Yesterday, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) announced that he wants to end state funding for abstinence education, a move that would eliminate about a half million dollars' worth of positive programs. Strickland said, "Over the long term, there's no data that show they prevent, in a statistical sense, sexual activity outside of marriage." However, stacks of peer-reviewed research are showing the direct impact of abstinence education, including a peer-reviewed study on America's largest and oldest abstinence program, Best Friends.
In Adolescent and Family Health, Dr. Robert Lerner's analysis of urban D.C. participants found that, "Despite the fact that [these students come from schools that]... are located in Wards that have higher rates of out-of-wedlock births, girls who attended the program are substantially less likely to...have sex than a comparable sample... The relative odds of 120 to 1 of a [high school] Diamond Girl abstaining from sex is a result so strong that it is unheard of in practically any empirical research."
Elsewhere, a U.S. District Judge has decided to strike down a 1998 law, supported by FRC, that protects children from online pornography. Judge Lowell Reed, Jr. suggests that parents invest in software filters because they are "far more effective than the [Child Online Protection Act]." Following the judge's advice would be like dispensing with water treatment plants and asking every family just to filter their own drinking water.
Comments (3)
Regarding COPA, the court has no choice.
We need to get rid of the first amendment. And then ban all internet traffic that originates from outside of the USA, because even if the law were to have passed muster, it still could only be enforced against US companies.
And remember too, the government conceded that their own studies show that "all but the worst performing (software) filters are far more effective than COPA would be at protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web,"
And finally, filtering for content works because I, as a parent, can filter on my values, which may different that than the values of the parent down the street.
March 24, 2007 4:10 PM | Comment Permalink
If government handles cencorship, then they have to employ the standards of the strictest. COPA was an assault on free speech, led by those who believe that they can declare some speech unprotected merely because it doesn't follow the ideals of high culture.
Its also ineffective. Those porn-companies that would obey COPA are no threat - they dont try to ram their wares down every connection. And those that do employ the type of agresssive marketing that exposes children are not going to be stoped by a US law - they will just set up their servers elsewhere. Its completly useless - its intention was just to make a very public political show of being 'tough on porn' to win conservative votes.
March 25, 2007 6:47 AM | Comment Permalink
Raven,
A am not quite so cynical.
While I agree with you that COPA was useless, I believe that authors of this law are well-intentioned.
There is tremedous fear that people, if left to their own devices, will choose the path of hedonism and irresponsibilty.
It is this fear that drives our politicians to try to regulate everything, for our own good, of course.
March 26, 2007 6:20 AM | Comment Permalink