Posted on 11/01/2006 10:48:21 AM PST by steve-b
WASHINGTON, Oct. 31, 2006 — If you're single and in your 20s, the federal government wants you to steer clear of sex.
That's the new guidance for states under the Department of Health and Human Services' $50 million Abstinence Education Program....
"Whatever happened to conservatives that were against big government," Wagoner asks. "If this isn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, what is?"
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
No. PI$$ing away our tax dollars would be to continue acting as if there isn't a problem and not attempting to do something to address it.
Listen old man I was born in 83, I guess it's just drugs and beer for me! ;-0
More election time agiprop, designed to sway wavering voters. You know the Republicans want to institue a Theocracy, right? No sex except to precreate and mandatory Church attendance 4 times a week.
Me too, in 1977. One year for us?
What makes anyone think that it's the government's job to fix problems with society's morals? Or sexual behavior? Or what have you?
If it hadn't been for the sex I had before I was thirty, I wouldn't have been able to tell how good the sex was AFTER I was 30......
"The government's clarification published in August is not a mandate," the Administration for Children and Families said in a statement prepared in response to ABC News questions. "We are unclear why Advocates for Youth suddenly believes (after two months) that States should be denied the flexibility to provide young adults with the truth that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way of avoiding unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases."
Did you read that statement? Where are they saying anything is mandatory?
What does sex between consenting adults have to do with decency? Sex is not dirty. It is the most basic of human needs, both biological and emotional.
Right on.
exactly. Anything but abstince until marriage is immoral, ineffective, and dangerous.
Sorry Gov't. I started at 16.
They aren't fixing anything. They are addressing a problem and giving education about the problem to those that want to listen. They are not dragging people below 30 to a class and forcing them to not have sex.
They aren't mandating it. They are just spending $50 million to persuade you.
hmmmm...is this an attempt for the government to legislate morality? since when has this been a governmental concern?
That'll cause a hell of a lot of kids to have a bad case of blue balls.
Alternately, the government could call for abstinence by all single people under 30 during even-numbered years, and allow sex by everyone during odd-numbered years. This would have the advantage of allowing a statistical comparison of the results. That way the government could prove exactly how effective their guidelines were.
The third alternative would be for the government to fire the idiot bureaucrats who came up with this in the first place, and thereby save the taxpayers a few bucks. Oops, no, I forgot that that's never an option...
Longing for the Great P**sy Drought of the 1950s? (As the late Richard Prior once characterized it.)
Well, it just might. After all, did you ever expect to live in an age when people were so stupid that they actually had to put "Warning: Coffee May Be Hot" on fast-food coffee cups? Or "Warning: Don't Spray Directly Into Eyes" on room deoderizer?
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.