Tuesday, November 07, 2006


Many thanks to a friend for pointing me to this link on USA Today. Since the abstinence only message is oh so effective in the teenagers it's aimed at, apparently now states seeking federal funding for sex ed... I mean abstinence education are required to target "adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range". The reason for this change: "Childbearing by unmarried women reached a record high of almost 1.5 million births in 2004, up 4 percent from 2003", according to the National Center for Health Statistics. However, at the same time, "childbearing by women in their early twenties showed a decline" of 1%, so my highly uneducated interpretation is that fewer women 20-24 had children, but more of them were unmarried.

I was going to expound on this topic, but I really can't. So all I'm going to say is wow. >90% of the population over 20 has had sex at some time. I really think abstinence-only education, aimed at people my age, is going to be EXTREMELY effective. Cuz, you know, sex isn't so great, I'm sure we can all do without. Of course, my personal opinion is that this funding would be better spent educating people about proper birth control, RECOGNIZING that a) abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy and STD's and b) over 90% of the population are already having sex, so message a is already obsolete! But again, that's only my opinion. For more information on an excellent article reviewing both the federal abstinence-only policy, as well as the "evidence" behind it, go here.

Boy, I'm glad I'm married now. If I got pregnant now, I'm automatically qualified to handle it well. I mean, they give out "Entitled to Bear Children" cards when you get married. The magic switch was flipped in June: before, I was unfit to be a mother; since then, I'm fit to be a mother. Except I'm not.

1 comment:

nibbler said...

well, currently not pregnant. getting married in 8 months....looks like im good to go according to the US government!