Abstinence-Only

She was against teaching condom use in schools before she was for them :

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education - Los Angeles Times

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin wrote, "

Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

from Talk to Action

As Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards got right with Jesus and the only "single-issue voters" that rate the Democratic Party's approval, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried talking the talk to enlist "pro-life" support for funding stem cell research.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has drawn guffaws from the pro-life community for comments saying that embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of days-old human embryos, is a "gift from God." Her remarks came after the House approved a bill to force Americans to fund it.

"Science is a gift of God to all of us, and science has taken us to a place that is biblical in its power to cure... And that is embryonic stem cell research," Pelosi said.

As Pelosi speaks of God’s gift of science, a Democratic Congress votes to spend $27 million more on abstinence-only programs and crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) than Bush had even asked for — thereby ensuring an increase in the rate of sexually transmitted infections and abortions among young people — while dumping millions of our tax dollars into the coffers of the same Religious Right abstinence-only industry working to criminalize safe abortion care, abolish stem cell research, and defeat the Prevention First program that Democrats claim to consider a high legislative priority.

While these politicians might fudge their positions on "a woman's right to choose," this action undeniably stamps them as just what the Religious Right accuses them of being: pro-abortion — because despite all their meaningless cant about "reducing the number of abortions," increasing the number of abortions is the only thing that abstinence-only programs guarantee to accomplish.

from Talk to Action

About the author: In addition to the less noteworthy accomplishment of being my friend, Carole Joffe is Professor of Sociology at UC-Davis and the author of Doctors of Conscience: The Struggle to Provide Abortion Before and After Roe V. Wade . With co-author Diane di Mauro, Professor Joffe recently published The Religious Right and the Reshaping of Sexual Policy: An Examination of Reproductive Rights and Sexuality Education [pdf link] in Sexuality Research & Social Policy, the journal of the National Sexuality Resource Center. She has granted permission to post the text of her essay in full. -- moiv

“Well, I used to do them—there is less blood loss, and in some situations, it just seems safer. I’m not sure what I will do now.”

The speaker is Dr. Jacob Clark (not his real name), a fit man in his 60s, an obstetrician/gynecologist who has spent his life serving poor women in an East Coast city. Over coffee, he is discussing over with me his deep frustration and confusion over the recent Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v Carhart, upholding an abortion ban.

The banned procedure—referred to by medical professionals as “Intact Dilation and Extraction”, and by antiabortionists as “Partial Birth Abortion”—is quite rare, less than 1% of all abortions performed in the United States. But Dr. Clark is one of those who performs this procedure, when the situation, in his judgment, calls for it.

Dr. Clark and I are attending a medical conference, shortly after the Court announced its decision. We’ve just heard the medical director of a large clinic address her colleagues from across the country, and succinctly state the dilemma that abortion providers now face: “We’ve got to keep our patients safe—and ourselves out of jail.”

American Prospect online has published a piece that has created a good deal of discussion, yet again, around the subject of rape. This time the author, Courtney Martin, makes the connection in American Prospect Online - Willful Ignorance between abstinence-only sex education programs and the high rates of rape and sexual assault in the United States.

Every two and half minutes someone is sexually assaulted in America. Many of these assaults take place on college campuses; 80 percent of rape victims are under age 30. Two-thirds of all rapes are committed by someone who is known to the victim, not a stranger in a dark alley. (Though rape statistics are notoriously inaccurate, we can assume that these, from the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) are at least close to the truth, as they are derived from a survey of multiple studies, including the National Crime Victimization Survey from 2005.)

The lack of public, comprehensive, and complex sex education in this country contributes to this toxic sexual culture on most college campuses. The abstinence-only sex education that most young men and women receive does not teach them how to articulate their own sexual needs and respect those articulated by their partners. Teens who are merely told "Just don’t do it" are lacking more than an anatomy lesson or information on contraceptive choices. They are also missing out on essential communication skills and life-saving knowledge about sex and power. Which is bad news for teenagers in our paradoxically hyper-sexual and hyper-conservative contemporary America who are in desperate need of wise mentorship.

This article has inspired me and irritated me in equal parts. So much so that I believe that in order to break down the barriers around the discussion of sexual education, feminists need to take action now: It's time we build an open-source feminist enclyclopedia.