Posted on 05/08/2009 6:58:55 AM PDT by presidio9
The White House wants to get out of the business of telling youngsters "Just Say No to Sex."
President Obama is putting his own ideological stamp on federal spending in his proposed 2010 budget by cutting cash for abstinence-only sex ed programs.
He's taken a scalpel to a pair of $100 million George W. Bush-era programs that exclusively preached abstinence. Obama is replacing them with $110 million for comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention.
"It's about time that evidence-based management - and sanity - return to family planning programs," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan).
Dumping the say-no-to-sex programs were a tiny fraction of the $17 billion Team Obama trimmed from its $3.4 trillion funding budget request.Overall, New Yorkers say Obama's budget helps the city - but raised several red flags.
One is Obama's plan to cut $600 million from the federal terrorism insurance program.
"This is a real mistake," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, saying he'd fight to keep the money.
The administration deems the program, which helps cover builders against terror attacks, an "excessive federal subsidy." It hopes the cuts encourage them to "mitigate terrorism risk" by "building safer buildings."
"It's a definite setback for rebuilding Ground Zero," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.). "It's the No. 1 terrorist target in the world. We need that federal backstop."
Lawmakers were pleased, though, that Obama is stepping up with $70 million to aid ill 9/11 responders.
In another area that sparked alarm, King panned Obama's move to end a program that paid the NYPD $18 million last year for help battling illegal immigration.
Lawmakers were also upset Obama scrapped plans to build a new presidential helicopter fleet in upstate Owego - $3.6 billion has already been spent.
gets on my nerves, because it makes it look like the intention of the evil Bush theocracy was to ensure that no teenager would ever again know the the joys of putting a condom on a bananna in a tax-funded HS classroom. In fact, no matter how liberals try to brand it, the only purpose of this appropriation was to ensure that some of that tax money goes towards getting the message out that there is another way besides promicuity. Liberals, of course, believe that adults have zero influence on adolescents, and teenagers will be having sex not matter what we tell them, because that's what teenagers do.
Why do Catholics continue to fawn over this guy?
The more young unwed mothers you create, the more welfare recipients you create. The more welfare recipients you create, the more loyal Democrat voters you create.
Thus, Democrat sex-education must always focus on getting teenagers to have more sex, not less.
How does replacing a 100 million dollar program with a 110 million dollar equate to a cut? No body questions this community organizer...
As if teen pregnancy was not already seriously in epidemic proprtions throughout the country. Obummer is insane.
As if teen pregnancy was not already seriously in epidemic proprtions throughout the country. Obummer is insane.
You people are unbelieveable. Recently, a whole bunch of you have been using this political website for unprovoked attacks on the Catholic faith. It makes no sense.
Since you didn't already know this, as far as the Catholic Churhc is concerned, if you are not going to mass every Sunday, and obeying the 10 Commandments, and accepting the essential Catechisms (such as the one on abortion), you are not a practicing Catholic. No matter what the media says. For that matter, you may have inadervtantly excommunicated yourself by your actions. In other words, those polls that indicate Catholics "fawning over Obama" are talking about a lot of false Catholics. And even though they are, other denominations are even more supportive of the President. So why are you going out of your way to pick a fight with the Catholic faith on a political website? I don't get it.
I am not attacking the Catholic faith. I am attacking the faith of those Catholics who fawn over this guy. And there are a lot of them.
I am hoping that the Pope takes a hard line against those Bishops and Priests and parishoners who continue to defy the teachings of the church on abortion and other doctrines and starts denying those people communion.
The latest polls show that Catholics by and large are still fawning over Obama. Their faith in Obama seems to trump their faith in God.
Because American "Catholics" are going the way of French "Catholics" more and more each year. Meaning, Catholic In Name Only.
My bad. I have had at least five non-Catholics post direct attacks on the Catholic Church to me in the last week, so I am getting a little sick of it. The people who call themselves Catholics and then worship Obama are a problem, but a bigger problem is our culturally inclusive society that tells us you get to be whatever you identify yourself as. Bill thinks he a woman? Fine. Bill has his genitals surgically mutilated. Now he’s a woman. Mary sees was brought up a Catholic. Then she had an abortion, but doesn’t see anything wrong with that. She hasn’t been to Church in years. She says its because of all of the pedophilia. She doesn’t undestand why gay people can’t get married. She identifies herself as a Catholic, and she voted for Obama.
Bingo.
Then again, why did they fawn over him to begin with?
How do you get from "abstinence-only" to "avoiding discussion of sex"?
Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
So let’s see... so far, he’s turned his back on Christianity, turned his back on abstinence, funded and encouraged abortion both in the United States and world-wide, nationalized the automobile industry, nationalized the banking industry, put caps on businessmen’s salaries, demoralized Wall Street, demoralized the CIA, cut the military budget, bowed to the Saudis, flipped off the Israelis, offered the Glad Hand to Fidel, played kissy-face with Iran and turned a blind eye to their nuclear weapons program... what am I leaving out?
Yep, it’s been a heck of a start. If present trends continue, by the time 2012 rolls around, we’ll have Red Guards parading in the streets and waving the Little Red Book as the urban proletariat is marched out to the farms to grow rice.
Chavez too.
It makes perfect sense. A discussion of sex should be holistic - that includes condoms, birth control and all the stuff that makes social conservatives so uncomfortable. Why? Because they exist and ignoring reality is never the right answer.
Well after all. The sexual promiscuity and immorality advocates are among Maobama’s biggest voting blocs. BHO has to reward them so they’ll keep fawning over him.
"Holistic"? Then you ought to include explicitly religious points of view, too, otherwise it's not really holistic.
But you can't do that in a public school. So it's already a given that you can't have a holistic discussion of sex, because explicitly religious values -- like mine -- aren't going to be permitted, except perhaps to be mocked and derided.
Given that my values and my value system are already written out of the picture, the least-objectionable position left to be taught is abstinence only.
I am, for the time being, blessed enough that I don't have to send my kids to government schools. I send them to schools which either explicitly teach my values, or which understand clearly that I pay the bills and my checks depend on my kids not being taught objectionable points of view.
SEICUS and other “sex positive” agenda foundations encourage teen sex.
Positive.org has a “just say yes” campaign targeted at teens.
The falicy is they proclaim that “abstinence doesn’t work”. They lie. Elsewhere you can find them making statements that it is an “unhealthy” supression of sexual desires. They are against it in principle, not the practicality of it.
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.