Leslee Unruh in LA times: There are some kids who don't want to know how to put on a condom.

The Los Angeles Timeshad an article recently that's being printed across the country with regards to how states are eschewing federal abstinence funding in a so-called revolt against abstinence education.

In the article, South Dakota's own Leslee Unruh of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse is quoted with regards to how this is denying the people who don't want to have sex equal treatment:

States have used the money to help public and private schools start and run educational programs, develop classroom instruction for nonprofit groups, and pay for advertising and other media campaigns.

"There are kids who don't want to know how to put on a condom, because they don't want to have sex,'' said Leslee Unruh, president and chief executive of the South Dakota-based National Abstinence Clearinghouse, the nation's largest network of abstinence educators. "So why can't kids who want to abstain have equal time, funding and education in the classroom as kids who are having sex?''

To critics, the policy shift addresses growing concerns that sexually active youth are not getting access to medically accurate information about use of contraceptives and disease prevention.


White House support for the so-called Title V grant remains strong.

In a federal budget that is tight for nearly everything but entitlements, homeland security, funding for the military effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has asked Congress to carve out $191 million for the program in fiscal 2008, an increase of $28 million over current funding
Read it all here.


Anonymous said…
Thank God we have only two years of this madness left. Cut the funding for veterans but increase this funding so the born again freaks can be taken care of. Insanity reigns and Leslee has a job for the next two years.
Bob Newland said…
There are no kids in junior high who don't want to be in a class where they teach condom fitting.
Anonymous said…
bob you must be talking about the giggle factor. Or the kids saying "this is so lame cause i all ready know about sex."
Yea, they really get it don't they!
"Sex does NOT equal Love" this is part of the wrong message that has been given out over the years.
jack said…
I'm not sure that letting kids pick curriculum in Junior High is a good idea. Here is a short list of things I didn't want to learn about in Junior High -

Social Studies
Home Ec

Here's what I liked:


At the time, I didn't think that I would ever need to know anything other than how to play basketball and use power tools (which are still awesome). Later, I did need to know how to divide fractions, use a comma, know how the government works, and even how to make myself breakfast (we learned how to make omlettes, although I just recently figured out how to flip them without turning them into scrambled eggs).

I didn't need to know how to cook breakfast, or even to do work with fractions, when I was 14. My mom made me breakfast and I didn't have a job that required any math skills. But later, both of those skills came in handy. I also don't feel obligated to eat omlettes because I learned about them in Home Ec. But if I wanted one, I knew what I was doing.

Teaching kids how to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnency if and when they decide to engage in sexual activity makes sense.
lexrex said…
i don't want the government teaching my kid how to roll condoms on a banana. nor do i want the government teaching my kid about abstinence.

cut funding for condom-based sex ed. cut funding for abstinence ed. neither belong in school, anyway.
Anonymous said…
I would be curious as to what LexRex believes should be taught in school. We teach kids about every part of their body (heart, lungs, etc) and how they work in health and science classes. But nothing about their genitals?
lexrex said…
you make quite a leap, 11:13, from teaching anatomy to teaching intercourse. not a leap i want my government to take.
Anonymous said…
Right. Just leave the human reproductive system out of biology class and go back to the stork idea. Great.
lexrex said…
is that what i said, 11:58? i can't find that anywhere in my previous comments.
Anonymous said…
No, that's not what you said, that's what I said.

You said you don't want the governent funding going to teach your kids anything abot sex one way or the other. I assume by that you mean all peoples kids, but perhaps not.

It begs the question, should government pay for education, period? And if so, for what subjects?
ID? Sex ed? Math. You know, math is just a bunch of theories, don't you? You can't really prove any of that stuff.
Anonymous said…
how is it a leap to teach the functions of the liver or heart or the genitals? They are all organs.

I don't think I'm making much of a stretch here, but I suspect it's a leap to LexRex because LexRex thinks genitals are icky.

Get over it. We all have them.
Anonymous said…
Lexrex, I would tend to agree with you. Besides, now that the government has started handing out toys such as laptops, the kids can find whatever they want to online. The schools block a site and another is up within seconds....and the kids know how to find them.
Anonymous said…
Can someone answer this?

Is Leslee Unruh's "abstinence until marriage" daughter divorced already?
Anonymous said…
Here is the thing that blows my mind. Kids don’t have sex because they see how to put on a condom. They have sex because it feels really good and they are bundles of hormones. Right or wrong, kids have been having sex since people stopped getting married at puberty. Are they emotionally ready for it? In most cases no. Will that stop them? In most cases no. What will knowing how to put a condom on do? Keep little Billy and Sue from having a kid before they are done with high school. Keep fatal diseases from spreading. How is this a bad thing?

Is there anything wrong with abstinence education? No, but it is not going to work for all kids. It is not going to work for MOST kids. Giving them accurate information will keep them alive, keep them from getting pregnant, and keep them from making bad choices based on inaccurate information.
Anonymous said…
I will be the first to admit that Leslee is weird. But I don't see anything wrong with encouraging abstinence getting equal time with putting on a condom. I agree that most kids are going to do it anyway and should learn about protection against pregnancy and disease. But there's nothing wrong with telling kids that abstinence is OK too.
Anonymous said…
Wow, 3:17, couldn't have said it any better. But I also think teaching both concepts would be great, but don't put your head in the sand like mr reiger (lexrex) who shouldn't be giving lessons in moraility to anyone.
Anonymous said…
Why doesn't the government teach kids how to ingest drugs safely? They teach D.A.R.E. to keep kids off drugs, but let's face it, that's so old-fashioned.

In the words of 3:17, kids don’t do drugs because they know how to insert a needle. They do drugs because they feel really good. Right or wrong, kids have been doing drugs for years and years. Are they emotionally ready for it? In most cases no. Will that stop them? In most cases no. What will knowing how to ingest meth do? Keep fatal diseases from spreading. How is this a bad thing?

(...and Bob Newland says "Right on!")

A preposterous argument, isn't it! Then why does it make sense when it's about sex?
Anonymous said…
Anon 6:35
Ooo ooo I know that answer to this one! Kids will have sex one day – and it is legal! This may be in high school, in college, or when they are adults. When they are grown up, it will be legal. Before you think that they are fully grown up, it is legal. Drugs are not legal at any age - unless you are speaking of alcohol and/or cigarettes. And guess what – kids are taught that “don’t drive if you’ve been drinking” and “if you drink too much, you can die” before they are 21! Heck, they even teach them that “if you inject drugs and share needles, you can get AIDS”
The drugs augment is a bloody straw man. (if you are not familiar with a straw man argument, it means to falsely or incorrectly state your opponents case just so you can attack the weak points of this false case) No matter if you like it or not, your son or daughter is going to have sex some day. I don’t like to think of my kids doing it, or any of their friends. But they deserve accurate, complete, detailed information so they can make choices when I am not there. No one I have ever spoken with has ever said that we shouldn’t encourage abstinence. I am not saying that we should not encourage abstinence. I am saying that teaching kids to use a condom will save lives and will not increase the number of kids that are having sex.
Anonymous said…
then apply the logic to the smoking issue, 11:46.

why shouldn't schools teach kids that they should abstain from smoking, but if they're going to do it -- and we know a lot of kids eventually do smoke -- to smoke filtered cigarettes?

cuz, come on. get real. kids smoke.
Anonymous said…
8:46 am -
Straw Man? We are not talking about smoking (although they do teach kids that it can cause cancer, and that second hand smoke causes cancer, and that chew causes cancer, and that cigars cause cancer, and we teach kids how to protect themselves from the affects tobacco - don't smoke)
We are talking about Sex. Again, your kids will have sex. Sex is a natural part of life. if we don't do it...we die as a species. Again, none of these classes use the Kama Sutra as a textbook. We are not talking about advanced technique. We are talking about life saving skills.
Anonymous said…
I'm glad somebody brought up the legality of sex. Is it even legal for 13 year olds to be having sex?
Anonymous said…
11:56 Yes, as long as it is with
someone under 16. Weird, huh?

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long