• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Future of abstinence-only funding is in limbo

alice

Well-known member
The taxpayers paid $1.5 billion dollars for the abstinence-only sex education program.

I'm stunned...of all the hogwash! $1.5 billion dollars for something that has as much impact as "Just Say No?" Sex and drugs...abstinence and "Just Say No." Yeah, right!

I would be more than willing, in fact I would advocate having more taxes taken from our income if this was really a workable, viable deal. But anyone with half a brain, and anyone that's had teenage children, or been teenagers for that matter, knows how absolutely STUPID this is. Talk about drinking Koolaid!

If this weren't so ludicrous it would be comical. This did happen on GW'w watch, right?

Alice
 

Steve

Well-known member
for once I agree, the funding should be cut, to expect a liberal teacher to teach abstinance while snickering, would be like asking the democrats to back a Bush bail out of big corporations.. :roll: :roll: :wink:

oops they did back him... :roll:

ohh well any way,... both are a colossal waste of money and time..


and all funding should be stopped..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Alice
If this weren't so ludicrous it would be comical. This did happen on GW'w watch, right?

no... it was during Clinton's watch..

In 1996, the federal government attached a provision to a welfare reform law establishing a program of special grants to states for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The program, Title V, § 510(b) of the Social Security Act (now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 710b), is commonly known as Title V. It created very specific requirements for grant recipients. Under this law, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which:

but to claim it was used properly as funded or even at all for the intended purpose is like asking a liberal teacher to teach it with out snickering..

The program dedicated $50 million annually to be distributed among states choosing to participate. States accepting the funds were required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars. For the first five years of the initiative, every state but California participated in the program. However, many states used the money to fund their existing sexual education programs and never created abstinence-only sexual education programs.

and then when the results were less then spectacular they claim it failed..
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oh well...Dallas city council voted to supply condoms to those who can't "just say no". Don't know if they will be flavored but they did say they would come in a variety of colors....sizes too maybe. :lol:
 

alice

Well-known member
Steve said:
Alice
If this weren't so ludicrous it would be comical. This did happen on GW'w watch, right?

no... it was during Clinton's watch..

In 1996, the federal government attached a provision to a welfare reform law establishing a program of special grants to states for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The program, Title V, § 510(b) of the Social Security Act (now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 710b), is commonly known as Title V. It created very specific requirements for grant recipients. Under this law, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which:

but to claim it was used properly as funded or even at all for the intended purpose is like asking a liberal teacher to teach it with out snickering..

The program dedicated $50 million annually to be distributed among states choosing to participate. States accepting the funds were required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars. For the first five years of the initiative, every state but California participated in the program. However, many states used the money to fund their existing sexual education programs and never created abstinence-only sexual education programs.

and then when the results were less then spectacular they claim it failed..

Let me get this straight. It originated on Clinton's watch? Is that right?

Clinton came before the 8 long years of Bush, so apparently the program carried on under Bush's watch? Right? And, the first 6 years of the Bush "reign," Republicans had total control of congress and nothing was done? Sounds like the Bushiviks must've supported it at least 6 of the 8 years. Sooooo, seems like Bush and the Bushiviks can share the blame on this bondoogle.

Alice
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
This is not a Bush Clinton issue.

This is about children.

It is about stupid waste of money - that will continue and likely get additional funding at this point.

There's no doubt that I suffered under Carter, struggled under Clinton and I like Bush. That is not the point.

What can we do to help the children? - Other than telling them how stupid everyone is.

If you haven't achieved much in your life, my guess is you are blaming someone besides the person who put you where you are - YOU.
 

Steve

Well-known member
alice said:
Steve said:
Alice
If this weren't so ludicrous it would be comical. This did happen on GW'w watch, right?

no... it was during Clinton's watch..

In 1996, the federal government attached a provision to a welfare reform law establishing a program of special grants to states for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The program, Title V, § 510(b) of the Social Security Act (now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 710b), is commonly known as Title V. It created very specific requirements for grant recipients. Under this law, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which:

but to claim it was used properly as funded or even at all for the intended purpose is like asking a liberal teacher to teach it with out snickering..

The program dedicated $50 million annually to be distributed among states choosing to participate. States accepting the funds were required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars. For the first five years of the initiative, every state but California participated in the program. However, many states used the money to fund their existing sexual education programs and never created abstinence-only sexual education programs.

and then when the results were less then spectacular they claim it failed..

Let me get this straight. It originated on Clinton's watch? Is that right?

Clinton came before the 8 long years of Bush, so apparently the program carried on under Bush's watch? Right? And, the first 6 years of the Bush "reign," Republicans had total control of congress and nothing was done? Sounds like the Bushiviks must've supported it at least 6 of the 8 years. Sooooo, seems like Bush and the Bushiviks can share the blame on this bondoogle.

Alice

so even though your proven wrong, you still blame Bush for following and upholding the law.. :roll: :wink:

and you even want to argue with me when I agreed with you that it was a colossal waste of money and time.. ,.. why?

at least I can say that even though I agree with the original intent of the law, I feel it was a colossal waste of money and time.. no matter who signed it into law..
 
Top