R.I.P. the administration's purported commitmet to "evidence-based" sex ed curricula

[markpkessinger]

Once again, this administration sacrifice a statement of principle by the President in order to pander to a constituency that will never in a million years give this President a single vote, and in fact will do everything within its power to block every initiative and to make sure he is not re-elected. Who the hell is the political genius in the Administration who is making these kinds of calls?

[font size=4]He-Men and Virginity Pledges? Obama Administration Quietly Endorses Absurd Anti-Sex Curriculum[/font]
< . . . >
No notice, not even a press release to announce the addition of three programs to the coveted list of 28 deemed effective and carrying the HHS seal of approval. Until now, this list was the holy grail of the Administration’s commitment to a science-based approach to teen pregnancy prevention and a directive for grantees of the President’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative (TPPI).

So why the secrecy about the new additions? What does the Administration have to hide?

Because one of the "new" programs is actually an old, dis-proven and dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage program.

We have been around long enough to expect politics as usual in Washington, D.C. The backroom deals and secrecy should not surprise us. The jettisoning of young people and their sexual health for political expediency is not new. But, this blatant hypocrisy needs to stop. This latest example is just too much.
< . . . >

Read full article at: http://www.alternet.org/sex/155228/he-men_and_virginity_pledges_obama_administration_quietly_endorses_absurd_anti-sex_curriculum/?page=entire

[gratuitous]

1. They have to win votes!

I saw a post on another site that said the net gain in votes could be somewhat less than one!

Or maybe the administration was getting too comfortable with the latest polls. After all, talking and acting like a Democratic administration only boosted their numbers. Time to piss off the base a little bit, and consign a few more girls to a little abstinence-only pregnancies. What's the harm?

[markpkessinger]

2. Well put! n/t

[markpkessinger]

3. And worst thing is . . .

By pandering on this issue, they undermine the President's own argument in support of an evidence-based standard.

[Angry Dragon]

4. slow learner