Welfare reform
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
I hardly think so! A pro union Republican! Bwaaa hhaaaaaa haaaaa!
Clinton was proof that ya don't have to destroy the unions to be a good President.I was waiting to see what reaction that would bring.
To the extent any union has been destroyed, didn't they do that to themselves?
To an extent, they did. Unfriendly labor laws did damage also.
Nope. to the best of my knowledge federal money does not pay for abortions. Conservatives have changed their minds about granting access to contraceptives, and are now proud of defunding Planned Parenthood And closing clinics with ridiculous requirements that do nothing to improve 'safety' for women - just reduce access.. And sending Bristol Palin on the paid lecture circuit to tell high school assemblies how much it sucks to be a single parent. [Because who would want her life? LOL] In any case, the current level of assistance required is a direct result of the loss of jobs that pay enough to support oneself, and a refusal to address the issue with anything more than advising people to get 2 jobs.
Wrong.
That's true ONLY when the information consists of 'abstinence only' or 'abstinence stressed'. Comprehensive education, including contraceptive usage [which does not promote sex!] is very effective at reducing teenage pregnancies. Check the stats, see which states pay for religiously inspired abstinence teaching, and which way their pregnancy rates have gone, vs the comprehensive education states. There's no question: abstinence only "education" is idealogical wishful thinking that causes real harm to young people, [including STDs] and society in general. If teaching comprehensive sex ed 'encourages' teens to have sex, then teaching fire safety encourages them to become arsonists.
Last edited by a moderator:
I recently read a comparison between Wisconsin and Minnesota, that had an interesting aspect on the union situation. It said numerous companies are moving from Wi to Mn, because the unions do a better job of training workers. It will be interesting to see the effect [of weakening unions] on safety. People think unions exist to grab more wages, but they've always been a deterrent to the bean counters who would cut corners on safety, as well.
Not directly, no, but federal funding allows Planned Parenthood to divert money from programs which are not federally funded into abortion. If the federal and state funding stops, then either the abortion programs or the other programs stop, as they cannot fund both without it. And Planned Parenthood has admitted that very thing.
No they haven't.
Conservatives don't want to defund Planned Parenthood and close abortion clinics because people have access to contraceptives there. They are doing it because since Roe v. Wade Planned Parenthood has changed their focus from contraceptives and reproductive health to the promotion and facilitation of abortion, and they are using taxpayer dollars to do it.
The current level of assistance required is a direct result of people knowing the government will take care of them. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Give him a fish every day and pretty soon he thinks your fish are his fish. It works with women, too.In any case, the current level of assistance required is a direct result of the loss of jobs that pay enough to support oneself, and a refusal to address the issue with anything more than advising people to get 2 jobs.
There are no states in which 'abstinence only' sex education is taught to the exclusion of comprehensive education.
You'd think so, but no. The states with the most hours of comprehensive sex education also happen to be the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates.
There are no "religiously inspired abstinence" states or "comprehensive education" states. They all teach virtually the same stuff. There are two glaring exceptions, however. New Mexico specifically prohibits abstinence education as a method of preventing unwanted pregnancy (they are #1 on the list of unwanted teen pregnancies), and Utah, which devotes the fewest hours of any state to sex education (#45 out of 50 in teen pregnancy).
I promise you, abstinence education not cause STDs.
Neither encourages either, but both teaches you how to be better at it.If teaching comprehensive sex ed 'encourages' teens to have sex, then teaching fire safety encourages them to become arsonists.
We have OSHA for that now.
I'm gonna save the Planned Parenthood debate for another time, but I believe you're wrong about it.
On sex education, it's a prerogative of each state to choose the version of education presented. 25 states require abstinence be stressed: AL, AR, AZ, DE,FL, GA, IL, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, NJ, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI
The states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy per 1000 teens are: TX [73], MS [76], OK [69], AR [73] & LA [69]
The states with the lowest rates per 1000 teens are: VT [32], NH [28], MN [36], MA [37], & ME [37]
You may notice that all of the highest rates are in states that require abstinence be stressed, while none of the lowest are.
Every medical association that has an opinion has denounced abstinence education for presenting factual errors, misleading information, and for failing to improve the rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.
The rates were declining, from 1991-2005, when a new federal initiative was included in welfare reform. Known as Title V, it awarded grants of $50M to states that present abstinence as the preferred method, and discuss contraceptives solely in terms of failure rates. [Italics mine]. Every state except CA accepted, and chose one of the major [faith based] groups to present the classes. In the following 2 years, [2006 & 2007], the declining rates climbed up again. By 2009, only half the states accepted the grant money, and we can see how that worked out.
One last startling fact: three states [AL<SC< TX] require that "only negative information be presented regarding sexual orientation".
How, exactly, does that help?!
On sex education, it's a prerogative of each state to choose the version of education presented. 25 states require abstinence be stressed: AL, AR, AZ, DE,FL, GA, IL, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, NJ, NC, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI
The states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy per 1000 teens are: TX [73], MS [76], OK [69], AR [73] & LA [69]
The states with the lowest rates per 1000 teens are: VT [32], NH [28], MN [36], MA [37], & ME [37]
You may notice that all of the highest rates are in states that require abstinence be stressed, while none of the lowest are.
Every medical association that has an opinion has denounced abstinence education for presenting factual errors, misleading information, and for failing to improve the rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs.
The rates were declining, from 1991-2005, when a new federal initiative was included in welfare reform. Known as Title V, it awarded grants of $50M to states that present abstinence as the preferred method, and discuss contraceptives solely in terms of failure rates. [Italics mine]. Every state except CA accepted, and chose one of the major [faith based] groups to present the classes. In the following 2 years, [2006 & 2007], the declining rates climbed up again. By 2009, only half the states accepted the grant money, and we can see how that worked out.
One last startling fact: three states [AL<SC< TX] require that "only negative information be presented regarding sexual orientation".
How, exactly, does that help?!
But it's not to the exclusion of comprehensive education.
Those states are high, but they don't hold a candle to New Mexico.
All of those states present abstinence education in the sex ed curriculum. I guess they don't "stress" it, whatever that means. Liberal opinion sites like thinkprogress and others continue to put up high massaged stats and give out misinformation, and people believe it. They will tell you that teen pregnancies are the highest in states with abstinence-only policies, but they don't tell you that there are no states with abstinence-only policies. Vermont, one of the states with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, has a comprehensive sex education curriculum, but they start off telling the students that while there are many ways to prevent pregnancy and STDs, the only 100% sure fire method is abstinence. And they continue to beat that drum throughout the entire curriculum.
Every single one of them? Not even one agrees that abstinence education which presents abstinence as the only 100% sure fire method of not getting pregnant or transmitting an STD as being factually accurate?
That's not cause and effect. There are far too many factors involved to be able to pick out just one and say this caused that. The decline from 1991-2005 wasn't a steady decline, either, it went up and down over those years, but overall they declined. The also went up and down in years prior to 1991.
I don't know that it does. But at least it doesn't present abnormal sexual behavior as normal.One last startling fact: three states [AL<SC< TX] require that "only negative information be presented regarding sexual orientation".
How, exactly, does that help?!
It's frustrating, because each state can "stress abstinence", but include information on contraceptives, [but ONLY if they decline Title V funding]. Also, nearly every state allows parents to 'opt out' of sex ed, and none of the states provide numbers on how many do. Pretty much the defining difference, then, is the states that accept Title V funding, which prohibits info on contraception, and mandates a "moral" viewpoint: sex is approved only within the confines of marriage.
All of those states present abstinence education in the sex ed curriculum. I guess they don't "stress" it, whatever that means. Liberal opinion sites like thinkprogress and others continue to put up high massaged stats and give out misinformation, and people believe it. They will tell you that teen pregnancies are the highest in states with abstinence-only policies, but they don't tell you that there are no states with abstinence-only policies. Vermont, one of the states with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, has a comprehensive sex education curriculum, but they start off telling the students that while there are many ways to prevent pregnancy and STDs, the only 100% sure fire method is abstinence. And they continue to beat that drum throughout the entire curriculum.
That's why I avoided using stats/editorials from sites that have an agenda. There certainly ARE states with an 'abstinence only' policies: those that collect the Title V grants, which require it. No one disagrees with the position that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and/or STDs, but most people don't expect that abstinence can be maintained by every person under all conditions until marriage. Unless marriage at age 17 is a good idea, but we don't think so.
Every single one of them? Not even one agrees that abstinence education which presents abstinence as the only 100% sure fire method of not getting pregnant or transmitting an STD as being factually accurate?
Now you're twisting the facts. No one says that the one fact you cherry picked is inaccurate. however, the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, Natl Association of School Psychologists, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the American College Healthcare Association ALL say that abstinence only education programs include medically inaccurate information. I'll take their word for it, but Congress seems to not care, having reauthorized the Title V funding that was set to expire.
That's not cause and effect. There are far too many factors involved to be able to pick out just one and say this caused that. The decline from 1991-2005 wasn't a steady decline, either, it went up and down over those years, but overall they declined. The also went up and down in years prior to 1991.
Sure, it tends to go up & down, in small increments, from one year to the next. But the large jump in 06 & 07 is probably unrelated to the sudden influx of money to teach abstinence only. Sure.That makes sense. Not.
I don't know that it does. But at least it doesn't present abnormal sexual behavior as normal.
"Abnormal" does not equal wrong. Failure to teach any but negative information is a failure to teach, period.
States have always allowed parents to opt out their kids from sex education, at least wince the 1920s, anyway, when it started to become widely taught in schools. Sex ed in schools have always had a moral viewpoint. Always. The morality in sex ed reflects the morality of the parents and teachers. Of course, the prudish religious right has from the very beginning been dead set against sex ed, and it continues to this day. But the way it's taught in schools today is almost entirely because of an organization called SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States), which put together the foundation for the teaching sex education in schools. It was founded by Dr. Mary Calderone in 1964 to combat the dominance of the American Social Hygiene Association (borne of the social hygiene movement that resulted from the WW I STD epidemic), which fought against the spread of STDs through trying to stamp out prostitution and promiscuous sex (although, ironically, they fully supported the notion that the more you know and understand about sex, the better off you are). Prior to 1964, incidentally, Dr. Mary Calderone was the medical director at Planned Parenthood. But I'm sure that had no influence on how she put together a curriculum.
Be that as it may, the arguments you make, even some of the wording and phrasing used, is exactly that of the sites that have an agenda.
I think you mean Title X, nit Title V. Title V has to do with developing institutions that serve Hispanic populations, Title X is about comprehensive sex education. And Title X grants don'e require "abstinence-only" education, Title X specifically prohibits abstinence-only education. The only state with an actual abstinence-only policy is Mississippi, which doesn't require sex ed to be taught in school at all, but if it is, it MUST be abstinence-only education.
And that right there is the problem. You have two side, one that believes in abstinence (and stresses "don't have sex"), and the other side that believes kids are gonna have sex anyway (and stresses "if and when you have sex" as if sex is a foregone conclusion). In the end, which ever is taught in school from that frame of reference, they are perpetuating their own agenda. Both sides need to get back to the biology of it, and keep it clinical, and leave the judgments out of it.
Every single one of them? Not even one agrees that abstinence education which presents abstinence as the only 100% sure fire method of not getting pregnant or transmitting an STD as being factually accurate?
You said, and I quote, "Every medical association that has an opinion has denounced abstinence education for presenting factual errors, misleading information, and for failing to improve the rates of teenage pregnancy and STDs." Asking the question, "Every single one of them?" is NOT twisting facts, it's asking a question. I just find it hard to believe that every single medical association with an opinion on the matter has the same exact opinion, and that teaching abstinence contains medically inaccurate information. I find it hard to believe that any medical association would try and refute that if you don't have sex, then you can't get a sexually transmitted disease and you can't get pregnant. What kind of medically inaccurate information could there possibly be in that statement, he asked quizzically.
So you're just guessing, connecting the dots to cause and effect, as if the only factor is money and abstinence education. Was the money exactly the same for all school districts? Was exactly the same things taught everywhere? Nothing in pop culture, or none of the top TV shows or movies or pop music tracks could have possibly had any effect, at all, on the jump? The fact that YouTube came out in 2005 and that Facebook and Twitter exploded onto the public in 1006-2006 couldn't have played any role at all? None?
And yet it means: not normal,average,typical,or usual; deviating from a standard typically in a way that it undesirable. Right and wrong are moral judgments, so while "abnormal" may or may not equal wrong, depending on who's morality is at play, it does, nevertheless, equal "not normal."
By adding that "period" on the end, you have remove that statement from the context of teaching sexual orientation, to the realm of any and all contexts. But in the context of teaching that abnormal sexual behavior is normal, while not necessarily a failure to teach, it's certainly not honest teaching.
golfournut
Veteran Expediter
But apparently you are.
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine....tee-passes-budget-bill-that-cuts-osha-funding
We have lots of programs.