Abstinence Is Harmful? News To Us
Posted on March 23, 2006
Today the American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release which is featured on their website’s “Newsroom” page that is titled, “ACLU Hails Rhode Island Department of Education Efforts to Stop the Use of Harmful “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage” Curriculum in Public Schools“. Only the ACLU and a liberal state like Rhode Island could find abstaining from sexual activity harmful.
The fact is that abstinence is the only form of birth control and STD prevention that works 100% that it is employed. By practicing the ultimate in safe sex, NO SEX, no children are unnecessarily slaughtered in the name of choice, no drugs are being used in order to prevent pregnancy for the sake of promiscuity, and no one will need to be treated for sexually transmitted diseases. So what is the ACLU’s difficulty with teaching this effective form of birth control? Homosexuals in this nation cannot be married in any other state than Massachusetts. And no other state except Massachusetts recognizes marriages performed to same sex couples. If abstinence is taught as it should be, as the ONLY effective form of birth control and STD prevention, homosexuals will not be receiving the indoctrination that the ACLU believes that they should.
By accepting that teenagers are going to have sex before marriage and taking a position of defeatism in the war to prevent this from occurring, we are then telling teenagers to go ahead and have sex. This is akin to telling your child not to shop lift but if they are going to anyway to not get caught. Then teaching them methods on not getting caught as opposed to teaching them to just plain not do it.
Abstinence is not harmful, it is the only truly safe and healthy program out there. Condoms don’t protect against Human Papilloma Virus or Herpes. Hormonal birth control don’t protect against STDs and is only 92% effective (this means if you have sex 100 times, you have an 8% chance of getting pregnant even with the pill when taken as directed.). And we all know how many women forget to take the pills. Add to that the dangers when artificially changing the hormonal balance in a woman’s system can lead to increased chances of cancer and heart disease.
Fact - Condoms break, leak, and do not protect against HPV or Herpes. Some people have allergies to latex.
Fact - Birth Control Pills don’t protect against STDs and mess with the hormonal balance in the woman’s body.
Fact - Herpes is transmitted by skin contact and requires no fluid transfer.
Fact - A fetus is a living being called a baby not tissue or a parasite.
Fact - Abortion has been linked to increased occurrences of Breast Cancer.
Fact - Post abortive women experience a high rate of depression and repeat abortions.
Fact - Some risks associated with abortion include internal bleeding and infection.
Fact - The only way to avoid these complications is to not have sex and the ACLU calls teaching this fact harmful.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board
****UPDATE****
Do to an irritating comment made by a trolling moron, I have dug up the following letter sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger concerning abortion.
December 27, 2002
Dear Dr. Schlessinger:
While reviewing material for a psychiatric medicolegal matter, I ran across a number of abortion-related reports. Although summaries don’t convey all the nuances of research, I thought you might be interested in these studies from the U.S. and abroad, as reported in the British Medical Journal (1996), the Southern Medical Journal (2002), Canadian Family Physician (2000), Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics (1989), and Pediatrics (1981). They suggest broad agreement that even in countries that have encouraged it for years, abortion is a damaging experience for the woman (I know you will add “not to mention lethal for the baby”). The abortion-associated suicide rate for women is 2-1/2 to three times the rate for the general population and almost six times the rate associated with having recently given birth.
“. . . (In this seven-year Finnish study,) the mean annual suicide rate (for the general population) was 11.3 per 100,000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9) and the rates associated with miscarriage (18.1) and induced abortion (34.7) were significantly higher than in the population. . . . CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health.”
Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lonnqvist J. (National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (STAKES), Helsinki, Finland): Suicides After Pregnancy in Finland, 1987?94: Register Linkage Study. British Medical Journal 313(7070):1431?4, 1996.The above report was replicated in the following U.S. study:
“. . . (In a sample of over 173,000 California women who had abortions or live births,) those who aborted had a significantly higher age?adjusted risk of death . . . from suicide (2.54) (compared to women who delivered their babies) . . . CONCLUSIONS: Higher death rates associated with abortion persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries. This may be explained by self?destructive tendencies, depression, and other unhealthy behavior aggravated by the abortion experience.”
Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW: Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. Southern Medical Journal 95(8):834?41, 2002. .A number of other studies, reported over several decades in both the general medical and psychiatric/psychological literature, reveal distress of various kinds even years after abortion, especially on the anniversaries of abortions and potential “due dates.” For example:
* Lauzon P, Roger?Achim D, Achim A, Boyer R: Emotional distress among couples involved in first?trimester induced abortions. Canadian Family Physician (46):2033-40, October, 2000.
* Franco K, Campbell N, Tamburrino M, Jurs S, Pentz J, Evans C: Anniversary reactions and due date responses following abortion. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 52(1?3):151?4, 1989.
* Tishler CL: Adolescent suicide attempts following elective abortion: a special case of anniversary reaction. Pediatric s 68(5):670?1, 1981.
It seems interesting that I found no controlled or epidemiological research to refute the above (i.e., indicating that women who had abortions were generally satisfied or unaffected by them).
Still listening after all these years. Thanks for your good work.
William H. Reid, M.D., M.P.H.
» Filed Under ACLU, Abortion, News
Trackback URL
Comments
14 Responses to “Abstinence Is Harmful? News To Us”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Suggestions
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Male Condoms are 84% effective at preventing children from being conceived under typical use which means every year you get to roll a six sided die and if a 1 comes up then pregnancy results. Now consider that a child can only be conceived during a woman’s fertile period which occurs during a fraction of each month while you can contact an STD the whole month. If you are perfect at using condoms then you get a STD 1/8th as often as the typical user. That explains why STD’s are so common.
Good Catch. I found out about the ACLU - Rhode Island effort to stop the Use of what they called “Harmful??????” “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage” Curriculum in Public Schools from Big Dogs Web Log early this morning. GO figure how they think it is harmful.
I have since cross posted a feeder from my site to yours. Thank you for your service. Have a good day.
Respectfully,
Bos’un
Well ranted, Gribbit! This issue so drives me nuts.
Fact–The ACLU tells us that abstinence is harmful.
Fact–The ACLU claims presidential spying is harmful.
Fact–The ACLU claims that all Christians are harmful.
Which organization is the most harmful to America?
Nowhere in the headline or the full text of the ACLU release does it say that “abstinence is harmful” as you claim. You took their headline, dismantled an adjective (”Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage”), eliminated the subject (”Curriculum”), then made a component of the adjective (”Abstinence”) the new subject. That’s a major no-no, and I’m calling BS on this one.
Next, please remember that we liberals really, really like science, and we fully understand reproductive health. We don’t need to be reminded that abstinence is the best method for avoiding unwanted pregnancies and STDs. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that teaching ONLY abstinence is dangerous in that it doesn’t teach teens that there are methods to safely engage in sex. Asking teens not to have sex is like asking kittens not to be cute. Not gonna happen. And contrary to what you claim, having sex is not akin to shoplifting. Now do I believe that teaching abstinence should be part of sex education? Of course! And I bet the ACLU does, too. However, it should be part of a comprehensive curriculum that covers the many aspects of sex.
Whoa. What does homosexuality have to do with this? Please explain.
Your numbers re: hormonal birth control are off. According to the FDA, hormonal birth control has a failure rate of 1-2%, not 8%. In practice, this number goes up to 5% as a result of missed does, etc., but this is hardly the drug’s fault. Additionally, the FDA says that, administered correctly, the pill can be up to 99.9% effective. Please visit http://www.fda.gov if you’d like to read more about this.
None of us liberals ever said that condoms or the pill are perfectly infallible. But they’re a hell of a lot more effective if used properly, so doesn’t it make sense to teach teens how to properly use them? (Remember the kitten analogy before you respond.)
Next order of business: abortion safety. Abortion as performed by a licensed physician is among the safest surgical procedures there is. According to the CDC, only 1% of abortions result in infection (common to all surgeries), and 0.6 deaths occur per 100,000 abortions, which happens to be lower than the maternal fatality rate associated with live birth (9.8 per 100,000). As for the abortion-breast cancer link, the National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov), issued a report by a band of breast cancer experts that says there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. Post-abortion depression, yeah, I’ll buy that, but what doesn’t cause depression these days (Read: PPD)?
And a fetus is not a baby. A fetus is a fetus, and it doesn’t enjoy Constitutional protection - this according to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a little more authority than you.
In sum, you misread the entire ACLU statement, and my facts come from the FDA, the CDC, the NCI, and the Supreme Court. Where did you get yours?
captrational
This is a warning against bloviating. If you wish to let your fingers do the walking to prove some sort of lunatic point, get your own blog. You are not welcome to post thread length comments on this or any other blog. That is not only rude, but un-wanted.
Personally, I don’t believe this moronic idea about holding a debating dialog with the use of anonymity.
The point is, the ACLU and other leftists such as yourself believe the ONLY way to control unwanted pregnancy is chemicals and abortion. We say that the most effective form of birth control and std prevention is abstinence. Teaching children about these methods instead of abstinence is like I stated before, akin to telling a child to not get caught shoplifting and teaching them how to avoid getting caught instead of preventing the act to begin with.
32 out of 38 studies done world wide and 13 out of 15 done in the United States has proven that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. I don’t know where you get your information, but it is tainted.
Ok people, obviously we have a problem. Requiring you to register still has not solved our problem with people believing that they can remain anonymous. I am considering re-instituting Gribbit’s Rule. For those of you unfamiliar with that particular regulation here it is:
No valid link = No Voice on my threads.
No valid email = No Voice on my threads.
Don’t like it, I don’t give a [censor].
Calling me a liar gets you deleted. And your ability to comment removed. If you and I were in the same location, it would get you a broken jaw. I come from a time where words like that would get you the largest ass beating of your life. And I’m not censoring my language because I DO NOT TOLERATE BEING CALLED A LIAR.
Next troll.
I’ve gone into detail on the ABC Link as well as the depression connection before on my own blog. Anyone interested in double checking MY facts, check out that thread. I don’t see the need of repeatedly putting up the same links to the same facts. We found the info, you can too.
The previous thread can be found here.
I’m new here, but I don’t have my own website. I hope that’s okay.
Jamsnagrom: The ACLU said all Christians are dangerous? That’s a terrible thing to say. Can you show me where they said it?
Gribbit: that liberal guy did say where he got his information: “the FDA, the CDC, the NCI, and the Supreme Court.”
I think he also made a good point about women dying in childbirth. You don’t hear much about that, but it happens.
Well Maven, get one!
Next, he did not include a link to the FDA, the CDC, the NCI, and the last that I checked, the SCOTUS is not a medical authority. It is a bunch of lawyers who have declared themselves Kings By Committee.
Unless I am mistaken, Roe v Wade was an infringement on a state matter. There is nothing in any of the 7 Articles or 26 (including the repealed Prohibition) Amendments which gives the federal government authority to regulate medical procedures. A state did, Texas. This decision created law where none existed, that is judicial activism.
The 10th Amendment however is very specific:
If you want a voice, get your own forum.
Actually, Gribbit, I believe you are mistaken.
“In a 7–2 vote the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that a Texas statute criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which the court found implicit in the liberty guarantee of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
(see http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-9125053)
(see also the 14th Amendment to the Constitution)
You may be right about the forum, though. Perhaps I should start one.
Maven… you are in danger…
Here is the fact and you can shove that britannica article up your out shoot for all I care.
The State of Texas, as did most other states, had a law which prevented Doctors from performing what was termed as an assisted miscarriage. The lower court which they upheld as you say had no basis in fact. You show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given authority over medical procedures. It will be a long look because it does not exist.
The liberal application of the 14th Amendment started with Justice Hugo Black earlier in the century. Do you recall the intent of the 14th Amendment when passed? It was enacted in order that no state could prevent newly freed slaves from enjoying those rights that whites had previously enjoyed without due process of law. Hugo Black and subsequent liberal activists on the bench have expanded the reach of the 14th Amendment to apply all restrictions on the federal government to the states themselves. This is a violation of states rights as I have previously quoted to you from the 10th Amendment. Can you not read?
And here’s a little tidbit that I’m not sure you are aware of… Now pay attention, you may be quizzed on this later junior….
The plaintiff in that case “Jane Roe” has now come out publically calling for the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. [SOURCE] I wonder why?
And I’m not going to take this anymore. Get your own freaking forum or your right to challenge my positions will be short lived.
Northwestern University huh… What a surprise. Leftist comments originating from one of the Communist Indoctination Centers of Amerika.
Oh man I wish I’d caught this story posting when it first came up. Geeze this is leaving out a huge amount of information from the very article you’re referencing.
Right off, we’re talking about abstinence only vs. a combined approach including the effective use of birth control. Not abstinence vs. go sleep with everybody in site!!one! But regardless of that entirely, you’re completely ignoring the fact that the program being used a) didn’t meet the Rhode Island Health Education Standards, b) contained overt religious views including how abstinence helps you to “honor my relationship with Jesus”, c) teaches stereotypes that have NOTHING to do with abstinence like antique gender roles, d) reinforces the idea that somehow women are to blame for guys being attracted to them, and on, and on.
It’s been shown over and over again that teaching children abstinence only, without any of the other relevant educational issues like birth control, actually causes an increase in unwanted births. Oddly enough, when two stupid young kids get together and decide to have sex though they know their parents don’t want them to, they won’t go: “oh, but geeze, my heath teacher ALSO doesn’t want me to, so I guess I won’t”. Schools should be about learning facts. If you want some guy named Jesus up in the clouds to bless your kids in return for following some arbitrary set of rules then you can bring them to church, pray in the morning before school, pray before dinner, pray before bed and spend every other waking moment teaching them that their bodies are dirty and their feelings are evil. That ISN’T what we pay for school to do.
Heck, if you really don’t want your children learning about STDs, birth control and other sexual health related issues then campaign to have sexual education removed from class, but don’t turn it into YET ANOTHER attempt to bring the bible into the official curriculum.