Guttmacher Study Shows: Contraceptives Don't Reduce Abortion Rate

As if we needed any more proof, yet another study illustrates that the pro-abortionist contention that more contraceptives will reduce abortion is a lie.

This one comes from the Guttmacher Institute, the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood.

From LifeNews:

AGI, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, released a new report showing that abortions are done at higher rates on black, poor, and older women.

At the same time, it shows that young women who are in college or slightly older or younger obtain the highest number of abortions.

Wright contends this is a group of people who have the easiest access to contraception and the most knowledge about birth control because they grew up in a culture where it has been prevalent.

"The majority of women who are having abortions are those in their twenties," Wright told OneNewsNow. "These are college career women. These are not women who lack access to contraception or lack knowledge of contraception."

Even greater access to the "morning after" pill hasn't slowed the abortion rate in Sweden:

Last month, government figures in Sweden showed the number of abortions has increased 17 percent from 2000 to 2007 despite higher sales of the morning after pill increasing during the same time period.

If contraceptives aren't helping reduce abortions as pro-abortionists claim, then why push aggressive sex education and greater access to contraceptives?

Maybe it's good for business--Planned Parenthood's abortion business.

About three years ago, Consumer Reports revealed the results of their tests of 23 brands of condoms. Among the worst performing were Planned Parenthood brands such as "Lollipop," "Assorted Colors," and "Honeydew."

Well, maybe they won't keep someone from getting pregnant, but hey: Planned Parenthood is there for you to give you an abortion, eh?

Meanwhile, unborn children end up dead on the floor of abortion clinics, with the mental and emotional health of the women caught up in this propaganda machine down the tubes as well.

Democrats Object to Health Care Worker Right of Conscience

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Jul. 23 2008 12:10 PM EDT

Democratic lawmakers are up in arms over a draft proposal by the Bush administration to uphold the rights of health care workers who refuse to dispense emergency contraception and birth control on moral or religious grounds.

On Monday, 104 members of the House of Representatives sent President Bush a protest letter, in which they urge him to "halt all action" to an anti-discrimination employment proposal drafted by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The proposal, which began circulating on Capitol Hill last week, would require hospitals receiving federal funds to guarantee that, in their hiring process, they do not discriminate against nurses and health care workers who object to provide forms of contraception due to moral or religious beliefs.

Pro-life groups praised the draft regulation but some Democratic lawmakers including Sen. Hillary Clinton have argued that it would affect women's access to birth control.

At the center of the controversy is a section of the 39-page draft document that safeguards health care workers who refuse “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

Critics of the draft proposal argue that the wording would "redefine" abortion.

"The regulation's definitions are so broad as to go far beyond abortion politics and threaten virtually any law or policy designed to protect women's access to safe and effective birth control," the lawmakers contend in the letter. "The department does this primarily by defining 'abortion' in a way that could sweep in many common forms of birth control."

The purpose of the rule, according to the document, is to ensure that federal funds "do not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or polices in violation of federal law."

The White House said it does not comment on proposed regulations.

HHS affirmed in a statement last week that the draft proposal was one possibility the department was exploring to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

“Over the past three decades, Congress has passed several anti-discrimination laws to protect institutional and individual health care providers participating in federal programs. HHS has an obligation to enforce these laws, and is exploring a number of options," HSS said in the statement.

In an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times, Kevin Schweers, a deputy assistant secretary of HHS for public affairs, also noted that the department recently raised concerns over policies enacted by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that "forced providers to choose between compromising their personal beliefs and facing economic and professional sanctions."

Pharmacists in Washington and Illinois have already run into related legal trouble for refusing to dispense the "morning-after" emergency contraception pill. Currently, only nine states have laws protecting the rights of pharmacists to decline providing such services.

Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Pro-Life Pharmacy Celebrates Anniversary

Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post

By Aaron Leichman
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Jun. 02 2008 10:54 AM ET

One of the most prominent pharmacy agencies in California celebrated its anniversary status Sunday as the only pro-life pharmacy in the state of California.

Brent Watson, pharmacy director and owner of Central Coast Pharmacy Specialists in Templeton, Calif., said that his pharmacy had made the decision – in open defiance to Big Drug and Insurance Companies – to stop issuing birth control pills, the so called “morning after pill,” and other medication that could be used for an abortion.

"It's not good medicine,” Watson said in a statement.

Watson explained that contraceptives are harmful to patients and “block the implantation of early human life.”

"[T]his puts pharmacists in direct conflict with their profession when forced to dispense against their conscience and professional promise to ‘do no harm’ to patients. We want patients to know we are a pro-patient, healing only pharmacy that provides compounded medications individually made to fit the specific needs of each patient one prescription at a time,” he said.

According to Watson, the harmful effects of contraceptives are noted even by the FDA, which requires patients to sign a disclosure before taking oral contraceptives.

Watson said that he was proud that his pharmacy could be among the few openly pro-life pharmacies in the nation while many other pharmacists continue to face persecution by employers because of their pro-life views.

In one such case, Neil Noesen of Wis., a devout Roman Catholic, was punished with over $20,000 in court fines and restrictions on his license for refusing to hand a patient prescription that could be used for an abortion in 2002.

Sunday marked Central Coast Pharmacy Specialists’ first year of “conflict free pharmacy.” The pharmacy is nationally accredited by the Pharmacy Compounding Accreditation Board (PCAB) and formally recognized by the American Medical Association (AMA) as adhering to "quality and practice standards."


Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Montana Pharmacist Right of Conscience Upheld

A few months ago the story surfaced of pharmacist John Lane in Broadus, Montana who exercised his conscience, and the freedom allowed to him by law, to refuse to sell contraceptives. Complaints were filed against him by those who demanded he sell them a product he found objectionable.

His story started a dialogue in South Dakota that resulted in a bill being submitted to the South Dakota legislature that would have remove the right of conscience of South Dakota pharmacists and punished those who didn't want to sell a product about which they had moral objections.

Ironically, that bill referenced this exercises of conscience by pharmacists as if they constituted "government intrusions" and as if the pharmacists were "government entities," turning the whole debate upside down. Fortunately, the bill was rejected by the legislature.

Now, according to CBN News, Lane has been cleared by the Montana Board of Pharmacy:

Since then, Lane had 11 complaints filed against him with the Montana Board of Pharmacy for not selling the pills. He was represented before the state's pharmacy board by the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit legal agency.

"Neither the government nor an employer should make people choose between their faith and their job," ADF-allied attorney Matthew Monforton, said. "The board did the right thing by recognizing that Mr. Lane did nothing to violate the law."

Lane had faced potentially losing his license or an official reprimand from the board. But all complaints were dismissed last Wednesday, after officials determined Lane had not broken law.

As the ADF attorney pointed out in the story, respecting the right of someone not to sell a product they find objectionable doesn't impose an ideology on anyone; using the power of government and law to force someone to choose between their job and their conscience DOES.

Since customers are free to obtain contraceptives from another pharmacist or order them through the mail, I can't consider this effort by some in Montana, and some in the South Dakota legislature, as anything other than an effort force the ideology of sex without consequence upon others.

Fortunately, the right of conscience has been upheld in both Montana and South Dakota. For now.

Bill to Override Pharmacist Conscience Defeated

The South Dakota Senate rejected a bill that would have legal protection from pharmacists who don't want to sell contraceptives because it violates their conscience.

SB 164 proposed that a pharmacist's refusal to sell a drug that violated his or her conscience constituted a "government intrusion" into people's "private lives" by a "government entity."

This right of the pharmacist to follow their conscience is currently protected by SDCL 36-11-70.

The bill also attempted to override the definition of "unborn child" according to South Dakota law by declaring "Neither contraception nor birth control, as defined in section 1 of this Act, is subject to or governed by the provisions of § 34-23A or 36-11-70." A provision of SDCL 36-11-70 says that the pharmacist doesn't have to sell a drug if they believe it would "Destroy an unborn child as defined in subdivision 22-1-2(50A)." SDCL 22-1-2(50A) defines an unborn child as "an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." Since some forms of contraception prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus--and thus receiving the sustentance it needs to reach full development--it would constitute an abortion and the destruction of an unborn child according to South Dakota law.

The Argus Leader includes a quote which highlights the key reason this was a bad bill:

"We are Americans. You don't tell people they have to do something that violates their conscience," said Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven.

The article also cited testimony from legislators that reiterates what I've said before: contraceptives can be obtained from another pharmacists or through the mail. There is no reason to use the power of government to force someone to violate their conscience or lose their job.

The article also cited Senator Tom Dempster of Sioux Falls who said that while he supports access to birth control, no one has presented any evidence that women are having trouble obtaining birth control in South Dakota.

Contrary to what liberals would have us believe, people aren't helpless lemmings without the power of government to protect us from another person's convictions.

When we consider using the power of the state to coerce a person to violate their conscience, we are entering a very dangerous territory.

Bill Against Pharmacist Conscience Passes Committee

SB 164, the bill which would remove the right of pharmacists to exercise their conscience in selling contraceptives, passed the state Senate Health and Human Services committee today, according to the Rapid City Journal.
Democrat Senator Tom Katus of Rapid City, who is on the committee, voted in favor.

The article included a statement from one of the sponsors:

Sen. Ed Olson, R-Mitchell, the sponsor of the bill, said it's only purpose was to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Really? Women can't get contraceptives elsewhere, like from another pharmacist, or order them through the mail?

The currently existing moral exception granted to pharmacists is based on language which specifies drugs which may be used to kill someone or cause an abortion. Since a number of oral contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a new human being into the uterus of its mother, this moral clause includes some oral contraceptives.

As I've pointed out before, this bill also attempts to redefine the meaning of "unborn child" according to South Dakota law.

I'd also like to hear Senator Olson's (or someone's) explanation of how a pharmacist who owns his own store or works for a private company can be interpreted to be a "government entity," since the language of the bill says it wants to stop "government intrusions" by "government entities."

Or is this simply an attempt to force one person's morality on another by forcing them to choose between their job and following their conscience?

Indiana Senate Passes Pharmacist Conscience Protection Bill

LifeNews is reporting that the Indiana state senate has passed a bill similar to South Dakota's law which protects the right of conscience of a pharmacist who does not want to dispense a drug that violates his conscience.

Sen. Jeff Drozda is the Republican senator who sponsored the bill.

Senate Bill 3 came under fire from some lawmakers who support making sure pharmacists don't have to dispense drugs that cause abortions or kill disabled patients in an assisted suicide, but they didn't want to limit birth control.

Pharmacists would receive protection from any legal discipline and employers would be charged with a crime for penalizing any employee who followed the provisions in the bill.

I believe that's even farther than our South Dakota bill goes because ours does not specify a criminal penalty against an employer who might require a pharmacist employee to fill such a prescription.

SDCL 36-11-70 only says, " No such refusal to dispense medication pursuant to this section may be the basis for any claim for damages against the pharmacist or the pharmacy of the pharmacist or the basis for any disciplinary, recriminatory, or discriminatory action against the pharmacist."

The article indicates that a majority of peole support the right of a pharmacist not to dispense drugs which violate his or her conscience:

The Baraga Interactive polling firm conducted the survey for Pharmacists for Life International and found that a majority of Americans favor pharmacists being able to enjoy freedom of conscience when filling or counseling about drugs.

Sixty-five percent support a pharmacist's right to decline to fill or counsel for prescription drugs which violate their moral or religious views.

Of course, they're trying to dismantle our law here in South Dakota with SB 164 in the South Dakota legislature.

Using the power of government to force someone to go against their conscience is a treacherous proposition.

Abortion Business Admits: Birth Control Doesn't Always Work

We're always told (by Planned Parenthood-types, anyway) that the best way to reduce abortions is through sex education and access to contraceptives, right?

If you believe that, or if you've even heard it, you might find this story from LifeNews interesting.

A British-based abortion business that operates abortion centers internationally admitted on Tuesday that women in Australia are getting pregnant and having abortions despite the use of birth control.

Say it isn't so! Birth control has been billed as the El Dorado of sexual freedom, especially the oral contraceptive. The advent of the pill in the 1960s was supposed to set women free from the slavery of pregnancy and motherhood. And now we find out...not really?

The article elaborates:

Some 43 percent were on oral contraceptives when the pregnancy occurred and another 27 percent reportedly used a condom at the time.

The article points out that Scotland reported 13,081 abortions in 2006, up from 12,603 in 2005. This happened despite an aggressive campaign in the UK to promote contraception and get the morning-after pill out to women.

According to the article, Dr. Joseph Stanford, associate professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, says he and his colleagues have done a more accurate analysis on the morning after pill than the manufacturer, and found an "optimistic" success rate of 72%. He said studies from others in the U.S., Europe and China are reaching similar conclusions.

So why would organizations like Planned Parenthood push sex ed and condoms so much, if even oral contraceptives can frequently fail?

Well, consider that in 2005-2006 reporting period, Planned Parenthood made $902.8 million and performed 264,943 abortions (don't forget that $305.3 million of those dollars came from your taxpayer dollars).

Consider also that in 2005 Consumer Reports did a study of condom effectiveness, examining 23 brands. Which were among the worst? Planned Parenthood brands such as "Lollipop," "Assorted Colors," and "Honeydew."

Planned Parenthood is supposed to be the premier organization for birth control; after all, it's very name implies it. So why would they be handing out some of the most defective condoms?

Well, if the condom fails, they can always hook you up with an abortion, right? I know of no document which proves such a connection, but mama didn't raise a dummy, either.

This is why pro-abortion folks will fight to keep abortion legal with their last breath. They know that even the best contraceptive fails sometimes, and despite all the lofty talk about rape options, health exceptions, and "the right to choose," they must keep this final option for abortion-as-birth-control when all other measures fail.

The only way to ensure you don't get pregnant is to not have sex (i.e. abstinence). It's also the only way to ensure you don't get a sexually transmitted disease.

One man and one woman for life is God's design for human sexuality. God gave us rules not to spoil our fun, but to keep us safe. For proper care and maintenance of the human model, always refer to the manufacturer's instructions.

Pharmacists and Conscience: Close But No Cigar

You have to give these liberal feminists credit: they're nothing if not persistent.

Pharmacists who have moral reservations about selling contraception has been an ongoing discussion in the blogosphere for a few weeks now, initially spurred on by a Montana pharmacist.

It continues with the submission of SB 164 in the South Dakota legislature, which would force pharmacists to dispense contraception regardless of their moral convictions. I've blogged on this and had ongoing cross-blog discussions about it with the DakotaWomen. Jon Schaff at South Dakota Politics blogged on it earlier today, and I followed up with another entry related to his.

My latest entry posed the analogy of whether, in like fashion, we would sanction passing a law to force a Jewish or Muslim grocer to sell pork to customers, since both have religious objections to pork.

Well, here Anna at DakotaWomen has me...or so she thinks.

Anna points to a story from MSNBC that says a Target store in Minneapolis has moved Muslim cashiers who had religious objections about ringing up pork to other jobs in the store.

I think that's great that Target was so accommodating to both their customers and their employees, but there are some key differences here.

First, there are some very significant vocational differences in jobs as cashier and pharmacist. Cashiers require little training (I know, I've worked as one), whereas pharmacists must get a degree in pharmacology, usually have to take the Pharmacy College Admissions Test, the North American Pharmacist Licensure Exam, and be licensed to be a pharmacist. You can't shift a pharmacist to the stock room and keep things on an even par.

More importantly, it's within the employer's discretion what to do with an employee who can't do their job. In the case of Target, they chose to move the employee to another area or another store. If they couldn't perform the work, they might have had to let them go. Me, I wouldn't apply for a job that required me to ring up alcohol sales, because I find that morally objectionable, and while it might be nice if an employer gave me an exception, it's not something I'd expect or demand.

If a pharmacist is employed by a business that believes contraceptives should be dispensed by that pharmacist, then it's the owner's call whether to move him somewhere else in the organization, or let him go. It's the employer's call, no one elses.

But if the pharmacist runs his own shop, as many pharmacists do, it's HIS call whether to sell the product or not.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, I saw no discussion in the article about passing a law to force the Muslim employees to sell pork to customers. And that is probably the most despicable aspect of this discussion, and of SB 164 in particular.

We are not talking about a job requirement outlined by an employer, we are talking about using the power of the law, the force of government, to impose one person's morality on another. SB 164 would use the power of government to force a person to either violate their conscience or walk away from a job they've spent years (and considerable money) training for, getting certified for, and getting licensed for. This is regardless of whether the pharmacist owns his own shop, or whether his employer agrees with him or makes other accommodation for him. The law says YOU WILL sell this product to customers whether you like it or not.

I know liberals have difficulty seeing the difference between government power and obligations, and private decisions and freedoms. But they are very large and distinct, and it's why our nation was founded on the principle of limited government and maximum personal freedom.

In private, free environments, we're all free to make decisions according to our value systems...and we live with the natural consequences. For the pharmacist who owns his own shop and won't sell birth control, he may deal with the consequence of losing the birth control customer's business for that product, and perhaps other products. The pharmacy owner has the freedom to decide whether his establishment will sell contraceptives, and if a pharmacist employee objects to selling birth control, he may need to live with the natural consequences and find another job. But remember: the business OWNER OWNS the business, and it's his call. Government isn't forcing anything on anyone here.

That's where it all changes when the government gets involved. People can and should exercise their freedom to make decisions about their values, and of course there are sometimes natural consequences. But when the government steps in and mandates an action by law, freedom is quashed.

No one is forcing a customer who can't get birth control from a certain pharmacist to do anything or believe anything; nothing is being imposed on the customer, and the customer has lost no freedom, only ACCESS (which they might not have anyway, if the pharmacy was sold out, or if there was no pharmacy within 60 miles). But SB 164 would impose a control, a loss of freedom, and a loss of discretion of conscience upon the pharmacist who has a moral objection to selling this product.

Again, this isn't about providing more freedom to a customer seeking birth control (at best it could provide more ACCESS, but not more freedom), but is instead about imposing a different morality on the objecting pharmacist and restricting his freedom.

Remember here that we're not talking about life-saving medication, it's not needed immediately to prevent death or serious bodily harm, and can be obtained at another pharmacy or through the mail.

So still no dice, Anna, but at least you're thinking. And that's good. Try thinking harder about who's being forced into something here, who's morality is being imposed on whom, and about the implications of forcing someone to violate their conscience. Do we really want doctors, cops, firemen, cashiers, and pharmacists who exercise no moral conscience?

I still wonder why these liberals are so desperate to force someone to bend to their sense of morality (or lack thereof)...

On Pharmacists: Miraculously Missing the Point

Want to see an illustration of how liberals can't comprehend the truth, even after you've made it clear enough for a 5-year old to get?

Go over to DakotaWomen and read Anna's post on my comments yesterday regarding SB 164, the bill that intends to force pharmacists to violate their conscience or lose their job.

Amazingly, not only is the author of this bill completely oblivious to the fact that pharmacists are not "government entities" and therefore cannot commit "government intrusions" into people's private lives, but apparently Anna is equally oblivious.

In fact, in not selling contraception to a customer, pharmacists are not intruding into a customer's private life at all. After all, the customer is the person coming to the pharmacist asking for contraception. If their life is really that private, maybe they shouldn't ask for contraception at all. Government isn't forcing anyone to do anything when a pharmacist exercises his conscience and decides not to sell birth control.

It is, however, a "government intrusion" into the moral conscience of a pharmacists who believes it is immoral to sell contraception, if government tells him he must sell it or get another job.

Pharmacists aren't robots and they aren't dispensing machines. They bring their values and ethics to the job just like the cop, the waitress, the pilot, the doctor, and the computer programmer. Does any customer really want an immoral cop, waitress, doctor...or pharmacist? Not only is it unrealistic to ask a pharmacist to leave their morality at home, it's also a very dangerous proposition for their employers and customers.

But consider again the point Anna is missing here about what is being forced upon whom.

What kind of an upside-down fantasy world do liberals live in where they not only can't grasp the difference between a government entity and a private (i.e. not government) entity, they can't deduce that NOT selling a customer a product isn't forcing any morality on that person (the customer isn't being forced to perform any act, recite any creed, or change any way of thinking)...but FORCING a pharmacist to sell someone something is indeed forcing someone else's morality on that pharmacist, because the pharmacist is being forced to do something that violates his sense of morality in favor of someone else's sense of morality.

Some days when I listen to the liberal chatter in the news and on the blogs, I feel like I'm in a strange dream where reality is all out of whack, or that I woke up in some weird alternate dimension. But I guess that's to be expected in a society where all-too-many people are no longer grounded in absolute truth.

Anna apparently doesn't even recognize proper grammar when she sees it. The only grammar problem is how she combines her comments with a quote from me.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, here. But if I couldn't do any better than this, I think I'd stay out of the public eye and quit embarrassing myself...

Stem-cell advance opens up the field

"Stem-cell advance opens up the field

By Peter N. Spotts

Fri Nov 23, 3:00 AM ET

Colonies of tiny cells flourishing in petri dishes in the US and Japan are reshaping the political and ethical landscape surrounding human stem-cell research.

In the process, these diminutive colonies also may level the playing field in stem-cell research – internationally and domestically.

These are some of the effects analysts say they see coming out of this week's announcements that two teams have genetically reprogrammed skin cells so that they take on the traits of embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are the subject of intense medical interest because of their ability to develop into any of the major cell types in the human body. Over the long term, these stem cells could become the foundation for therapies for a range of diseases, scientists say. This week's announcement suggests it will be possible for scientists to study these cells without the ethical and political difficulties of harvesting them from unused human embryos.

For the emerging field of stem-cell research, "this is enormous," says Jesse Reynolds, a policy analyst at the liberal Center for Genetics and Society, based in Oakland, Calif. "I can't think of another development "that has been this big,"

"This is a paradigm shift," agrees Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. "This will have a huge impact on the ethical debate."

(Complete article)

It was only a matter of time and now that time is arriving on schedule!

Contraception for 11-Year-Olds?

From the Portland Press Herald in Maine:

Students who have parental permission to be treated at King Middle School's health center would be able to get birth control prescriptions under a proposal that the Portland School Committee will consider Wednesday.

The proposal would build on the King Student Health Center's practice of providing condoms as part of its reproductive health program since it opened in 2000, said Lisa Belanger, a nurse practitioner who oversees the city's student health centers.

If the committee approves the King proposal, it would be the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to some students in grades 6 to 8, said Nancy Birkhimer, director of teen health programs for the Maine Department of Health and Human Services. Most middle schoolers are ages 11-13.

Who could possibly oppose this. Of course 11-year-olds desperately need contraception from their educational institutions. I don't know if 11-year-olds are biologically capable of reproduction, but adults should respect their sexual freedom. (SARCASM ALERT!)

Meanwhile, a guest speaker at some Minnesota schools got in hot water for mentioning abortion and homosexuality in a negative light.

Tina Marie, an actress who is associated with Premiere Speakers and spoke under the auspices of Youth for Christ, "crossed the line" according to Willmar High School Principal Rob Anderson.

From WorldNetDaily:

During her visit to Willmar, she asked students to listen to song lyrics, and consider their message. She also said actors and musicians often won't let their own children watch or listen to the things they are trying to sell to others' children, according to a report in the Morris, Minn., newspaper.

But the report in the Sun-Tribune said Tina Marie told the students one-third of their generation has been aborted, and she suggested boys who wear low-hanging pants may be seen as homosexuals.

How dare someone tell school children that killing unborn children, or engaging in immoral and risky sex, are things they shouldn't do. This egregious imposition of values on the students takes away from time schools might otherwise spend on important things like giving condoms to kids. (SARCASM ALERT!)

And some people wonder why I homeschool???

New Study: Abstinence Works

LifeSite.net features a story about a new abstinence study done by Dr. Stan Weed of the Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City.

This study appears to dwarf the recent--and flawed--study done by Mathematica Policy Research touted by sexual anarchists in their goal of ending funding for abstinence education. That study examined 2,000 students, but the IRE study followed 400,000 students in 30 states for 15 years. The MPR study took kids from high-risk segments rather than a broad cross-section, only looked at four abstinence programs, and the kids didn't receive the follow-up education essential to reinforce positive behavior.

Here's what the new study found:

The most successful abstinence programs were those that emphasized the risk of pre-marital sexual activity. They showed how abstinence fully protects a young person from STD’s, teen pregnancy and emotional trauma. They underlined the importance of self-control and responsibility and gave students the positive goal of a stable and committed marriage towards which to work in future. At the same time, however, researchers also found that it was crucial to re-educate adolescents about abstinence each successive year.

Dr. Weed concludes, “Well-designed and well-implemented abstinence education programs can reduce teen sexual activity by as much as one half for periods of one to two years, substantially increasing the number of adolescents who avoid the full range of problems related to teen sexual activity. Abandoning this strategy…would appear to be a policy driven by politics rather than by a desire to protect American teens.”

Teens aren't just highly evolved animals that can't control their urges. They live in a sex-saturated culture that's terrified of making a moral judgment, but they can discipline themselves.

Comprehensive Sex Ed: 2.6% Abstinence

An article from the Washington Times finds "comprehensive" sex ed overwhelmingly teaches condoms over abstinence. Surprised? I didn't think so.

A federal report issued before today's expected House Appropriations Committee vote on abstinence-education funding says the curricula for comprehensive sex education overwhelming push condoms and downplay abstinence.

For instance, the "Making Proud Choices" curricula, developed for middle-school students ages 11 to 13, mentions "condom" or "condoms" 650 times and "abstinence" or "abstain" 18 times, said the report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families (ACF).

The accepted definition of "comprehensive" sex education is that it teaches youth about both sexual abstinence and protective methods for sexual activity, said the report. However, the review shows that "abstinence is a very small part of these curricula," said Harry Wilson, associate commissioner of ACF's Administration on Children, Youth and Families.

Abstinence did get a mention 2.6% of the time in the program mentioned above. For liberals who basically run the education system, that's probably considered pretty good.

But if 97% of your message is "wear a condom when you do it" and 3% is "don't do it," what message are kids most likely to get?

Parents Support Abstinence

From OneNewsNow:

The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) is drawing attention to the Zobgy survey, which claims when parents become aware of what abstinence education teaches versus what comprehensive sex education teaches, support for abstinence programs jumps from 40 percent to 60 percent, while support for condom-based "safe-sex" programs drops from 50 percent to 30 percent.

NAEA executive director Valerie Huber says she is convinced there has been a "misinformation campaign" about abstinence education throughout the media.

"Once parents understood that abstinence education is really holistic and includes some of the core components, such as building healthy relationships, strengthening self-control, developing skills that will improve their chances for a healthy future marriage, and even the benefits of choosing abstinence after being sexually active," Huber notes, "parents want that message given to their teens."

The media and sexual anarchists would have us believe abstinence is something only religious wackos believe.

Nice to see there's still some sanity out there.

Contraception Not Stopping Abortion

LifeNews.com cites a British report that shows the pro-abortion cry for contraception blah blah is hollow and useless:

A new British report finds that abortions are occurring there despite the general availability of contraception. Abortion advocates frequently cite making contraception and birth control more available as the best answer for reducing abortions, but the study shows that's not happening.

The report, sponsored by the contraception maker Schering Health Care finds that women in their late 20s and 30s are having abortions at the same rate as teenagers.
That's surprising to birth control backers because older women are thought to be better able to afford contraception and understand how to use it.

However, almost half of the women who got pregnant in the study reported they were not using any form of contraception at the time of their pregnancy or had forgotten to take their birth control pills on a regular basis.

In short, socialized medicine under the National Health Service in the UK isn't stopping abortions. Abortion is being used as birth control.

The ones claiming that if only we taught kids more about sex and gave them free contraception, that would stop abortions...they're full of baloney, and this proves it.

We already dispense free condoms at many schools across the country. We already tell kids about sex (they get tons of exposure to sex from TV, music, and other kids, not to mention what they're officially taught in school) to the point that you'd have to be pretty stupid not to know what happens when you put Part A with Part B.

The call for greater contraception and sex ed is just an attempt to further sexualize our kids and ensure Planned Parenthood has a never-ending market for their abortion services.