One sign your news magazine might be out of touch with average Americans is when you take a look at abstinence-only sex ed guidelines and declare that, in the Obama administration's hands, it's "not the end of the world."
Time's Amy Sullivan, however, aims to reassure skittish liberals weary of the Bush administration's socially conservative tack on sex ed funding:
You may have heard that on Tuesday evening, the Senate Finance Committee approved another Hatch amendment (he's got a million of 'em, folks) to restore $50 million in Title V funding for abstinence-only programs that Congress allowed to expire in June. As you might imagine, this has social conservatives somersaulting and social liberals...well, not so much. There are, however, good reasons to believe that we are not headed back to the Bush era of sex education policy.
Sullivan went on to explain that while "programs that receive abstinence funding under Title V have to adhere to an eight-point definition of abstinence, the so-called 'A through H' definition," that Obama HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "could return to the earlier understanding that programs place emphasis on some points more than others."
Sullivan elaborated by arguing that the Obama/Sebelius HHS is unlikely to make abstinence "until marriage" a central point of abstinence education:
[A] Democratic HHS not only isn't likely to require programs to make "not until marriage" the central message--the agency also doesn't have to award grants to programs that do so, nor to programs that disseminate false information about the risks of contraception.
What's more "it's far from certain" that the Hatch amendment will survive the legislative process, Sullivan added. The bottom line, the Time staffer assured liberal "safe sex education" fans:
Abstinence-only is back for now, but it ain't what it used to be.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Again I site...
October 2, 2009 - 11:50 ET by stage9Whenever there's a moral issue, liberals find themselves on the wrong side. I don't care what it is. If it is of a moral nature based on biblical values, liberals will find a way to stand on the opposite sideline. Do we really want people like this teaching our kids?
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will
be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for
pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner."
— Malcolm Muggeridge
Bible
October 2, 2009 - 11:57 ET by WatchesI mean, if our public schools aren't teaching the Bible, what kind of America can we have? What would the founding fathers have thought?
If the founding fathers
October 2, 2009 - 12:41 ET by Another Dead KennedyIf the founding fathers thought it necessary to include Christian Bible study in public school curriculum, they would have included it in the constitution. As it were, it's been omitted.
xoxo - Ted
→ Drupal
October 2, 2009 - 12:44 ET by Cool ArrowConstitution doesn't say anything about condoms and bananas, or pirate penguins either.
~Or
October 2, 2009 - 12:46 ET by choselife3xPublic schools.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the lying leftist under my heel.
http://newsbusters.o...
Agreed and agreed. xoxo
October 2, 2009 - 12:50 ET by Another Dead KennedyAgreed and agreed.
Wait, what does this have to do with abstinence only education again?
xoxo - Ted
School choice would elimate
October 2, 2009 - 16:46 ET by deerjerkydaveSchool choice would elimate this whole debate. If parents were passionate enough about this issue they could send their child to a school which teaches their values. If enough parents did this it wouldn't be long before schools would modify their programs to be in line with parental values. Wow, power to the people...I like the sound of that! Instead we're all forced to attend monopolistic government schools which teach us morals and values important to politicians and secularists.