Bartering children's health for a sex ed program that doesn't work?

Question

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/opinion/18robb.html?th&emc=th

As an effort to get Republicans on board to support the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the House has offered to increase funding for abstinence-only sex ed, an approach shown to be ineffective, by $28m. That amount would provide health care for 150,000 more children. Does this sound like a good idea? How can anyone justify this? When that money could go to so many better uses, how can our nation's leaders make such a proposal? I can almost accept that as the only way to get this bill to pass and get ANY more children into health care programs, but it seems so irresponsible to do it just to play politics.

Given that abstinence-only sex ed is a largely religious idea, what do you think about this trade off? Can it possibly be worth it? Would you support it?

I agree Murazor. It seems like it would increase the demand for state provided health care, which only adds to the problem. There is surely a better compromise.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, it's probably the only way to get the Republicans to start to even think about caring for the children. It's just not on their agenda. It's very sad, I know. I would hesitate to support it, but if that's the only way to get medical care for children, I probably would.

Answer 2

you are saying that $28million dollars would provide heath care for 150,000 children? Hopefully i understand you. you think that sex ed money would be better suited if placed toward children's health care? If so, two things.

One is a couple of questions for you to consider. Which 150,000 children? How would you select just 150,000 kids out of a million that may need it? Who gets left out? It's like the kid who brings gum to class, the teacher would say "you can chew it if you brought enough for everybody". Sound like a fair and logical argument? Using that money for 150,000 children's health care would be a band-aid on a small part of a large wound.

Two: If part of the problem of children not having health care is unexpected pregnancy by teenagers, then wouldn't Sex education be a proactive fix rather than a reactive fix like throwing a small some of money to alleviate a problem. That is called short term thinking. They may be lowering the statistic of children without health care for an entire generation ahead of us. We need to look at long term solutions. Far too often we throw money at something to make it go away in the short term. That's not the answer, it is just the small picture. Hmm, some logic there as well.

I did not read the proposal, just looked at the black and white of the question logically. That is, if i read it right. Without looking at everything, i can't say whether or not I would support this proposal.

Answer 3

Well, the kids that make the good choices tend to get education about sex in the home, so....

It's not a great trade off, but I was uninsured for 10 years, so I'm biased.

We can always stop the abstinance bill in the senate.

Answer 4

Abstinence isn't mainly a religious idea, IMO. (It is an idea put out (excuse the pun) by clergy, but also due to other influences.) I knew many kids in school (grad of 81) that abstained due to personal reasons, not religous ones. The reports argues that those with the abstinence training will be less likely to use contraceptive choices, like condoms, when they DO give in and have sex. Therefore, leading to higher incideneces of STDS, including AIDS. I would vote to not have the program. And, I am a Christian, for the survey record. :)

Answer 5

If teens and single woman would stop having children that they can not afford, then there would be less poor children to that care of. But I guess it easier to let the government pay you to sit home and make babies than the take responsibility for yourself and get a job, get married, and then have children you can love and provide for.

Answer 6

Abstinence only may work for some kids but for most, once the hormones kick in, knowing only abstinence will lead to a greater need for more health care. If the kids are unprepared for the consequences of sex, which will happen in a vast number of cases, they will be at far greater risk of STDs and pregnancy.
No, this is an idiotic deal. I cannot support it.

Answer 7

Something must be working. Teen pregnancy is down. Abstinence is a sure fire way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. It is not a religious concept but common sense. It is the only 100% effective birth control and 100% STD free practice. It should be taught along with other birth control measures for the sexually active teens.

Answer 8

Better: abstinence-only is now proven to be dangerous to the health. It increases the risk of prostate and uterine problems.

Answer 9

Did you even give your question a thought? You really really believe that if kids don't screw around until they are married to one person that, that does not prevent STD, unwanted pregnancy, aides, etc? Just how do you think these things are transmitted? And btw, giving welfare to poeple how earn 80, grand a year is exactly why this nation is going broke.

Answer 10

it might be worth the comprimise. I would rather see a few wasted efforts with abstinence education than I would a poor kid suffer.