Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New health plan on horizon
Next Post: Question of the day - Harold Washington memories
Posted in:
* As we’ve told you before, the religious right is upset at the governor for eliminating an abstinence-only program…
In what can only be seen as another maneuver to set public policy from the Governor’s office, Illinois’ Department of Human Services recently informed Project Reality — the state’s key abstinence education provider — that the non-profit group has been eliminated from the state budget.
* But the other side says the federal rules which governor the program don’t make sense…
The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy just released Emerging Answers 2007 (www.thenationalcampaign.org) by Dr. Douglas Kirby, a leading sexual health researcher. The report studied 48 programs to see how well they prevented unintended teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Two-thirds of the programs showed positive behavioral changes among students, including delayed initiation of sex and increased condom or contraceptive use. Almost 30 percent of students had less sex or no sex; and more than 60 percent had unprotected sex less often.
How did these programs succeed? They taught both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives - a comprehensive approach to sexuality education and prevention all Illinois students deserve.
Unfortunately, Illinois accepts federal funding for abstinence-only sex education from the Title V program, which requires Illinois to provide $2.5 million in matching funds. These are squandered resources because abstinence-only programs have never been able to show success in keeping students from engaging in sexual activity. A study released in April 2007 by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. found that such programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth. The only abstinence consistently linked to this kind of education is an abstinence from safety, because these courses do not teach young people how contraceptives, including condoms, are used.
In fact, to get federal funding for abstinence-only programs, you must prove the instructors never discuss any form of contraception. This poses a serious public health risk to Illinois youth.
* Meanwhile, the Southtown ran a column today in place of mine (I took the week off) which looks at the hugely controversial “moment of silence” law that a federal judge recently enjoined from being enforced. The piece was written by Dean Koldenhoven, the former mayor of Palos Heights…
I believe the intent of a “period of silence” for approximately 20-30 seconds could be saved if the legislators would delete the words “silent prayer” from the law. When our Illinois state legislators meet in Springfield, they could take up this change in wording and salvage the law without giving up the few moments of silence at the beginning of school-day activities.
An alternative proposed by Rep. John Fritchey would delete the word “prayer” from the law as well as kill off the mandate to hold a moment of silence altogether.
Politically, though, I wonder how some legislators are gonna deal with the prospect of “eliminating prayer” in an election year. Pretty much all of them recognize that they’re in a tough spot with this controversy, but there’s no easy way out.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 9:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New health plan on horizon
Next Post: Question of the day - Harold Washington memories
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When I first read the “moment of silence law” I was immediately struck by the inclusion of silent prayer in the bill. I saw this as a grave error on the part of many key legislators who sponsored this bill.
I don’t see anything being done to it this session, and quite possibly not next session either.
Comment by YouNeverSawMe Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 10:10 am
But of course, if you ACTUALLY read the mathermatica study it shows that the program DID work for a group of poor, minority students. It also wondered if a a more comprehensive program might also show benefits.
I’d comment on the other study reference, but the firewall blocks the site. I didnt’ know we had a “bad idea” filter on it
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 10:16 am
The moment of prayer bill is going to be a lot harder to support the next time around. Now that the public is actually aware of it - I think many people are strongly against it and many legislators will be changing their votes, even if the language is changed.
Comment by Napoleon Has Left The Building Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 10:31 am
Here’s what the Bible says about public prayer:
5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Matthew 6:5-8
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 10:31 am
There’s no time for public prayer, just a few seconds in those schools that tried to implement the Act as in Springfield - and no time for significant private prayer. Not a rosary, not a 5 times a day Muslim prayer sequence, not anything.
All that the mandatory law accomplishes is the further dimunition of the importantce and place of religion in the eyes of the students in public schools.
If the sponsors of this legislation did not realize that this obvious result would occur, I worry about other bills that they may be proposing — pure populism fluff that fails the test of being at all functional in the real world.
Comment by capitol view Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 11:16 am
I can’t help but note the irony that by mandating the “moment of silence” the state may now end up with a weaker law than the previous optional moment of silence. The reference to “prayer” was in the original act, allowing an optional moment of silence. No one really objected to that; but when the moment of silence became mandatory, the entire law was challenged, with the likely outcome hinging on the inclusion of “prayer.”
On second thought, maybe this isn’t ironic. It often seems that some of the religious right really don’t want a reasonable accomodation for religion in public life. What they want is controversy, “proof” that even though survey after survey shows Americans as some of the most church-going, christian people in the world, Christians are nevertheless a persecuted minority in this country.
It’s ridiculous for anyone to claim that Christians in the US are persecuted and cannot practice their religious beliefs. Just drive down I-55 by Effingham if you don’t believe me, especially at night when the giant cross is illuminated.
PS — Kudos to YDD for his Bible knowledge.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 11:20 am
Fritchy is right. There should be no mandatory moment of silence, let alone silent prayer. Also, as the parent of teens, I have asked why our public schools are teaching abstinence only programs and been told that is the law. I was horrified to find this. We would not accept (I hope) our schools teaching the earth is flat and we should not accept teaching that abstinence is the only way to go. No one is against abstinence. I certainly hope my children delay the start of sexual activity. However, that is a values based judgment and the schools need to teach what works - “If you must have sex, make sure it is safe”.
Comment by Way Northsider Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 11:30 am
Thank Spencer Tracy. “To Inherit the Wind” taught me that the Bible is the most powerful tool there is for striking down panderers, false prophets and idolatry.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 11:41 am
Not personally on the bandwagon for prayer in public schools. Pray anytime you like. I know I prayed before every test and when the beautiful Judy Dusenbury tried to make eye contact with me on the playground. If the word silent were not in the proposed law would that create an opening for prayer much like the Muslims call to prayer? Would it permit Chief Illiiwek to come out of retirement and do a rain-dance prayer for rain? I see this issue getting totally out of hand. Likely it will be left as a “well we tried” issue. Prayer is a personal choice and can be done anytime, anywhere. I really don’t see the need to mandate it.
Comment by Justice Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 12:50 pm
Oh brother - what a twofer!
Public schools need to practice what they teach, and that is to recognize diversity within our communities. Religion is a part of that. A moment of silence is probably the weakest way to recognize this reality within public schools. Fix the law and let it go, willya? Celebrate religious diversity!
Abstinence is not a values based judgement. It is scientifically proved. Not only will you not get pregnant, you will avoid a myriad of diseases and a myriad of heartaches. Biology is relentless. You desire sex so life can move on. But we are not always ready for sex, even when our bodies are. What abstinence does is empower teens and young adults. It allows them to recognize that they do not have to give in to biological or societal demands when they don’t want to.
Sex is God’s good gift. It is time for us to stop playing political football over it, trying to mandate ONE approach to it, and stop pretending that we can’t control it.
Ever since The Pill, we have been pretending that sex is OK, but babies aren’t. We have divorced biology from common sense, haven’t we? Science is cruel. It doesn’t make a distinction between the two just because we do. Sex leads to pregnancy - because that is what it is supposed to do.
Lets recognize that promoting abstinence has worked for thousands of years, and it has a real place among our schools. It isn’t that sex is bad, it is just time we relearn what our ancestors have known for generations.
This isn’t a Bible-based statement. The Bible only reflects what our ancestors have learned and have passed on selectively. When you knock our heritages and traditions, you usually knock the basic scientific reasons behind them, forcing all of us to relearn the whole thing.
Whatever happened to the “back to nature” crowd? Abstinence is one of the most basic things we can do.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 1:07 pm
Vanillaman -
I don’t think anyone objects to teaching abstinence. The objection is to Abstinence Only programs. They have been scientifically discredited as a teaching approach.
I have to say that I find it hilariously hypocritical that the same conservatives who complain about Illinois becoming a “Nanny State”, government supplanting the role of parents, and how lawmakers in Springfield just can’t do anything right are so eager to believe that state lawmakers in Springfield should be telling our kids when its okay to pray and imposing their own personal views about pre-marital sex.
Don’t get me wrong, teenagers having sex has all kinds of nasty consequences — and always has. But if the state wants to help, they should be giving parents the tools and training they need to talk to their own kids, not taking over. What’s next, teachers telling students they can’t or shouldn’t date until they are 16?
Back on school prayer, following waves of Irish and Italian immigrants arriving in the U.S. in the early 1800’s, there were massive protests and even riots over school prayer. That’s because they objected to their Catholic children being forced to recite Protestant prayers. Do we really want to head back down that road again? I don’t think so. But if we do, I recommend a prayer from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider God-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, wrongly believing that he has the Gods on his side.
- Aristotle, The Politics
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 1:40 pm
P.S. Abstinence is hardly “back to nature”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 1:42 pm
I suspect you will see a number of legislators take the easy way out…let the judge can the law, then vote foro a watered down version because it needs to survive judicial scrutiny. This way they get to blame the judge and avoid taking too direct a stance pro or con.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 2:00 pm
I think abstinence should be taught, but ways to protect young people from the consequences of sexual activity should be taught as well…the moment of silence is unconstitutional and will be struck down by the courts…dumb and dumber– separation of church and state folks–read the bloody Constitution Sen. Lightford…
Comment by Anonymous45 Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 2:09 pm
The failure of abstinence-only has been clearly documented. Teens subjected to this type of education do not show a significant delay in the start of sexual activity (if any) AND they are much more likely to engage in risky sexual activity. It goes beyond bad education; it promotes ignorance.
My opinion: Abstinence only doesn’t work because teens are smart enough to know when they aren’t being told the truth. So they take the pledge and walk away trusting adults even less. The more truthful the information provided is; the more credible the educators become; and the more likely teens are to follow their advice.
The more a teen knows about how their body works and why they have certain desires and why it is to their benefit to make good choices, the better the choices they make. The research is very clear that this is so.
Why do we want our children to be ignorant? I don’t get it. Knowledge is power.
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 2:21 pm
Prayer was never banned in schools. Teacher-led prayer was.
Why? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” This was extended to the states by the 14th amendment. Thus a representative of the state cannot endorse religion by leading a prayer. This is especially important when teachers are considered because of the position they hold in a child’s life. This would include telling the children to pray.
“…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,…” The teacher cannot stop a student from praying.
Why is this so confusing? If you want your child to pray, teach them at home or church. Why get the school involved? Remember, they can pray at school, on their own, whenever they want.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 2:32 pm
On the other hand, we could add prayer to the state standards and include an assessment on the Prairie State Achievement Test.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 2:34 pm
The failure of abstinence-only has been clearly documented.
No, it has not. A limited program was shown to be on benefit to minority children in poorer areas. A program that has middle and High School elements was NOT tested.
And, since we need to educated kids about dangerous things, does that mean we’ll now add how to handle guns safely?
how to best unload one? Make sure the safety is on?
Or will we just teach them weaponry abstinence?
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 2:49 pm
A limited program was shown to be of benefit to minority children in poorer areas.
What I meant to say above.
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 2:51 pm
Here’s some good news for a state in deep financial trouble. Abstinence is FREE, it works 100% of the time, it’s healthy, emotionally empowering, and doesn’t break, rip or tear. It prevents drain on the welfare system (no babies having babies), saves insurance money (no expensive STD/infertility treatment) - and encourges self-respect. What a shame some folks only think that’s only good for Sunday School kids!
Comment by instant mom 3 Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 3:33 pm
As a former Health Teacher in High School I can tell you that if you teach Abstinence you MUST teach prevention too. Otherwise when the time comes where the abstinence doesnt work, the teen needs to know what protection to take.
Instant mom Abstinence is NOT 100% effective. Kids need to know how to protect themselves.
Comment by He makes Ryan Look like a Saint Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 3:38 pm
Project Reality has been ripping off taxpayers for over 20 years. They got federal and state funding, then charged the students money for workbooks on top of it! Also, Project Reality legally ripped off the author of “Sex Respect.” Ah, good o’ Christian values.
It doesn’t address the key issues of sexuality education and misconstrues medical facts. The curriculum was banned in Louisiana for being so inaccurate.
We need sex ed. that teaches young people factual, straightforward information about their bodies. This is one of the few things that makes sense cutting in the latest budget. Good riddance!
Comment by Triple dippin' Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 4:08 pm
AbOnly lovers: Critiques of “proof” AbOnly research are abundant.
http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence_eval.pdf
http://www.siecus.org/policy/research_says.pdf
Go on the web and you find that the research indicates that the AbOnly programs simply do not stop teens from having sex. The only thing they stop is teens using contraceptives. Thus AbOnly programs are more likely to result in pregnancies and STDs.
I realize that many people of faith are willing to suspend disbelief. In this case, it might make you feel good but it will result in deaths from disease as well as more abortions. I am surprised that so many in the right to life community are willing to promote programs that result in more abortions.
In addition, it sends a message to teens that, when it comes to sex, no helpful advice will be forthcoming from adults, only hypocrisy.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 7:39 pm
The Blgojevich administration cancelled anything remotely resembling “reality” years ago.
Comment by Gregor Monday, Nov 26, 07 @ 11:53 pm