BeLogical.com - The Lynn Woolley Show

Donna Garner
November 12, 2007

On 11.8.07, Dallas Morning News reporter Robert T. Garrett wrote a well-timed article for the front-page in which he faulted abstinence-only programs in the Texas schools -- well-timed because Congress is locked in a debate over whether to spend $141 Million to support community-based abstinence programs.

Garrett acclaimed (1) the contraceptive approach promoted by Douglas Kirby; (2) the comments made by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, (3) and the April 2007Mathematica Policy Research report.

(4) Three days later, The Dallas Morning News Editorial Board jumped in with its praise of California's contraceptive-based curricula where students have easy access to birth control. The Editorial Board even went so far as to chastise Texas for its abstinence-only approach and said that we need to follow California's example which "has been proven effective."

With such profound information put out by The Dallas Morning News, I believe it is time for a fact check and for a look behind their data.

(1) First, all of us must understand that when Douglas Kirby and others say the term "comprehensive sex education," what they really mean is that schools should mention abstinence in passing but should actually emphasize explicit information on how to prevent pregnancy through the use of birth-control pills and condoms. In other words, Kirby and his crowd believe that since teens cannot possibly control their sexual urges (in essence, comparing teens to dogs in heat), then we must give all teens contraceptives.

Looking a little further, we need to consider Douglas Kirby and his report entitled "Emerging Answers 2007." First, it is important to note that Kirby is not an M. D. but is a Ph.D. In his report, he says he scrutinized 115 abstinence programs but found no strong evidence that they work, yet Kirby forgets to mention that he is on the staff of the company which produces at least five of the 15 curricula (ETR) which he so vociferously praises. I believe that is called a major conflict of interest on his part!

Another report produced by Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy, June 21, 2007, and published in the Washington Post states, "Six of nine widely used 'comprehensive sex education curricula' contain medically inaccurate statements, and all the programs only slightly delayed sexual activity or increased condom use among students, according to a report recently released by HHS...all the programs did have misleading material about condoms and did not focus enough on abstinence...According to the report, Safer Choices Level 1, developed by California-based ETR Associates mentioned condoms 383 times and abstinence 5 times. Douglas Kirby is the senior researcher at ETR." So much for Douglas Kirby who should follow the ancient proverb which says, "Man in glass house should not throw rocks."

(2) Next point -- exactly who is Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America? Cecile works very closely with the largest homosexual organization in the country, the Human Rights Campaign where Samantha Smoot offices. Cecile and Samantha are past presidents of Texas Freedom Network whose only goal in life is to destroy the work of those considered to be in the religious rights movement. Texas Freedom Network, Planned Parenthood, and the Human Rights Campaign are all "sister" organizations who work out of the same "play book." All are frequently and favorably quoted by the liberal news media.

Back to Cecile Richards, for the year July 1, 2005 - June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 Million in clinic income (from abortions and contraceptive distribution) and $305.3 Million from the taxpayers. Planned Parenthood makes money both ways: If the contraceptives fail, then PP makes money from the abortions. What a deal!

(3) Next point -- the Mathematica study released in April 2007: This study cost taxpayers $8 Million and was 9 years in the making. Mathematica chose to track only 4 elementary/middle school abstinence programs. With our country having 700 abstinence programs which receive federal funding under Title V, Section 510, Mathematica chose to study only 4. Which 4 programs did they choose? They studied 4 little-known abstinence programs which were picked because they were situated in schools/communities which had the staff and the diversity which Mathematica needed to carry out the study.

Mathematica did not choose well-established and well-researched abstinence programs such as Scott & White Worth the Wait®, Best Friends, Not Me/Not Now, Operation Keepsake, Abstinence by Choice, Teen Aid, Sex Respect, FACTS, Project Taking Charge, etc.

To prove my point, Mathematica did not choose to study Scott & White Worth the Wait® whose director is Dr. Patricia Sulak, a practicing ob/gyn physician and well-known contraceptive researcher. She is confronted on a daily basis by patients who are experiencing the painful consequences of early sexual activity, and she is totally dedicated to encouraging teens to remain abstinent until marriage. She and her staff have insisted on measuring the results of Scott & White Worth the Wait®; and the results have been published in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The results demonstrated "a knowledge gain and a positive shift in attitude towards delaying the onset of sexual activity." This research utilized not only self-disclosed student responses but also formalized medical data from the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. I worked as a researcher/writer for Dr. Sulak's sex-education program for several years, and I know the preciseness with which they do their work. Yet Mathematica completely ignored such well-known programs in its report.

(4) Last point: Should we Texans look toward California as an example of effective sex-education programs? Using Planned Parenthood's own data which comes from the Guttmacher Institute (updated September 2006 statistics --http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf), let's see what we can learn.

Table 3.1, p. 11, ages 15-19 (year 2000) states that California ranked 7th in the nation in pregnancy rate; Texas ranked 5th . On the other hand, California ranked 5th in abortion rate; and Texas ranked all the way down to 26th. Therefore, it is clear from these statistics that California and Texas both have high pregnancy rates but that California has a skyrocketing rate of abortions.

How is California doing so far as sexually-transmitted infections (sexually-transmitted diseases) are concerned? In September 2007, the Californian Journal of Health Promotion (http://www.csuchico.edu/cjhp/5/3/080-091-jerman.pdf)

reported that in 2005 there were 1.1 million new cases of STI's among young people in California. The STI's included chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, genital herpes, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis B, trichomoniasis, and HIV. The result is that 1 out of every 4 young California teen between the ages of 15 and 24 has an STI.

California certainly cannot blame abstinence-only programs for this statistic which indicates that STI's are running rampant among California's teenage population. The policymakers in California have repeatedly stated proudly that they have not accepted any abstinence-only grant funding, preferring to produce their own versions of contraceptive-based curriculum instead.

What other results does California have to show Texas? The Campaign for Children and Families reported on Oct. 13, 2007, that in spite of its best efforts, California has just passed a series of bills which will reap the following results:

· The words "mom" and "dad" will not be used in children's curriculum nor in their classrooms because such words could be interpreted to be negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
· On the banned list are any references or teaching aids that portray marriage as only between a man and a woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.
· Students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.
· AB394 will create circumstances whereby if a parent says marriage is only for a man and a woman and states this in the presence of a lesbian teacher, the parent could be convicted of "harassment"; a student who states that he believes people are born either male or female could be reported as a "harasser" by a male teacher who wears women's clothes.
· AB14 prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches. This law includes day cares, preschool or after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, jobs programs, and every hospital in California – even private, religious hospitals.

In conclusion, I say that The Dallas Morning News, other major media outlets, and liberal-thinking adults are deliberately pushing an agenda which is counter to what is best for our children. Abstinence-until-marriage and then living in a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman is the safest and surest way to preserve the health of our nation.

The condom-pushers are endangering generations of Americans. The medical facts do not lie: Condoms when used consistently and correctly have been shown to protect against HIV only 85% of the time; that leaves 15% of the time with little-to-no protection against this deadly disease. A study released by the University of Washington on June 27, 2006, reported that even with 100% condom use, 30% will still contact the potentially deadly HPV virus. Using the same odds, how many of us would want to fly on an airplane where the pilot will crash his plane only 15% to 30% of the time?