"Conservatives Interfere With Health and Research"

I think it depends completely on the program, and the way that program is run. For example, all those anti-drug ads our tax dollars have been paying for (And yesteryear's DARE campaigns which have now been abandoned) have both shown to increase drug use in teens. This is because the ads work much the same way commercials do - not by the viewer grasping the overall message, but by arousing interest in the subject*.

I absolutely support teaching scientifically established truth over moral dogma, but you have to also apply your methods of teaching scientifically. In the case of abstinence, teaching it in schools doesn't work. It arouses that interest in sex (probably already there) without offering a safe method if you don't plan to abstain. But that is just one example out of many government interferences in the personal lives and orientation of the public.

The main problem with government intervention in social programs is that that program's goals will be motivated by politics instead of being motivated by an interest in those they profess to serve.

* http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2004/anti_drug_ads.html

Do you think schools passing out free condoms to school kids encourages sexual activity?

Show me. I read the link while on the phone, and think you are overstating this significantly.

Don't think they NEED all that much encouragement.

It may encourage safer sexual activity.

said the reviews were prompted by concerns among some members of Congress that his group was using public funds to lobby against programs that promoted sexual abstinence before marriage.
---------------
I think instead of running around, arms akimbo; it may well be all in this sentence. If the funds are allotted to provide health care, and they are being used illegally to pay lobbyiests--- hey... The gov has a right to make sure grants and funding is going toward the service they're sending it for. If they want to fund anti-abstinence progs, let them use their own money. Not mine.

Who said, Sofia? Can you give a source?

If it is in the article, forgive me - it almost a week since I read it!


I must say - given that abstinence programs have a very limited success rate, I would be inclined to critique them with fact myself - if they were being pushed by my government - (which they are not, despite its extreme conservatism it has no links with fundamentalist christian nonsense about such things).

Generally, professionals with expertise in an area are expected to speak up when policy decisions that defy evidence based practice - and hence endanger their clients (physically with STDs - and in other ways re unplanned pregnancies) are being mooted.

Should the government here attempt to alter the sexual health clinics' practice such that they were being made to promote programs that they knew to be dangerous because of their ineffectiveness over more effective ones, people would hit the streets and the airways with the best available info re the effect of the policy.

I am unsure why you have a problem with people with expertise in an area stating their views based on that expertise?


For instance - a micro-biologist at the hospital I used to work in found (at a time when we were being told that HIV could not be transmitted by blood transfusion) evidence that made him doubt the truth of this assertion.

The government, for whom he worked, was invested in soothing AIDS hysteria and keen to assure folk the blood supplies were safe.

This fella lobbied at every level he could - very unpopular - all that. He was right. His agitation cut down by a lot the number of people in Oz infected by blood transfusions.

Ought he to have lobbied? On MY money??

You see - ineffective sexual health programs cost lives.

They also result - as I said above - in extra damage TO lives.

This is serious stuff.

Ferk ideology and religious zealotry, I say, when it comes to people's lives and opportunities.

Of course, saying this IS an ideology.

IF they have been paying lobbyists - and this is outside their guidelines - well, that is foolish in terms of their wellbeing and maybe illegal.

One would hope they would have professional and industrial associations who could have paid for such lobbying - or taken the fight directly to the press.

Though, the US is very poorly unionised - hmmmmmmmm.

Here, my union would take up such an important health issue.

Yeah, your own article is my source, from which I took the pertinent quote, and added to my post.

Ferk your blinding bias.

The abstinence programs have only recently started up, and they have had outstanding positive affect in Uganda. You infer that abstinence is only some "fundamentalist Christian nonsense"....it's common sense and a bit of emergency information that is saving lives. Young girls are being given information about how men can attempt to use them, that they are being lied to, and that it is better for them to wait...young men are responding to the fact that 'casual sex' multiplies their chances of getting AIDS--and they are deciding to be monogamous. As commonplace as most of us think this information is--many African people are laden with all manner of misinformation and myth, and the children start criminally young--and talking frankly about the facts is proving meaningful and life-saving.

Forget a religious aspect--commonsensically, abstinence is the ONLY surefire way to be safe from AIDS--(Not discussing non-sexual transmissions.)

But, you seem to forget that condoms ARE PART OF THE US PLAN. You act as though it has to be one or the other. Its not ideology, or religious zealotry--it is common sense and 100% effective. Some may not have known! Some may not have thought of it! Some have been lied to and told they can do THIS and THAT, but won't get AIDS...

If condoms are ineffectual sexual health aids WITH abstinence, then they are ineffectual health aids WITHOUT abstinence, and should be forgotten altogether.

What...? Condoms only work when no one discusses abstinence?

Sheesh!

A quote--
I am unsure why you have a problem with people with expertise in an area stating their views based on that expertise?
---
Again, you rework something so it no longer resembles anything I wrote. I am unsure why you constantly rely on revisionism and false accusations to try to win arguments. Find where I stated I have a problem with people (...) stating their views based on (their) expertise. Your subterfugal revisions are tiring.

One recieves a grant or funding for a specific thing. If one squirrels some grant money away, and pays a lobbyiest to achieve his personal political goals with money he said he needed to...immunize babies, or something--it is illegal and unethical. A grant or funding, or the ability to apply for either can be yanked when such a thing occurs.

There are plenty of legal venues for this man to attempt to fight the government's AIDS program,
but subverting and redirecting specified monies is not one. We don't need a union for anything like this.

The 'fella' who lobbied at every level he could--did he pay a lobbiest with hospital funds without permission, to fight a government program? Because only then would that story be applicable to this situation. He would have been guilty of theft.

The thing that no one seems to want to hear: So far, the US ABC plan is working. And, it utilizes condoms.

What is it about sharing facts about abstinence that strikes such abject fear into some people?

We already give out condoms here, and free clinic care, and free indigent care, free mental health services on the community and state level. So, we have already taken up many health care issues. You might want to call the local union in the Sudan. Maybe they'll take it up.

Meanwhile...I think the US has the right to present a program along with our billions, that we think will have a better chance of being successful. We're spending the money, so I'm sure people can understand that we don't want to hand a few billion to someone else to misappropriate and squander on programs that have been proven not to work. The UN hasn't put an acceptable dent in AIDS, so since it is our money--I think we should see how our program goes. When you don't even tell people of alternatives, they aren't operating with every bit of ammunition they could have in their arsenal. Why do you want to suppress vital, strengthening information from these people? They need to be taught the truth about AIDS.

Yes - usual crap personal attacks, Sigh.


Sofia - listen.

NOBODY argues that abstinence works.


What IS argued - on good research basis - is that programs based on it, without good info given on other bases, ARE INFERIOR.

NOBODY has said that abstinence should not be discussed.

What HAS been PROVEN to be the case, is that stupid ideology and that current AMERICAN political
correctness ought not to limit proper education and provision of service.

Nor ought it to limit research - which is one of the key concerns.

Look beyond YOUR ferking blinding biases.

AND we are discussing America - as well as the rest of the world.

Dreams and the odd far out christian group aside, do you think trumpeting abstinence will work in the USA?


What, like it did with drugs????? LOL!!

Miss Wabbit, "just say no" . . . to Sofia . . .

You know, Sofia - you rail constantly against what you call "political correctness".


Where do you think religious correctness, in a supposedly, and vaingloriously, secular state, comes into being?

This is science vs religiosity,



Where does the doyenne of anti-PC (which, as you know, I consider the new PC) stand on the new PC????????????????????????????

LOL Set!!!! Show me an example, eh?

No!!!!


I haven't been able to - since the thread about how smart the USA would be to offer to bale out on the new Iraq government - hence putting that government in an impossible bind - thread.

I was soooo sickened that I haven't recovered equilibrium.

But I will - off on hollies soon.

The plain truth, whether you are religious, athiest, or Martian, is that the only way to reduce the risk of getting AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease to near zero is to practice abstinance OR be committed to a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. Condoms can break or be defective.

To fail to emphasize this principle when teaching how to otherwise reduce the probability of STD is, in my opinion, criminal.

Sofia is, in my opinion, right on target with her analysis of the issue.

Don't have ANY biases on this matter, but you sure do.

I'm not AGAINST anything. Pro-abstinence, pro-people living, pro-condoms, pro-research, pro-anything that ends AIDS.... I think the ferk here is your ferking ignorance of what you are trying to crusade about.

You, who are against abstinence teaching, are biased against a program you obviously don't know very much about. Information IS GIVEN on all bases. Why don't you tell me what should be taught that's not being taught? You didn't even know what was in your own article, and jumped into an adversarial response to me. And, I will never react well when someone makes up some lame statement and attributes it to me. <Your hobby>

You seem to like to make provocative statements, and get all wide-eyed and defensive, when I return in kind.

It is a gross insinuation that I would favor an ideology, or religious zealotry over people's lives. It is a major annoyance to have you call on me moderately rudely to source my response, when you provided the source in the opening post.

A chronology.
1. You piss me off.
2. I behave in a manner associated with a pissed off person.

You reap what you sow.

What goes around, comes arounds.

I just want to explain, so you won't continually exclaim, as if shocked, "Again, with the personal insults."

Sort of desperate tonight, aren't you? As long as UN soldiers are paying ten year old girls $3 for sex, I want them to know how to say NO, and why they should. Not so funny to me.

No, the people that see it as I do, see quite a different set of realities in Africa and America. Once you rid yourself of the Blinding Bias, I'm sure you will, too.

America is nearly saturated with correct information about AIDS--so abstinence will probably only be useful in the lower middle grades. It may convince some younger adults to be more choosy, and have less casual sex--but for the most part, percentagewise, condoms fit the US' need moreso than abstinence.

But, I see you've finally copped to the real story behind your pathetic argument.

"Its science against religiosity."

You and others like you are so afraid some tenet of religion will prove worthwhile--and even the best idea, in some cases, you'd let people die of ignorance, rather than admit the usefulness of something like abstinence. BIAS! Nobody's trying to convert you, or anybody else. Just trying to tell them how to avoid AIDS.

I think you've flipped your lid. I can't divine any sensible meaning in your PC post.

Quote--
What HAS been PROVEN to be the case, is that stupid ideology and that current AMERICAN political correctness ought not to limit proper education and provision of service.
---
Abstinence is politically incorrect in America. I felt stigmatized at first, admitting it's strength as a deterrent to AIDS. It sounds like a joke to some people, and in some cases it is. BUT NOT ALL CASES. It is also 100% effective in stopping sexual transmission of the worst epidemic known to man. (For atheists, too.) In Africa, people are operating under all types of myth and misconception. There, abstinence may have a much greater impact. With abstinence will come the tearing down of some incorrect information. It's not about saying, "Don't." It's about telling a person exactly how you get AIDS, and that even though some man told them if they put a knife under the bed to cut the AIDS from you--that's a lie. Abstinence teaching is empowering. And, they are told about condoms.

Proper education about AIDS has NOT been stopped; provision of services has not been stopped or impeded, due to the addition of abstinence to the US program.

Research for AIDS is not suffering--trust me.

Sure - sans reality checking.

Of course you cannot divine any reality in my "stupid PC" post Sofia,

This is because you can only see PC when it is AGAINST your beliefs. I have no qualms with it, generally - I just enjoy pointing out yours, because you you rail against it so much in others.

I have no problem, as I stated, with information about abstinence. If it has done good in Uganda - that is wonderful! Any reality based sex education for people kept ignorant, or lied to, is great.

What I DO have is a reality based contempt for ideology driven decisions to fund abstinence based education and health provision INSTEAD OF comprehensive ones. And - actually, I thought amongst a small group of religious American young, abstinence was quite fashionable - at least in declaration, if not in reality? Quite PC, in fact?

Good on them. Let them go in peace. I am overjoyed for them.

Not many will follow them - and, must we model GENERAL services upon them????? I think not. But - by all means let them publicize their message - just not at the expense of programs that have broader appeal and efficacy.

Eg - from the article - clearly stating that abstinence only programs are being funded at the EXPENSE of proper ones:

"In May, the American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists called the Bush administration's increased financing of abstinence-only programs at the expense of comprehensive sex education a violation of children's human rights."

And this:

"Mr. Wagoner, who said there was no reliable evidence that abstinence-only programs work, said his Advocates for Youth organization had to cut programs in black colleges and among gay, lesbian and transgender young people that sought to prevent H.I.V. infections and other sexually transmitted diseases and suicides.

Mr. Wagoner's group was not the only one to face new reviews. Last year, the Center for Aids Prevention Studies at the University of California in San Francisco was among four grant applicants for which Republican members of Congress sought unsuccessfully to rescind financing after it had already been approved.

One of the center's studies proposed to look at drug use and other risky behavior among female Asian sex workers at massage parlors in San Francisco to develop culturally appropriate efforts to prevent drug abuse and H.I.V.

"We were amazed that there would be an interference with critical science that's trying to save people's lives," said Cynthia A. Gomez, a co-director of the center."

Please do not drag in UN soldiers from the far out field to shore up your arguments. What crap!!!!! That is about starving kids in a war ravaged country - and bastard soldiers with the means for them to keep living. (Just like WW II and Vietnam and such) Un-politically correct as it is, I would favour handing out free condoms to those bastards (as well as charging and punishing them) just to limit the number of poor kids who catch stuff from them - or get pregnant, PLatitudes about abstinence are not going to stop starving girls living in hell from using a means to keep alive!!!! Dear goddess!!!

Sofia - have your religious beliefs - let Bush have his. Good on you both. As I said, go in peace. Yes, to be honest, I think them nonsense. So? We each think each other's political beliefs nonsense. You have no problem panning other's beliefs. Goddism is just another ideology to me. I would not mention it if it was not that people with these beliefs had not started to try force them on others in terms of education, research etc.

Where do you get the crap about preferring to let people die than mention abstinence? As I have said - nobody denies that abstinence will protect. IF people will practice it. IF they are allowed to (do you really think married women in Africa generally have a choice? Do you really think the women forced into prostitution in Africa because they have lost their parents to AIDS, or war, or such have a choice? These abstinence programs you laud lose funding if they HAND OUT CONDOMS!!!!! Are you aware of the huge numbers of women forced to work as prostitutes or starve in Africa passing on AIDS? - partly because folk cannot AFFORD condoms? We ought to be passing out the smegging things on the streets!!! YOUR president wants to stop this - fine - have a series of beliefs about a big fella in the sky - lots of Africans do, too - but do not allow them to influence decisions that affect a generation of people.)

You say "America is nearly saturated with correct information about AIDS" - yes? So it is here. One would think. However, the reality is that we NEED to keep saturating.

The current generation here is seeing an increase in infection rates - because for why? Stupidity like "I don't like how condoms feel" "ONly gay sex spreads AIDS" "AIDS is no longer a worry" And this is just AIDS - Hep B, C and A.... so on are a major worry.

In Africa it is even worse. Some African leaders decry AIDS as a western invention to put down Africans. Some deny HIV causes AIDS. Education is an ongoing need - as are the means to prevent infection.

It is NOT the addition of abstinence to the program (when was it ever not there, by the way???) it is favouring abstinence above proven better methods. It is preventing or, at best, limiting provision of condoms. It is holding back education about harm prevention for what is, for most, but a chimera.


I could not give a tuppenny smeg if people are told to abstain. Of COURSE it helps. Fine - tell 'em. Fabbo if they can, and do. Seems a bit of a pity for them, if they like sex, and can have it quite safely by using safe sex, but hey. Just help them if they won't/can't. Frankly, I couldn't give a brass razoo if you try to get them to paint their noses blue, or worship brass buttons as well as abstain (as long as they can refuse) if they are also given proper assistance to avoid pregnancy and disease as well.


Oh - the agency accused of using funds for paying for lobbyists was not doing it, by the way.

Fox said:

"The plain truth, whether you are religious, athiest, or Martian, is that the only way to reduce the risk of getting AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease to near zero is to practice abstinance OR be committed to a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. Condoms can break or be defective."

Hmmm - but condoms and other barrier devices (like dental gates and such) do a damn good job - as well as clean toys and a good imagination.

And adolescents and prostitutes and johns and married men in very patriarchal countries and such are more likely to use them than just say no.

This is why we like to educate folk in all methods.

Sofia said:

"A chronology.
1. You piss me off.
2. I behave in a manner associated with a pissed off person."

Yeah - I have great dislike for much of the way you conduct yourself, too, Sofia.

And sometimes respect and admiration.

Thing is, I believe that you are a great deal less bigoted and backwards than the god worshipped by many of the people whose politics you seem to admire.


What makes me fume, as an infant mental health practitioner, as well as a child and adolescent therapist, is that by and large, it is the very kids who WILL NOT benefit from stuff about abstinence and committed relationships, who are most at risk from sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies. It is also, as I have said elsewhere, these kids who have the worst outcomes personally and with their munchkins if they DO get pregnant.

These are the kids who may already have suffered a lot. The girls who may be very promiscuous cos they think it means they are loved, that kind of thing. (The smart and happy ones are more likely to know how to protect themselves, and demand safe sex if they choose to have lots of sex with different partners)


Professionally, of course, I want to work on their self esteem etc. This MAY mean abstinence or less sex. Or not.

IF these abstinence first programs really DID (and with any which genuinely DO) also give the best care and info possible despite their ideology, I would have no qualms. Unless the abstinence stuff caused the kids to turn off and leave, of course.