From the Washington Post this morning:
CHICAGO — At least one in four teenage girls in the United States has a sexually transmitted disease, suggests a first-of-its-kind federal study that startled some adolescent-health experts.
The overall STD rate among the 838 girls in the study was 26 percent, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/) found. They released the results at a Tuesday conference.
Disease rates were significantly higher among black girls — nearly half had at least one STD, vs. 20 percent among both whites and Mexican Americans.
Some doctors said the numbers might be a reflection of both abstinence-only sex education and the teenagers’ own sense of invulnerability. Because some sexually transmitted infections can cause infertility and cancer, U.S. health officials called for better screening, vaccination and prevention.
Now … let me get this straight. If a girl practices abstinence, then she has a 26% chance of contracting an STD?
I know that’s not what the article is saying. What it is saying is that abstinence-based sex education sets a girl up for failure because (1) she won’t have protection (condom) or be on the pill when she’s out on a date, and (2) even though she might hope to avoid sex – wishing to wait until marriage – having sex is unavoidable because no girl can just say, “No.” Intercourse is inevitable according to abstinence opponents.
I served on the Chesterfield County (Virginia) Community Involvement Team for Family Life Education curriculum development in the early 90’s. The CIT was heavily weighted with Chesterfield County school system representatives, and along with a powerful ally they fought with all their might to keep abstinence-based information from students. They didn’t even want abstinence to be mentioned as an option, much less promoted as a viable alternative to “safe sex.”
Their ally? The Virginia division of Planned Parenthood. The chairman of VPP, Ben Greenberg, sat on our CIT.
No vested interest there, right?
Planned Parenthood will say that their motives for engaging in Family Life Education in our school systems are all noble. They will say they want to provide information to teenagers so that they will NOT get pregnant. They are proponents of the philosophy that all teenagers and twenty-somethings will have sex at some point in their pre-marriage, adolescent life. They say they just want our young people to be “safe” from an STD or they want our kids to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. PP will advocate that these young people should be adequately “protected” from the consequences of the choice to be sexually active.
Researching for this blog, I went to the Chesterfield County Health and P.E. instruction web link and discovered that the FLE “opt out” and instructional guidelines PDF file for Family Life Education no longer exists. Why? Why is it so hard for a parent to opt their child out of FLE? Just asking.
Planned Parenthood has a vested interest – a HUGE financial stake – in making sex-before-marriage appear safe. They get multi-million dollar subsidies from manufacturers of birth control pills. They are supported by a wide range of politically liberal entities because it serves the social agenda (read “power base”) of such entities. It’s all about power and money folks! Making sex-before-marriage attractive serves a twisted end – to stay politically powerful because money follows power.
That Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of surgical abortions in America also smacks of questionable motives for providing information on “safe sex” because there’s really such thing as completely safe sex. Completely “safe sex” requires abstaining from sex. Abstaining means no STDs, and no unwanted pregnancy.
I googled “Planned Parenthood” on Dogpile (http://www.dogpile.com/) and up came “Need An Abortion?” Hmm.
Abstinence is not being fairly debated today in the public square because “choice” advocates refuse to do so. People in the American media (Rush Limbaugh’s “drive-by mainstream media”) long ago bought into the liberal “sexual freedom” agenda because they, too, believe their power to shape our society and culture would be at risk were they not to. Hollywood has a vested interest in seeing that sexual promiscuity sells, too. Look at the “video-on-demand” offerings on cable and you’ll see what I mean. It’s all about promoting “Porky’s” (1982) all the way to “Good Luck Chuck” (2007). It can’t be about art, can it? No. It’s about money … and money buys power … and power buys money.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases? Liberals and their allies see STDs as the unfortunate but acceptable consequence for holding on to power. So, if 26 out of 100 girls get the clap/gonorrhea/syphilis/HIV/genital herpes or warts, so be it. (Liberals can’t sell their ideas of how our culture should look in the public square except by deception. So, on school campuses of every ilk, from public school [elementary, middle, and high schools] to university campuses, dishonest and power/tenure-driven people spread the lie of “safe sex.”)
Money and power. Power and money.