April 23, 2008
Oh, no, I’m not being flippant about a death — I really do wonder what St. Peter had to say to Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican’s poster boy for a Dark-Ages mentality on same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and a woman’s right to choose, and who, most (in)famously, outright lied when he said condoms don’t do anything to prevent the spread of HIV. (The World Health Organization set everybody straight — so to speak — on that note, reiterating that condoms are 90% effective, and failure was usually due to improper installation.)
Not, mind you, that I really believe in the whole St. Peter/Pearly Gates thing; I don’t. But I’m a happy little agnostic quite content with the idea that wherever we end up, it’s of our own making: If you expect to see St. Peter, or some Pearly Gates, then you will.
But I digress, as usual.
Serendipity flowing freely this week, it was ironic, but rather satisfying in a mean, Schadenfreude kind of way, to hear that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (chaired by one of our few remaining heroes in the Democratic Party, Henry Waxman [D-Calif.]) is holding a hearing today to re-open the issue of whether or not abstinence-only programs work.
The reality is: They don’t. But as long as Radical Righteous Religionists exist — and as long as they maintain their stranglehold on our government — the reality of the situation needs to be hammered into many thick skulls before the U.S. gives up this killer (and I do mean killer) notion that if you withhold contraceptives and fact-based sex education, people will stop getting STDs, and stop having abortions.
What needs to stop is handing over taxpayer dollars to “faith-based” institutions that do nothing to decrease the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, and in fact only serve to exacerbate the situation(s).
Sometimes it seems the only way to a new Age of Englightenment is to outlive the troglodytes who think they can pray the AIDS away. And so it is with an uncomfortable mixture of both sadness and relief that we mark the passing of Cardinal Trujillo: There was a man who stood no hope of being enlightened and reborn into a healthy, helpful, reality-based way of thinking, and now he’s gone. That’s the sad part. The relief (which troubles me to admit to) comes with the knowledge that there is one less powerful person on this planet standing in the way of countless millions being equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to save their own lives, and the lives of many others.
I’ll leave you with that thought, and with the ACLU’s writeup on today’s abstinence-only hearing — so my “faith-based” readers might understand that I’m not some sort of heartless ghoul celebrating the death of an “enemy.”
You see, Cardinal Trujillo called every struggle for control over our own lives and our own bodies, from same-sex marriage to euthanasia, a “culture of death,” when the truth is that lying about condoms and stem cell research and all the rest kills people. It is the Cardinal Trujillos of this world who propagate a “culture of death.”
Evidence Once Again Shows Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Don’t Work
WASHINGTON, DC — April 23 — The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing today titled “Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs: Assessing the Evidence.” The ACLU applauds Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) for bringing new attention to this deeply troubling policy and the committee’s willingness to examine the public health policy implications of abstinence-only programs. We look forward to the testimony of scientists, clinicians, researchers and youth activists who will report on the failures of abstinence-only education programs.
Their testimony is supported by research which has repeatedly shown that, at best, abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation and, at worst, may actually cause harm by providing young people with dangerously inadequate and inaccurate information. A troubling recent report found teens in Florida, a state that relies on abstinence-only programs, who believed drinking a can of Mt. Dew would prevent unintended pregnancy, or drinking a capful of bleach would prevent HIV/AIDS.
In addition to the clear and compelling public health concerns of abstinence-only programs, the ACLU has submitted a statement to the committee addressing the civil liberties concerns raised by these programs. Abstinence-only programs censor information, reinforce gender stereotypes, provide inaccurate and misleading information, promote religion, serve a narrow ideological agenda, stigmatize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and jeopardize the well-being of young people.
“The evidence leads to only one conclusion: abstinence-only programs represent a failed policy,” said Vania Leveille, legislative counsel at the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “They are driven by ideology and politics, rather than by science or good public health policy, and our young people are suffering as a result. Most troubling, they represent a purposeful campaign to mislead, distort, stifle and censor, and are part of a disturbing trend to politicize science. The ACLU urges congressional action to bring this failed policy to an end.”
Since 1996, the U.S. government has poured more than a billion dollars into abstinence-only education programs so ineffective and dangerous that seventeen states have refused funding. At a time when the administration emphasizes accountability in funding only programs with demonstrated success, the continued funding of unproven abstinence-only programs is unacceptable.
The ACLU’s statement to the committee is available here
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Catholicism,
Democrats,
HIV/AIDS,
Health & Wellness,
Homophobia,
Marriage Equality,
Press Releases,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality,
Science & Technology,
U.S. Congress,
Women,
Youth
March 15, 2008
Last October, Barack Obama attempted to defuse the Donnie McClurkin debacle by issuing a statement (actually, burying it deep within his campaign Web site) that affirmed his “belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens.”
I blogged the statement under the title “Barack Obama Attempts Damage Control, Comes Up Short. Way Short.“
While Obama supporters screamed, “What else do you want him to do?!” I explained that Obama could say whatever he wanted, but if he didn’t back up his words with actions, his words were meaningless.
As it turned out, his words were meaningless. Obama refused to dump McClurkin (or any of the rest of the anti-gay bigots) from his “Embrace the Homophobia Change” Gospel Tour, despite the widespread outcry from gay and lesbian Americans pleading with Obama not to allow a homophobic, “ex-gay” bigot to speak on his behalf, and especially not to exploit the deeply-ingrained homophobia endemic to conservative Southern black churches as a means of gaining a few political points.
But Obama didn’t listen to us, and “after the tour when asked why the campaign would seemingly reject gay voters for far-right leaning blacks a campaign insider replied, ‘We got what we needed to get out of it.’”
It’s not as if Obama wasn’t aware of McClurkin’s virulently anti-gay views and vile rhetoric before the concert tour; even if Obama could feign ignorance prior to the announcement of the concert, he couldn’t once the news hit the blogosphere, and certainly not after Human Rights Campaign head Joe Solmonese spoke directly with Obama to express (albeit with the HRC’s usual cloying spinelessness) “our community’s disappointment for his decision to continue to remain associated with Rev. McClurkin, an anti-gay preacher who states the need to ‘break the curse of homosexuality.’”
Why am I rehashing this old news? Because Barack Obama just used the exact same, ineffectual game plan (with one variation; this time, he dumped his human albatross, posthaste) in his attempt Friday to distance himself from the inflammatory, racist, and anti-American sermons of his church pastor, “spiritual mentor” and “role model” who “helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated“: Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
In response to the nuclear explosion that finally hit the MSM over the past 48 hours, Obama issued a statement, “On My Faith and My Church“. Let’s look at his dodge-and-weave points one at a time:
The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring,
And you mention his imminent retirement, why? As if to suggest he’s old, past it, and won’t be saying these outrageous things anymore? Or to imply that he just started pulling these ideas out of the air only recently, and it’s time he be put out to pasture?
Wright has been preaching his Gospel of Hate for a long time — we suspect since day one, but at least for the past seven years. His “God Damn America” screed (in response to the 9/11 attacks) dates to September 16, 2001.
And his retirement has nothing to do with anything. His upcoming retirement was common knowledge well over a year ago.
What’s important is what you, Barack, have been absorbing at the feet of your spiritual advisor for two decades.
…has touched off a firestorm over the last few days.
A firestorm in the MSM, yes, but then the MSM usually lags far behind the Internet. Wright has been on our radar since well before you decided to run for President.
He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.
With which statements, specifically, do you disagree?
I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.
How about his anti-white statements?
I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit.
Then why did you refuse to fire Donnie McClurkin from your gospel tour?
And if you believe that “words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit,” why, after “strongly disagreeing” with McClurkin’s views, did you refuse to “exclude from [your] campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin”?
In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Again, which statements? It sounds like what you’re really saying is this: “I don’t want to to be pinned down to anything specific, because if I reject Wright’s anti-white remarks, I’ll piss off Black Liberation Theology believers, and if I don’t, I’ll alienate a vast swath of my white base. So I’ll just say that whatever you disagree with, I disagree with. Just think of my statement as part of the ‘blank screen’ concept, where you project whatever you want onto it.”
Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright
Which “particular statements” were those again?
are so contrary to my own life and beliefs,
Are they? How do we know that if you won’t tell us exactly which statements you disagree with?
And if you “reject outright” all of Rev. Wright’s racist, anti-American remarks, then why did you continue to attend his church for twenty years, and donate a healthy chunk of money ($22,500 in 2006 alone) to a church whose pastor who has been “disparag[ing] our great country” and “degrad[ing] individuals” from the pulpit for years?
But issuing vague statements of condemnation without addressing specifics is just par for the course for you, Barry. As Ronald Kessler re-caps in Friday’s Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):
Considering this view of America, it’s not surprising that in December Mr. Wright’s church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan for lifetime achievement. In the church magazine, Trumpet, Mr. Wright spoke glowingly of the Nation of Islam leader. “His depth on analysis [sic] when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye-opening,” Mr. Wright said of Mr. Farrakhan. “He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.”
After Newsmax broke the story of the award to Farrakhan on Jan. 14, Mr. Obama issued a statement. However, Mr. Obama ignored the main point: that his minister and friend had spoken adoringly of Mr. Farrakhan, and that Mr. Wright’s church was behind the award to the Nation of Islam leader.
Instead, Mr. Obama said, “I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.” Trumpet is owned and produced by Mr. Wright’s church out of the church’s offices, and Mr. Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor.
Meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Feb. 24, Mr. Obama described Mr. Wright as being like “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with.” He rarely mentions the points of disagreement.
In fact, you’ve been forced to “clarify” the remarks of so many of your closest supporters (your wife Michelle among them), you have your standard condemnation speech nearly down pat.
In addition to your deliberate vagueness, there’s another big problem with the way you deal — or don’t deal — with the stunning gaffes of the people you surround yourself with, Barack: You ignore the problem — and ignore it, and ignore it, and ignore it — until you are wedged so far into a corner, you are forced to deal with it.
During the Cleveland debate (February, 2008), Tim Russert asked you a simple yes-or-no question, and you, in your usual indirect manner, dodged and weaved until you were pinned to the mat:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.
On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism “gutter religion.”
OBAMA: Tim, I think — I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That’s why I have consistently denounced it.
This is not something new. This is something that — I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I’ve been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”
He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.”
What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel’s. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically — it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it’s true in this presidency — is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I’ve been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
When I was — just last point I would make — when I was giving — had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King’s birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti- Semitism within the African-American community. And that’s what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I’m president of the United States.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator…
CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I’m just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word “reject” Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word “denounce,” then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.
(APPLAUSE)
Is getting a straight answer out of you always like pulling hen’s teeth?
Back to your statement on Wright:
…a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright
You mean how Wright is “like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that [you] don’t agree with”?
I’m not sure you want to go there, Barry; after all, you can’t choose your relatives, but you do choose your pastor, and you do choose to spend two decades listening to and learning from a racist.
You’ve said it more than once about your Christian faith, Barry (lifting it, actually, from page 208 of The Audacity of Hope): “It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany.”
As Ben Wallace-Wells wrote in Rolling Stone (more than a year ago, mind you): “Obama wasn’t born into Wright’s world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell’s nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and ‘felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.’”
Barry, in my culture, there’s an old saying about people who claim to be straight after having gay sex: “Once is an accident. Twice is a phase. Three times — they like it.”
…and my membership in the church.
Let me therefore provide some context.
As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.
It’s probably not a good idea to mention HIV/AIDS right now, as you’ve just reminded the reader of Wright’s belief in the tinfoil-hat theory that “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life.
Oh, you didn’t just say that. You did, didn’t you?
No matter how carefully your writers crafted that sentence, you just said that 1) Wright preaches the gospel of Jesus (if so, that’s a different gospel, and certainly a different Jesus, that the one I was raised on); and 2) you “base your life” on the teachings of a man who hates whites.
Fire your speechwriters, Barry.
In other words, he has never been my political advisor;
Well, he was one of your political advisors, until yesterday — although the African American Religious Leadership Committee on which he served has been dismissed as, among other things, “the sort of largely honorary, advisory body that in recent days has recently been used mostly to throw people off who say controversial things.”
But where you’ve really backed yourself into a corner, Barry, is in saying Wright “has never been my political advisor.”
Unless I missed it, you’ve never contradicted a word of the 2007 Chicago Tribune article that states:
“Though Wright and Obama do not often talk one-on-one often, the senator does check with his pastor before making any bold political moves.
“Last fall, Obama approached Wright to broach the possibility of running for president.”
If that’s not political advice, then what is it?
(You also said: “What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice.” Does that mean you do get political advice from Wright — just not on a “day-to-day” basis?)
…he’s been my pastor.
He’s a heckuva lot more than just your pastor.
You said Wright is your “sounding board” who helps you keep your “priorities straight and [your] moral compass calibrated.”
He’s the pastor who brought you to Jesus. He’s the pastor who married you, baptized both your daughters, and blessed your home.
He’s the pastor whose sermon — the first sermon you ever heard him preach — served as the basis for your keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and inspired the title of your second book, The Audacity of Hope.
He is your “close confidant.”
“If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” your good friend, the Rev. Jim Wallis, told Rolling Stone, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”
Wright is a lot more than just your pastor. A lot more.
And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
Twenty years, and you never heard him say anything as inflammatory as we’ve heard over the past few days?
Or are you saying you didn’t hear these specific statements that have gotten so much airplay?
Even when you aren’t attending “the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week,” don’t you think, especially if you’re so deeply involved in the fellowship of your church, you would have heard about something so controversial as your pastor damning America to Hell from the pulpit? Or blaming Italians for killing Jesus?
Nothing? You never heard him say anything like that?
Guess what, Barry? I don’t buy that for a second. And neither do a lot of other people.
When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments.
When “these statements” — meaning these specific statements we’ve been watching on every news channel?
There you go choosing your words a little too carefully, Barry — as if to suggest you were blissfully unaware of Wright’s radicalism until just over a year ago, when in truth:
“In his 1993 memoir ‘Dreams from My Father,’ Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation.”
And in February, 2007, you personally “disinvited” Wright from delivering the invocation for the announcement of your presidential campaign. Reported the New York Times:
“Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama’s decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign’s apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright’s teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites.
“Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said the campaign disinvited Mr. Wright because it did not want the church to face negative attention. …
“‘Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but because of the type of attention it was receiving on blogs and conservative talk shows, he decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself,’ Mr. Burton said. …
“‘When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli’ to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, ‘with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.’ Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Qaddafi’s.
“Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, ‘The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.’
“According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, ‘You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.’”
Tell us again, Barry, how you didn’t hear any of Wright’s trash talk over the course of twenty years.
But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Not even at the cost of exposing your two little girls to anti-white hate? Is that the “gospel” you want them to live by?
Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
You don’t “vehemently condemn” anything until you’re forced to.
With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me,
Not half as much as they’ve pained and angered me as an Italian-American whose people didn’t arrive in this country until 1901, were scorned as non-white for a generation, and who never had a college graduate in the family until 1974.
To have this filth thrown in my face by your spiritual mentor and role model, when it’s you preaching such empty platitudes of “unity” and “transcending race,” is the ultimate insult to my intelligence, and the ultimate self-assassination of your character and integrity.
I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in;
Barack, you own this. You were the one who made your faith just a gigantic issue in the first place. You’re constantly on about how faith informs your politics. Your faith is integral to your life; you’ve made that clear in almost every speech you’ve ever made.
How you choose to worship, and who you choose as your teacher in your walk through this life (and the next) goes right to the heart of who you are.
… on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.
That is exactly how I judge you, Barack. Sadly, you have only proved once again that your judgment is not to be trusted — any more than your empty words.
See also:
Barack Obama’s Spiritual Mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., Bashes Mythical “Rich” Whites (Especially Italians)
Memo to Barack: How Do You Think “God Damn America” Will Play in Peoria?
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
Africa,
Barack Obama,
Christianity,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
HIV/AIDS,
Hate Speech,
Homeland Insecurity,
Jeremiah Wright,
LGBT Organizations,
Michelle Obama,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Religion & Spirituality,
UCC
March 13, 2008
Out4Immigration Cheers Senate Action, Hopes for Similar Move with Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)
By Amos Lim
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — March 11, 2008 — Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) successfully secured a provision to repeal the discriminatory travel and immigration ban on HIV-positive individuals today as part of the Senate’s legislation to reauthorize PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The underlying legislation, authored by Senators Joe Biden (D-DE) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), is expected to be considered by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations this week.
“This is a monumental first step toward ending the discrimination the LGBT community faces under current US immigration laws,” said Michael Lim, Vice President of the national grassroots organization Out4Immigration, a group dedicated to raising awareness about the discrimination LGBT Americans and their foreign partners face under current US immigration law.
“For many years, the only long-term way around this ban was for HIV-positive people to be sponsored by a family member, similar to the immigration process,” explained Lim. “Under current immigration law, the word ‘family’ does not apply to gays and lesbians.” The majority of HIV-positive people denied entry because of the ban have been gay men, many with American partners who are shut out from the ‘family’ option. “This is similar to the larger problem of gay and lesbian American citizens not being able to sponsor foreign partners for green cards. It’s been an inhumane practice in this country for a long time,” said Lim.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, who along with Out4Immigration has repeatedly called for an end to this practice, the travel and immigration ban prohibits HIV-positive foreign nationals, students, and tourists from entering the US unless they obtain a special waiver that only allows for short-term travel. Longer-term options can only be obtained using the family member sponsorship not available to gay and lesbian couples.
The ban was originally enacted in 1987, and explicitly restated in 1993, despite efforts in the public health community to remove the ban when Congress reformed US immigration law in the early 1990s. While immigration law currently excludes immigrants with any “communicable disease of public health significance” from entering the US, only HIV is explicitly named in the statute. For all other illnesses, the Secretary of Health and Human Services retains the ability, with the medical expertise of his department, to determine which illnesses truly pose a risk to public health.
Senators Kerry and Smith introduced legislation, the HIV Non-Discrimination in Travel and Immigration Act (S. 2486), in December 2007 to repeal the ban. Representative Barbara Lee introduced the legislation in August 2007 in the House of Representatives (H.R. 3337).
“We hope that PEPFAR is reauthorized shortly and this major barrier to allowing all loving couples a chance to be together in the US is removed,” said Lim.
While the repeal of the discriminatory travel and immigration ban on HIV-positive individuals will allow foreign gays and lesbians with this illness some of the same options as their HIV-negative counterparts, there is still a long way to go until equal immigration rights are available to all.
“The good news is that those who are HIV-positive may soon be able to enter the US on work or student visas, in addition to travel,” said Lim. “This is often a first step that same-sex binational couples take in order to live together in the US.
“It will take the passage of the Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221; S.1328) for gay and lesbian American citizens to have the same rights to sponsor a foreign partner for permanent residency as is available to heterosexuals,” explained Lim. “Out4Immigration remains hopeful that the UAFA could be attached to legislation that would move it as swiftly through Congress as the expected repeal of the travel and immigration ban.”
For more information:
Out4Immigration
The Uniting American Families Act (H.R. 2221)
The Uniting American Families Act (S.1328)
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
HIV/AIDS,
Immigration,
LGBT Organizations,
Press Releases,
U.S. Congress
March 1, 2008
Point by point, let’s look at Barack Obama’s statement, released February 28, 2008:
I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all — a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.
So, Barry, where was this appeal before Camp Obama realized how badly they’ve been screwing over the LGBT community? Why didn’t you make this statement before the South Carolina primary, instead of handing an “ex-gay” bigot a microphone so he could tap into the raging homophobia of throngs of religious bigots at the expense of the LGBT community you’re suddenly sucking up to now? Why wait until just before the Ohio and Texas primaries to cozy up to the queers — because you just realized Ohio and Texas are full of queers who don’t go in for that “love the sinner, hate the sin” sermonizing you do so well?
Equality is a moral imperative.
Then why don’t you support marriage equality, Barry?
That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
If these issues are so important to you, then why wait until you’re president to “place your weight” behind them? Why haven’t you introduced any domestic-partnership bills as a U.S. Senator? You’re allowed to do that, you know.
As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws.
Not good enough, Barry. You can “urge states” all you like, but when you leave equality to the states, you get separate but equal — just like the validity of your parents‘ marriage was “left to the states” when you were born.
That’s not good enough. You can’t claim your intention to push through “equal treatment” of LGBT Americans on a federal level, while leaving “family and adoption laws” to the states.
Only federally-recognized marriage equality will do.
I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment.
Every married same-sex couple in New Jersey would disagree with you.
But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.
Again, with the “states’ rights” argument. You’re just wrong, Barry. You’re misinformed, deluded, and just plain wrong.
Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate.
You can promise “the complete repeal” of DOMA — in fact, you can promise anything you want — before you’re president. Bill Clinton did; he promised to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve openly in the military, and look what happened to him: He was blindsided by Congress, and forced to compromise with DADT.
So, you can promise us anything you want, Barry — or you can be realistic about DOMA, like Hillary Clinton has been: She’s promising to overturn the part of DOMA she believes she can overturn — she’s not making a promise that is absolutely impossible to keep.
Now, you could say that your eagerness to compromise on marriage equality via the baby step of civil unions is based on political expediency, but I won’t believe it for a second. Your aversion to full marriage equality is based on your religious beliefs, and nothing else — which we’ll address further in just a moment.
While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.
So do I, but I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to get rid of it altogether. If you can, great — I’ll praise you for it — but I’m not holding my breath.
And let’s not forget that you can’t do it alone, Barry. It’s going to be up to Congress to overturn DOMA; you’re just the guy who’ll get to sign the bill, if it ever gets to your desk.
Finally, don’t think for a minute that I believe you’re going to go to work on repealing DOMA right away; LGBT equality has never been a priority for you in the past; especially with the mess left to you by the Bush administration, LGBT equality is going to be further down on your to-do list than you’d like to admit.
Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does.
Then why aren’t you pushing for federally-recognized civil marriage — not civil “unions,” but civil marriage — right now?
I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.
Oh? Since when did this issue hit your radar? Last I heard, your position on the UAFA was identical to Senator Clinton’s: You have both been withholding your support for the UAFA, citing concerns about immigration fraud.
Well, here’s my question to you, Barry: If immigration reform is such a big issue to you, why not propose a moratorium on all immigration-by-marriage until you’ve got it sorted out? By holding up passage of the UAFA, you are denying only same-sex couples immigration rights. Either open immigration to everyone, now, or deny immigration to everyone, now, until you figure out how to deal with fraud.
Or, as Immigration Equality noted: “The fraud protections in the UAFA are exactly the same as they are for married (opposite-sex) couples. I perhaps haven’t pushed this point hard enough in previous exchanges, but the fraud protections in the UAFA are not the problem. The problem is that politicians do not understand LGBT relationships and do not consider them bona fide. Whether it is because a marriage certificate cannot be issued, or some deeper discomfort with LGBT marriages we do not know, but to deny LGBT couples a marriage certificate and then say that because there is no marriage certificate you must be subjected to more intense scrutiny is discriminatory, and wrong. Let’s not forget that Obama does not support gay marriage while at the same time claims civil unions extend exactly the same rights as does a marriage certificate.
“The fraud protections in the UAFA are no more loose or no more strict [than] current fraud provisions for opposite-sex couples. It is unfortunate that Sen. Obama, the child of a binational couple whose marriage was once as frowned upon as LGBT relationships does not see this double standard for what it is. We are continuing to work with the Obama camp to bring them onto the UAFA but we will not let them off the hook so easily.”
The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
And this issue is specific to an “open letter to the LGBT community” why, exactly?
Did you mention HIV/AIDS because you’re so accustomed to associating HIV/AIDS with gay men — and “the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth” and other “sinners” — the way you did in your 2006 World AIDS Day Speech at your “friend” Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church?
“Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes — to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say ‘This is your fault. You have sinned.’
“I don’t think that’s a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.”
Are you so compelled to distance yourself from the AIDS epidemic by asserting your heterosexuality that you must, again, compartmentalize HIV/AIDS as a “gay issue”?
When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception.
Can’t find a thing wrong here. But then, there’s a first time for everything.
We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.
Fine, but: Why are you bringing the issue of HIV/AIDS and prison inmates and intravenous drug users into an “open letter to the LGBT community”? Are you lumping felons and heroin addicts in with “the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man,” too?
We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma — too often tied to homophobia — that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day.
I’m glad you brought up your visit to Warren’s church. You pissed off a lot of left-wingers — and Warren pissed off a lot of right-wingers — by “consorting with the enemy.”
Oh, I know it by heart: These are the people you want to “reach out” to — this is your attempt to make “post-partisan unity” a reality. But you shouldn’t be consorting with them, Barry; these are the people who want no middle ground. Surely, you’re not stupid enough to think they are going to compromise with us — the “us” being the Americans “they” have built successful careers of demonizing, and at best want to run out out of the nation on a rail: the gays, the pro-choicers, the atheists, the evolutionary scientists and teachers, the Muslims… anyone who isn’t a heterosexual, anti-choice Christian opposed to full marriage equality.
They are not going to compromise their core values, Barack — and those of us whose rights hang in the balance (where our rights exist at all) will be damned if we compromise our core values for theirs.
The Christofascists are not going to budge an inch. You may get their votes, but you’re a damned fool if you actually believe you’re going to bring them around to any mode of rational thinking.
As my friend David G (whose nail-it-to-the-wall observations I’ll be quoting again soon) remarked regarding your “gay ad”: Like Donnie McClurkin and Kirbyjon Caldwell and Hezekiah Walker and all the rest of the religionists you call your “friends,” they are in fact “fundamentalist activists, anti-choice, anti-science… They are the same as Robertson or Dobson. Not ‘good folk who haven’t accepted gays,’ but dogmatic, rigid fundies. …
“Those of you who think these members of the Religious Right are only ‘a tad homophobic’ are living in denial. They are the clinic blockers, the school boards who sue over evolution. And you are voting them to power in our party.”
Which begs the question: Is that really your intention, Barack, to bring these bigots around? You pay a lot of lip service to maintaining the separation of church and state — even a few atheists positively swooned over your remark that “we are not a Christian nation; we are a nation of Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. We are also a nation of non-believers and non-church going folk who may not have ‘Sunday-best’ hanging in their closets but who most assuredly carry the best of intentions within their hearts.”
Yet you continue to infuse your rhetoric with religious buzz phrases — yes, I’ll say it: “code words” — that seem contrived as a “dog whistle” for the religionists, but are more than familiar to those of us against whom your Bible has been used as a bludgeon. I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt, Barry; it’s tempting to think your own religiosity is so deeply ingrained, you don’t even know you’re doing it (which, to be honest, isn’t much comfort either). But I am convinced you are doing it deliberately.
In the same speech that wooed a few atheists, you also said:
My religious upbringing taught me that homosexuality was sinful and that gay unions should not be allowed. But my political belief is that all people are created equal and thus should be treated as such, homosexual couples being given the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts.
I’m not so sure about that, Barack. In fact, I’m dead certain your political belief is informed, and formed, solely by your religious belief. Remember what you said in Iowa (and have repeated in one form or another ever since you started stumping in churches)?
“Doing the Lord’s work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning. And it puts the lie to the notion that separation of church and state in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life.”
And:
“My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work.”
I can think of another president who was convinced that he was doing “the Lord’s work” by merging religion with politics: George W. Bush.
That is not a comforting thought.
And, as David Domke and Kevin Coe observed: Since the Saddleback sermon, “Obama’s religious politics have only grown. He often begins speeches — including his address in February 2007 in which he announced his intention to seek the presidency — by giving ‘all praise and honor to God,’ and regularly cites the biblical story of Joshua.”
To those of us not swayed by biblical ecstasy, that’s pretty chilling stuff.
But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones — and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention.
I’ll give you credit for your 2004 DNC speech, Barry. I was stunned with delight to see this kid with the funny ears even mention “gay friends in the red states.”
What’s sad is how inspired I felt at the time — and how small a bone you threw to me, and how I jumped at it, with nearly feverish hope.
What’s sad is how much my opinion of you has changed in less than four years.
I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign — from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.
Don’t bring Dr. King into this, Barry. Not when your campaign and your supporters virtually slit Hillary Clinton’s throat for making a historically accurate remark about what it took to get the Civil Rights Act passed. You don’t have a monopoly on Dr. King’s message or legacy — and, frankly, Dr. King was far more evolved on the issue of true equality than you are.
And as far as your appearance at Ebenezer Baptist Church, do you remember what you told BeliefNet after that?
“The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God’s will.”
I don’t want “an instrument of God’s will” in the White House, Barry. I want an employee who doesn’t drag his religious beliefs to the office every morning.
Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans.
Barry, until you commit to marriage equality, you are not committing to full equal rights for all LGBT Americans. Period.
But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
Why? Your stubborn refusal to “close your ears” to homophobes is impossible to defend in light of your swift and unyielding condemnation of racists.
Or have you forgotten the names Don Imus and John Tanner?
Finally, what rankles me, Barry, is that you presume to speak for the LGBT community, when you don’t “get” the LGBT community. Your intentions may be (may be) good, but you lack an innate understanding of us, what we’re about, what motivates us, and — yes — why we can’t pretend the McClurkin issue was an isolated incident and just let it go.
You are not our “voice,” Barack. You may think you’re listening to us — and this letter of yours, and your “gay ad” show you’re at least vaguely aware that many of us queers are none too pleased with you — but you’re not hearing us. You don’t have the authority to speak for us, as a genuine ally.
Which is yet another reason I say you need some more “seasoning” before you’ll be anywhere near ready to lead us all, as a nation.
Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.
Again, “full equality” means marriage equality. Not some “set of basic rights,” as if we were children, or animals, who must prove we can be trusted indoors without piddling on the rug before you give us a set of grown-up rights.
“Full equality” means exactly equal with what you aready have, Barry. And as long as you have what we don’t, you have privileges, while we have merely second-class citizenship.
“Separate but equal” is not equal.
To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.
I don’t think so, Barry. I don’t believe in you, because you don’t understand what you’re promising us — and yet simultaneously denying us.
You’re not ready, Barry. You’re nowhere near ready.
And you don’t understand who we are.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
"Ex-Gays",
Barack Obama,
Bill Clinton,
Christianity,
Donnie McClurkin,
Election 2008,
Employment/ENDA,
George W. Bush,
HIV/AIDS,
Hillary Clinton,
Homophobia,
Immigration,
Marriage Equality,
Military/DADT,
Race/Ethnic Issues,
Radical Religious Right,
Religion & Spirituality
January 3, 2008
For once pResident Bush pulled his head out of his posterior and approved a beneficial bill.
President Bush on Wednesday signed a $555 billion federal spending bill that includes a provision allowing the city to spend its own money on programs that provide clean hypodermic needles to drug users. Federal spending packages dating back to 1998 had blocked such programs.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city’s congressional delegate, said the ban has contributed to Washington’s AIDS rate, which is higher than any other major city in the country, according to a recent report on the epidemic.
Mayor Adrian M. Fenty said in a statement the city plans to include needle exchanges in a larger program to reduce AIDS and HIV infections. About $1 million will be devoted to the exchanges.
Predictably, the RRRW gassbags have nothing but criticism for his decision.
Gary Bauer, president of American Values, decries that no research has been conducted showing that needle exchange programs work.
Actually, if Mr. Bauer knew how to work Google it would have taken him all of 0.25 seconds to discover there has been substantial research showing that needle exchange programs work:
HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala announced today that based on the findings of extensive scientific research, she has determined that needle exchange programs can be an effective part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the incidence of HIV transmission and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs.
Under the terms of Public Law 105-78, the Secretary of HHS is authorized to determine that such programs reduce the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. The act’s restriction on federal funding, however, has not been lifted.
In a blow to critics of syringe-exchange programs, a new UC Davis study shows that the controversial programs do reduce injection drug users’ HIV risk. The study appears in the July 27 issue of AIDS.
“Our review of the literature should blunt the claims of opponents of syringe exchange, but I’m not optimistic that it will,” said lead author David R. Gibson, associate professor of infectious diseases at UC Davis and a senior scientist at UC San Francisco’s Center for AIDS Prevention Studies. “Opponents of syringe-exchange programs can be quite data-resistant.”
UC Davis researchers scoured the medical literature from 1989 to 1999 for studies examining the impact of exchange programs on HIV risk. The search turned up 42 published studies, most of them conducted in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Twenty-eight of the studies concluded that syringe-exchanges reduce HIV risk among injection drug users.
Drug addicts who participate in programs that allow them to exchange an unlimited number of clean syringes are less likely to reuse needles, reducing chances they will spread infectious diseases, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
As a result, syringe exchange programs that limit the number of clean needles that intravenous drug addicts can receive may not be as effective at preventing the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases as programs that do not impose limits, according to the study.
Maybe someone at American Values can teach Gary Bauer how to work Google, eh?
“The problem is not dirty needles, the problem is not unprotected sex,” he points out. “The problem is that large numbers of people in urban areas continue to engage in behavior that is guaranteed to spread disease and make it more likely that if they don’t contract AIDS they’ll contract something else.”…Bauer believes that government subsidizing of “bad behavior” will actually increase its occurrences and leave more people vulnerable to HIV\AIDS.
Research proves Bauer wrong. Empirical research is more reliable than the hate-guided “beliefs” of Bauer and his ilk. That’s why it’s a sound idea to rely on research, and not the rantings of bigots, when making policy decisions.
And since Bauer mentions unprotected sex I feel the need to touch upon one of the RRRW’s bandwagons–that of “abstinence only” sex education. They insist that preaching abstinence while refusing to teach about birth control will keep teens from having sex (because, naturally, teaching them about birth control will cause them to run out and have sex). This is similar to Bauer’s argument that providing clean needles for drug users will actually increase drug use.
Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact
…..
Sexual Behaviors—Six evaluations measured short-term changes in sexual behavior.
*Three of six programs had no impact on sexual behavior (California, Maryland, and Missouri).
*Two of six programs reported increases in sexual behavior from pre- to posttest (Florida and Iowa). It was unclear whether the increases were due to youth’s maturation or to a program’s effect, as none of these evaluations included a comparison group.
*One of the six programs showed mixed results (Pennsylvania).**
…..
*In Erie County, Pennsylvania, researchers found that 42 percent of the female participants were sexually active by the second year of the program.
*In Clinton County, Pennsylvania, data collected from program participants in the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of program females who experienced first sexual intercourse over time (six, nine, and 30 percent, respectively, by grade).
*In Minnesota, 12 percent of the eighth grade program participants were sexually active at posttest.
*In Arizona, 19 percent of program participants were sexually active at follow-up. Concurrently, Arizona’s evaluators found that youth’s intent to pursue abstinence declined significantly at follow-up, regardless of whether the student took another abstinence-only class. Eighty percent of teens reported that they were likely to become sexually active by the time they were 20 years old.
…..
*In Clinton County, Pennsylvania, researchers noted that, of those participants that reported experiencing first sexual intercourse during ninth grade, only about half used any form of contraception.
*Arizona’s evaluation team found that program participants’ attitudes about birth control became less favorable from pre- to posttest. They noted that this was probably a result of the “program’s focus on the failure rates of contraceptives as opposed to their availability, use and access.”
…..
Conclusion
Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth’s willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants.
Now the RRRW may wish to continue to live according to their “beliefs”, but I prefer to live according to the evidence. Hopefully the policy makers will follow along as GWB has in this instance.
Posted by: Buffy
Permalink
|
Trackback
|
Category:
HIV/AIDS,
Radical Religious Right
