Abstaining from abstinence education
From Kentucky Citizen Digest, Jan, 1998

In October, Kentucky Gov. Paul Patton held a Summit on Teen Pregnancy. The summit featured the unveiling of the governor’s “Get A Life First” campaign, a project under which almost $1,000,000 will be spent on advertisements telling kids to “get a life first” before having sex.

The funding for the ads is coming from a new federal program to promote abstinence established under the recent welfare reform law passed by the Republican congress.

Although Kentucky plans to take the money from the feds, it isn’t taking any advice.

The $50 million of Title V funds offered to states through the program was given to accomplish eight clear-cut criteria designed to challenge teenagers to abstain from sexual activity before marriage.  The key phrase is “sexual activity before marriage.”  Instead of attempting to fulfill all eight points, the Kentucky plan is expressly written to fulfill only three of the eight. Why would Kentucky shortchange the effort by attempting only one-third of the goals?

The keynote speaker for the Governor’s Summit was Henry Foster, the Clinton nominee for Surgeon General who was rejected by Congress.  If you recall, he was the one who, under oath, couldn’t remember whether he had done 7 or 700 abortions.

At the Summit, Foster boasted about how well a model teen pregnancy program he developed had worked. How well the program worked in regard to reducing pregnancy wasn’t exactly clear. But Foster did make clear what happened when the young women in the program did get pregnant. “I can tell you this,” he said at the summit, “that the kids in our program, if they got pregnant, they did not have babies!”  This, of course, was music to the ears of many of the conference organizers who are deeply involved with Planned Parenthood, the nation’s most vocal pro-abortion advocacy group.

If we are trying to reduce teen pregnancy rather than teen births, why are we boasting about abortions?

Foster also openly endorsed condoms for unwed teens, with or without parental approval, a theme that was echoed by the leaders of the breakout sessions.  In the session I attended, when asked what to do when parents of elementary students opposed the teaching of condoms to their children, the group leader quickly responded, “Just tell them you’re doing HIV education” (clearly implying, “Don’t tell them you’re teaching condoms.”)  Another, participant immediately chimed in with full understanding; “I do that,” she said, “with pre-schoolers, telling parents I’m just teaching ‘good touch, bad touch.’ “

Evidently, “good touch” is any touch as long as a condom is used.  Why are we talking about condoms at the same conference that we so ceremoniously unveil our “abstinence message” plan?!

Title X money has been given (and still is) to Planned Parenthood and other agencies for “condom education.”  But the new Title V money is specifically, even painstakingly, earmarked for the “abstinence before marriage” message. Why, then, are those who advocate for and receive support through Title X the same ones given authority over Title V money? When people in the private sector do things like this, we call it “double dipping.”

These people don’t believe in the Title V.
 

Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander, Executive Director Martin Cothran, Senior Associate Policy Analyst