, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri and Nebraska have published some data and of course, we can see how California did in their own program. Four of those ten reported increased sexual activity comparing pre- and post program levels. Three more concluded that there was no impact on sexual activity and three more had reported no data on this issue. Basically 7 show no effect or things actually getting worse and 3 have not reported. The CDC's most recent study on teen pregnancy, including those terminated by abortion covered four years, from 1992-1995. This is before the abstinence program started which was much later. The study already showed decreasing rates across the board which was a relief. Interestingly, the ten states with the highest rates in the last year of the study are, from highest to lowest: Nevada, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, NY, Ten, and Arkansas (aren't those all "red" states besides NY?). The states with the lowest rates were, from lowest to highest: ND, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah, Maine, Wisconsin, SD, Idaho, Vermont and Pennsylvania (I think the red-blue is 5-5 there, a dead heat). The ten states with the best reduction over the period of the study are: Vermont, Wisconsin, Conn, Pa, SD, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota (the blues take that one 6-4). CDC Teen Pregnancy Rates As laudable as an abstinence only program may sound, it looks like states were lowering rates without this expensive program. Even worse it looks more and more like these programs are just another big waste of money by state and local governments. The report is being delayed, a good sign that it has nothing good to report and the numbers we do have are pretty bad. Of course, what is a few hundred million here or there wasted? It just shows you that the Republican elite can just as happily waste money on ill conceived social engineering projects as well meaning liberals. What I would like to see is who did each state hire to establish and run these things and who was passing out those plum jobs? 139730[/snapback] where do you find the time to write 400 word rants? Do you actually work for a living? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 where do you find the time to write 400 word rants? Do you actually work for a living? 139767[/snapback] Sorry, I forget that your attention span is so short and your reading skills so clearly rudimentary. Here is a shorter version for you: Evidence suggests that abstinence only programs don't work thus the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on them were a waste. Why don't you challenge the conclusions I drew by challenging the numbers upon which they are based? If you have some reason to believe that the CDC cooked these numbers or the States which have reported their results are lying to get themsleves in trouble for wasting cash, please show us the proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 An AIDS and STD vaccine already exists: Keep your mouth shut and your pants on. Works every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 An AIDS and STD vaccine already exists: Keep your mouth shut and your pants on. Works every time. 139806[/snapback] Well, except for those people who got AIDS from blood transfusions or their infected doctors/dentists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 where do you find the time to write 400 word rants? Do you actually work for a living? 139767[/snapback] and you have the gall to B word about the board? The guy put some thought and research into starting a discussion and because it may not reflect favorably on YOUR side, or poorly enough on HIS, you want to stifle it? This board has gone to hell because people here WANT it that way. You want to spend your time either gushing over your boy and agreeing with your fellow wingnuts or stomping on people who don't agree with you. You don't want discussions. That jailhouse mentality will serve you well though, given that you're a thief and all and it will catch up with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Well, except for those people who got AIDS from blood transfusions or their infected doctors/dentists. 139810[/snapback] What should they teach in schools to stop that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 What should they teach in schools to stop that? 139874[/snapback] Aw, don't worry. They'll just keep screwing with the health care system so no one can afford to go to the doctor nor work in the industry. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 and you have the gall to B word about the board? The guy put some thought and research into starting a discussion and because it may not reflect favorably on YOUR side, or poorly enough on HIS, you want to stifle it? This board has gone to hell because people here WANT it that way. You want to spend your time either gushing over your boy and agreeing with your fellow wingnuts or stomping on people who don't agree with you. You don't want discussions. That jailhouse mentality will serve you well though, given that you're a thief and all and it will catch up with you. 139821[/snapback] I agree. RiO gripes about the lack of topics, them complains about a post being too long. Classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 As part of the 1996 welfare reform act, 50 million bucks was appropriated to fund state initiatives to promote abstinence as the only acceptable choice for teens. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Who could be against promoting abstinence for kids? Well, in the first 5 years of the program, all the states but California participated in the program. California was ahead of the curve and already had its own program in effect back in the early 1990's. By 1996 they had to admit that it was a failure and finally pulled the plug on this "feel-good", no pun intended, program. A report on the effect of these programs was due out last year but still has not been released. A final report on the effectiveness of these programs was to be out next summer but since the first report is already almost 2 years late, I imagine the final study will be delayed even further. How many here think that if the programs were successfull they wouldn't rush the numbers out asap? The program provides the the feds will put in $4 for every $3 the states kick in. Basically, that has drummed up around $90 million each year for these programs. Although a comprehensive report hasn't been issued yet, some states have released reports on how their programs are doing. Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Maryland, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri and Nebraska have published some data and of course, we can see how California did in their own program. Four of those ten reported increased sexual activity comparing pre- and post program levels. Three more concluded that there was no impact on sexual activity and three more had reported no data on this issue. Basically 7 show no effect or things actually getting worse and 3 have not reported. The CDC's most recent study on teen pregnancy, including those terminated by abortion covered four years, from 1992-1995. This is before the abstinence program started which was much later. The study already showed decreasing rates across the board which was a relief. Interestingly, the ten states with the highest rates in the last year of the study are, from highest to lowest: Nevada, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, NY, Ten, and Arkansas (aren't those all "red" states besides NY?). The states with the lowest rates were, from lowest to highest: ND, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah, Maine, Wisconsin, SD, Idaho, Vermont and Pennsylvania (I think the red-blue is 5-5 there, a dead heat). The ten states with the best reduction over the period of the study are: Vermont, Wisconsin, Conn, Pa, SD, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota (the blues take that one 6-4). CDC Teen Pregnancy Rates As laudable as an abstinence only program may sound, it looks like states were lowering rates without this expensive program. Even worse it looks more and more like these programs are just another big waste of money by state and local governments. The report is being delayed, a good sign that it has nothing good to report and the numbers we do have are pretty bad. Of course, what is a few hundred million here or there wasted? It just shows you that the Republican elite can just as happily waste money on ill conceived social engineering projects as well meaning liberals. What I would like to see is who did each state hire to establish and run these things and who was passing out those plum jobs? 139730[/snapback] You seem to be trying that red state blue state correlation thingy again. We get it. Anyone that votes for Republicans is dumb. As for the rest of your post, the correlations are tough to draw. Does "abstinence only program" mean there are no other programs at all in that state? Are there other demographic factors in play? Does the program itself properly support abstinence (is it taught in a compelling way)? Does anyone think teaching kids to put condoms on cucumbers is really helping? If I'm not listening about abstinence, why would I listen to a condom lesson? I don't know really, maybe it would work to a degree but it would definitely be tough to properly measure its success rate. What is the opportunity cost? Perhaps an extra math session a day would serve the students better than condom or virginity class. Doesn't MTV teach us everything we need to know about condoms already? Can't our parents teach us abstinence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Well, except for those people who got AIDS from blood transfusions or their infected doctors/dentists. 139810[/snapback] A miniscule percentage. And you know it. Not without reason, did society in years past put an onus on promiscuity and a premium on monogamy. And yes, sinning was prevalent back then, before you raise the topic. But unlike today, it had strong social consequences. I hear the figure bandied about from time to time in the media - something like 40% of people under 35 have VD - Venereal Disease. So much for the brainpower of the current crop of young people. I know the current "feel-good-I'm-just-a victim" term is STD. Makes it seem almost acceptable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 It's the homos Mickey. The solution is simple: ban homo marriage and everything else falls into place. Save a straight family. Stop people who shave their faces from marrying each other. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Stop people who shave their faces from marrying each other. Rosie O'Donnell shaves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Rosie O'Donnell shaves? 139952[/snapback] What an image...and where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 What an image...and where? 139989[/snapback] Her back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 A miniscule percentage. And you know it. Not without reason, did society in years past put an onus on promiscuity and a premium on monogamy. And yes, sinning was prevalent back then, before you raise the topic. But unlike today, it had strong social consequences. I hear the figure bandied about from time to time in the media - something like 40% of people under 35 have VD - Venereal Disease. So much for the brainpower of the current crop of young people. I know the current "feel-good-I'm-just-a victim" term is STD. Makes it seem almost acceptable... 139910[/snapback] Just Darwin doing his thing, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Well, except for those people who got AIDS from blood transfusions or their infected doctors/dentists. 139810[/snapback] Or as a prenatal condition. Or shared needles... And no, stuckincincy...they're not ALL shared for illegal purposes. Worldwide, it's probably the second-biggest vector for AIDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 As part of the 1996 welfare reform act, 50 million bucks was appropriated to fund state initiatives to promote abstinence as the only acceptable choice for teens. It sounded like a good idea at the time. Who could be against promoting abstinence for kids? Well, in the first 5 years of the program, all the states but California participated in the program. California was ahead of the curve and already had its own program in effect back in the early 1990's. By 1996 they had to admit that it was a failure and finally pulled the plug on this "feel-good", no pun intended, program. A report on the effect of these programs was due out last year but still has not been released. A final report on the effectiveness of these programs was to be out next summer but since the first report is already almost 2 years late, I imagine the final study will be delayed even further. How many here think that if the programs were successfull they wouldn't rush the numbers out asap? The program provides the the feds will put in $4 for every $3 the states kick in. Basically, that has drummed up around $90 million each year for these programs. Although a comprehensive report hasn't been issued yet, some states have released reports on how their programs are doing. Arizona, Minnesota, Florida, Maryland, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri and Nebraska have published some data and of course, we can see how California did in their own program. Four of those ten reported increased sexual activity comparing pre- and post program levels. Three more concluded that there was no impact on sexual activity and three more had reported no data on this issue. Basically 7 show no effect or things actually getting worse and 3 have not reported. The CDC's most recent study on teen pregnancy, including those terminated by abortion covered four years, from 1992-1995. This is before the abstinence program started which was much later. The study already showed decreasing rates across the board which was a relief. Interestingly, the ten states with the highest rates in the last year of the study are, from highest to lowest: Nevada, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, NY, Ten, and Arkansas (aren't those all "red" states besides NY?). The states with the lowest rates were, from lowest to highest: ND, Minnesota, Wyoming, Utah, Maine, Wisconsin, SD, Idaho, Vermont and Pennsylvania (I think the red-blue is 5-5 there, a dead heat). The ten states with the best reduction over the period of the study are: Vermont, Wisconsin, Conn, Pa, SD, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska and Minnesota (the blues take that one 6-4). CDC Teen Pregnancy Rates As laudable as an abstinence only program may sound, it looks like states were lowering rates without this expensive program. Even worse it looks more and more like these programs are just another big waste of money by state and local governments. The report is being delayed, a good sign that it has nothing good to report and the numbers we do have are pretty bad. Of course, what is a few hundred million here or there wasted? It just shows you that the Republican elite can just as happily waste money on ill conceived social engineering projects as well meaning liberals. What I would like to see is who did each state hire to establish and run these things and who was passing out those plum jobs? 139730[/snapback] And as for the original topic of this thread...it absolutely amazes me that anyone would want to give the government the responsibilities of parents. That right there - the belief that parents who want to teach their children a certain morality should rely on the government to do it - should automatically disqualify anyone who believes it from having kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Well, except for those people who got AIDS from blood transfusions or their infected doctors/dentists. 139810[/snapback] ...or from their bisexual husbands or cheating wives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts