"This isn't complicated. Simply telling teenagers not to have sex doesn't affect behavior, doesn't prevent unwanted pregnancies, and doesn't stop the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases."
That's the rational argument.
Now, for the Conservative POV: IT DOES, IT DOES, IT DOES!!! And nothing you say or write, and no matter how many proofs you show me, will make be think it doesn't. Thinking isn't believing. SO, IT DOES SO TOO WORK!!!
Now, back to our regularly scheduled news show: How that Muslim changling Obama is failing to protect OUR America!

Where sex is considered an evil necessity these programs actually do make sense. If only to take away money from reasonable programs allowing teenagers to have safe yet still evil sex.

If they don't have to fear pregnancy and STDs anymore - what would prevent them from f$%&ing around? Love? Responsibility? Gimme a break! These are liberal concepts!

When you put things in perspective, $150,000,000 is not very much money to drop on your favorite pet project.

We spend/waste far more than that on a lot of programs such as poorly thought out recycling programs or mass transit programs like most light rail systems.

I am not in favor of spending $150 million on a stupid program but how much money was wasted on the Denver light rail system, to name just one example.

Talking Heads had this figured out 23 years ago:

Stop Making Sense

I suspect everyone knows this already, but the point isn't to reduce pregnancies in the most cost-effective manner. Abstinence programs are simply a cultural marker for conservatives to establish their worldview in the legislative arena. Abstinence programs are small dollar symbols to show religious conservatives that their legislators are still fighting for conservative beliefs. Effectiveness is WAY down on the list of priorities.

There's nothing wrong with virginity.

As the mother of two (now young adult) daughters, I always approved of talking about abstinence. Then I made sure my daughters got a comprehensive sex education, in addition to what they learned in health class.

THAT is what works. Let teens make informed choices, knowing the full range of consequences -- diseases as well as pregnancy.

As the father of two girls, I think our president believes the same thing.

Pardon my dangling modifier. I meant to say, "As the father of two girls, our president believes the same thing."

Molly has it. The really bad thing about these abstinence-only classes is that they don't teach kids about STDs at all. Religious kids who want to remain virgins find all sorts of loopholes to convince themselves that they haven't really "done it", and they don't know how to effectively protect themselves. Saddlebacking and oral sex were not uncommon at all in the conservative Baptist church I grew up in, despite all the kids going through mandatory "True Love Waits" classes in 9th grade.

Since framing is everything, I prefer the term "ignorance only" to "abstinence only".

It's more accurate too.

But just think of the ads Dems in purple/red districts can run after the Republican incumbant votes against the final bill:

"Rep So-and-so voted against abstinence-only sex education. Is this the kind of morals we want in Washington?"

Are there any bad ideas that weren't advanced by the "reform" bill?

the problem with comprehensive sex ed is that you have to use words like "vagina" and "penis", and that would make Orrin Hatch uncomfortable.

Quoth Al: "There's nothing wrong with virginity."

If only your mother had espoused such a noble concept.

pwned.

Unwanted pregnancy is not confined to our schools.

Apparently, in the military, "Don't ask, don't tell," means, "Are you wearing a condom?"

Exactly, Molly. The problem isn't with the abstinence, it's with the "-only". And it's not just that the programs have been proven not to work, it's that they're actively harmful compared to comprehensive sex education.

If it wasn't for Republican "abstinence only" sex ed, the troops in Iraq would know what is what about sex, and they wouldn't be facing court-martials for pregnancies.

Why do Republicans hate the troops?

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) pushed a measure to provide $50 million to states to use for abstinence programs... Hatch described himself as being "as surprised as anyone" to see the provision remain in the bill.

Why? Was he expecting the Democrats to strip out all the Republican-sponsored measures, just because none of the Republican senators voted for the bill?

Say, doesn't this mean that the bill can be called bipartisan?

When I was a teen my thoughts were not about pregnancy or STD's or "saving myself" or anything like that. It was all about the hormones leading me along.
Teaching teens about abstinence doesn't work and shouldn't be funded no matter how loud the GOP yells. Look at Bristol Palin.....it doesn't work and is a gross waste of money.

Really nice information, thanks!