Skip to comments.How sex ed harms girls' health
Posted on 11/19/2007 11:10:26 AM PST by HerzogAEH
This is an excerpt from a column I wrote for WorldNetDaily.com last week. It is about how politically correct sex education is harming girls' health. The full version can be reached through the link above.
As an intern at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, Ive been working with our Senior Fellow, Miriam Grossman, M.D., author of the book Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in Her Profession Endangers Every Student. Dr. Grossman has garnered media attention because she exposed the fact that health educators often risk students well-being in order to promote a particular ideology -- usually a combination of feminism, androgyny, and anything goes liberalism.
In the upside-down world of politically correct health care, the main priority is to never make moral judgments about a patients behavior, and factual information is suppressed if it threatens political agendas.
Ive been researching sex education and sexual health care for Dr. Grossmans columns and articles. Ive browsed health websites, sex ed manuals, even teen magazines like CosmoGIRL and Seventeen. Although much of the health information is politicized, the advice offered to young girls on sexual decision-making is downright scandalous.
There is no right time to have your first intercourse. This is a choice you make, declares GoAskAlice.com, a popular health Web site. This canard is repeated ad nauseum in sex education programs and magazines geared toward middle and high school students, such as Seventeen (dont let the name fool you most of its readership is under 16).
There is no correct age at which you are supposed to have sex, declares the health Web site coolnurse.com. Everyone has to make a very personal decision about what is right for them.
Really? What if a girl decides sex is right for her at age 12 or 13?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
1957 version of your preconditions:
2007 version of your preconditions:
Oh! I guess nowadays one has to specify “actual” marriage, not “pseudo” marriage. Otheerwise, somebody’ll show up with his (or her) Irish setter. With a ring on its, um, paw.
Yeah. It's a diabolically clever argument, but still bogus. It's pretty obvious to all but the deliberately blind what "outercourse" leads to.
Yeah, but disregarding the natural moral law has the same effect as disregarding the natural physical laws. The insanity of the former is a bit more difficult to see than the latter but, nevertheless, it's our duty to point out the errors in their reasoning.
Of course, deep down, they seem to know the irrationality of their position, since they seem averse to reasoned argument, to be more than charitable.
>> I doubt this. California, which pushes, promotes, and provides contraceptives to singles all over the state via student health and counseling staff, county health offices, subsidies to Planned Parenthood and other providers, and a constant drumbeat in the schools, has skyrocketing STD rates.
So what “outcomes” do you want to document for us?<<
The STD rise correlate with the decreased emphasis on education and birth control under the current administration.
Teens have sex. Its later these days than it was for most of the last 10,000 years. Unless we them to have maximum consequences, like STDs, pregnancy and (as long it remains legal) lots of abortions they need cheap or free birth control, barriers and education that focuses on safety.
And the family's advice that says not to "move in" before marriage is good advice.
I doubt this, too.
It's certainly not true in California, where 96 percent of the school districts provide "comprehensive" sexual health education (promoting and providing free access to contraception and abortion), and all California schools have been required to teach HIV/AIDS prevention education since 1992.
California law prohibits 'abstinence-only' education in the public schools. In addition, California may be the only state in the country that has refused to accept millions of federal dollars for abstinence education.
California is the state that reports 1.1 million new cases of STI's: in the 15-24 age group, diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV and HIV now infect almost one out of every four young Californians.
"Teens have sex."
Some do, some don't. Age of sexual debut goes down, and frequency of intercourse and numbers of partners tend to go up with the availability of contraceptives, till you get figures like those found in the ultimate sexual wonderland of California.
The use of condoms is linked to increased rates of both pregnancy and abortion, due to the slip-rip-and-drip, wear-and-tear factors, plus the fact that adolescents are the very worst demographic group in terms of reliably using a condom EVERY TIME.
So when the pregnancy rate goes up,the omnicompetent government pubic authorities tend to opt for hormonal contraception instead (pills, implants, injectables, patches, NuvaRing and the rest) which enhances the infection rate due to chemical changes in the female endometrium.
So there ya go. (a) Condoms = more pregnancies. (b) Hormonal contraception = more STI's. Then there's (c) Promiscuity = more depression and suicide attempts, especially (again) in females.
But I guess that's a price some adults are willing to pay. Especially if they're in some way in a position to benefit from the status sexualis quo: "Teens have sex."
Correlation is not causality. Tell us, are STD rates trending up in California as well?
What kind of "Gospel" promotes and enables the sin of fornication, with the excuse that "kids are going to do it anyway"?
Certainly not the Christian one.
>> What kind of “Gospel” promotes and enables the sin of fornication, with the excuse that “kids are going to do it anyway”?
Certainly not the Christian one.<<
I’m promoting safety, health and less abortions.
Until Roe v Wade is reversed we should do other things to reduce the number of abortions.
Birth control is least expensive method of reducing abortions.
Second, the study I referred to, published 2 months ago in the Californian Journal of Health Promotion --- the one reporting 1.1 million new cases of sexually-transmitted infections among young people in California in 2005 --- is certainly underatated. Study author Dr. Petra Jerman told Medical News Today that the statistics revealed an epidemic of which, like an iceberg, only a small part is visible.
The authors acknowledged that their figures are underestimated because of incomplete screening of sexually active young people, and failure to confirm the effectiveness of treatment through follow-up testing.
Moreover, their figures reflected infection rates for chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV and HIV, while yours, unless I'm mistaken, are only for syphilis, by far the least common of the STI's.
I assume that if the full range of STI's are underreported in California, as Dr. Jerman says, they're even LESS accurately reportd in other states, many of which don't even have uniform county-by-county reporting requirements.
Here's a world map of adult HIV prevalence. I would hesitate to make any generalizations based on the map, but I will note one thing I don't see: any consistent correlation between countries with the lowest rates of HIV infection (green on the map) and a high prevalence of the type of "modern, comprehensive" sex education pical of Europe and the USA.
So true. Wish we could return to those simpler times and practices.
So good to know that Jansenism is alive and well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.