Matthew Shepard's Brutal Murder--No "Hoax," But No "Hate Crime"
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has admitted making a "poor choice of words," during House debate on a "hate crimes" bill on April 29, when she used the word "hoax" in connection with the 1998 murder of a homosexual Wyoming college student, Matthew Shepard.
Here's what she actually said:
"We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."
It should be clear to anyone remotely familiar with the Shepard murder or the hate crimes issue that she was not claiming that Shepard never existed or that his murder was a "hoax," but only that it's classification as an anti-gay "hate crime" was a "hoax." Nevertheless, she was mocked as roughly the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
Call to NPR in Los Angeles; Customers Misusing Plan B
Last week, the Obama Administration announced that it would not appeal a federal district court's decision commanding the FDA to begin selling the Plan B contraceptive to 17-year-olds as an over-the-counter product. Previously, the FDA and drug company set the lower age at 18. Plan B's manufacturer-distributor, Teva, will have to submit an application to FDA which the agency will then approve.
As we noted last week, the Family Research Council has been concerned that women might use Plan B frequently, repeatedly in the place of standard contraceptives. The labeling contains no clear warning about such use. FDA officials have pooh-poohed this argument, but one interesting anecdotal piece of evidence has come in on this topic.
The changes to Plan B marketing were discussed on "AirTalk," a public radio program broadcast by KPCC-FM, a station owned by Pasadena City College on April 23rd. The guest-host was David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times, and he interviewed Dr. Susan Woods, former FDA official and Plan B supporter, and Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. The show can be heard via this weblink.
There was one extremely interesting caller who was referred to as "Steve from Diamond Bar." (Steve start: 22min 05sec; Steve end: 23min 05sec.) Steve is a co-owner of a pharmacy, and he explained that a few years ago 30-minute consultations were needed before the pharmacists could dispense Plan B over-the-counter in California.
Steve had occasion to notice the buying patterns of his customers. He noted that many purchasers were responsible about using Plan B, but he also described a class of customer who came to the store "on a regular basis" and purchased Plan B "week after week." When David Lazarus asked him whether the repeat users "were a majority or minority of users," Steve responded that they were probably half of the Plan B purchasers.
Even if Steve from Diamond Bar did not remember correctly and inflated his estimate, it is clear that a substantial population of Plan B users were using this drug very frequently - as many have feared.
President Obama's omnibus spending bill contains many odd line items. Here's one: $1.2 billion for what the bill calls "anti-bullying" curricula. One may wonder when it became the federal government's responsibility to protect our children from the schoolyard bullies. In my long ago high school, the Boys' Leaders Club stopped bullies from even getting started. And if they didn't succeed, there was always Mr. Martinell's "board of education," firmly applied to the seat of the pants.
Ever since the horror of Columbine High School in 1999, and the mass murders on campus at Virginia Tech several years ago, worried parents have been trying to find answers to why some students "snap" and attack their classmates with murderous violence.
In Ogden's case, pornography is incompatible with Justice
As the research shows, frequent use of pornography distorts the perception of social realities in gender relations, weakens and frequently destroys marriages, has deleterious effects on children and ultimately undermines the sexual capacities of those who become addicted to it.
Not only is it indefensible as an industry, rather it should be severely contained and suppressed because of its effects on family, children and adults. David Ogden's connections to the pornography industry preclude his ability to serve in the Department of Justice.
Over on the Witherspoon Institute's web magazine, The Public Discourse, Ryan Anderson has an excellent piece called "Collegiate Sex-Ed." It takes a knowing look at the morally bankrupt conceptions of sexuality prevalent on elite college campuses and then looks at efforts to correct this, most notably the Anscombe Society at our alma mater.
Why does Planned Parenthood hate family planning that creates families
In responding (as I was asked to) to Steven Waldman's posting on Beliefnet.com it is easy to know where to start. It would be at the original title, "Why Pro-lifers Hate Family Planning," which can be described mildly as inflammatory. It has since been changed to "Why Many Pro-lifers Oppose Family Planning," which, at best, is less rabble-rousing. Taken with the rest of the post one could easily draw the conclusion that supporting family planning can only be defined as supporting taxpayer funding of condoms. But what of abstinence? Or natural family planning? While many religions are opposed to condoms, there are a few who are not, however still religious organizations are pretty active on family planning - be it pregnancy care centers, churches with abstinence and pre-marital and marital counseling, abstinence programs, etc. Most religious conservatives, in my opinion, are more unified in opposing federal involvement. With sheckles come shackles.
The rest of the post does seem to try to draw a balance, though I do disagree with the premise "that there is evidence that government financed family planning does reduce abortions" - which seems to have at its base a quote from Planned Parenthood's research arm, the Guttmacher Institute. However Guttmacher's own numbers seem to dispute their quote. Many major cities have been seeing an increase of both pregnancy and abortion, despite also having liberal rules and regulations on family planning. Take New York City, which has liberalized sex education and even has its own brand of condom.In New York State 1/3 of the pregnancies result in induced abortion. Additionally the state rate of abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age is almost double the national rate. It does not stop there, in New York City, rates for teenage pregnancy far exceed the national averages and the city "remains the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, with youths, the poor, and minorities increasingly - and unevenly - affected by the disease."
Finally Mr. Waldman points out that Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest promoter of abortion, "also provides prenatal care that prevents infant death and birth control that stops unintended pregnancies." While how much of this counseling and care is actually done by Planned Parenthood is disputed, what of the other groups that do not promote abortion, like pregnancy care centers, that because of their opposition to abortion, do not accept federal funds under the Title X program that distributes them? These pro-life pregnancy care centers, if they accepted Title X funds, would be forced by the federal government to include referring for abortions as part of their pre-natal care - thanks to a regulation passed by President Clinton and never rescinded by President George W. Bush. Additionally pregnancy care centers, unlike Planned Parenthood, do not spend tens of millions of dollars to elect pro-abortion politicians or overturn popular incremental pro-life laws like parental consent.
How much more could these pregnancy care centers do if they received the millions in subsidies that U.S. taxpayers are currently giving to Planned Parenthood? The question isn't why do pro-lifers hate family planning but more why does Planned Parenthood hate family planning that creates families?
Judge Lederman's Top Ten List: Bad Arguments for Homosexual Parenting
After seven years of working on the issue of homosexuality at the Family Research Council, I think I have a pretty good sense of the arguments that pro-homosexual activists use in support of their agenda, such as affirmation of homosexual parents and same-sex "marriage." Even when those arguments are made well, they are unconvincing-but when they are made poorly, it just leaves me shaking my head.
One example of this phenomenon-bad arguments made badly-got a lot of attention recently. That was the Newsweek cover story on "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," penned by the magazine's religion editor Lisa Miller. It was so poorly researched and poorly reasoned that Miller should lose her job for it-not because she is in error, but because she is incompetent. Some political writer posting on a blog might get away with the kind of sloppiness Miller showed-but a "religion editor" writing a cover story should not be allowed to. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and I wrote in detail about the Newsweek story on December 9.
Virginity Pledge Study "Misses the Boat" on Abstinence Education
The Rosenbaum study comparing the sexual behavior of "virginity pledgers and nonpledgers" is a distraction from increasingly effective risk avoidance, or abstinence-centered, health prevention programs. Such programs are not the same as virginity pledge programs, and have stronger foundations in behavioral change than such pledges. The implication that this study should discredit federally funded abstinence programs for youth misses the boat from a behavioral science standpoint.
There are important ways in which abstinence programs are different from "virginity pledge" presentations. In order to accomplish behavior change or have a person successfully practice a specific behavior, precursors affecting that behavior have to be influenced. These include things such as knowledge as well as attitudes and intentions towards the behavior. The theoretical construct viewed as having the strongest effect on practicing a behavior is "self-efficacy." Self-efficacy is the belief of a person that he or she can actually practice the behavior - the belief that they can actually do it successfully. Abstinence education programs teach skills in communication and refusal and impart additional information to youth for example about healthy relationships, goal setting, disease prevention, and social responsibility. All these elements serve to better equip youth, thus increasing self-efficacy. Collectively they provide a holistic health message helping youth to navigate the practice of sexual abstinence until marriage. Additionally, the longer the duration of the intervention or program, the more the health message, information, and skills imparted are reinforced. Such important program content cannot be adequately summed up and delivered during a short-term or one-time presentation. And if youth do slip on this behavior, the abstinence programs provide a sound foundation for returning to the practice of abstinence, whereas virginity pledges can leave one feeling as though there is utter failure for a return to the behavior.
Scholars are still building an evidence base for this relatively young field of abstinence education health promotion/disease prevention programs. Studying what is most successful within abstinence curricula to determine the best prevention practices would be a better use of research time and funding. Guiding youth away from high-risk behaviors which act to the detriment of both their physical and emotional health needs to be at the forefront of prevention strategies.
Over the extended holiday weekend, the WashingtonTimes published an editorial and a commentary piece that are well worth reading:
The Timeseditorial appeared on Friday, November 28, and was entitled "Judicial Imperialism." First, the paper discusses the worrying ramifications of the recent settlement by eHarmony, a California company, which was forced by the state of New Jersey to offer dating services to gay customers in New Jersey. Second, the editorial discusses the dangerous and illegitimate effort to have the California Supreme Court thwart the will of the Golden State's voters and declare its recently-passed marriage amendment unconstitutional.
The commentary piece was authored by Jeffrey T. Kuhner. His first Sunday opinion column with the Times was published on September 28th. In Kuhner's latest, entitled "Obama vs. Pope Benedict," he recognizes the struggle that may erupt between Mr. Obama and the Pope should the new administration pass the Freedom of Choice Act. He sets the stage as follows:
Mr. Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) "would be the equivalent of a war," a senior Vatican official told Time magazine last week. "It would be like saying, 'We've heard the Catholic Church and we have no interest in their concerns.' "
Study Links Exposure to Sexual Content on T.V. and Teen Pregnancy
A recently released study published in Pediatrics and sponsored by the Rand corporation has linked watching sex on television and teen pregnancy. Data from a national longitudinal study on adolescents from 12 to 17 years of age were used from over a three year period to measure experience of a teen pregnancy. Adolescents were surveyed to assess whether exposure to sexual content on television predicted subsequent pregnancy for girls or responsibility for pregnancy for boys.
Results showed that teens who were exposed to high levels of sexual content on television, were twice as likely to experience a pregnancy (either directly for girls or to be responsible for a pregnancy for boys) in the subsequent three years, compared with teens watching less sexual content on television.
Points to make regarding and related to the study findings:
The majority of television shows teens are exposed to with sexual content as described by the study release don't accurately communicate the health outcomes, either physical or emotional, associated with the high-risk behavior. These can include increased risk for sexually transmitted infections, impaired reproductive health, and negative emotional repercussions. Rather, television shows typically glamorize sex with little, if any, depiction of potential consequences.
In addition, television shows typically do not portray characters that choose to practice sexual abstinence outside of marriage who do not have the accompanying concerns of their counterparts who engage in sexual activity - two being concerns about possible nonmarital pregnancy and being at increased risk for disease.
While as the study author states, the amount of sexual content on television has doubled in recent years, prevention messaging has not. Broadcasters need to take a more responsible approach to public health given the current epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases and infections which exists among our young people.
Accurate health messaging, including the knowledge about the consequences and repercussions of high-risk behavior, such as adolescent pre-marital sex, is critical for prevention efforts. Reinforcement that youth are capable of practicing risk avoidance behavior or sexual abstinence is also key.
Given the level of exposure teens have to both the television shows measured in the Rand study and similar messaging from other media bombarding youth with sexual content, both parents and health care providers need to emphasize the prevention message, the best of which is risk avoidance or abstinence, and the benefits of practicing it.
Recommended reading for both parents and young adults: "Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting our Children," by Drs. Joe McIlhaney and Freda McKissic Bush. Watch for an FRC Book Lecture at the beginning of 2009 at which Drs. McIlhaney and Bush will discuss how new research in the field of neuroscience is shedding light on the impact having sex has on teens and young adults.
Homosexual TV Characters -- Proportional Representation, or Propaganda?
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) reported in triumph last week that the number of "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)" characters on broadcast TV will more than double in the new TV season.
Of course, TV writers, producers, and networks are free to create whatever type of characters they want, but the public needs to look at those characters and programs with a discerning eye. Are they just there to reflect what America actually looks like (GLAAD's claim)? Or are they really there for propaganda purposes, to promote a sociopolitical agenda demanding affirmation of homosexual conduct?
There are two ways to test this question. One is to ask whether the depiction of homosexual characters is accurate. Does it accurately reflect the higher rates of sexual promiscuity, STDs, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse among homosexuals? If the homosexual characters are always depicted as the smartest, funniest, most noble characters on the show, on the one hand, or only as victims of persecution, on the other, then you know you're seeing propaganda.
The other test is whether other groups are proportionally represented on TV as well. For example, how many evangelical Christian characters are there on TV series, and how are they portrayed? There are many times as many evangelical Christians in America as there are homosexuals, but I doubt you'll find that reflected on TV.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the July 23 Congressional hearing on homosexuals in the military was the effort to read 21st-century political correctness back into American history.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) insisted, "We've had gays in the American military from the first unit that was ever formed." Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) echoed this astonishing claim, saying that "gays have served in every conflict, every war" this country has fought.
In fact, Shays was even more specific, noting a patriotic event in his district at which they read the names of "everyone who lost his life in the French and Indian War--some of whom were gay."
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) declared that allowing homosexuals to serve would be an expression of the high value Americans place on the principle of equal opportunity. He even claimed the father of our country, George Washington, as an ally who believed that "the way to the top should be open to everyone." In context, that referred to the respect Washington had for enlisted men in relation to officers--but Sestak apparently would have us believe that Washington felt the same way about equal opportunity for homosexuals.
But that argument carried no water with Washington. On the 10th of March, a General Court Martial was held to try Lieut. Frederick Gotthold Enslin "for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier." Having been convicted, he was sentenced "to be dismiss'd the service with Infamy."
That may have been the verdict of the court martial, but is there any evidence of what Washington himself thought? In fact, there is: "His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return . . ."
If members of Congress and homosexual activists want to argue for repeal of the existing law in order to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, let them make their case. But it is sheer nonsense to claim that such an action would be anything but a radical deviation from the unbroken practice of the American military throughout our country's history.
"Defamatory statements" - or the politically incorrect truth?
The theme of this week's episode of the FX series 30 Days was homosexual adoption. FRC's own Vice President for Policy, Peter Sprigg, was interviewed, during which he referred to several problems with homosexual parenting that are rooted in the homosexual lifestyle itself: "Homosexuality is associated with higher rates of sexual promiscuity, sexually-transmitted diseases, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, and child sexual abuse."
Predictably, homosexual activists were outraged by what they characterized as a "defamatory statement," and pulled out all the stops to coerce the producers to edit out Peter's statements. To their credit, the producers refused, and those watching were at least presented with the other side of the story, which contradicts the positive and uncritical depictions of homosexual parenting typically found in media stories.
But what about the statement itself - are homosexual activists correct in asserting that there is "no credible scientific research that backs Sprigg's claim"? There is, in fact, credible research indicating the negative health effects of homosexuality, including the following:
Three studies in the early 1990's gave birth to the widespread belief that homosexuality is determined before birth by some biological (possibly genetic) factor. Although those three studies have been largely discredited, the search for the "gay gene" or, in some cases, the "gay brain," goes on. Now another such study is in the news, reporting difference between the heterosexual and homosexual brain.
Studies like this are invariably reported as providing evidence that people are "born gay" and can't change, when they don't provide anything of the kind. All they show is a limited correlation between certain biological markers and homosexuality, but one of the first principles of statistics and science is that "correlation is not causation."
I can't critique this entire study on technical grounds, although I have read it. The sample size of 20 to 25 in each group (by sex and sexual orientation) seems fairly small, but the authors claim statistical significance for their findings. However, they give no explanation of how the study subjects were recruited, so there's no way to evaluate whether this sample is likely to be representative of the larger population.
What many people don't understand is that conservatives on the issue of homosexuality have never denied that there may be biological factors which correlate with homosexuality, or even ones which may, to some extent, influence its development. But what has never been found is any such factor that can be proven to cause homosexuality in a deterministic way.
If there were a genetic or biological factor which could fix and determine for all time that a person would be homosexual, then you would expect that factor to be present in every homosexual and in no heterosexual. That's not what you find in this study, or in any of the similar studies. While there may be a difference is the average level of "cerebral asymmetry," for example, there's also considerable overlap between members of the homosexual and heterosexual sample.
One irony in this study is that, in essence, all it is saying is that the brains of homosexual men are more "feminine" that those of heterosexual men, and the brains of homosexual women are more "masculine" than those of heterosexual women. But don't homosexual activists object to that as stereotyping? I thought they liked to claim that sexual orientation and gender identity are two completely different things.
The real bottom line here is that the "gay brain" and "gay gene" studies have so far produced findings that are only marginally interesting from a scientific perspective. The real reason these studies get so much media attention is because proving that people are born homosexual and cannot change would serve the political purpose of persuading people that sexual orientation is like race, and that it should be treated like race under the law. That's all that's really going on in the brains of homosexual activists.
25 years after the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, the leader of the World Health Organization's efforts against the disease has finally admitted the obvious--there will be no worldwide AIDS pandemic among the general heterosexual population.
"Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients," reported the British newspaper The Independent, which published an interview with Kevin de Cock of the WHO on June 8
In the article, however, one line stood out in particular:
"Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said."
In other words: We couldn't tell the truth, because it might have made people think there is something wrong with homosexuality, prostitution, and drug use.
Jury selection in the high-profile child pornography trial of rapper R. Kelly begins today in Cook County, Illinois. Mr. Kelly has pleaded not guilty to having videotaped himself having sex with a minor. Cook County prosecutors have doggedly pursued this case in order to protect children, arrest the degradation of women and establish community values of decency.
We can only hope and pray that the old comedic line "don't believe your lying eyes" does not prevail.
Student to appeal ban on criticizing homosexuality
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has ruled against the First Amendment rights of students in Boyd County, Ky, to express beliefs about the morality of homosexual behavior, prompting an appeal to the full appeals court.
At the instigation of the American Civil Liberties Union, Boyd County High School allowed a "Gay Straight Alliance" club, and the school district instituted a "diversity" program mandated for all students.
The following research is cited from an academic review paper published in 2007, "Statutory Rape Crime Relationships between Juveniles and Adults: A Review of Social Scientific Research," (Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2007)
In an analysis of the national Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), data from 21 states from 1996 through 2000 indicated that of the 7,557 statutory rape incidents reported to law enforcement:
95% involved female victims with male offenders.
About 60% of the female adolescents were aged 14 or 15.
The median age difference between the female adolescent and the male was six years.
Approximately 45% of the male participants were age 21 or over, 25% were age 24 or older.
The paper went on to state, "The studies generally show that the relationships with adults and older partners comprise a large percentage of all sexual relationships for girls of a younger age. A number of factors may contribute to this: The younger a girl is when she begins engaging in sexual activity, the more likely she is to be a risk taker, have poorer judgment, or come to early initiation through a history of sexual abuse that would orient her toward older partners."
While I would not agree with all of the conclusions drawn in this scientific review paper, it does report research which elucidates the fact that a large percentage of sexually active teen girls have, at one time or another, been sexually involved with an adult male. The experiences cause and place girls and adolescent females at high-risk for negative psycho-social and health outcomes.
There has been a flurry of attention in recent weeks over the revelation that a female-to-male transgender (that is, a person born female who now self-identifies as “male”) is currently pregnant. Although she had her breasts removed and took male hormones (which allowed her to grow a beard), this woman chose not to have her sexual organs altered as part of her “transition” to “manhood.” Still possessed of a uterus, this individual has now become pregnant by artificial insemination. Both as the butt of jokes and as a pop culture phenomenon (as certified by an appearance on Oprah), this person has been widely referred to as “the pregnant man.”
We owe a debt of thanks, therefore, to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby for pointing out the obvious—that Tracy LaGondino, who now uses the name “Thomas Beatie,” is not, in fact, a “man” at all, but a woman with a serious psychiatric problem known as “Gender Identity Disorder.” The sensation surrounding this pregnancy should remind us yet again of the irony—and utter absurdity—of the claims of the homosexual and transgender movement. They would have us believe (on no evidence whatsoever) that homosexuality is genetic, fixed at birth, and immutable; while our sex, which is written in the chromosomes of every cell of our bodies, is malleable and can be changed at will.
While the piece to which Pat links certainly displays the courage of the leaders of Harvard's True Love Revolution, I have to say I was not a fan of it. It struck me as a brutally unfair portrayal of what is going on in Cambridge. For example, the author asks one of the co-presidents his thoughts about the other and coaxes from him some fairly awkward comments. The author then relays these comments to the other co-president. What purpose does this serve other than to sow discord? At the same time, the Times has a long history of making young conservatives seem incredibly strange, and TLR probably could have been more cautious going in.
One nasty piece by a snarky journalist doesn't change the interesting facts of this chastity phenomenon, though. It's a growing and exceedingly complex movement. Pat mentions Princeton's Anscombe Society as the college chastity prototype, describing it as "an Ivy League version of True Love Waits." While True Love Waits and Anscombe certainly have many of the same goals, I'm not sure if that accurately reflects Anscombe's mission. In a rare example of good reporting, the Times piece describes Anscombe as justifying its views on chastity through rigorous intellectual means. That certainly conforms to my observations in college of both the society itself and of the people who were in it. Princeton's chastity society was inspired by the profoundly rigorous essay "Contraception and Chastity" by Elizabeth Anscombe (the English philosopher who occasionally bested C.S. Lewis in argument). On the other hand, True Love Revolution and True Love Waits come at the question in a very different way. Which approach happens to be better is beside the point. It is important to note, though, that there are wildly different approaches to promoting chastity in young people, and that they are flourishing in the Ivy League of all places. No wonder the New York Times felt inclined to try and take a hatchet to one of them!
Fire Those Who Protect Child Porn Users, Not Those Who Report Them
The recent firing of a California librarian provides a dramatic example of how political correctness can turn both morality and common sense on its head. What did Brenda Biesterfeld do that cost her her job? When she saw a patron at the public library where she worked in Lindsay viewing illegal child pornography on a library computer, she did what any good citizen should do—she reported it to the police. They arrested him, and found more child porn on his home computer as well. But Biesterfeld’s reward for her good deed was a termination notice.
In fact, maybe it’s time to make public librarians “mandatory reporters” of child sexual abuse—including child pornography—just so that they know where their responsibility lies.
Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National STD Prevention conference presented research showing that 1 in 4 teen girls (or 3.2 million) have a sexually transmitted infection (STI). In addition, findings from two studies presented demonstrate that of young women receiving contraceptives, over half are not receiving appropriate counseling, screening, and treatment for STIs.
Taken together, these findings represent a simmering STD epidemic among our young people and a tremendous negligence in care for girls most at risk for contracting STDs. The call for an effective public health prevention strategy could not be more urgent. The current contraceptive-based education approach offered in 75 percent of U.S. schools not only relies on an overly narrow focus on physical health that is spurring an epidemic, but it also completely ignores the emotional consequences of premarital sex. Abstinence education is increasingly providing an efficacious and holistic approach to protect our young people's current and future health.
While the proponents of comprehensive or contraceptive-based sex education and much of the medical and public health community continue to pay lip service to prevention for our young people, these CDC results offer fresh evidence that the focus is on facilitating high-risk behavior rather than true primary and even secondary prevention. The risk-avoidance or sexual abstinence-until-marriage strategy must be adopted to help reverse the STD epidemic. It's an evidence-based approach with proven results for reversing the HIV/AIDS trends in several African countries--let's give it a chance in this country.
If you happen to be visiting New York City today, perchance to be celebrating Valentine's Day, in the destination city of romance-seekers the world over, you might be greeted by "street teams" from the health department welcoming you with. . . "a colorful and sexy message" -- Get Some.
At any given time, a significant percentage of men are engaging in multiple sexual partnerships with women -- a situation that may facilitate the spread of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
The headline is dramatic but buried in the details reported is that the actual percentage was 6.6 and they "adjusted" the numbers to come up with "as high as" 11. The article also makes a number of sweeping generalizations designed to convey the idea that this is an issue the public needs to be worried about.
But then, the truth, buried near the end, comes out:
Adimora agrees that other factors could be at play, as men who engaged in concurrent sexual relationships also seemed to have other behaviors in common.
"Men who did have concurrent relationships were more likely to be intoxicated on drugs and alcohol, to have relationships with women who had multiple partners, and to have had sexual relationships with men in the past," she said.
And then the clincher - the policy recommendations that go with all this:
"We need approaches that will remove health disparities caused by poverty, stigma and discrimination, poor access to health care and education," Coleman said. "We need to develop a sexual health approach to HIV infection which will provide sexuality education, access to sexual health care, all which is culturally sensitive and relevant."
In other words, this kind of aberrant, dangerous behavior is confined to easily identified subgroups of the population, but we are going to use it as a club to bring graphic sex ed straight to your kids.
What I want to know is why doesn't "cultural sensitivity" extend to our values?
The FRC Action Values Voter Straw Poll has been making lots of news, but one of the poll questions that hasn't yet gained as much attention was question #3, which asked participants to rank the order of importance among a set of issues. Here are the results:
Here's the statistical breakdown:
ISSUE
VOTES
PERCENTAGE
Abortion
2398
41.52%
Same-sex "Marriage"
1141
19.76%
Tax Cuts
626
10.84%
Permanent tax relief for families
563
9.75%
Federal "hate crimes" legislation
331
5.73%
No vote on this question
181
3.13%
Taxpayer funding for abortions
151
2.61%
Prayer in schools
93
1.61%
Reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine"
88
1.52%
Public display of the Ten Commandments
57
0.99%
Enforced obscenity laws
54
0.94%
Embryonic stem cell experiments
48
0.83%
Voluntary, student-led prayer in schools
44
0.76%
Total
5,775
100%
Now that you've got the numbers, feel free to crunch away.
In an article on Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle and the homosexual activists who are decrying him as "homophobic", the Miami NBC affiliate WTVJ-TV says, "An estimated 243,000 gay people live in the city of Fort Lauderdale."
My World Almanac says the 2005 population of Fort Lauderdale was 167,380. We know the idea that homosexuals are 10% of the population is a myth, so what can we say about the claim that they are 145% of the population?
According to the Census Bureau, Fort Lauderdale does indeed have the second highest percentage of same-sex unmarried partner households of any major American city (exceeded only by San Francisco). So the mayor may really be in some political hot water. But that percentage is--2.1% (S.F. is 2.7%; nationally they are 1.0%).
Numerically, there are 1,418 (that's one thousand four hundred eighteen) unmarried same-sex partner households in Fort Lauderdale. That would be 2,836 individuals.
I guess the other 240,000 homosexuals in Fort Lauderdale just aren't the "marrying"--or "partnering"--kind.
A new study by the research firm Mathematica has been hailed by advocates of the sexual revolution and groups that have spent decades providing contraceptives and abortions to minor children without parental knowledge. Funded by the federal department of Health and Human Services, Mathematica examined four abstinence education programs for elementary students and middle-schoolers. The study found that after an average of five years, the students who had taken the abstinence instruction were no less likely to engage in sexual intercourse than students who had not received the instruction at all.
At first glance, the results appear disappointing. It would have been a relief to find that a small investment in a middle school program could overcome the raw messages of our sexualized culture. It would be especially encouraging because of the ever-higher stakes associated with premarital sex today.
But that's not the whole story - either of abstinence education or of the need for intervention in the lives of vulnerable teens. The researchers chose to ignore the abstinence programs most recommended for study, and focused on programs that have since been revised. The scope and the depth of abstinence programs were ignored, and a narrow few chosen for examination. These are not minor points because the stakes in sexual politics today are life and death.
Friday’s USA Today included an article noting that despite moves toward legalizing “civil unions” in states like New Hampshire and Oregon, “fewer gay couples are choosing to enter civil unions or register as domestic partners” (Andrea Stone, “Some say civil unions dropping off,” April 20). For example, in Connecticut, the number of same-sex couples who entered into civil unions in the first 15 months that they were legal was only 18% of the number of same-sex “unmarried partner” households counted in the 2000 census. (By contrast, 92% of opposite-sex couples who live together in Connecticut are legally married.)
The article quotes one homosexual activist as suggesting that same-sex couples are “waiting for marriage.” But it certainly undermines the argument that same-sex couples are being seriously harmed by lack of access to the legal and financial “benefits” of marriage, if 82% don’t even bother to access those “benefits” once they are granted them under state law.
The article says that in Massachusetts, where they do have same-sex civil “marriage,” about 9,000 such “marriages” have occurred since 2004. However, it fails to note that this is barely more than half the number of cohabiting same-sex couples identified in the census (again, in contrast to heterosexuals, among whom the married outnumber the cohabiting by a ratio of more than 10 to 1). These figures constitute empirical evidence that a majority of homosexuals do not “need” the “benefits” of marriage, and relatively few even want to participate in the institution of “marriage.”
What they really want is the official government affirmation that homosexuality is identical to heterosexuality—period. But by winning “marriage” and then not participating in it, they advance the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage—that is, they destroy any social norm suggesting that marriage is the preferred context for living together in a sexual relationship (even more than heterosexuals have). This is one of the ways that same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage—yes, even for heterosexuals.
...the Hitwise data suggest that sex sites are now being dethroned. In Britain search sites overtook sex sites in popularity last October—the first time any other category has come out on top since tracking began, says Hitwise. In America, the proportion of site visits that are pornographic is falling and people are flocking to sites categorised “net communities and chat”—chiefly social-networking sites such as MySpace, Bebo and Facebook. Traffic to such sites is poised to overtake traffic to sex sites in America any day now.
Good news, right? Not necessarily. As the article suggests, "adult" material -- like the rest of the internet at large -- may simply be changing venues. A decline pornographic websites has corresponded with an increase in porn in other areas of the web, such as peer-to-peer file sharing networks, social networking websites, and "virtual worlds" like Second Life.
Parents, don't stop monitoring your kids' internet usage just yet...
Under the new Congress we are anticipating a slew of pro-homosexual bills as payback for the help that the same-sex marriage lobby gave the Democrats in the election last fall. Because most people, including many in Congress, realize how radical that lobby is, homosexual groups are well-versed in masking their agenda. Creating special protections for homosexuals becomes "hate crimes." Forcing businesses to elevate homosexuality to civil rights status becomes the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act." Mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle at the expense of morale in the Armed Forces becomes "The Military Readiness Enhancement Act."
While we are fighting a federal wish list that Rosie O'Donnell would love, our friends in the states have been battling this same agenda for years. A state legislator in Maine recently introduced a bill to strip the clergy of the right to sign marriage licenses, thereby divorcing state-sanctioned marriage from religious ceremonies. Lawmakers in Maine have also introduced LD375, "an act to amend the Family Medical Leave Laws," which would greatly expand the existing domestic partnership benefits. Mike Heath, Executive Director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, is working hard to push back the agenda by enlisting online activists to help him. Please sign up for the Civic League's citizen Action Center today.
In Indianapolis, Indiana, middle school "sex education" has reached an entirely new plateau. What for months remained a jealously guarded secret at Warren Township’s Raymond Park Middle School has now been shockingly exposed: Two 6th grade students engaged in sexual intercourse during class – under the nose of an oblivious teacher.
At the middle school, so-called “shop class” afforded the students the opportunity of learning through experience. Apparently books simply aren’t realistic enough for certain subjects.
The story surfaced when a disturbed local resident tipped off a news channel, writing: “…during school hours in a classroom with an experienced teacher present, two sixth graders completed the act of intercourse…at least ten students were witnesses. No disciplinary actions were taken against the teacher… All teachers were told to keep quiet.”
Spain's parliament on Thursday passed a law allowing transsexuals to change their name and gender on official documents without needing to undergo surgery first.
Now that sex selection is ultimately up to the individual, rather than anatomy, those who were a little nervous about having the surgery can rest easy. All that's required for a person to officially change his or her (or is it her or his?) sex is "to present an official medical diagnosis stating a clinically proven case of gender dysfunction and to have undergone appropriate treatment for two years before changes in identity documents can be performed."
Somebody better double-check Spain's "women's" basketball team at the next Olympic games...
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Telling of Congressional Priorities
You may not have asked, but I'll tell you any way. Wednesday, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) reintroduced legislation that would not only repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy but also the 200-year-old law that bans homosexuals from openly serving in the military. Citing opinion polls, Meehan says the general support for his bill is growing. However, what matters in this case is not what the latest poll says, but what's best for our military and the men and women who serve. The same study that found higher civilian backing for the repeal also showed overwhelming opposition to change among our servicemen. Only 26 percent of soldiers support a move to allow gays to serve openly. With the demands on the Armed Services, Meehan estimates that over 40,000 homosexuals would join the military if the ban is lifted.
What he doesn't address are the tens of thousands who would not join or who would leave the service if the legislation is passed. As a veteran of the Marine Corps I can say that the defense of our country should not be sacrificed for the promotion of a political agenda.
More Maher Mendacity: Bill Maher on FRC and the HPV Vaccine
Remember when comedian Bill Maher was smart, thoughtful, and funny? Yeah, me neither. Still, I keep holding out hope that he will say something witty or intelligent. Instead, he continues to disappoint by sinking to greater depths of boorishness and mendacity.
In a commonsense ruling, the D.C. Court of Appeals sided with the Bush administration yesterday saying that the president can deny AIDS funding to groups that condone prostitution and sex trafficking. The case, now a year and a half old, was brought by DKT International, Inc., a family planning group that, among other things, provides condoms to Vietnamese sex workers. When DKT refused to sign a pledge that it would honor the President's anti-trafficking policies, the administration denied it taxpayer support. A lower court sided with DKT, stating that the nonprofit's First Amendment rights were violated because the funding conditions "insisted that the groups 'parrot' the government's position on prostitution." Fortunately, a three-judge panel reversed the decision and restored President Bush's authority to fund only those organizations that communicate the U.S. government's opposition to sex trafficking.
Over the past few days, both The Washington Times and the Washington Post have run stories on HPV and the new HPV vaccine, Gardasil. The Times articles on the subject may have underplayed the risks from HPV to young women and girls. Today's Post article, on the other hand, seems to overplay it.
The headline ("Millions In U.S. Infected With HPV: Study Finds Virus Strikes a Third of Women by Age 24") is about the large number of women who are infected with HPV--which would seem calculated to build support for making the vaccine mandatory. But those figures refer to at least 27 strains of genital HPV. Only in paragraph four do you learn that "only 2.2% of women were carrying one of the two virus strains most likely to lead to cervical cancer"--in other words, the two cancer-related strains targeted by the vaccine.
To put this another way--vaccinating the entire population with Gardasil would not eliminate a virus that infects one quarter to one third of American women, as the headline might lead you to believe. Instead, it would only eliminate the strains that infect 2.2% of women.
Now, that 2.2% will account for 70% of cervical cancer cases, so the vaccine's impact is very significant in relation to that disease. But the vaccine will not help the millions of other women infected with other, less deadly strains of HPV. Only abstinence will help them all.
But fewer and fewer of our young men are capable of this long haul. Consider how teenage boys are being scripted. How many pick up the message that it is best to have as many women as possible, versus those who pick up the message to find “their one and only true love”? How many get the predator/hunter message instead of the message to become the “protector of their love”?
It is easy for men to take to the predator message; it may even seem to be hardwired. By contrast it takes a massive cultural effort to make the protector lesson take hold among men. Most cultures (not ours anymore, alas) have put enormous energy into the protector message because the children of each generation need their fathers at home with them. Almost a quarter of our children are aborted today, 80 percent outside of marriage, while 60 percent of those who do manage to make it alive through the birth canal eventually end up with their parents rejecting each other. We, the United States, have become one huge culture of rejection.
A recent study dealing with the emotional consequences of teen sex confirms what conservatives have long been trying to convince mainstream society – premarital teen sex can be harmful. The study, performed by researchers at the University of California San Francisco, found that as many as one-half of the sexually-active teenagers surveyed felt guilty, remorseful, and “used” as a result of their promiscuity.
Survey results even highlighted the harmful impact that oral sex can have on the teen psyche, pointing out that about one-third of teenagers who reported having engaged in oral sex believed that it had been detrimental to them. In elaborating on the significance of the study results, researcher Bonnie L. Halpern-Felsher stated, “It is important for parents to help teens understand that having oral sex may result in social, emotional and physical consequences – just as having vaginal sex may result in these consequences.”
Given the source of this information, it is actually quite surprising that we see results which validate, if only from a pragmatic perspective, the conservative ideal of approaching sex with a great deal of caution. As expected, the study does not invoke any truly moral considerations for avoiding sexual intimacy, nor does it overtly say that teens should, in all instances, abstain from sexual behavior. It does, however, open the door for continued discussion and, at the very least, implicitly lends credence to the idea that abstinence is the best way to ensure the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the younger generation of Americans.
Possibly the most important result of this study is that it gives the conservative community yet another set of facts for arguing with our liberal counterparts – individuals who oftentimes disdain moral considerations for remaining sexually pure and place reliance upon cold, hard facts. Well, we now have those facts. Let’s use them to our advantage.
The door is cracked open. It’s our job to widen that crack.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled this past Friday that public universities and state and local governments providing health insurance to the partners of homosexual employees would be in violation of the state constitution. In its ruling, the Court opined that the voter-approved gay marriage ban passed in 2004 applies not only to gay marriage itself but also to benefits of partners. The Court stated, “The marriage amendment’s plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose.”
This, of course, is very encouraging news for the conservative community and is indicative of prevailing public opinion towards affording gay unions the same legal status as marriage between a man and a woman. The majority of Americans does not now support – nor has it ever supported – the legal elevation of gay unions to equality with marriage. Finally, we see a state court standing firm in its obligation to uphold its constitution, and we see a respect for the results of the democratic process – in this case, the passage of the 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
What is even more auspicious than the ruling itself is the emphatic language used by the three judge panel in handing down its decision: “The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan.” One might truly say that in the battle over the foundational unit of American society – the family – we can see the fight turning in our favor.
The Washington Blade (Jan. 19) has a unique spin on President Bush's new proposal for Iraq: "Troop Surge Unlikely to Help Gay Iraqis":
“The U.S. and its allies are both legally and morally responsible for the ongoing anti-LGBT violence in Iraq, and therefore curtailing it,” said [Ali Hili, an exiled gay Iraqi living in London]. “Under international law, the occupiers have a responsibility to protect the civilian population, and therefore it is their duty to ensure the wellbeing of Iraqi homosexuals.”
A green exit sign shows a woman, rather than a man, running for the door, while a traffic light features another crossing the street in a new initiative by the City of Vienna to raise awareness about gender equality.
The campaign, launched on Thursday and entitled "Wien sieht's anders" (Vienna sees it differently) is part of the City's "Gender Mainstreaming" project.
Its aim is to "give both genders the same exposure and ensure an equal distribution of chances, opportunities and duties" by changing the gender of figures pictured on familiar signs, City Hall said in a statement.
"Because it clashes with fixed visual habits, the campaign compels (people) to think, look and act differently," Sonja Wehsely, city councillor in charge of women's affairs, said in the statement.
Thus, signs using male characters will have their female equivalent, while the opposite will also be true.
Female exit signs and pictograms in bathrooms featuring a man, rather than a woman, changing a baby, will be introduced at City Hall to start with, the statement said.
Seats reserved for the elderly and pregnant women on Vienna's buses and trams will soon also picture a man carrying a child on his lap.
The campaign, launched on Thursday and entitled "Wien sieht's anders" (Vienna sees it differently) is part of the City's "Gender Mainstreaming" project. 
