The Key Piece

Reinstate Abstinence Funding

2011-11-04T11:02:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, I was asked why in a letter to the Wisconsin delegation in DC requesting their support for abstinence education funding, I included a final option to defund Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, SIECUS, etc.

I strongly agree that governments must inact critical budget reform and know many of our state delegation were elected because they have pledged to cut spending. If budget reform was the reason abstinence education funding was cut, I would be 100% behind its demise as a temporary measure. But not once have I heard saving tax dollars as a reason for killing off abstinence.

Even though I have witnessed many nonprofit colleagues close their services when they lost government funds, I also know many others who diversified their programming and funding years ago and so far have remained solvent, even if again working as volunteers. However, new federal grants for marriage and fatherhood initiatives have stipulated that abstinence programming could not be included in applications. The truth is social acceptance of unwed sex created all the problems these initiatives address. It makes little sense to spend millions on interventions while funding sexual libertarian organizations. But that is the political power of sexual freedom advocates as we watch our families disintegrate.

It seems logical to me that if the government is amenable to restoring the societal factors that together eradicate poverty--two-parent families, education, jobs, etc.--it must be bold enough to stop funding programs that create or support counter-productive life styles. At the very least, politicians should pay attention to other countries which have let free choice policies with a huge price tag overwhelm their national well-being.

I just gave our state representatives in Congress two ways to support abstinence education: restore funding or defund our opponents. I've been in this game a long time and know "the silent majority" will back abstinence.

Wisconsin Assembly Bills 348 and 349

2011-11-03T13:35:00.002-05:00

Have none of the sponsors of these two bills read any of the exposes about Planned Parenthood in the last few years? The undercover work that has been done across the nation and in Wisconsin specifically should raise legitimate concern about this legislation. Planned Parenthood has been caught in mega-departures from their stated policies and procedures. Citizens should question the motivation of bill sponsors particularly those representatives from minority communities.

AB 348 changes the Women's Health Block Grant to "Family Planning" funding. At least that removes the impression that recipients will provide total women's health care. It also gives full advantage of increased pregnancy prevention federal funding to family planning clinics.

AB 348 eliminates the Department of Health Services' (DHS) administrative restrictions on sub-grants. Currently, only a government Health Department/Hospital receives funds but can sub-contract out the "women's health" services. For instance, a Planned Parenthood clinic operates in the Milwaukee -Mill Road public health clinic on a contract basis. This means private agencies can receive contracts in direct competition to health departments. So this bill removes a layer of government accountability for tax payer dollars.

AB 348 removes the ban on funding agencies that provide abortion services.

AB 348 provides new funding to family planning agencies for PAP tests and followup cancer screenings, but no other medical services. So it can be assumed that funding is limited to cervical cancer screenings only.

AB 348 provides new funding for private family planning agencies to hire racial minority nurses, mid-wives and physicians assistants.

AB 348 increases family planning funding each year of the next budget period.

AB 349 restores the eligibility for AB348 services from 200% of the federal poverty line to 300%. The family size for both adult male and female clients, ages 18-44, determines the income level for eligibility. Therefore, males can count all their children regardless of his custody or child support to raise his eligibility for free services.

AB 349 does not specify the family planning services a male would receive or whether those services would be limited to him or extends to his sexual partner who might not be eligible.

AB 349 eliminates the current requirement for minors' eligibility to be determined by the parents'/guardians's income and for parents/guardians to be notified of a minor's treatment.

AB 349 strips DHS of policy development restricting it to only the requirements in this law. DHS also must implement every waiver granted by the federal government. In other words, our state law gives federal law precedence stripping Wisconsin citizens of the right to in-state spending of their tax dollars.

Did these 31 legislators understand the bill their names are on?

Strong Communities...Healthy Kids Act

2011-11-03T12:49:00.003-05:00

WOW! This is a bill so balanced that opponents have to lie about its content to spur discontent.

This bill returns Human Growth and Development curriculum decisions to local school districts rather than in Madison. It will modify the 2009 Healthy Youth Act. It changes mandated topics to recommended topics. It expects school educational programs to be taught by educators. It requires the state to apply for all funding applicable to recommended topics so that school districts can pay for their chosen curriculums.

This bill does not mandate abstinence education. It does not make Comprehensive Sex Education illegal. It allows communities to determine what is best with the direct input from their citizens. It recognizes that parents have the greatest influence on their children, as is consistently reported in teen surveys. It "levels the playing field" by placing responsibility for children on local adults.

Research studies are read by both sides of the sex education issue. Two recent studies indicate more than 70% of teens and adults think teens should wait until marriage to have sex (US Dept. of Health & Human Services) and a whopping 98% of adults believe parents should be their children's sex educators (Journal of Adolescent Health, 1/2011). Abstinence proponents are willing to trust the opinions and intentions of average citizens. Our opponents continue to strip control from them.

New Website

2011-04-28T11:57:00.002-05:00

FINALLY...our website is under construction and will actually have links that work. Look for it in early May

Anti-Smoking Campaign Applied to Sexual Behavior

2010-11-11T11:05:00.004-06:00

As an ex-smoker, I have marveled at the anti-smoking campaign and its effectiveness on children. My children forced me to quit smoking because they had heard the message loud and clear in school and used their collective power to save their mother. The government then took the measures needed to protect the general public from a critical health hazard. A smoker can still choose to smoke just not where his/her smoking presents a health hazard to the public.

I now work with children in inner city middle schools and wish with every fiber in me that the same behavior change strategies were applied to sexual behavior in no uncertain terms. Black Americans now account for 50% of new HIV cases, 50% of those living with HIV/AIDS and 50% of those who die from AIDS-related deaths. This city, Milwaukee, ranks first for gonorrhea and Chlamydia and 1 in 5 new cases of HIV are among teens and young adults.

This is a tragedy produced by our health policy. Sexual behavior has been given a public health pass just to protect the unsupportable viewpoint that sexual activity is a right without any boundaries. Our children are being swept up in sexual manipulation that puts them at the top of the tragic health outcomes list. A condom cannot stop this tragedy any more than a cigarette filter could stop lung cancer.

Please require health agencies to concentrate on health in developing strategies. To succeed, changing habits and behavior must be at the core of policies. Copy the anti-smoking campaign and require the condom makers to fund it.

Go Cedarburg!

2010-10-26T09:58:00.002-05:00

476 Wisconsin School Districts have spent the last 6 months trying to comply with the state's Healthy Youth Act. The law mandates topics to be included IF the district plans to offer Human Growth and Development. All are related to sex education with only an "age appropriate" nod to growth and development.

The law passed because it did protect local school district control and parents rights (opt-out clause). Willing to accept their victory, the bill's proponents are now getting a lesson in what "local control" means. They either didn't do their homework or believed their interpreatation of the law, the "intent", was more legal than the actual words.

On the one hand, local control means that the state does not have to provide guidance, training, legal advice, funding, define terms, evaluate programs, determine medical accuracy or create curriculums. Yes, the state does have to pursue federal teen pregnancy prevention funding, which is for comprehensive sex education, but historically, school districts have not benefitted from the largesse. Only Milwaukee has ever applied for these competitive funds irun through state coffers in the past. The law acknowledges this by allowing school districts to invite volunteers to teach their courses. So it is the agencies of the volunteers that traditionally have received the federal funds via the state--but now those volunteers have to instruct in all the mandated topics. A brilliant way to keep the riff-raff, like a crisis pregnancy center out, and Planned Parenthood in.

On the other hand, school districts have not been officially notified about how "local control" empowers them...unless they specifically asked for guidance. In a series of emails, obtained through an Open Records request, the spokesperson for the Department of Public Instruction informed inquirers that the local district decides age appropriateness, scope and sequence, emphasis given to mandated topics, legal interpretations, etc. In other words, the ball is in their court.

Wisconsin school districts have been embroiled in this local process --a true act of democracy in action. What is amazing is the creative approaches being pursued to make the course what the local constituency wants. Cedarburg, a suburb of Milwaukee, reached the law's deadline with a new curriculum that the board was not comfortable enacting. It sent its advisory committee back to the drawing board. It notified parents, on the premise of increasing family communication , a requirement of the bill, that students would be opted-in to the "sensitive topics" classes.

Imagine, the problems resolved with this approach. Parents understand what the sensitive topics are, the district would be more inclined to explain what this instruction will be, the parents and kids talk about their values regarding these topics and decide whether their kids need someone else's take on them. In the ideal world, this approach would mean that parents would convey their values, and because teens admit their parents are their greatest influence on sexual topics, a win-win situation results. It could also liberate a district from the 3-year cycle of opposition to its curriculum while giving an impetus to providing excellence in the teaching of the course. Why opt-in to mediocracy?

Even though Cedarburg would still teach comprehensive sex education, I applaud their attention to the well-researched stance that parent involvement in sex education is critical to outcomes. It seems now that the bill supporters do not. Cedarburg has been threatened with a legal challenge--enter ACLU? I'm not a lawyer but I think school districts have the law's interpretation on their side as does, in writing, the spokesperson for the Department of Public Instruction.

Ah, Politics!

2010-03-25T16:01:00.003-05:00

Two surprises in one day! Reinstatement of Title V state block grant abstinence funding was passed within the Health Care Bill and a County District Attorney in WI is cautioning that our new Healthy Youth Act may place school personnel in the lawsuit firing line.

ACLU and Abstinence

2010-01-07T09:39:00.002-06:00

I am pro-abstinence for young people for the basic reason that sex is really messing up people's lives and needs to be returned to a place of respect in social thought. But I am an American and I am furious that the ACLU is following these Healthy Youth Acts around the country and threatening lawsuits if school districts do not follow the law "exactly".
Schools in Sonoma County, CA are the latest to be faced with ACLU threats. It sounds like the schools have offered what the law requires but the schools also kept in place a peer-education program called Free to Be, which is kids telling kids that abstinence is a liberating experience that has many benefits. The schools, parents and students must like the program--invitations have been extended for 18 years. That doesn't matter at all--ACLU says its illegal and has to go.
One wonders if the ACLU is bothering to investigate whether all those programs which it does not threaten are evidence-based and effective according to the legal standards. My guess is those standards only apply to any approach that emphasizes abstinence. Who gave folks with a political agenda the right to dictate what is taught in schools anyway? Americans need to take back their schools. There is plenty of evidence that they and our children are going to hell in a handbasket!

MPS and Condoms

2009-12-09T14:19:00.002-06:00

They did it and there really was little doubt. When one "director" declared something like "I can't let one child die of AIDS, I support condoms" before the public had a chance to speak, an hour and 45 minutes was filled with meaningless chitchat. The 5-0 vote totally expected.

Has anyone out there not heard the assertion "abstinence education doesn't work"? If so, call home, your Mom wants to know you're alive! That is one of the biggest lies that was repeated often enough to become "truth". The blogs today are filled with the next biggest lie--that Milwaukee schools and the entire state taught abstinence-only education and now look at the mess we're in.

Fact is comprehensive sex education has been the law in this state for 25 years. There was a little blip in 2005 when the legislature timidly added that abstinence from sexual behavior was the preferred behavior for public school students because it was the most effective way to avoid pregnancy and disease. That is, at best, an objective and the reason for it. That is not abstinence education. But that little blip will be erased by the Healthy Youth Act along with measures to ensure a quick demise of abstinence agencies and the ability of anyone to question the veracity or intent of sex information taught in schools.

The State Health Plan, Healthy Wisconsin 2010, set goals of 30% sexually active students in WI and STI infection rates that seemed reachable by 2010. But reality is far different! Wake up Wisconsin! You had an education policy and a health plan that have been total failures.

There is so much research that condoms are little more than a last resort for the sexually active--limited effectiveness, user errors, and inconsistent use are readily apparent in lots of studies. Only teen sexual activity and its outcomes are considerations--both keep increasing. The latter will never decrease unless the former does.

Healthy Youth Act - Medical accuracy

2009-10-10T17:11:00.003-05:00

Is comprehensive sex ed "medically accurate"? Not as far as I have found. The biggest inaccuracy is statements that pregnancy can occur with every act of sexual intercourse. It cannot. But when I have questioned that, the responder usually ends up inferring its a little white lie so kids think the odds are against them. I have learned to quip back---and more likely to get on birth control. Nice sales technique!

Comprehensive sex education also fails to include important information on neurochemicals such as oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine and endomorphines which are activated with sex. Oxytocin/vasopressin are the "sexual glues" meant to bond sexual partners. It is why humans are meant to remain together to parent their offspring. The neurochemicals are powerful forces at play during and after sex that cause emotional reactions if bonding is broken. Failing to recognize brain functions is ignoring that the sexual act naturally triggers commitment. Seems like a pretty significant piece of information kids might need to know to help them decide to delay sex. It is especially important if they hope to marry someday so they don't harm that bonding potential through promiscuous sex. That would seem to be important for a bill that claims its neccessary to teach 10 year olds how to manage their sexual health for a lifetime.

"Medical accuracy" is sex ed code for 'must include contraception in a positive way only'. If pregnancy prevention relies on contraception then it must be presented as the salvation for all. But it would seem to be medically sound to explain the risks, side effects and applicability of any method of birth control to any female after her gynecological exam, medical history and frank discussion of her ability to manage the regimen are considered. That is done in a doctor-patient consultation, not in generalities in a classroom. There are many factors to consider besides the effectiveness rates for each method.

Young teens are being put on the pill without a gynecological exam, without STI testing, without a medical history offered by a parent according to Planned Parenthood at a Milwaukee seminar. The emphasis is placed on pregnancy prevention so the medical side of the process is deferred...if the girl returns. I asked just last month at the Milwaukee Teen Pregnancy Prevention meeting if girls are advised to "choose" any particular birth control method. I asked because some methods are more teen "friendly", less risky, but more expensive. The Planned Parenthood rep did not know, but promised to let me know. I'm still waiting!

With the incredible rate of change and studies in contraceptive methods, I don't think any layperson should be covering prescription medicines or procedures. Doctors at least have the experience within their own practice of the success and failures of given methods and outcomes for various users. A classroom teacher offers outdated information the curriculum publisher filters, none of which includes data on complications unless it is a laundry list of possible side effects this bill demands.

All in medicine is not black and white. The medical associations mentioned in this bill differ from others representing the same specialties. The weight of evidence in one medical journal may result from refusal to print any research that is contrary to what it does print. Quality research is being done around the world, presented at esteemed conferences and printed in highly regarded journals. The three qualifiers in this bill defining medical accuracy are overly restrictive. Drop the last one thus making foreign research admissable.

Wisconsin Healthy Youth Act

2009-10-02T16:07:00.002-05:00

On the fast track, this bill, appeared for cosponsor solicitation just last week, is moving with light speed in the Assembly process, and will probably be on the Senate Education Committee agenda by Monday. Obviously, proponents think their ducks are in line. Looks like Lon Newman got his two reps on the Assembly Education Committee to co-sponsor, as did Planned Parenthood with members from Milwaukee and Madison; but only half the Democrats on the committee cosigned.
This bill doesn't have state support but it could be enacted before anyone knows what happened.

So what is the Healthy Youth Act? It is boiler-plate legislation being spread throughout the country with the only variation being the repeal of existing Wisconsin laws and statutes. It is supported by Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, SIECUS, NARAL, ACLU and probably, the three "professional medical associations" mentioned in the bill. It is same old, same old promotion of comprehensive sex education, the chosen term for contraception-based programs.

It uses falsehoods such as referring to contraceptives and barrier methods as "prevention" rather than risk reduction. It defines "age appropriate" in part as "behavior typical to that age group". Gets away with that one by by requiring that the educational methods or materials cannot "promote bias against ....sexually active pupils" So, in other words, despite all the statistics showing the continual increase in STI, teen HIV, and teen pregnancy, the sexual behavior producing those results is protected, and above criticism. As it becomes "typical" of minor children that also means it is age appropriate. This bill legitimizes what supporters have been slyly promoting for decades--sexual activity is natural and approriate for anyone at any time with anyone.

Our state laws cannot support this not can the state continue to ignore its Age of Consent Laws meant to protect children from predators, users and abusers but also from their own sexual naivete that is leading to severe lifelong consequences.

This bill also removes all local school district control as it relates to Human Growth and Development. Choice of program and state contracted program providers rests with the State Superintendent of Education who is also required to apply for the not yet approved federal pregnancy prevention funding. The school district is left with the right of refusal but no way to pay for an alternative since the bill doiesn't also require applying for a variety of funding options that might cover the school district's choice. Parents also lose their imput as curriculum review committees are kaput. The current adversarial but allowable discussion of any sex education curriculum will end. The state option is the only option as soon as this bill passes.

Also troubling is the mention of "an evidence-based program". ANY program that has passed anyone's evidence-based standard is not necessarily going to be effective in Milwaukee and Montello and Manistee because it wasn't written to meet those childrens needs in the environment in which they live. If we want to have healthy children we should at least consider the health of their community, families, schools, etc.

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun!

2009-07-01T15:14:00.003-05:00

Every adult that interacts with young girls wonders what's happening. Teen girls are angry, aggressive, sexually inappropriate, defiant, distraught....the list goes on. Anyone who minimizes this "condition" to the term "Drama Queens" is not being fair to these girls.

I believe we need to look at their lives and see this behavior as cries for help. Young black girls I have met are basically raising their siblings at home. Mother is working someplace, often not in a motherly-type career. The mother is often in her thirties and has had babies since she herself was a teen. Her daughter will probably follow suit--she might as well raise her own baby who loves her. Both mother and daughter are robbed of their childhood and will never look back on "the good old days".

In school, these teens get poor grades for not having their homework done, but no one asks why. They are suspended for arriving late or being truant but no one asks why. Home is a nightmare and school is worse. As has always been the case, the emotionally vulnerable at school are sniffed out and abused as only children can do to each other. Adults who are suppose to care, punish but don't resolve the behavior. What options do these children have? School is not a "safe" place--why go? To get ahead? Where are they going? Their moms and probably their grandmas went no place. The women closest to them are not trying to make their lives better...because they can't, don't know how...got in the downward spiral too young to know how to get out. Its not because they don't love their children; but the "help" they can get applies to only immediate needs, not a better future.

Females have found equality---YEAH! Is this what it was suppose to look like? No double standard anymore for sex----go for it! We'll treat your infections, we'll abort your babies, we'll keep you on welfare. Equal access to jobs---what jobs? You need qualifications for real jobs but you can watch children at a day care--you did raise your siblings so you are qualified. Doesn't matter what other stuff might disqualify you from being around kids, no one's checking on that. A bunch of inner city kids never mattered anyway; everything tells us that. Yeah its all free--but where's the love?

The men have been driven from the homes since the government decided it could take their place in providing for children. But women ..."hear them roar", they can conquer everything. Who needs love, caring concern, support of husbands by their sides. Who needs them! Women are the backbone of urban society now.

If I was a young girl again I'd have lots to get me angry, hopeless, aggressive. Society dumped a huge mess in girls' laps. Those representatives in the Women's Caucus in Washington are so busy making sure women have the power, they forget to look behind them and see the powerlessness in their wake. Maybe they could ignore it in the ghettos, but it is spreading like an infection into suburbs and rural America. All those advantages women have; if a girl doesn't succeed its all her fault. But the road gets long and lonely going it alone. Girls feel stranded by the sheer weight of empowerment. Too many women are realizing too late that what is really important in life needs a four-lane highway with room for two traveling together in the same direction.

What are those angry girls telling us? Does anyone care? When is the real conversation going to take place? I bet the girls...and boys... would tell us plenty but then we'd have to listen.

Congrats, Milwaukee

2008-11-19T14:11:00.002-06:00

In the last year, the birth rate for girls ages 15-17 dropped from 55.43 births per thousand to 50.03. I applaud all those who combined their efforts to make this happen. I am glad that they attributed part of the reason to delaying sex which I think girls are discovering gives them much happier lives regardless of pregnancy avoidance.

I just wish the pregnancy rate was reported to see if it dropped that much. Generally in this age group, pregnant teens abort the baby whereas the older teen or young woman will keep the baby. It's one reason for the discrepancy in birth rates among age groups; the downturn in under-17 yr old births is countered by an upswing in 18-21 yr.old births. So the pregnancy rate could be about 12-15 points higher if the trends of the past hold.

I hope success with this one aspect of teen sexual behavior will motivate prevention efforts to turn their attention to the young girls themselves. Just as the public outcry forced United Way to recognize the sexual use and abuse of young girls as part of the teen pregnancy problem, I hope the rumblings I hear about the extreme anger and sexual acting out of girls will be addressed so that we can meet their emotional needs making them whole and happy again.

"We Are Family"

2008-11-19T12:44:00.002-06:00

Milwaukee Public School's new Human Growth and Development curriculum for Grades K-5 is an eye-opener. I had never seen "family" defined as "two or more people who care for each other", especially to five year olds. These kindergarteners then get to describe their family--how many grandparents, how many aunts and uncles, how many brothers and sisters, how many cousin. Missing was the category of "parents".

I checked online dictionaries and did find that the definition of "family" still uses terms like "one or two parents and their children", "spouse and children", "persons related closely by blood", "descendents of a common progenitor". At Dictionary.com, the 10th definition came close to the MPS definition: "two or more people who share common attitutes, interests or goals and frequently live together". The provided example of this "family" was a hippie commune in the 60s.

So why would MPS decide not to use a more conventional definition of family? I am sure there was some immediate concern for the many children who do not have traditional families, except it only seems to apply to their parentage. The teaching is definitely aimed at family diversity which lets words like marriage, parents, spouses, Mommy, Daddy fall by the wayside. So is diversity okay as long as the mom, dad and kids version is never mentioned?

So we teach 5 year olds, reinforcing the lesson each year, that "caring for each other" solely defines family. That is emphasized with a Chore Chart so the kindergartener can "care" for his family. What happened to love, family lineage, safety, stability, child-rearing, etc.?

Are the pimp and his "girls" a family? Is a cult a family? Are the people in a hospital or office a family? Is a school community a family? Is a football team a family? Perhaps the waters got muddied when the word "family" was applied to each such as the Manson Family, the Marquette High family, the Kohls Store family, the Packers Family. While its great to feel special with caring people, these aren't real families, even if at some point they are substitutes.

So what should schools reinforce--the local norm, the trendy or the traditional version of family?
In my opinion, school have a responsibility to the individual child and to society. Right now, every shred of research indicates children, adults and society benefit most from the married parent family. So what sense is it to not at least give it some mention? Maybe children might even want to consider that option for their future!

I worry when education decides to play by their own rules to change dynamics in society. But then, I'm one of those nut cases that crossed out "Guardian" in "Parent/Guardian" on forms. It wasn't disrespectful of those wonderful people who raise another person's child but in respect for the role I had in my children's lives.

Governor Palin's Daughter- Guest Post

2008-09-02T20:50:00.002-05:00

Abstinence Clearinghouse Commends Governor Palin’s Response to Daughter’s PregnancyAccording to Leslee Unruh, Founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, “The Abstinence Clearinghouse commends Governor Sarah Palin’s family for their compassionate and reasonable response toward their daughter Bristol’s pregnancy. We respect the Palin family’s privacy.”
Young people from all walks of life are daily exposed to sexual messages through billboards, magazines, music, internet, peers and condom educators in the schools. Teaching young people sexual integrity – as is done in abstinence education – how to withstand the pressures of their peers, combat the messages they receive from the media, and how to make the healthiest choices should be top priority when it comes to our youth. Unruh stated, “When it comes to educating our youth about their sexuality – condom education is failing our youth. It sexualizes youth by exposing them to sexual images thus lowering the expectations for their behavior. It puts them at risk for pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases because condoms don’t work 100% of the time. Not to mention the emotional stress and heartbreak that sex itself can cause. Youth need abstinence education, which teaches sexual integrity and offers the healthiest message – how to eliminate the risk from their lives completely. Anything less than the healthiest message should not be good enough for our country’s youth.

”Unruh continues, “Many people have given opinions on what Governor Palin should or should not do in light of her daughter’s pregnancy…there is a saying, ‘Man isn’t made in a crisis, he is revealed.’ In this case, it’s a woman. Governor Palin had a reputation for being strong before this but any mother knows that when someone targets your child, you become even stronger. Governor Palin’s response to the criticism of her daughter’s pregnancy has been respectful and compassionate toward her daughter.” Unruh concludes, “I think one thing remains clear through this all – parents should be the primary sex educators of their children and when a child makes choices other than the message they have been given by the parents, it doesn’t mean the message is a bad one. We know of thousands of young people who have waited. Wouldn’t it be nice if the media spent as much time showing the success stories of those who have waited until they are married as those who have made mistakes?”

Top Down is the Wrong Direction

2008-08-24T16:31:00.003-05:00

The problem with experts is they tend to self-isolate. Their opinion is rarely backed up with data not of their choosing. Arrogance replaces common sense. They live in the rarified air of their pedestals. If common man is suffering, it cannot be because of expert dictates but because common man didn't follow them. I understand the problem. Its pretty easy to fall victim to it. I can acknowledge the expert that has earned his status but I cannot condone his putting on blinders to maintain that status or silencing voices that challenge it.

School districts across the nation are suffering because experts are ignoring the obvious and plowing ahead. Decisions are made at the highest levels with a just a bogus appearance of collegiality. Mandates replace choice at the school level and the frontline educators gradually lose their professional status. Funding is diverted to programs without the buyin of teachers or parents. Noses get out of joint; morale affects instruction

It is hard to foster cooperation in a truly democratic fashion. It takes alot of time when deadlines always loom. Leadership is a rare gift. A "doer" isn't always a leader, a leader isn't necessarily a "doer". But a good leader is always backed up by incredible doers. If not, the leader is but a voice blowing in the wind.

When serious issues exist and children are at stake, no one can take the easy path. They are worth piles of research, every hour of debate, every consultation with every stakeholder. At the end of an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a Milwaukee Schools official , referring to revisions of the district' teen pregnancy prevention program, was quoted as saying "we worked on this for four days and that was enough". Thankfully, she added "need a lot more input from a lot more people" but if school starts in two weeks, will that happen?

Each of us needs to know our strengths and use them. But we also need to know that our weaknesses can undermine all we do. We should do less plowing ahead and far more withdrawing to do things the right way. If every effort is not made to include parents and teachers in those decisions, the final product will not work regardless of the expert viewpoint you're "selling".

Beware the new language!!!

2008-08-10T17:13:00.002-05:00

As reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this week, the public school administration has changed course for its sex education efforts. According to Judy Gerrity, "the focus for us is reducing live births to teens" as the objective of their revised program that will start in grade four.

That is not a focus to reduce teen sexual activity, the first priority of the state health plan and state law that supports teaching abstinence. That is not the same as reducing teen pregnancy that had been the rationale for the contraception/condom education that the district mandated. This new statement opens the door for the unthinkable options as policy and programs fail--the abortion pill, abortion and sterilzation. Is this the idea we want planted in the minds of girls as young as fourth grade? How do you teach children that babies are disposable yet are the hope of our future simultaneously?

It's that time again!

2008-06-27T15:47:00.002-05:00

On June 25th, one week before legislators return home and two weeks before the next vote, papers around the country were complicit in changing the balance on the Title V funding in their states. The gist of some articles was states should join the "trend" away from abstinence education or take a "more common sense approach" or don't let "far-right wing groups" impose beliefs or face "reality" of teens having sex. Wow, there's intellegensia at work! Let's all join the crowd, don't bother with facts, don't bother with kids and their futures, let's just appeal to emotions.

But if you do some investigation, the lead opponents are showing their true stripes.

Craig Covey, Midwest AIDS Prevention Program: "Abstinence-only is a flawed policy, and some people have become sick because ot it and others have died". He then reports that teens have half of the 900 new cases of HIV in Michigan each year.

They wouldn't be in that bind if they had been abstinent. Since sexually abstinent kids are generally non-intravenous drug users and infected blood transfusion extremely rare its probable all 450 kids had sex or shot up. That perfectly used condom offers only 85% risk reduction with one use with an infected partner. The risk gets greater as that sex increases, especially among teens. The Safe Sex rules didn't help those kids. The question is did they believe that they would or did they ignore the rules. That's not Abstinence Education's problem since we tell them the risk is to great to take at all.

Caroline Fredrickson, Director of ACLU's Washington Legislative offiec: "...these (abstinence)programs censor vital health care information, teach gender sterotypes, discriminate against lesbian and gay teens, and in some cases promote religion in violation of the Constitution".

Even if you believe the unproven opinion that says 10% of the population is gay, that leaves 90% that aren't. Everyone receives HIV information in school because potentially everyone could be at risk. There are plenty of support programs for GLBTQ teens. But its the other 90% that potentially have the babies too young and don't succeed at marriage and parenthood. Even if we ignore the effects on society and our national tax burden, it seems that addressing those issues with heterosexuals is essential, not discriminatory of those who have no part in the problem. But guess what, every aspect of abstinence education--building character, relationships, delaying sex, monogamy--is a valuable, healthy messages for 100% of teens.

James Waggoner, Advocates for Youth: " America’s norms around sexual behavior are deeply conflicted with shame, fear, and denial competing with openness, pleasure, and prevention. These conflicts lie at the core of many of our failed policies. "

Please understand that at the very core of our opponents arguments, rarely stated openly, is that sexual behavior deserves complete "openness" because it is a natural human activity and therefore there should be no boundaries. Furthermore, the only norm should be pleasure which is anyone's pursuit as long as they take a bit of prevention.

Cecile Richard, Planned Parenthood:"The United States is facing a teen-pregnancy health-care crisis, and the national policy of abstinence-only programs just isn't working. It is time for everyone who cares about teenagers to start focusing on the common-sense solutions that will help solve this problem."

Planned Parenthood is probably the leader in double-speak. The Guttmacher Institute, named for a former Planned Parenthood president, has reported that 68% of America's children receive comprehensive sex education while less than 25% receive abstinence education. Yet on the Planned Parenthood website, it says only 5% of kids learn about condoms and contraceptives. They imply that "the national policy" is hurting teens. I agree but when contraceptive sex education has a 12 to 1 advantage in getting federal dollars, I'd say that national policy has little to do with abstinence education.

SIECUS website: "By definition, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. These programs typically deny or ignore the very existence of LGBT individuals. By offering marriage as the only answer to risk for HIV and ignoring the fact that same-sex marriage remains illegal in most places, these programs wrongly teach that there is no way for LGBT individuals to be sexually active and remain safe. In fact, when same-sex sexual behavior is addressed, these programs often suggest that it is inherently wrong and to blame for the AIDS pandemic. "

What is this viewpoint called--"an agenda", social engineering", "political correctness", "societal change". Secular Abstinence Education never addresses LGBT issues because the concepts it teaches are universal, as pointed out above. Personally, I don't know if LGBT individuals can be sexually active and remain safe unless they are in a monogamous, committed relationship with an uninfected partner, which is abstinence. I doubt two teenagers are anything but serially monogomous, which doesn't count. But the reports I read cite higher HIV rates and soaring STI rates among gays, and that consistent and correct condom use is a rarity. In effect, GBT youth are among the most at risk because of HIV within that population. That said, is the inferrence that, because they can't marry, homosexuals can have unrestrained sex, then so should heterosexuals. Is that a new definition of equality?

By the way, the AIDS pandemic began with a nonsexual infectious incident that occured to a gay man and was passed on through his gay partners. That is a fact. It is not pointing fingers at gays; it was an accident of circumstance. However, it was predominantly gay behaviors that made that initial contagion into an epidemic and HIV prevalence that created the pandemic.

I agree with Kay Hymowiz, an author/editor, responding to the "pregnancy pact" in Massachusetts said "unless someone has figured out how to force young people to take birth-control, sex education is completely beside the point". Information doesn't equate with using it. But the tradgedy is, is that where we are headed - forcing temporary sterilization on all teens so they can have sex without the tax burden of their offspring on the rest of us?

Why Would so Much be Spent?

2008-02-18T12:20:00.002-06:00

I'm one of those people that sit up late at night reading the fine print on research and "white papers". I like to Google the names of researchers to see their credentials. I like to check out the funding sources. I do the things investigative reporters once did before there was Brittany Spears.

I just read a report put out by Legal Momentum and two Harvard University Programs. Legal Momentum is the reincarnation of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. The report charges that "abstinence-only programs harm women and girls".

First of all, I have been in this business for 1o years and no one, except those trying to deceive the public, would ever describe our programs as "abstinence only". But that's another story.

I am going to wager that this "research" never gets much media push because it is ridiculous. Harvard should be ashamed of itself to be connected to this biased harrangue.

My counter would be sexual activity is harming girls (women should know better) and boys whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Presenting the entire picture of why abstinence is the best choice for teens can never harm them. Up until the oral sex craze, girls (not women or boys) suffered the greatest consequences of sexual activity. Since STI/HIV/pregnancy rates continue to climb, that would seem to be an important piece of information for girls to protect themselves. Somehow this report twists that into "cast women as gatekeepers of aggressive male sexuality". How about letting girls watch out for their own best interests? How about teaching boys that they do need to be vigilant of their futures and respectful of girls--doing them no harm.

Probably the most interesting tidbit was to find out the funder for this project was the John Merck Fund connected to the makers of birth control, emergency contraception and HPV vaccine. A quick look at their 2006 grants and it is obvious that they are funding non-profits to push their products and are bold enough to stipulate that outright.

But the most interesting $50,000 grant was to SIECUS to work with Advocates for Youth (also received $50000 to promote comprehensive Sex education to legislators) “to adequately prepare for and counter messaging and media work of the NAEA.”

In summer 2006, the National Abstinence Education Association wasn't even a kernel of an idea from a 1 hour discussion of 20 people after a summer convention. Although a decision was made to form the NAEA in the fall of 2006, it didn't even have a website until 2007. The organization was formally introduced in March 2007. Its office is staffed by two people; one commutes from Ohio. In 2006, the NAEA was a pipsqueak without any record of success in any category. Why would a drug company's memorial fund give even $1 to fight it? Perhaps, it already knew what the NAEA later proved. When concerned Americans heard both sides of the story, and one of those sides finally spoke for itself, they might not make the same choices.

When Title V funding was extended and CBAE funding was re-authorized, it was Democrats who changed the tide. Advocates for Youth were so angry that they put a tirade on their website home page and sent Congressional Democrats chess pawns implying they were our pawns. All we had to offer was information, dynamite leadership, and Americans willing to talk to their representatives.

I guess that's just too scary!

Hats Off to Milwaukee's African-Americans

2008-02-18T11:21:00.003-06:00

"She doesn't look like me". That was a wonderful lesson in race relations! It is the way I am described by my friend and programming partner when she talks about me to others in her community. It made me laugh because other than skin color, we are very similar. We share a passion for young people and a concern for the central city that moves us to action. Angie doesn't have a hesitant bone in her body. We can be in the middle of a conversation, a name is mentioned and she is dialing the phone to chat. She is proof that passion can be more powerful than strategy.

The best thing that Angela has taught me is that there are many people in the central city who want to find their voice, want to join together to reverse the trends, will risk doing whats right for kids. Angie finds them. She's like a Pied Piper. Sponsor a 7:30 AM breakfast and 75 people show up. Offer a program training, let her recruit, and two more have to be added to handle the numbers that will endure 8 hours of training. Need something done, she finds someone to do it. Need funding fast, she has someone to call.

These are all quality people--they're loving, funny and straight-forward. No sugar-coating! No platitudes! Tell you what they think and push you to do it better by standing beside you. I feel happier just being with them.

It has been a privilege meeting each person, young and old, male and female.

Angie has taught me another , even more valuable, lesson. Some things just aren't worth a minute of your time when there are important things to do. So goodbye committees of influence that forever spin wheels and are too proud to admit they aren't making good decisions. You are going to do what you do and you can't be stopped. But you can't stop us either...I've met the good guys and I'm betting on them.

Winning the Funding and Losing the "War"

2007-09-26T10:38:00.000-05:00

The news from Washington DC about abstinence funding has been generally favorable. Yes, there are attempts to restrict abstinence education in ways that don't apply to comprehensive sex education--such as, medical accuracy and evaluation--but before final passage of the bills, equality will reign. Afterall, it makes no sense to pass a law that, by omission, allows comprehensive sex education to be medically inaccurate.

But our opponents still imagine something sinister is occurring in abstinence education and, after a summer hiatus, are now targeting the states with the largest programs that have received the greatest share of federal funds. New York' governor just announced that Title V funds will never go to abstinence education leaving 40 thriving programs without $3 million dollars in funding. The decision wasn't made after a careful review of all sex education programs; it never is. It is a response to their liberal constituency...it has nothing to do with message, citizen preferences, results or even the welfare of our children. Abstinence education does not harm children. There is absolutely no reason that children should not hear that message. But without that message, all they will hear is its their choice to have sex and when they make that free choice, keep themselves safe. What kind of person thinks that is all our children should know about sex?

Since last spring, Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin, Massachusetts and now New York have had the rug pulled out by the governors. In Illinois, someone slipped the abstinence funding out of the final budget so it was a shock that the state government overwhelming previous support was no longer there. Among those states are some of the premiere leaders in abstinence education, some of the largest curriculum providers, the longest histories in abstinence education and some of the largest populations served.

They are systematically toppling the Sequoias of the industry. They think they are winning! But in the shade of those "big guys", there are alot of saplings that wouldn't know a federal grant if it bit them. They have been in our schools, churches, youth groups for decades. They answer the calls from coast to coast of small town schools asking for "emergency" help because their teens are pregnant, their teen suicides are going up, their kids are out of control. They have to turn to us because the state "assistance" via sex education got their communities in the mess.

What will happen next? There will be mandates forcing principals and teachers to teach only the state-issued curriculum despite laws that protect local control of curriculum. The state will be controlling SEX. Already there are those who do not like the selected texts, and believing them harmful, have made that refusal. The CONTENT is the real issue that counts! When people realize that is what is really being controlled, thids little war will change.

Student of Politics

2007-08-31T12:56:00.000-05:00

For the last six months, I have been indoctrinated into the Wonderful World of Government. Why anyone would want to have this field as their life's ambition is beyond me. Not even the graft opportunities would make it worthwhile if on the shady side. For those that just want to serve their country, there just has to be easier ways.

Lesson #1--government is run by kids. Staffers are all 20-30 year olds who do all the research, write all the statements, letters, press releases, etc., determine the schedule, and advise their boss on all the meetings they've had with his/her constituents, lobbyists, etc. This is grunt work with a lot of power!

Lesson #2--legislative offices in DC are disaster zones. They are tiny, decorated in "old", overcrowded with staffers and overcome by files. Reception areas tend to be two chairs and a desk at the crossroads of chaos. The legislators office is marked by pictures and awards but generally doesn't look too much different than the rest of the suite. Only one of the 16 offices I've been in had non-white paint.

Lesson #3--Security measures make federal buildings a little scary. Soldiers with big guns are not comforting when on the Capitol steps. Senate and House office buildings restrict entry to one door with security; lines make airport waits seem minimal.

Lesson #4--The early bird gets the worm. It is virtually impossible to undo lies and change folks minds once the opposition has had their ear. Since abstinence is the new kid on the block, we are always a few steps behind.

Lesson #5-- Every single word in legislation is important. An "and", "or", "the" or "a" can make all the difference in a sentence. Laws can be far more favorable to a company, agency or industry than they are for a constiuency or the citizenry without ever mentioning any of those. It can put restrictions on some and leave others "outside the law".

Lesson #6--There are never just two sides to every story. Money can be a great divider even of those on the "same side".

Lesson #7--The little guy loses. With all the corruption, unethical behavior, influence-peddling, lobbying in Washington, it is still the citizen who gets blamed for not voting and destroying the democratic process. It really is hard to believe you have a voice!

Is It All About the Money?

2007-07-18T17:31:00.000-05:00

Abstinence leaders around the country have experienced true civics lessons in the last few months as the debate over government abstinence funding rages in Congress. We've written, called, emailed and "educated" our representatives and urged others to do so as well.

I am sure others have heard the same query I did "Is the debate only about money? Is that all that matters?" Absolutely not. The debate provided a forum for supporters and detractors of abstinence education to make their points. Most of what was in the press were the opinions of the detractors but judging from the votes in Congress this week, Congressmen and women were listening to abstinence supporters.

At the Abstinence Leadership Conference last week, time and again participants proclaimed that we taught abstinence before we had any federal money to do it and we did it as volunteers. In fact, the majority have always done it for free, using donations for programs not salaries. If need be, we'll do it that way again. Very few agencies are "making money" by promoting products and programs the rest of us purchase. So, the money has never been our motivation; the children have.

I have been to all kinds of conferences and lectures presenting a full range of viewpoints on sex education and what works. There is a radical difference in them -- the emphais they place on the well-being of our youth. The counterfeits are so easy to spot. One clue is their willingness to tell true stories about sexual experiences. The happy endings seem to come from those, both women and men, who ultimately choose abstinence.

Lakita Garth was positively giddy at the conference. See she waited for "Mr. Right". In her mid 30's, she married "Mr. Wright", who had been abstinent for 10 years prior to the wedding. This ex-beauty queen, who has inspired thousands of kids on the lecture circuit, radiated bliss in all her post-pregnancy glory as she talked about her baby, Justin, or as she refers to him "Just Right". She believed in the message and admits it was not easy to live it....but the payoff--Oooh Weee!

That's our motivation...the happy endings! The money is only a means to the end

Guest Post: Condoms

2007-05-24T08:37:00.000-05:00

COMMENTARY : SEX ROULETTE POSTED: MAY 23, 2007 [Abstinence Clearinghouse E-Mail Update 5/23/07]--Kelly Boggs, According to a report carried on the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, condoms are only 85 to 87 percent effective against HIV transmission. However, a revised estimate carried in a bulletin of the World Health Organization sets the estimate of effectiveness at 80 percent.For some, 80-plus percent effectiveness sounds good. Yet would you eat a restaurant that served food free from E. Coli bacteria only 87 percent of the time? Would you fly in an airline that advertised that 87 percent of its flights landed safely?

Thank you Project Excel

2007-05-08T18:25:00.000-05:00

I taught my first class of teens this week--kids at Project Excel, a last stop for kids in the juvenile justice system, dropouts, most already parents. They seemed to be there "earning points" and visibly let you know that wasn't a great reason to get up in the morning. Although I greeted each at the door, few acknowledged me. The chair worth fighting for was in the back corner of the room as far from me as they could get. This was going to be an hour of muddling through IF I was lucky.

I know I told them things they had never heard before--information about the teen brain, how their body was made to respond to sex, how promiscuity messes up their bodies'/minds' ability to bond, sends them into a kind of sexual depression that has to get fed with a natural, or synthetic, mood leveler. From their "body language", I wasn't expecting the questions, the good comments, the unexpected decisions they would make if "in charge" of some of our sexual epidemics. I wasn't expecting much and I got far more than expected. A girl who had stared into space for the entire class was the one who came up afterwards and asked for more information, offering to distribute it to the others. A young man said he just couldn't give up sex but was willing to listen again to the explanation that he actually craves friendship and relationship, a bonding of two whole persons, rather than sex. He seemed to understand that. I drilled and drilled on the necessity of being tested for STI and HIV if they were sexually active--that seemed to be a new concept! What they didn't want to do was hurt someone by having sex with them--it was a recognition that the sexual act was suppose to have meaning.

I find I am yearning to return, to see if we can move into real discussions, to try some of the teaching methods I didn't have time to use and probably wouldn't work on the first day. If I misinterpreted what actually happened, I would have to believe they are also beyond change for any of their behavior. I can't do that because I believe adults got them to the point where they are at. As I told them "Our lives are shaped by those that love us and those that do not." (John Powell, SJ). They have a lot to overcome, but they can do it, if they can put legitimate anger about their lot in life aside and take control. They just need so much help and prayers.

The end of Title V funding in Wisconsin

2007-04-25T13:47:00.000-05:00

A governor turns down federal dollars legitimately owed to the state, dollars our taxpayers paid into, and there is barely a ripple in the press. Why? The governor signs into law that abstinence is the expected behavior for school age children and then effectively prevents a real abstience program from being taught. Why?
To put it bluntly, all the lies worked. Once someone like Lon Neuman of the Reproductive Health organization put pure crap out in the public arena, it is someone else's problem to tell the truth. This organization sent out several press releases about this issue; to my knowledge, none were used in a story. We sent a letter to the governor and even made a courtesy call to tell his staff writer that the information in his response was completely wrong and we, and his "policy makers", had a federal memo to prove it. We met with legislators and state staffers. When all the bad press flowed over official state listservs and I tried to encourage my peers to read the full research, not just a NARAL or SIECUS or ACLU summaries, my posting privileges were withdrawn. The brick wall we were bashing our heads against just kept getting thicker.
Hey, I'm a migraine survivor, headaches are nothing---I can keep it up...with a little help from my friends!

Family Planning Waiver

2007-04-25T13:38:00.000-05:00

Governor Doyle is supporting extension of the free reproductive health services under this federal program to boys and lowering the eligible age to 14.
A comment made at a community meeting was very apropos to this issue: how can our government have a law that states sexual activity under the age of 16 or 18, depending on the state, is illegal and then pass laws that provide free medical services to those who disobey that law. When the services include contraception, isn't that aiding and abetting?
It seems the state has another little problem--not enough of those currently eligible have signed up for the waiver so the state could lose the funding. So what does the state do

It increases the eligibility pool; add males and younger children
It passes out info cards to all teenagers to increase awareness
They solicit youth-serving organizations to be contract registration sites

Parents, do you know where your children are?

United Way Campaign Against Teen Pregnancy Revisited

2007-04-25T13:07:00.000-05:00

Although I still think the first two bait and switch ads in this campaign "If you want a good time, call..." and "Under 18 and want extra cash, call..." missed the boat, at incredible cost, I do like some of the newer efforts. One is the website, www.onemilwaukee.org, because it puts reality in our face...this is a city issue. Teens have been telling us to get real for awhile now. They don't care about stats or data, they want someone who has "been there" to tell them what having sex does to their lives.
But a major component is still missing--how does their choice to be sexually active impact the lives of others. Therefore, a teen pregnancy campaign that only focuses on how a pregnancy can alter teen lives makes the baby an impediment. That is an unacceptable message. The poor baby did nothing to wreck a teen mom's life; she made the only choices. She also chose to give her baby a tough start in life, one that can doom that child's potential before s/he learns how to spell the word. When the baby is "the Problem", its disposal is the solution to the problem. If the causal sexual activity is "the Problem", then a different approach is warranted--abstinence education with its healthy dose of other-orientation.
I also am glad to see that statuatory rape is given a nod in some ads. Hopefully, this will take us to the point where the behavior of men preying on young girls is not acceptable and we return to the mandatory reporting of these illegal offenses.

Wisconsin Senate Bill 129: Mandatory Emergency Conraception for Rape Victims

2007-04-25T13:06:00.000-05:00

Position Paper for SB 129

This organization deplores the violence of rape and its multiple effects on the victims. Although rape by an unknown perpetrator is horrendous, many rapes are now occurring between known parties in the form of date rape or statutory rape. All of these rapes affect the victims emotionally and psychologically as well as physically. Therefore, to pass a bill that deals with only one possible physical outcome without consideration of the others, perhaps more damaging consequences, is an insult to victims and the medical profession. The narrow focus of this bill smacks of a political agenda that ignores whether the victim is tested for STDs, HIV or gets appropriate counseling. Instead, it chooses to specify just one medical procedure to further that agenda. The medical profession should decide medical protocol and religious hospitals should not be forced to comply with those protocols if contradictory to their dual mission.

Emergency Contraception is unneeded by a female who is at the stage of her cycle when she cannot get pregnant. However, this is a fact that this bill ignores, as do some birth control advocates. For Example, one of the comprehensive sex education curriculums recommended by the state Department of Public Instruction is Reducing the Risk. In the teacher’s manual, it specifically and repeatedly mentions that sexual intercourse results in pregnancy, which is not completely medically accurate. Dr. Douglas Kirby, in introductory comments, even states that only the mere basic information need be told to students. In a regulated cycle, pregnancy can occur only once during a span of maybe 1-5 days. So teaching a teen that every act of sexual intercourse can lead to pregnancy is false, especially if used as encouragement to put her on birth control. In the recent national BUYBC (Back up your Birth Control) campaign directed at teen girls to increase Emergency Contraception use, the emphasis was on the need for both meds rather than teaching teens that if their birth control is regulating their menstrual cycles, they should know when and if they can be impregnated.

To now require hospitals/doctors to prescribe Emergency Contraception to rape victims at their request, even if contraindicated by the facts in evidence, adds to the misinformation and is bad medical protocol.

The bill specifically legislates against the bias of a doctor or a hospital. However, the required information about Emergency Contraception could be written by the drug manufacturer or even by the reproductive health groups supporting this bill. So how do you legislate against that bias? Will the information provided mention the religious doctrines that might be in opposition to the policy so as to alert patients of those considerations? Or is religion merely a bias?

Emergency contraception is available at every pharmacy at lower cost than in hospitals. Because of that access, rape victims don’t even have to go to the hospital UNLESS they are convinced that very important testing is needed for their own health and to prosecute the offender. This bill does nothing to encourage rape victims to get treatment at hospitals. Instead it focuses on the one reason why they wouldn’t have to go to a hospital.

Whenever a bill ignores all the known ramifications of a sexual act as this bill does, it contributes to the myth that pregnancy is the worst outcome of sex. When there is a rape, today’s victim is at very high risk of STDs and HIV. Her rape is rarely an isolated act on the perpetrator’s part. The assault on any female (or male) is equally egregious whether or not the perpetrator is known. For many of our teen girls, victimized by the coercion of older men, their resultant sexual activity puts them repeatedly at risk for disease and pregnancy. Rape is often not a single violation but is “repeated” through the onset of victim promiscuity as an injured spirit reacts. Birth control nor Emergency contraception does anything for that causal pain.

Granny, what did you do?

2006-12-27T18:37:00.000-06:00

Isn't it amazing the money that Planned Parenthood gets to do "research" that manipulates people into thinking that family planning clinics are the most needed and relevant agencies on the planet? The latest piece of ridiculousness is meant to convince us that everyone does have premarital sex, even granny and gramps. What it doesn't delineate is whether this was a free choice, if this was a one time event or a pattern of behavior, or with whom, such as a hookup, a prostitute, or a fiance. But in this study, practically every American (95%) has sex before they hit their 45th birthday and a marriage usually gets thrown in there someplace.

Granny and Gramps were most definitely affected by their generation's sexual revolution, just as they were the Vietnam War, the Civil and Women's Rights Movement, "Flower Power", folk songs in coffee houses, and the assasinations of the sixties. They were also the first generation with a birth control drug.

There is little doubt that those in their early 60's or late 50's currently had a sexual choice their parents would have never considered. But their decision to have sex was rarely made as a teenager because the social cost would have been too great. As years passed, more of them bought into the free love mantra; you no longer lost friends, family, position. So what!

The real tragedy is Granny's generation, while outwardly doing "the right stuff"--attending Church, participating in the PTA, cheering their kids' sports, carpooling--gave up their moral core. To the point, Bishop Fulton Sheen once said "If you don't behave as you believe, you will end up believing as you behave." Because they had few consequences to shake their new "moral
beliefs", they raised their children with little mention of sexual morality. They provided no rudder whereas their parents had at least used fear. It is their children now suffering the full brunt of a sexual revolution their parents did nothing to stop.

The 50 and 60 year olds can't imagine why their children's marriages last less than a year when they cohabitated for years prior to the wedding. They don't even read all the articles about STDs because that couldn't happen to their children. AIDS is a problem in Africa; America will never be threatened...except for those immoral "gay people". They bemoan why kids today only have 1-2 kids not realizing many are lucky to have even that many due to the damage they've done to their reproductive systems through sex with multiple partners.

Granny, what did you do? You created a mess. Wake up and smell the Starbucks! By following in your footsteps, your grandchildren will not survive unless doctors find an AIDS vaccine. But that might save their lives, it won't give them happiness. Look at what they're doing to themselves--cutting, eating disorders, drugs, depression, suicide, shootings--they're not happy now! Three times as many of them are having sex as teens than your generation did. They can't handle it--their bodies, brains and hearts aren't made to handle it.

So if you want to let people use this survey to push more sexual crap on your kids and grandkids, start chopping off the branches on your family tree. This "protection" mantra is saving no one. How blind can you be?

Is He Nuts?

2006-12-22T09:29:00.000-06:00

The Bush administration has appointed Dr. Eric Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, as the new Chief of Family Planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. That means, this former medical director for a large non-profit that supports abstinence, adoption, and compassionate support for pregnant women and girls in crisis will administer the $283 million in family-planning grants that have gone to contraception clinics serving low-income people.

Family planning advocates are screaming "foul" as they themselves are already trying to eliminate federal abstinence, marriage initiative and faith-based funding.

Is President Bush "dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities" as the president of Planned Parenthood charges? Is he "not going to compromise on his principles" as a White House spokesperson claims? Or is he "sly as a fox" making a simple move that will force an indepth look at a 36 year family planning program that has enjoyed limited oversight?

I think the administration is determined to force discussion, debate and study to resolve trends that are detrimental to our country. Bush is remaining consistent with his clearly promoted stance on teen sexual activity, marriage and family, and HIV/AIDS.

I can only hope that Dr. Keroack is up to the challenge of acting under a microscope in a hostile environment. His past co-workers hint that birth control is not an issue for him; the issue might be using it for enabling unwed sex instead of planning a family. One man is not going to derail funding but this program needs to meet the same standards as abstinence funding to level the "playing field" and determine the true strengths and weaknesses of each.

Talking together shouldn't be a bad thing even if someone has to force it to happen. Hopefully, Dr. Keroack can articulate that doubling his department's funding, as advocated by family planning advocates, is an extremely expensive way to stop pregnancies if women continue the sex that got them pregnant in the first place--1/3 of fertile, sexually active women get pregnant--the ratio stays the same whether they are contracepting or not. Hormonal contraceptives are still connected to female cancers so wary women are looking for alternatives. The government should as well.

Condomism

2006-12-22T08:53:00.000-06:00

Jennifer Roback Morse, author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World, succinctly puts the ideology surrounding advocacy of contraception for everything including ending world hunger and saving the environment. She calls these the 4 tenets of "condomism":

1. Every person capable of giving consent is entitled to unlimited sexual activity. That is, if they want it, they can have it; end of discussion.

2. All negative consequences of sexual activity can be controlled by contraceptives and condoms.

3. No one has to give birth to a baby. Abortion is an absolute entitlement--no reason needed, a simple procedure available any time at all.

4. If a condom or a contraceptive can't prevent it, its not worth talking about. It is a non-issue; doesn't happen. Therefore, there isn't personal or societal fallout from unwed sexual behavior, except for babies.

There is so much evidence to the contrary and yet condomists ignore it while spewing more and more ridiculous commentary. The supreme idiocy is that people that should know better are buying it!

UNPROTECTED

2006-12-22T08:45:00.000-06:00

This is a must read! Dr. Miriam Grossman, MD, UCLA Counseling Center, is the "Anonymous" author of Unprotected. She feared professional reprisals for her frank portrayal of her professional colleagues advancing a radical social agenda at the expense of the health and well-being of college coeds. Her picture of the fallout of sexual activity on campus is chilling.

The book is small and cheap--give it to a college student you care about and her parents. Dr. Grossman hopes this book will cause fury and debate of an issue being well hidden.

2006-11-12T16:15:00.000-06:00

Tagging Targets Teen Births: “For a good time call 263-8331”

United Way of Milwaukee will unveil its two-pronged teen pregnancy media campaign this week. Business community ads highlight the impact of teen births—lack of qualified workers and taxpayer costs. The youth message consists of signs at 20 bus shelters and on 15 city buses with the “For a good time” teaser. When the number is called, a teen voice talks about the "good times" she’s having as a teen mom backed up by a screaming baby. The only message is “think about it”.

With a one year price tag of $650,000, we’d like to know your opinion of the campaign. Visit our blog www.thekeypiece.blogspot.com and record your tasteful comments.

Expanding Abstinence Funding to include Programs for Young Adults

2006-11-01T14:15:00.000-06:00

Most abstinence educators were taken off guard by yesterday's announcement that Title V (Welfare Reform Act) abstinence funding to states will allow state's the flexibility to fund programs offered to anyone under 30. So it was amusing to hear a WI Public Radio guest charge that this was a political move by us right wingers just prior to elections. First, Abstinence "advocates" don't have the political capability of our opposition and secondly, I'm not sure how they think we could make "political hay" out of this move. Whose vote are we going to swing?

From the practical standpoint, we don't have a lot of "curriculums" sitting around for 20-somethings. Some of us view this as a dilution of the precious abstinence dollars available. However, none of us would argue with the appropriateness. Why?

Post-teens now have experience with the effects of sexual activity on their generation. Experience allows them to logically process the information presented to them. Because their brains are closer to maturity, they are capable of insight, critical thinking, and thoughtful decision-making.
Many of them got their sex education as 14-15 year olds when, for the the vast majority of them, it didn't apply to their lives. They ignored, forgot or slept through the information.
Education of this type can't be a one shot deal--living an abstinent lifestyle needs reinforcement as our framework of relationships change.
Medical Information on STDs changes on almost a daily basis. Many women in their late 20s have cervical cancer from HPV which, unless their teacher had been recently trained, wasn't even mentioned when they were high school Freshmen.

BRAVO ABC for Special

2006-08-25T08:43:00.000-05:00

ABC offered a powerful piece of journalism last night--"Out of Control: AIDS in America". With incredible restraint by ABC, the common people were allowed to speak their minds. The old rhetoric and headline-grabbing people and events were exposed with a subtlety that was disarming. The late Peter Jennings threw in a zinger while talking with men with AIDS that exposed their self-centered sexual behavior. Terry Moran sealed his position as the rising star of TV journalism.

This piece should be required viewing in every school in America. If this isn't the hot topic "at the water cooler" this morning, there is something wrong with us. There should be a whole bunch of people feeling alot of guilt this morning over what they have said, how they have acted, how they have misled. Thankfully, not a single abstinence advocate will be among them.

FDA and Plan B.

2006-08-15T14:38:00.000-05:00

Email sent to FDA RE: Plan B---
I volunteer fulltime to convince adults and youth that sexual activity for the unmarried creates a medical catastrophe of STIs, unwed pregnancy, sexual coercion and abuse, and depression. It has also severely impacted families, marriages, the plight of minorities and entire communities.

Plan B is medically unsound; access should be connected to a prescription following a physical exam. Getting contraception should be a public health opportunity to screen for STI and HIV. It is ludicrous for pregnancy prevention to be dealt with separately from the other health consequences that are far more dangerous than a pregnancy.

But worse, it is another indication that our society is unwilling to say that unwed sexual activity is a health and well-being detriment to self, family and community. It is part of the smokescreen that medical science can "cure" anyone no matter what idiocy was the behavioral cause, and that includes rape and incest. The FDA should not be allowing this country to avoid its problems by sticking "band-aids" on major hemorrages.

There is no evidence that this or any other contraceptive is devoid of future health consequences when taken for the decades some females are now using them. How can you approve something, which had ellicited strong medical doubts to begin with, that makes our young girls guinea pigs for profit. These young girls aren't demanding this, only those with an agenda that scares the heck out of me!

Planned Parenthood, What next?

2006-07-29T16:46:00.000-05:00

There was a little tidbit in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday about a daylong event called an African-American Day of Action "organized by Planned Parenthood" which would take place on Saturday 7/29 at the Urban Underground. The purpose was to teach skills to begin their pre-election campaign. The skills were "how to operate a phone bank and how to collect signatures for a petition" so it sounds like this is political advocacy.

First, I believe the law states that any organization that accepts federal funding, and Planned Parenthood receives millions, cannot devote more than a minimal percentage of their activities to political advocacy. Now I already know that Planned Parenthood in WI has a political action arm with a membership and a link to its website on the PPWI.org site. I already know that they distribute position papers to "educate" legislators on the bills before them as well as testify at all hearings en masse. I also know they have fancy mailings to districts where they want a candidate defeated, the "Shame on You" series. They also have Emails and newsletters to further their views. Maybe they have diversified their services so much (they do seem to be involved in everything), all that advocacy comes within the federal law parameters.

Although the focus of their campaign is protection of women's reproductive rights, this will impact the education of children. They are recruiting and training people in the black community to advocate for the agenda they promote and financially benefit from. Planned Parenthood staff actually teach condom/contraception education in the Milwaukee Public schools, receiving government funding to do so. The public schools teach abstinence education only through voluntary programs such as Best Men and Best Friends which are offered at a few sites. There are some additional after-school programs in school space but they are not offered by MPS. So lets not get the idea that some great change has occurred; all MPS students receive condom and contraception sex ed.

As of July 1st, the law changed in WI and now the expected behavior objective of sex education is abstinence for unmarried school pupils stressing the fact that abstinence is 100% effective in the prevention of STD and pregnancy. This is the only change in the status quo of sex education. So what is all the hubbub about? Comprehensive education wasn't outlawed; abstinence education didn't become the law of the state. Can thinking adults possibly be arguing that, even though teens are the most vulnerable to the consequences of sex, they should not be encouraged to wait? Unfortunately, as was noted in an earlier blog, lots of people of influence do take exception to anyone being encouraged not to have sex no matter how dire the reasons.

So is Planned Parenthood training advocates just so their contract with MPS is secure? Believe me, I have seen nothing in practice before or after this law that would indicate a change of heart in DPI, MPS or DHFS (where the State Abstinence Consultant is employed). Yes, DPI is writing a new framework for abstinence instruction. But Planned Parenthood, as the guardian of free choice, should have no problems with what I have previewed--it is primarily role plays for getting out of sexual situations. Learning refusal skills is just protection of free choice; its not abstinence education. However, since it isn't, the state cannot use federal abstinence dollars for that curriculum. Aha! So now those state employees need a funding source to create, train teachers in, distribute and evaluate the curriculum they want to develop. That would be a different grant than the funds currently used by Planned Parenthood. So it is all about money and salaries!!!!

Planned Parenthood is probably spearheading an assault because its proposed Responsible Sex Education Act failed. That would explain Rep. Tamara Grigsby's key role in the event--it was her bill. I just can't understand how they can take the same vulnerable minorities that have suffered the most from sexual behavior gone awry...the same people who "benefit" from free condom and contraception accessibility through multiple Planned Parenthood clinics in their neighborhoods, and USE them yet again to further their agenda. If they are so sure what they are doing is best for kids then try convincing those adults picking up the pieces of broken lives to be their advocates. There are many leaders in those neighborhoods that feel Planned Parenthood has done far more harm than good in their community.

Response to Dear Abby Column

2006-07-29T16:08:00.000-05:00

Dear Abby:

I read the letter from “Wiser Now in the USA”, (7/19/06) which I thought was a very telling letter. I was disappointed that you chose to take the tact you did in your response.

Here was a young woman who had a baby at fourteen, in all probability impregnated by someone older, a statutory rapist. She continued the sexual pattern which she had been led into as a child, not surprisingly also repeating the pregnancies and enduring the “heart-wrenching” experience of adoption (but bettering the life of that child). After her first birth, she would have received full information on contraception from her doctor. Whether she chose not to use the prescription or, as is just as likely, as a teenager, she misused the regimen, other pregnancies were inevitable. But even if she knew nothing of contraception, her male sexual partners took no responsibility since they weren’t interested in protecting her, preventing a pregnancy, making a commitment or assuming fatherhood. This little girl was abused and used by men, and abandoned by adults who think her life is rosy if she just doesn’t get pregnant.

Thankfully, she now has “a chance” for an education and to provide for her children. I hope she is one of the success stories. But life doesn’t have to be that hard. Whatever she achieves, her children still have many problems to face that money won’t solve. Her four children need two parents who are committed to outlast all difficulties, to provide for their needs, and to shepherd their young lives to better futures. Her life at twenty-two hasn’t given her the experiences to do the latter. When she pleaded with other teens “please do not be like me” and urged other teen moms to volunteer at local schools, she showed a depth of understanding you totally ignored.

If you truly believe that “what people don’t know can hurt them” and kids deserve “straight answers”, then investigate yourself what is taught in sex education, read the teachers guides, look at the videos, review your own booklet. See if your beliefs are met. All programs taught in public schools will cover contraception and STDs. The difference will come in the emphasis. You condemn abstinence education but I can assure you that those that write the secular curriculums receive extensive medical information and advice that convinces them that abstinence must be taught first and foremost. They present information on contraception using effectiveness rates for common teen usage which does not approach the 90+% rates touted in comprehensive sex education. Most adolescents wouldn’t think to ask about how research was collected, how drugs were tested, what are the long term effects, are there contradicting studies; the program must present that information so they are informed consumers. In comprehensive sex ed, the steps for correct condom use is taught just once in school, years before 80% of students are sexually active. Rarely are students also told about the downside of condom use so they can make an informed assessment of its value. There is something a tad evil in teaching 10-14 year olds that a condom will “protect” them when they will remember little else but that word. No one without excellent skill, amazing concentration, and unwavering commitment at the moment of passion has “protection” with a condom. Without all three, a condom is just a piece of latex that makes us think we are “responsible”. The real truth is that sexually active teens have an abysmal chance to avoid STDs and will avoid pregnancy only with temporary sterilization options such as implants lasting 3-5 years. The younger they initiate sex, the greater the probability of life-altering outcomes.

Even if there were no pregnancies and no diseases, there are other reasons to be abstinent, especially as teens. All research supports optimal life sequencing; individuals, families, ethnic groups and society are better off if teens are encouraged to finish their education, secure a good job, get married and then start a family. There is nothing wrong with that pattern as an educational objective even if the individual later chooses not to marry or parent. But without the pattern, life becomes much harder, often relegating people to circumstances from which there is no escape.

Also before touting foreign pregnancy rates, check out the alarming STD epidemics in those countries. Don’t compare statistics with the USA because their reporting procedures and systems do not equal ours or each others; just look at the dramatic increases. “Enlightened” European views of sex have severely damaged marriage and family, are decreasing their native population to the point of societal crisis, and potentially increasing disease-induced sterility and death. Wow, let’s be just like them!

I agree that sex education should not be left up to the schools. Teaching kids that it’s okay for them to have sex (it’s just a choice), and implying that it can be safe or almost risk-free is wrong. Comprehensive sex now adds abstinence as just another contraception method, clueless to the benefits and responsibilities of an abstinent lifestyle. If it had been left in parents hands, maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now. “Ignorance was bliss” wasn’t too bad compared to “too little, too late”.

THE Jacksonville Incident

2006-07-09T18:37:00.000-05:00

Having just returned from the Medical Institute Conference, I heard from the "horse's mouth" exactly what happened at the National STD Conference in Jacksonville last month. For the uninformed, there was a panel scheduled at this government health conference to discuss how abstinence education was a threat to public health. The scope of the panel was changed when a few legislators objected to the topic terminology when it is medically accurate and acknowledged that abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy, STDs and AIDS. The controversy was resolved by having a balanced panel discuss the pros and cons of abstinence education.

Dr. Patricia Sulak, OB/GYN and a contraceptive researcher, was asked to join the panel as an abstinence advocate. She is a convert to abstinence as an educational objective but believes sexually active teens must also know all the information necessary for their health decisions. I saw the power point presentation Dr. Sulak presented for which she was met with boos and heckling. The presentation encouraged the elimination of sex ed labels and to form an educational message/objective based on a set of medical facts. These medical facts are statements such as: "Adolescent sex and multiple partners are well documented health risk behaviors" and "Initiation of sexual activity is a critical health decision with possible long-term consequences if initiated during adolescence." Easch of those facts were backed up with research and statistics. Frustrated with the heckling, Dr. Sulak asked the audience if they could at least agree that, based on medical research, teens shouldn't have sex. That met with a resounding chorus of no-s.

Now, this was a medical conference attracting doctors, researchers, public health employees and STD specialists. Yet these professionals want to ignore the medical evidence to protect a social agenda that considers anyone has the right to have sex and make that decision without guidance or influence even if it is medically important. This is ignoring facts to advance an ideology. It was the first time Dr. Sulak had experienced this public expression that is contrary to the well-being of children. As she said, she usually speaks to friendly, or at least open-minded, audiences. But many assured her that we have been encountering this more often lately and it needs to be exposed. As I have stated in previous blogs, "position papers" in pediatric and adolescent health journals have advanced a social agenda without reference to medical considerations.

New research: Condoms "protect" against HPV

2006-06-28T19:09:00.000-05:00

Thank goodness this little bitty study came along to refute the yearlong review of 100+ existing studies about condom effectiveness published by the National Institute of Health in 2001. Although many tried to bury that NIH report, the Center for Disease Control confirmed the findings two years later and the results were finally published in the mainstream media. A lot of people got a lot of nasty diseases in that 3-year time span just so the nation's top medical watchdogs were really, really sure the "bad news" about condoms was reliable. In those reports, condoms had zero protective value for HPV. But heck, new studies can always trump previous studies, making them newsworthy no matter how inane they are.

So the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel gave this new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine page three prominence. It was a three year study of 83 college girls who were virgins at the start of the study. So how did the researchers convince these girls to have sex for the first time in their lives? Since 1/2 the sexually active population is infected with HPV and there is no way to test boys for the infection, how did they handle that little issue? --the girls had to get HPV for the purpose of the study and to assure exposure, the girls would have to have multiple sex partners. If the objective was to study condom effectiveness, did they ignore the published risk they were placing these girls in? Did they thoroughly educate these human guinea pigs about condoms and the STDs beforehand or just ask them to sign a waiver? Since HPV takes up to nine months after infection to show up in tests, did they isolate the girls and guys after each sex act to control the research factors and prevent the spread of the virus? Did they rely on self-reporting of consistent and correct condom use or just videotape each sexual encounter? How do they know the stats weren't skewed by lack of an HPV infection in either partner rather than condom use? Or the infection was only present in those that used condoms rather than in those that did not? Since 90% of HPV infections clear after an average of 8 months (Range:3-15 months), how do they know they caught all the infections during the study? For the 10% of infections that persist which would be the high risk types, the study wasn't long enough to even determine those infection rates. So those girls could have cancer-causing infections that they might not even followup on thinking they had solid medical opinion. Finally, if this was such a heralded study, why wasn't it presented at the National STD Conference sponsored by the CDC in Jacksonville in late spring rather than just published in a journal?

I'm not a scientist and maybe there are good answers for some of my questions but this sounds like an unethical, inept attempt to contradict a much greater body of evidence while putting some college kids in harm's way. Did the study mention what other STDs they got as well?

The Personal AIDS Story Column

2006-05-26T20:26:00.000-05:00

Earlier this week there was a column in the Milwaukee paper by a gay reporter with AIDS. He had covered the AIDS pandemic for most of his professional career. As with many who get a bad diagnosis, he sunk into denial that he had HIV/AIDS. It just couldn't happen to him. But, he obviously had put himself at risk. He had multiple partners and was with a new one, he might even love. Even with condoms, which he never claimed to use, his risk was still high for infection with a deadly disease. He made choices that aren't turning out too well.

The problem is our STD/HIV prevention strategy relies on information to keep people safe from risk behaviors. It is assumed that if we just give people the facts they will make informed decisions. This was a man who should have had all the facts since it was his job to convey them. Yet, this professional journalist didn't use the knowledge to avoid the disease even though he was a member of the highest risk group. So how do we expect teenagers to make decisions based on information when their brains aren't even mature enough to analyze the information?

We have a health policy based on risk reduction, not disease prevention. A condom is touted as the panecea for STD/HIV. The danger is in biased information; facts about condom effectiveness and real life usage are skipped to "manipulate" people to use condoms.

AIDS is still a killer in most of the world. 85% condom effectiveness rate isn't much of a safety net for anyone who has multiple partners or just one infected partner. Choose the wrong sexual behavior and you will pay. That is the truth. I have a feeling that was a piece of information that reporter never mentioned. You protect what is important to you--for many people, it's the sex; not how many people get the diseases. Millions of lives just aren't enough to sacrifice, I guess, for the sexual thrill.

Thank You, Senator Lazich, Rep. Gundrum, etc

2006-05-24T08:37:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Governor Doyle signed into law (Act 445) a bill that sets an objective for sex ed in Human Growth and Development classes if a school district chooses to teach the subject. Sen. Mary Lazich had the fortitude to keep this bill on course despite heavy criticism. An Op Ed piece in the Milwaukee Journal even pointed out that only in Madison would such a benign bill cause so much controversy.

Specifics in the bill are:

"Abstinence from sexual activity must be presented as the preferred choice of behavior in relationship to all sexual activity for unmarried pupils"
Emphasis must be given that "abstinence from sexual activity before marriage is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and AIDS"

This bill does not mean that abstinence is the only approach that can be taught but it clearly delineates that emphasis must be placed on abstinence. We now have a tool to use to influence those in state governmental departments who are only just beginning to give the abstinence message more than a passing nod. The next task is to help them understand that abstinence is not "just say No" as they continue to assume. Abstinence is a lifestyle that requires saying "Yes" to one's future, and adults need to guide students towards happy, healthy choices that improve their lives, their families, and communities.

But the mere fact that a value and parameter has been put on sexual behavior is a victory for our youth. This is a huge change from the idea that values can only come from the home and each person self-defines those, as was argued by Planned Parenthood representatives at the Senate hearing.

Washington Post Series on Teen Sex

2006-05-16T11:09:00.000-05:00

Circulated by listserv to all health, education and government agencies involved in sex education, pregnancy and disease prevention, the Washington Post series is more than alarming. The premise is that the United States is creating its teen pregnancy and STD rates because it does not value sexual activity as acceptable, normative, pleasurable behavior for adolescents. If we just accepted this enlightened perspective as the Swedes have, there could be an uncontested campaign for contraception and condoms that would cause our rates of pregnancy and infection to plummet.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) helped frame this series using data from the mid-90s from the US and Western European countries. No mention was made of the fact that statistical data has been an unreliable, disorganized hodgepodge in Europe. Meetings within the European Union have been held for several years in an attempt to standardize the continent's health reporting systems. The impression given is that kids in European nations have great sex without any worries because fewer get pregnant or have diseases than in the United States. And that happens because of the liberal distribution of free condoms and cheap contraceptives.

However, in the mid-2000's, a different story started to emerge. In April, the Netherlands announced a 22% increase in HIV diagnoses and 15% jump in Chlamydia in one year. England acknowledged an STD epidemic of "astonishing" proportions in 2002. Since the mid-90s, London is reporting 75% increase in gonnorhea and a 141% increase in chlamydia among girls 16-19. Between 1999-2003, syphillis rose by 211% with 2/3 of the infections occurring in heterosexual men.

Once again, AGI chose what to report and eliminated a few important qualifiers to their data including that it is 1/3 of sexually active U.S. girls that become pregnant, not all teen girls. What does not appear in any of the series articles is mention of the societal transformation in these countries: marriage rates are plummeting along with the birth rates, nationalities are no longer replacing their elderly populations with children, reproducing immigrant groups are straining the national finances and services and obliterating national identities, financial security is iffy, religion is on the decline. There are other impacts of teen sex than pregnancy and disease rates that could have been included.

I hope adults will read the rash of new articles and studies with a very critical eye. The question needs to be asked of teachers, health professionals and government types "Is your motivation for working with my child a belief that sex is an acceptable part of adolescent development?" The answer will let you know the influence your child will be under because if there is no context for sex for an adolescent, there can be none for anyone else either.

Thanks to Journal of Adolescent Health

2006-05-15T08:24:00.000-05:00

John Santelli and company finally put in print what is really at the core of the entire sex education debate. The gist of the argument is finally " out of the closet"!!!!! In a very anti-health position paper printed in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Dr. Santelli et.al. maintain that abstinence education is "scientifically and ethically problematic". Why? Because teaching children to abstain from sex until marriage is "inconsistent with commonly accepted notions of human rights". There it is--children cannot be taught to abstain from sex because it is their right to have sex. Damn the frivolous notions of teen pregnancy, STDs, AIDS, sexual coercion or abuse. Lets just make sure that the right to have sex is preserved without any limitation. That sure is worth the sacrifice of a few generations worldwide. I'm ready to give my children over to that lofty goal, aren't you?

Wake up America! It is scientifically and ethically okay to teach children not to use drugs, not to smoke, to eat healthy, to exercise, and to not drink or drive until a certain age but they cannot be told to protect themselves by not having sex until married despite the almost certainty that they will suffer a health consequence if they begin sexual activity as children. Where is the logic? That's right--logic comes in the form of a condom, a contraceptive or a vaccine. It surely is not the fault of any of these guardians of human rights that one in three sexually active girls gets pregnant and one in two get a disease. They taught children how to "have their cake and eat it too."--responsibility done.

The additional danger is, once we all accept the belief that sexual activity has no limits, no context, no connection with love, then the abuse that is already occuring, yet under-reported, in our communities flourishes. The issue becomes something other than the sexual behavior. Rape on campus is not a sexual assault, it is an alcoholic romp. A pregnant twelve year old just forgot her contraceptive or didn't discuss condom use with her 20-something "partner". Young newlyweds divorce in six months wondering how the sex could be so good before but the marriage be so bad.

So thanks to the Journal of Adolescent Health for showing its true colors. This is a magazine that has a very ideological bent to its medical opinions. Don't be so naive to think this is not affecting the great state of Wisconsin. The exact same argument was voiced by a Planned Parenthood representative at a public hearing last fall in testimony opposing the educational objective of abstinence as the expected behavior for school age children in the state. Although only nine state senators sided with that opinion, in the halls of the Department of Public Instruction and the Department of Health and Family Services the exact same mentality is clothed in phraseolgy of "best choice", "respect for family values", and"parent-child connectedness". In actuality, these departments are trying to make schools and reproductive healthcare non-judgmental, value-free zones. From their Madison perch, the poobahs see no connection between their policies and the destruction occuring in the lives of our young people. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric that will continue to doom the undereducated, the poor, the at-risk and the children of broken homes to severe health and well-being consequences of sexual behavior that is publicly being condoned by not condemning it.

United Way Teen pregnancy Report-"if truth be told..."

2006-04-07T13:59:00.000-05:00

Our commentary letter to report at www.unitedwaymilwaukee.org

Dear Ms. Tries:

On behalf of this coalition, I wanted to express appreciation to United Way for bringing the issues related to teen pregnancy before the community. The cited statistics clearly delineate the scope and complexity of the problems. I attended the agency listening session and was struck by the depth of the frustration expressed. Since that time, several program providers have called the office seeking a different approach. After reading #3 in the report’s Executive Summary, recognizing that “past and present collaborative efforts have failed...”, I expected a dramatic new vision, a new approach, a shakeup of business as usual. What followed was so disappointing.

The same old biased studies and research were cited. Dr. Kirby is the heralded guru of comprehensive sex education and criteria for effective programming. However, his analyses of effective programs have to be carefully read in their entirety to realize that his stats are carefully selected to imply evidence that is not there.

For instance, in his latest release, “The Impact of Sex and HIV Education Programs in Schools and Communities on Sexual Behaviors among Young Adults” (January 15, 2006), 83 program studies were reviewed. But only 13 of those even measured impact on pregnancy rates; only 3 had a positive effect and one had significant negative effects. But his summary states “Overall, these results strongly indicate that these programs were far more likely to have a positive impact on behavior than a negative one.” That is a gross misstatement when 96% lacked any evidence of impact whatsoever.

It is amazing that abstinence until marriage education is given a bad rap at the same time comprehensive sex education advocates are tweaking their programs to include more abstinence concepts. Despite claims to the contrary by state offices and documents, abstinence, as defined in Title V funding, is not a state priority. If it was, there would be:
· a committee, with abstinence educators involved, concentrating on the Healthiest Wisconsin 2010 objective to reduce adolescent sexual activity. There is none.
· assistance to and promotion of abstinence programs throughout the state by the DHFS Abstinence Consultant. She has other priorities.
· DHFS, DPI, and MPS would include abstinence in discussion, research, presentations, or training at meetings, seminars or conferences. That is not the case.
· agreement that an abstinent lifestyle must be encouraged until marriage giving sexual expression a connection to love, intimacy, commitment and family. None of those concepts are supported.
· an honest explanation of funding streams in the report. You missed the fact that the federal government supports contraceptive programs through Medicaid, TANF, Title X Family Planning, Indian Health Service funding, DASH/CDC, the Social Services Block Grant, the Community Coalition Partnership Program for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy and the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant. The current ratio for comparison is $4.50 spent on contraceptive programs for every $1 for abstinence; down from a 12:1 ratio just a few years ago. How much of any of this money actually filters down to actual programs would be worth investigation. You have been egregiously misled and the implication is that abstinence is to blame for outcome failure.
· solid medical input rather than citing the ideological treatise by the American Academy of Pediatrics which closely resembles position papers by SIECUS, NARAL, Advocates for Youth and Planned Parenthood.
· evidence in your report that research done by the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health, the Institute for Youth Development or any reputable universities and agencies that have evaluated abstinence curriculums had been read. There is none.
· indication that any actual curriculums or resources were reviewed for content.
· inclusion of evaluation of successful local abstinence programs like Best Friends, Best Men, and Rosalie Manor’s FUTTP.
· abstinence-trained representatives on the United Way teen pregnancy committee.

In January, Sarah Brown, Director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, wrote a very thoughtful “Campaign Comment” which is on their website. She urges us to “think carefully about what constitutes success”. We have to take the blinders off and help our children. They and their futures should be the only incentive in any deliberations. Local analysis must be done of underlying social agendas that might be victimizing children in the pursuit of adult rights.

The stature of United Way will give this report a credence it does not deserve. For those that believe our children deserve more from us than a pill, a patch, a shot or a condom, you have sentenced us to decision-making oblivion and fund-raising hell.

The assistance of this organization was offered before and is offered again. “If truth be told...” this important effort needs “the rest of the story”.

"I don't like sex"

2006-03-16T16:02:00.000-06:00

Again today, I was at a meeting at which teen comments taken during oral interviews were reported. One of the prevalent comments mentioned was that teen girls admit they don't like sex. As usual, that item met with no comment. I hope other adults in that room, as state leaders in the prevention of teen pregnancy, have been mulling over what the adult response to that should be. I've come up with a few translations of those 4 words--"I don't like sex":

1) Girls are sounding a "cry for help". They want to break the cycle and need help doing so.
2) Girls don't have good reasons for their sexual activity.
3) Girls don't understand that their own sexuality is more than performance of a sexual act.
4) Girls don't understand that females need relationships and love to make the physicality of sex good for them.
5) Girls are being used.
6) Girls are not in control and recognize something is amiss.

So it would seem the adult response could be:
1) Who?-- Teach girls about building relationships and identifying males that they can love and will love them.
2) What?--Teach girls about their bodies, the chemicals and hormones at work, and brains--the scientific reality of sex.
3) When?-- Teach girls why the best sex they will ever have will be with their husband.
4) How?--Teach girls to be more erotic and self-stimulating.

The fourth option is what's left if you are not motivated to help a child choose abstinence until marriage. Too many adults want to stand by and "respect" a child's "private" choices. I contend that is self-protection, not child protection. Every scrap of evidence proves that teens and young adults are mentally incapable of those choices without consistent adult support and guidance. It's not an easy task for adults to take on. But the future demands it.

The safe sex mantra is harming our kids, our families and our society. People in our inner cities are crying for an alternative approach to save their people.

Silence is not an option.

Letter to the Editor Re: Family Planning Waiver

2006-02-20T15:19:00.000-06:00

Re: Crossroads Editorial on Family Planning Waiver

All research states parents have the greatest influence on children to avoid sexual risk behaviors. Teens know it and prove it by going to doctors and clinics that let them avoid their parents’ disapproval or disappointment. Through the Family Planning Waiver, adults give teens birth control and adult taxpayers pay for it. This version of adult responsibility insures that teens will be sexually active before they are planning families. Clinic adults have eliminated parents from the best shot a child has to avoid or stop sexual behavior. The Planned Parenthood coalition has created the perfect business model--create, expand, serve and profit from your client base—and neutralized their opposition. In the process, children get the diseases, babies and heartbreak.

If children have sex once, without any aggressive adult intervention and guidance, they will continue to have sex. The younger they start, the more sex partners they have, and the greater their exposure to pregnancy, STDs and AIDS. Sex, not lack of access to contraception or condoms, causes all three. “Dual protection” is the newest promotion and, as with all the others, is a theory without proof in reality. Adults offer damage control. Teens deserve better. Parents deserve better.

(OPTIONAL FINAL PARAGRAPH- IF USED DELETE LAST SENTENCE ABOVE)

It is not the dispensing doctor and nurse who are at the girl’s bedside when she is dying of HPV-induced cervical cancer, or comforting her when diagnosed with sterility, or helping to manage her HIV meds, or losing their golden years raising her children. The parents will be there to pick up the pieces of what other adults denied them the opportunity to prevent or even monitor. Parents deserve better.

WAC position paper on Family Planning Waiver

2006-02-20T15:12:00.000-06:00

This organization never has and never will oppose access to health services for anyone. However, we do oppose the way female reproductive health care is currently being delivered, especially to low income women and teens. We ask legislators to look beyond the rhetoric, the tax savings, and the examples of worse-case scenarios to take this opportunity to really analyze the impact of the Family Planning Waiver in Wisconsin.

Family Planning

Sexually active teenagers and unmarried adults are rarely planning families. Generally, they want to have sex but not babies. Generally, that is a personal choice, one with immense public repercussions. But rather than address that behavioral choice, Wisconsin governmental departments deal only with the consequences of it. The behavior is deemed a personal right, but the right to have a baby is not. Only prevention of a baby is equated with personal responsibility. The waiver was not about family planning. Wanting children is a prerequisite to family planning. Surely testing and treatment of low income women and minors for infections and diseases is funded by other government programs. The waiver was unneeded except to put teens on birth control.

Pregnancy and giving birth are detrimental for teens, their babies, and our society. Billions are spent to prevent births among low income women and teens. That begs the question “Just who is doing the “family planning”? There is an inherent problem when teen pregnancy prevention is a program of temporary sterilization with a pill, a patch, a device or an injection. Lack of results could lead to a permanent sterility initiative. Amidst all the statistics, focus of medical care has to be on individual girls. What is best for a teen is that sexual activity be delayed until, as a mother, she and baby can thrive. That keeps the government out of family planning and limited to an educative function.

A solid teen pregnancy prevention program is proactive and centered on empowerment of girls to be change makers in their own lives and in their communities. There has to be positive alternatives to teen motherhood available and teens must be mentored to pursue those alternatives. To say no to sex, teens have to say yes to something better. Birth control alone changes nothing in teen lives or in our country. Our kids deserve more than damage control.

Tax Relief

If an American can’t pay for health services, the taxpayers do. It is irrelevant whether that entitlement is generated by city, county, state or federal taxes or fees. A federally subsidized program doesn’t save Wisconsinites money by adding layers of administration. Millions are spent on salaries and supervision before one dollar reaches patient services. According to Planned Parenthood calculations, Wisconsin family planning services cost more than $18.2 million annually. Statistics indicate that has bought increased pregnancy rates, barely fluctuating birth rates, escalating STD rates, spread of HIV to new populations, and increasing abortion with the advent of drug induced options. The quality of life for low income women benefits little from this largesse; the case could be made that low income teens are actually victimized by the “safety net”.

Systemic Failure

If the government had paid Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies to provide free filter cigarettes to teens, to teach the benefits of smoking them in our schools, and to manage the medical care for lung damage, we would all recognize the preposterousness of the situation. Yet, the government pays Planned Parenthood’s coalition to provide free contraceptives, to teach contraception in our schools, and then to provide medical care when contraception is used. With their in-house research, political clout, government partnerships, government funding and access to teens, these agencies are so powerful, they become unaccountable and untouchable. Claiming success for pregnancy prevention alone is gratuitous when co-infections and diseases are also outcomes of sexual behavior. Claiming that access to free contraceptives constitutes pregnancy prevention is misleading since a cause and effect relationship is lacking.

Age Limits

The age limit in the Family Planning Waiver would be a non-issue if
teen parenthood was beneficial
parents were unrestricted participants in the reproductive medical care of their children
underage patient confidentiality was not used to justify government reimbursement
child-bearing age wasn’t now 4-5 years younger than the law-stipulated 15 years, and
existing laws were followed and enforced.
At the 2003 legislative hearing on this bill, Planned Parenthood claimed
incest and domestic abuse warranted their universal actions in loco parentis
patient confidentiality requires categorizing minors as low income “families” of one, thus making their treatment reimbursable by the government
medical privilege trumps the law in the treatment of children under the age of fifteen.
By their manipulation of the law, family planning clinics have created the taxpayer-paid burden for 85% of teen pregnancies that they now use to justify their service contracts. This legislation is a legitimate response to a situation of the family planning clinics own making.

Testing and Treatment

Sexually transmitted diseases, most HIV, pregnancy, and cervical cancer are results of sexual activity--period. A law neither puts people at risk nor keeps them safe. People put themselves at risk and have to be aggressively warned that sexual behavior, regardless of intervention with contraception or condoms, will keep them at risk. In view of the epidemic proportions of many of these outcomes, relegating medical interventions to teenagers, without the consistent, caring supervision of a parent or adult mentor, is folly. Teen brain development research contradicts the possibility of success with this approach. Once infected with a viral STD, the disease and its treatment can be intensive, long term, painful and stressful. Infected teens need loving adults, not just medical professionals.

Recommendations

Pass this legislation as the first step in the reform of reproductive health care in this state.
Form an unbiased blue ribbon citizens committee to review and assess the state’s reproductive health program

Letter to CDC/African American HIV/STD initiative

2006-02-09T16:42:00.000-06:00

Sent in response to recent data on infection rates among African Americans and the launching of a new CDC initiative:

I received a letter from Dr. Gerberding distributed via the WASH ListServ that cited facts about the disproportionate incidence of HIV/STD among the African American population. I applaud the proposed discussion with those “whom CDC has not traditionally engaged”. With the current listing of partner organizations, there is great message buy-in but little diversity of thought. I very sincerely believe that you need to talk to groups other than government departments and the agencies they fund. There are an increasing number of Milwaukee agencies and churches contacting us who want to try an alternative approach to condoms and testing. They want more than measures that assume black youth are incapable of abstaining from sex.

Since a new working group was announced that will develop an action plan, I would hope this group would consider the successful ABC approach. If you would embolden and fund inner city youth development agencies, schools and churches to encourage fidelity and abstinence, not as a contraceptive choice but as a way to live for the betterment of their communities, you may find a greater buy-in by concerned community leaders. The community has to be empowered to change outcomes.

Damage control efforts alone are insulting to our humanity. But when policy is driven by protection of individual sexual freedom at the expense of public health and societal well-being, perhaps the existing situation is to be expected. There is a great line in a Law and Order episode. In response to a teen saying “This is a free country”, the cop responds “No, it’s a democracy”. Maybe we can’t have it both ways.

While I understand that there are many factors operating within inner cities that add to the “big picture”, I am very concerned that stubborn adherence to a condom risk reduction program is at the cost of lives. It is a theoretical solution without proof in reality. It is a hope-less approach without a promise of a better future. Potentially, the African Americans are the start of the domino effect that will sweep the country.

Is someone wise enough to ask “What if We Are Wrong?”

When is a Right A Wrong?

2006-01-17T09:26:00.000-06:00

There is a twist on sex education in public schools, a moral value cannot be included. There can be no indication of right and wrong as this is every child's right to discern their own values. This is couched in terms of respect for each child's and family's values. If a child, a teen or a young adult decides to have sex, that is a right no one can infringe upon or criticize. Therefore, it is logical that sex education becomes a course in "reducing the risk" of the exercise of that right, ergo condom and contraception education.

Who benefits from that approach? The child navigates a sex-laden culture without a rudder and, if sexually active, will deal with a consequence of some type. Real life is not filled with people using condoms correctly and consistently. Even if the choice is abstinence, the temptation or coercion can become almost unbearable in a teen's world that lacks adult support. As one survey shows, 84% of teens had sex for the first time by giving into the coercion of a partner and 58% had sex just "to get it over with". Does this sound like freedom? Does this sound like the exercise of a right? It sounds like kids who are stuck and don't know how to extradite themselves. Only today, "giving it up" comes with a huge cost.

Sometimes freedom is ours because beliefs, morals, laws and caring people guide our choices. Those parameters can be very liberating while false freedoms can become addictive. Think about it.

Professional Journals

2006-01-09T10:42:00.000-06:00

Currently being circulated among state offices and their email databases is a new position paper from the Journal of Adolescent Health entitled "Abstinence-only education policies and programs: A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine". Who makes up the Society of Adolescent Medicine and what its connection is with other medical organizations for health care in general, and pediatric or adolescent medicine in particular is unspecified. However, its Journal is considered to be of "peer review" status. That's where my problems arise.

This is supposedly a medical journal yet the position paper is decidedly non-medical. Among the 35 references used is not one that indicates any research into what abstinence educators, doctors who promote abstinence, or abstinence advocates have written by way of research, authoritative commentary, results or opinions. It is apparent that not one abstinence curriculum was actually looked at by the five individuals that framed the position paper. The article is a regurgitation of every anti-abstinence argument that has been put forth. Similar wording can be found on countless websites, position papers, editorials, etc. So it is a position paper based on other people's/organization's opinion and then only one segment of that opinion.

So what? Big deal? Imagine a research team approaches the Journal of Adolescent Medicine with a research project that is scientifically sound in all respects but doesn't fit with the "position paper". Will that study get published in this Journal? If they will not publish it, does that paint the research as inadequate even if it is not? Now suppose a community organization is seeking funding for their work with teenagers to promote abstinence, acknowledged as a healthy choice, but all foundations, agencies, etc. have been repeatedly told, through the promulgation of such articles, that without contraception or homosexuality also being taught, those programs should not be funded. Will the abstinence option get a fair hearing if abstinence believers can't teach it? What happens when someone actually wants to do an unbiased evaluation of an abstinence curriculum or program. Who will fund it? Who will publish it? Who will accept positive results if the funders and the publishers by necessity are pro-abstinence?

The entire position paper is rife with idiocy and when I can calm down enough to read it again, I will point those out. In the meantime, I would like everyone to consider the tactics being used to isolate the abstinence message until it will be eliminated from the lexicon of sexual responsibility. What's the purpose of that? Why is it wrong to encourage children, all children, to avoid sexual activity? The health consequences alone would dictate a no-holds-bar approach to that. Think children. Think about their future, their health, their happiness. Someone has to demand that our kids cannot be pawns in a social agenda that has the potential to kill them. Let them be kids now. There's not one advantage to them having sex. Let them face all the social issues heaped on the sex ed burner when they are adults. Mess up their heads in college when they can at least fight back...unless of course they want an A from a professor they disagree with.

New Year's Resolutions

2005-12-01T14:30:00.000-06:00

The news stories from the US and the rest of the world about the consequences of unwed sexual activity are escalating in frequency, in unmitigated tragedy and in worthless, bullheaded, political agenda-driven responses. Anyone reading these stories needs to decide what is really happening. I would like to offer the following New Year's Resolutions to those embroiled in the debates:

Resolve to almost force every sexually active female to receive annual gynecological exams, STD tests and keep appointments for all followup tests and exams. If you "grant" girls and young women the maturity and responsibility to have unwed sex, realize that supposed maturity and responsibility may not also apply to their own healthcare. Whether an adult is a parent, teacher, counselor or healthcare provider, by accepting a child's "choice" for sexual activity without going to the greatest lengths to convince her that choice comes with a critical healthcare requirement is cruel and dangerous behavior for an adult of influence. Any clinic or physicians office, that does not involve a parent in a minor girl's reproductive healthcare, should have a procedure in place that puts another adult in charge to make appointments, make reminder calls and even pickup the girls for appointments if necessary.
Resolve to know exactly what you are promoting for sex education. Read every word of every curriculum, brochure, handout and preview any films, videos or tapes before making a decision. Do not male a decision based on descriptions, evaluation, testimonies or studies. Study the actual product.
Resolve to provide all teachers, counselors, and healthcare personnel with the spectrum of education offered by professionals in the field. In Wisconsin, adults of influence are restricted in their government-provided training to the comprehensive approach. Presentations on abstinence are non-existent or conducted by non-abstinence educators. Adults should demand their own comprehensive education not what a state agency force feeds them.
Resolve to evaluate the social or political agenda motivating the position a spokesperson takes on sex education or reproductive health care. For instance, if the position is that sex education should be value-free. ask what is the motivation for that. Child indoctrination can be shrouded in innocuous terms.
Resolve to use the health, wellbeing and happiness of children at their present stage of development as the sole determinant of what is taught. Making young teens role play "partner" conversations about using condoms is inapproriate for children in a classroom format. Currently, sex education rarely occurs beyond ninth grade. Statistics show that, except in rare venues, most children at that age level are virgins. That is a good thing and should be encouraged. OR....
Resolve to eliminate sex education from the schools. Solves all issues of indoctrination, values, in loco parentis, teacher training, and the fact that positive health and social impact is non-existent anyway.

World AIDS Day

2005-12-01T13:17:00.000-06:00

Richard Holbrook's Op-Ed piece scratches at the surface of the failed AIDS strategy. Put bluntly the strategy is based on ideology, not sound medical practice. Millions of people are dying and testing is voluntary. 12,000 people are infected each day but identification and isolation are not options.

The underlying ideology is this: Everyone has the right to have sex with whomever they please without any personal responsibility for outcomes. Ain't nobody's business! The government (or AIDS groups) must protect individual anonymity, privacy and confidentiality to preserve that right from any criticism, restriction or prejudice. It is also the government's job to protect the irresponsible exercise of this right by picking up the tab for prevention, treatment and vaccination.

One person's right to have sex is now greater than another's right to life and pursuit of happiness. What's the point to testing? Treatment of the infected won't stop this epidemic. The infected have to stop having sex. But will that be done? Nope, we're just going to sacrifice people until there's a vaccination. "Protection" is a joke. The value of condoms is a theory based on a very big usage IF that has never been tested or proven.

When are we going to wake up and see that AIDS is not the only danger of this free-sex ideology. Laws are being changed so that "government" alone decides what is taught in our schools on all things sexual. Medical personnel are pitted against each other and forced to adopt contraceptive startegies even for children. Research without the right slant can't find funding. Voices of reason are being marginalized through trumped up criticism, restriction of access to decision-making, and an orchestrated worldwide effort. Clergy, physicians, teachers, legislators and citizens who take time to voice concern are labeled as "hate-mongers", "users of scare-tactics", "dangerous", "irresponsible", "non-scientific", "without evidence", or the "radical right".

Kenneth Cole has started a PR campaign with the slogan "We All Have AIDS" aimed at removing the "stigma" of the disease. While I appreciate the attempted sentiment, I disagree with the premise. Disease cannot be stigmatized and we are way past blaming its victims. Perhaps the slogan would be truer as "We Will All Have AIDS". If we knew that our sons and daughters would get this terrible disease, infect our daughters-in-law and sons-in-law and our grandchildren, maybe waiting for the magic drug wouldn't be an option we could live with.

Ellen Goodman: Cevical Cancer vaccine

2005-11-14T17:46:00.000-06:00

Ellen, Ellen! So you found four quotes for your column. Bravo for great journalism! Oops! Too bad, at least one was bogus! Leslee Unruh has denied ever talking to you or claiming HPV vaccine is an incentive for sex. Beyond that, your column is plain scary!

I'm an avid abstinence advocate and I would never speak against a cure for cancer especially one that prevents HPV. I know too many young ladies who have had the cryosurgery to remove pre-cancerous cells, several who have developed cervical cancer and one who died at the age of 26. Medicine has become a girl's only hope because they were lied to by the "safe sex" message.
The TRUTH is that information proving condoms do not prevent HPV had been unavailable, hidden or ignored until the 2001 National Institute of Health study, which was then unpublicized for almost two more years. Why? Because the less benefit condoms offer and the more people know that, then, it is theorized, fewer people will use condoms. If they stop using condoms, they will get HIV and that is far worse than HPV on someone's rating scale. So medically, condoms are pushed because AIDS is pushing that message. Surely, all those young ladies out there are more than willing to sacrifice their cervix to AIDS prevention. Too bad they weren't given the choice!

Risk reduction and protection! Without those messages, where would the "agenda" for the free right to have sex at anytime with anyone be? Wouldn't want any health consequences, a baby or feelings of responsibility, or heaven's forbid, morality to mess that up! So our young people are being convinced they can have it all thanks to a little piece of latex. Just look at what has been wrought by manipulation. Our children were sacrificed so adults wouldn't "have to choose between abstinence and death".

The TRUTH is that partners don't have to have intercourse to share HPV--its a skin to skin transmittal virus. Its one of those little consequences of "outercourse" that has been promoted as the real "safe sex". This sex didn't include vaginal intercourse...just everything up to that point. Imagine the shock of "virgins" who are getting diseases and even pregnant who didn't have sex but didn't keep their clothes on either. Damn kids always seem to be one step ahead of us and our sex education!

So Ms. Goodman, will you one day write a column about the next fatal STD and tell kids that they can keep having sex because the next new drug will save them? Will you rejoice that the HPV vaccine story proves that an epidemic can explode in less than two decades but man can cure it....so we lose a few promising young lives along the way, that's an acceptable risk.

"Fear-mongering" is the new term for truth and questioning. Without abstinence advocates raising issues and challenging decisions, the black box warnings on some contraceptives, the FDA condom labeling, pulling products from market, and even the clear statements that now everyone uses that "Abstinence is 100% effective prevention", might have never yet occurred. Ms. Goodman you need to get out into the real world and see what sex out of wedlock has wrought. We don't stone women or men to death anymore; we've found far crueler means of torture. We start with our children. We destroy them in ways no miracle drug will ever prevent.

"Irresponsible and dangerous"

2005-10-31T11:46:00.000-06:00

Planned Parenthood has launched a new tactic against abstinence education advocates. We are now "irresponsible and dangerous". Guess the false accusations that our programs are not science- or evidence-based didn't work. That's what happens when a bad argument is pinned to a biased, unscientific study--the Waxman Report.

There is absolutely nothing dangerous or irresponsible about encouraging adolescents to remain sexually abstinent with every medical, social science, economical, legal, cultural and historical fact at our disposal. To add, in the correct setting, moral and relgious values only bolsters the other arguments.

Unmarried sex is dangerous and irresponsible. To say that the right to partake in it trumps responsibility for the health dangers to self, partner and all the subsequent partners of each is ridiculous.

Responsibility cannot be tied to condom use because that is only a theoretical solution. That's what "consistent and correct usage" infers. There is no actual proof that condoms work because "correct" use has never been scientifically studied through observation and use of test/control groups. The science of "consistent" use is an answer to a "Yes or No" question. There are direct linkage studies/surveys that prove people lie when asked that question. In other words, during the study time frame, a person claims consistent condom use but deveolps a new STD acquired through intercourse.

There are several problems with promoting condoms for protection or risk reduction.
1. Correct usage is a developing concept. The videos and curriculums used in schools often teach 6-8 steps in correct condom use. However, at the last Wisconsin Sexual Risk Prevention Institute held in August at Alverno College, 17 steps were now involved.
2. "Correct" condom use is last "taught" in ninth grade before the vast majority of students are sexually active. Will memory serve them? Is it respopnsible to rely on that?
3. Studies are showing consistent condom use decreases with length of time with one partner and when one has multiple partners, either in close sequence or as a serial monogomist. Reality is disproving the condom theory.
4. Existing STIs and HIV generally don't go away without treatment (there are a few exceptions). If you have them, you will give them. Even if after you tire of messing around and find someone you love and adore. Even if you want to have a baby, making condoms moot.
5. Condom ad campaigns can't convey correct usage so it is inferred that consistent use is sufficient. That is not true; using a condom is not always better than not using one.
6. Whenever one method is promoted, there is a tendency to not sabotage that message with "the whole picture". Truth should always precede and support message. If abstinence education does not use the whole truth to support its message, it is as quilty as comprehensive sex education would be. However, to criticize abstinence education for teaching that condoms are risky at least and dangerous at worst when truth backs that up is wrong.

Teachers, parents, mentors and medical personnel have to ask themselves whether the children in their care will be completely safe, healthy and happy if they follow their advice and if they have given them enough information to make that choice.

HPV Vaccine

2005-10-06T17:04:00.000-05:00

Today, Merck announced successful 2 year trials of its HPV vaccine. Yes, I know they call it "cervical cancer vaccine" in the headline but it does correct that and admit to being an HPV vaccine in the text.

I'm going way out on a limb here but I don't understand why anyone, "conservatives or religious groups", would oppose the FDA approval on ideological grounds. Cervical cancer is a disease once almost wiped out but now the precancerous lesions are reappearing with a vengence among sexually active young women. Only regular PAP tests are saving more from the cancer itself. So if medicine can save people from this scourge, let it be.

However, this is a vaccine that school age children receive, not babies. So like the Hepatitis B vaccine, they will know they endure these shots just in case they become sexually active before marriage. I can see why it could be construed that kids would assume this means they are expected to have sex. I wonder how many kids will say to their Moms and Dads "Don't you trust me" on this issue.

The shots only protect against two strains of cancer-causing HPV, 16 and 18. Those are the two most prevalent strains NOW. But there is little reason to expect that any of the other 16 oncogenic types might not become dominant. Can we imagine giving kids maybe 8-10 different series of shots to wipe out all HPV?

Also is a 2 year trial good enough? The immediate results are great but there are no clues to the effect on the kids bodies or on their potential offspring.

My major concern is that this is another step in the Big Brother will fix it so anybody can do whatever they want and not worry about the consequences parade. HPV is a terrible price to pay for teen and young adult sexual romps. It was confirmed by the Centers for Disease Control several years ago that condoms are almost worthless as a prevention. After the initial AIDS panic and the development of the HIV "cocktails", caution was thrown to the wind and the risky behavior resumed. This could be the real result of these vaccines. But there always seems to be another disease waiting in the wings.

We need to teach kids that these terrible consequences wreak lives and this country needs them to concentrate on becoming great, responsible adults while young. Sex can wait. It will be better later and so will the kids because of the self-control they showed.

State Senate passes Abstinence Bill: SB 286

2005-10-06T16:45:00.000-05:00

Its hard to believe that the Senate has to pass a bill that sexual abstinence is the "preferred choice" for behavior of unmarried pupils; one would think that is a given. Its harder to believe that three Planned Parenthood representatives spoke against the bill at the public hearing and that nine Senators voted against it. The young women from Planned Parenthood looked upon this bill as an infringement on the rights of Americans--this bill's language was so benign it could infringe on nothing and nobody. But it seems that any standards of behavior are unacceptable when it comes to sex according to Planned Parenthood. Imagine what type of behavior could walk through that wide open door as our cultural sensitivities are further blunted. One representative went so far as to say that the government is obligated to pay for the consequences of a citizen's exercise of the right to sex because of its duty to protect that right. So I guess it would follow that our "private" behavior when it has "public outcomes" like STDs, unwed pregnancy, HIV and all the resultant fallout is just not the individual"s problem. The government to the rescue! Wonder if they know yet that the government is you and me! Maybe we should tell them!

CDC Survey: Sexual Habits

2005-09-16T15:58:00.000-05:00

The first impression one should get from the Journal-Sentinel article is bias. The conclusion is made that "young women are more sexually confident than they use to be" definitely is a positive judgment of sexual behavior that includes oral sex, experimenting with bisexuality, and multiple partners. Then the report concludes that most people have had "relatively few sexual partners". That term evidently refers to the median average of 6-8 female partners for men currently 30-44 years old; four for women in the same age group. Another stat, claims that 18% of Hispanic men, 22% of white men and 34% of black men have had 15 or more female partners. If that's "relatively few", what will be the standard when today's teens pass age 30.

Are we suppose to be impressed that now more teens have oral sex than vaginal intercourse? Let's throw a parade in celebration! Let's put up billboards congratulating teens on their responsible behavior of choosing an option that won't get them pregnant! Let's replace the "corner bars" with teen medical centers that can cater to their every pre- and post-sex needs! What a boon this is--just the service industries Milwaukee has been looking for!!!!!

Do you know that the websites of Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and Advocates for Youth--the Big 3 of Sex Education-- not only recommend sex acts other than vaginal intercourse for safer sex but offer instructions for how to use condoms and dental dams? In legalese, that's called "covering your ass"--tell kids to do a safe sex behavior and then tell them they need to add more protection to make it safer when STDs are showing up in kids' mouths and throats. But what the heck, they can brag that they deserve credit for teen birth rates going down.

The problem with statistics is you have to look at all of them. Teen births might decrease but birth rates might actually increase; teen pregnancy and abortion might actually increase. When one reads the actual report instead of a news release, other statistics are found.

Whereas the article reports more than half of teens, ages 15-19, have had oral sex, it does not report that 88% of them have also had vaginal intercourse. Instead it gives us an "authority's" opinion that kids are making the safer choice. This authority will tell you that oral sex might be becoming a precursor to vaginal sex but it is not an alternative for long.

So how could recommendations to stay safe with oral sex be viewed as anything other than finding a new avenue to get kids sexually active through false kudos for"sexual responsibility"?

When are people going to get mad at what these organizations are doing to our kids! By the way, another suggestions they give kids is to avoid sexual intercourse by watching erotic films or reading erotic lit together. A Kaiser Foundation Study today said kids, 12-17, are the largest group of consumers of Internet Pornography. Come on Planned Parenthood take credit for that one!!!!!

"Fighting AIDS and Bias"

2005-09-12T14:15:00.000-05:00

I admire what Diane Hardy has done to help in HIV/AIDS awareness. I share her concern about the spread of AIDS among Afro-American minorities, and I too congratulate those who provide care to AIDS patients. However, I must take issue with the criticism in her "Community Columnist" today that AIDS is demonized because of the linkage between it and behavior when so many other disease-behavior links are treated differently.

Our decisions, no matter how personal, play out in the lives of others. When one gets the diagnosis of heart problems, diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol levels, the entire family is affected by dietary and lifestyle changes. Those changes will probably benefit everyone. However, if a person afflicted by one of those health issues does not change diet and behavior, the family will eventually have to care for that person as a patient. The impact of a person's behavior now begins to have major impact on loved ones, friends or fellow employees.

The difference with HIV is that it is communicable. A person with HIV is giving that deadly disease to someone else--a stranger, a "friend with benefits", the love of one's life or an unborn child. This is a far bigger deal! There is a reason why it carries a stigma! For growing numbers of HIV cases, contagion is through heterosexual sex. An action that should be the most lovingly, intimate gesture is now deadly.

Poor individual decisions can have a measurable impact on our culture. Will we watch young Afro-Americans contract a disease that began little more than 20 years ago with one person who made "personal" decisions that were "nobody's business but his own"? Will we continue to mislead youngsters that their personal decision to have sex, as long as they use "protection", won't wipe out their entire neighborhood twenty years from now?

Regardless of a person's age, the personal choice to have sex outside of marriage is accelerating the spread of HIV/AIDS. The at-risk group now includes all of us; we are one infected person away from HIV. and we don't know who that one person is.

A culture decided to make personal choice sacred regardless of what those choices did to self, family, culture or society. In this state, our government agencies, our schools, our health providers, our press are all scrambling to keep that choice sacred no matter what. Unfortunately, the "no matter what" happens to be our lives.

They're losing the battle. A piece of latex is not saving us from HIV. A new weapon is needed but they keep ignoring the best artillery around. The American people are capable of good decisions especially when done for the best of intentions--to save the ones they love. That's where to place our trust; not in a condom.

Gleanings from an article on the Abortion Pill

2005-08-16T15:59:00.000-05:00

The LA Times carried an article about 4 women dying after taking the abortion pill RU-486. Although this blog does not deal directly with abortion, some of the points in the article have broader implications for women's health.

An FDA warning has been issued about the potential for serious bacterial infection under certain circumstances.
The idea that it is acceptable for some women to pay the ultimate price so that the abortion pill can be legal
The often repeated comments that childbirth is more than 10 times riskier than contraceptives and medical abortions.
That doctors do not follow the FDA-approved regimen by cutting the dosage of one drug and instructing women to take the second vaginally, instead of orally, at home.
The similarity between the desired effect of the drugs and the signs of a serious infection/reaction.
The fact that reporting deaths and side effects of the drug is voluntary for doctors. The FDA estimates that only 10% of the problems with the drug are reported.

So , the bottom line appears to be:

The FDA approves new drugs under specific use requirements
Doctors might not follow those regimens
Patients are self-administering, sometimes in non-sanitary conditions
Patients can't self-diagnose problems
To protect a political agenda, adverse reporting is limited
There isn't enough data to carry out investigations
No one really knows the risk involved so opinions become fact.

Hate to say it but that is often the scenario for women's reproductive health whether its a contraceptive, an STD, abortion or cancer.

"Superhero for Choice"

2005-08-12T15:03:00.000-05:00

In the same week that Lorraine Lathem, VP for Community Education at Planned Parenthood-Wisconsin, urged the end to the sex ed wars at the DPI Sexual Risk Prevention Conference, the press release on a video by Planned Parenthood Golden Gate came across my email.

In the video, a female superhero has the sole mission to protect "choice". She encounters "Sleezy Dude" as he tells teens that "the only way to prevent pregnancy is to practice abstinence". One teen objects that they learned other ways to have safe sex in school to which Sleazy Dude responds "Those are instruments from the devil's toolbox". Our superhero interrupts and throws Sleazy Dude into a trash can and asks if the kids know where to go "for their health care needs and reproductive advice". The response is "Planned Parenthood Golden Gate...because we have a choice" . Before departing, the superhero throws a "safe sex kit" to the kids as she yells, "Remember, safe is sexy".

There are other encounters even more outrageous such as vaporizing abortion protestors in a hail of condoms that encapsulate them and then explode. The scales of justice are used with "choice" on one side and "ignorance" on the other.

That, dear readers, is the mentality of the people and organizations determining the social agenda and health care in this country and around the world. Being debuted in San Francisco, this attack is a bit more bizzare but the themes run right through all confrontations in this state. Those that don't support the "choice" agenda are deemed stupid, evil, religious fanatics and rightwing conservatives forcing their ideas on Americans free to do whatever they please. The people connected with Wisconsin Abstinence Coalition proudly put the health, welfare and happiness of children first.

Bravo Planned Parenthood--keep making blunders like this one and you'll lose your audience and your funding and have no one else to blame.

The Teen Brain

2005-08-12T14:34:00.000-05:00

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy is the latest organization to present research on the workings of the teen brain; a scientific onslaught in the past year. Basically all have said that, using MRI as a tool, there is now proof that the pre-frontal cortex of the human brain is under-developed until the mid-twenties. This is the area that makes intelligent decisions by remembering, understanding and evaluating information and experiences. Connectors, transmitters, and chemicals in the brain are just not present or are too immature to handle the requisite processes.

Campaign Director Sarah Brown raises concerns in the document's forward that this new research will be used to deny "opportunities for (teen) autonomous decisions...to argue that minors should not be able to obtain family planning care without parental consent...". Its hard to imagine why it should not be used just for those situations. Ms Brown also asserts that "no one should turn away from new research findings just because they might modify our thinking." Quite a statement from someone whose organization has stood firmly with Planned Parenthood. We agree completely with Ms. Brown's assertion that the message is " teens--however competent--are not adults and we need to think harder about the nature of this critical life stage." We agree that teens "fare best in environments where there is an appropriate degree of structure and guidance...options with ample adult involvement." Social science has proved that for years. Now biology has come on board.

Letting teens suffer consequences for decisions they were not fully capable of making in the first place seems just plain cruel.

Where's the Story? OC, menopausal treatment and Breast Cancer

2005-08-12T14:00:00.000-05:00

I have asked, but as yet have not received an answer, as to why the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did not print an article on the World Health Organization's July 29th press release. In it, combined estrogen-progeston oral contraceptives were raised to a Group 1 carcinogen rating. That adds them to the same level as cigarettes as highly carcinogenic--the highest ranking. Specifically mention is the connection with breast cancer as it is with menopause hormone treatments

Now currently in the state there is:
1) legislation pending that would ban the promotion and distribution of emergency contraception on UW campuses,
2) reaction to the Academy of Pediatrics support of contraception for adolescents,
3) a Race for the Cure scheduled in a month
4)a new coalition to fight abstinence education and expand contraception
So the reason can't be that it isn't currently newsworthy!

21 scientists from 8 countries reviewed a mountain of studies for The World Health Organization before issuing this new warning classification. The organization is well-known for its support of contraception especially in developing countries. It supports and is supported by a host of organizations all over the world that do likewise.
So the reason can't be that this is a biased, non-professional report from a group with an axe to grind!

So why wouldn't women be given this information? Afterall, the vast majority of women of child-bearing age use hormonal birth control and menopause therapy. Breast cancer rates seem to have escalated over the last few decades. Younger women are getting breast cancer. This would seem to be a logical link and, at the least, a plausible explanation. It is definitely information women should ask their doctors about.

So was it just a young male staffer who disgarded the press release as irrelevant? Or was the "wait and see what further research says" approach adopted? Or is someone afraid women might not buy products that make drug companies profitable? Or will the information harm efforts to get birth control covered by insurance? Or does this info forbode lawsuits similar to what hit cigarette companies? Or will young women decide sex without a wedding ring just isn't worth it anymore?

Call me cynical but if a woman or girl decides to use the Pill, she should at least know what could happen to her and that negates all reasons for not printing this story!

"Crisis: The Black Family is Failing"

2005-07-25T14:01:00.000-05:00

Admittedly William Raspberry, a black columnist for the Washington Post, brings cheers from me when I read his columns. He has the guts and status and skin color to say what I cannot. But I share his concern for the black community especially after the articles in the Sunday Journal Sentinel Crossroads section. In those articles, teens sound off on violence in their communities begging for solutions. They don't want to be ignored; to be left to choose participation or victimization. If the article had been about sex, the response would have been similar, especially among the girls. They're just kids who want to be happy kids. Adults should be able to provide that simple request.

Adults must stand up and boldly bring standards of conduct and morality back into children's lives. We can no longer cower in fear of being labeled as forcing "agendas" or religion on Americans. If our agenda is to better the lives of our children now and in their future, we have every reason we need to proceed. We also have every reason to vehemently reject what is contributing to the problem.

Adults of all races allowed a cultural shift because we didn't think it would affect us personally. We bought into the supremacy of individual rights without considering cultural and societal consequences. We would just choose what was good and reject what was bad. Those that chose otherwise would only be hurting themselves. But then our own children began making bad choices because of the influences that seemed less demanding or more fun or personally freeing or rebellious. We wonder how that happened.

As Mr. Raspberry points out what is happening is the "sociological equivalent of global warming: easier to document than reverse, inconsistent in the near-term effect and disasterous in the long run." Problems in the black community are everyone's problems. They are the mirror for every other community. Reflected is what happens when men are not involved in children's lives, when marriage declines, when higher education is not sought, when religions abandon sanctions against premarital sex, when adults do not provide for their children, when unemployment is an excuse. African-Americans might lead other ethnic groups but we are following down the same path.

This isn't a problem; its a condition. The solution requires radical change. That type of change might require individuals to give up some freedoms so that a community can heal. Just as Daniel Patrick Moynihan was pilloried for his warnings 40 years ago perhaps the radical reforms suggested and rejected in Milwaukee and elsewhere should receive a second look. Our governor touts "Kids First"--lets give that some teeth!

USA Today:"Cohabitation is replacing Dating"

2005-07-19T11:16:00.000-05:00

Cohabitation has increased ten-fold since 1960. Eight percent of US coupled households are unmarried cohabitators; about 10 million people. Most are between the ages of 25 to 34. Cohabitation arrangements generally last two years. For those that cohabitate for 5 years, only about 50% get married.

Reasons to cohabitate are economic and social and the couples might not share the same reasons. New research shows women view cohabitation as a step before marriage whereas men see it as the step before any degree of commitment. Women are romantic; men are practical. Women improve the men's lifestyle. Another study indicates that men who live with their wives before marriage aren't as committed to the marriage as those who do not cohabitate first.

The new twist on all this is that couples now view marriage as sacred, an ideal, a forever thing--like this is a new concept. But getting married now requires practice before the ceremony. Potential candidates are tried out and pass or fail "the test". What test? What is there in the existence of twenty year olds that can predict whether or not they make the perfect person, spouse or parent in a couple of years or over a lifetime? Marriage is not a moment caught in time although the wedding might be. Marriage is an evolution of two people involved in a journey of love. The bad times are not pass/fail because love sustains both people. The couple become new people because of their love. They aren't suppose to be the same people as the day before their wedding. What makes a person a good spouse doesn't need to be tested by cohabitation because it is most apparent in his/her character, beliefs and other relationships.

Those that cite the rise of cohabitation as a link to lower divorce rates are forgetting that cohabitators split up at a higher rate than marrieds. Those that consider it their right to cohabitate should at least realize that might be all there is. If they want more, they might wait too long in the "test the waters" stage.

"In Kenya, All-female village becomes an Outpost of Feminism"

2005-07-19T10:24:00.000-05:00

Why mention this story that appeared on July 17th? Because it is illustrative of how women can change their world as they desire. In Kenya, a woman started a female village and welcomes those that flee the injustices of their tribal traditions. A thirteen year old girl is welcomed so she does not have to marry the old man three times her age. Women who are raped and then abandoned by their "shamed" husbands are welcomed. Women who wish to refuse the traditional genital mutilation are welcomed. Women who want to avoid marriage proposals they cannot refuse are welcomed. Although they are still isolated, the cultural shift is already being felt with the grudging acknowledgment of the men. The fact is the men need the women and women can set the terms.

Women in this country bear the brunt of our sexual revolution. As with the Kenyan women, gaining economic autonomy was the first step in their liberation. But American women have been misled in pursuing "sexual freedom" because it comes at the expense of their essential womanhood, their children and their emotional needs. Women can change that. Empowerment is but a tool for a wise leader.

Milwaukee Magazine: "The Birth Control Wars"

2005-07-14T11:30:00.000-05:00

There seems to be some confusion. A Catholic hospital with a medical mission evolving from its theological and social beliefs has the perfect right to provide services consistent with those beliefs, as does a Baptist hospital or a Mormon hospital or a Jewish hospital.

The Catholic Church has not changed its beliefs; however, the United States and the medical profession has changed theirs. Until forty years ago, there were no birth control wars. Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals, clinics and physicians had the same standards. Griswold v. Connecticut made birth control legal for married couples. Admittedly, the Catholic Church can be faulted for "looking the other way" as the Pill gained favor among the vast majority of American women, including Catholics. But the theological teaching never was diluted even when the American "teachers" remained silent.

Without the establishment of Catholic hospitals and clinics since the birth of this nation, healthcare would never have been available to generations of Americans reliant on Catholic charity, Catholic social justice and Catholics driven by their faith to enter medical professions. Non-Catholic doctors, nurses, staff and patients have always been welcomed at these facilities. Surely, few would refuse entering a Catholic hospital just because it was Catholic. Over time, Americans came to see these hospitals as just hospitals. Their Catholicity seemed to disappear with the nuns in habits in the general public's consciousness. But they are still Catholic institutions. To many Catholics, they are a refuge where they can receive the healthcare consistent with their religious beliefs.

Drs. Linn, Mickelson and Jones-Nosacek, who have NFP-only gynecology practices, are sought out by Catholics and non-Catholics alike who do not want to take birth control nor have their teen daughters put on the pill as a matter of course. But it is not just the lack of a prescription that make them doctors of choice for their patients. These doctors teach their patients how to value their reproductive system and use natural means to remain healthy women. There is a huge difference seeing a doctor who expects you to use birth control and one who respects you not to use it. That level of respect continues through menopause and beyond.

The birth control wars are not inflicted by the Catholic Church. Rather, the Church has been forced to protect its religious beliefs and rights from increasingly virulent attacks from all fronts. As Americans we all have a right to the health care we choose...at the places and from the people who can provide it at our ability to pay. To say that someone else has to meet your needs when they do not morally or professionally agree is a gross infringement on the provider's rights. We are all conditioned to go to providers to meet our needs whether that is Starbucks or McDonalds for coffee or Petite Sophisticates or Lane Bryant for clothes. It happens all the time to all of us--we go where we need to go for what we want. But those choices just aren't fodder for a feature story.

Bravos for One Reporter

2005-07-11T15:14:00.000-05:00

I just read a reprint in the South Bend Tribune of an article by Ruth Padawer of The Record in Bergen County, NJ entitled "Herpes Epidemic Preys on Uninformed". It is literally the first article on an STD that I've read that was unbiased and didn't pit opposing opinions to fill the column space.

Ms. Padawer committed a "flagrant act of journalism" and reported facts and used testimonies to indicate the difficulty of living with herpes. Amazingly missing was her own opinion. The reader reads, comprehends and decides how to use the information.

Although some may fault her for not mentioning "condoms" or "safe sex", by not doing so, the focus was on just how one contracts the virus and how disease management is a lifelong process.
She also didn't support sexual abstinence in any way. Personally, I think that made that alternative crystal clear in the article. After all there is a herpes epidemic--one in four of us have it. When even the tiniest herpes lesion provides entry to an HIV invasion and when the body's immune system is already weakened fighting herpes, a wake up call should be annoying the heck out of us!

American Academy of Pediatrics --WHY?

2005-07-06T15:18:00.000-05:00

Its time adults ask WHY? Why would doctors who treat the babies and children of this country formulate a teen pregnancy policy that isolates one consequence of sexual behavior from all others? Are they unaware of the other dangers of STD and HIV, reading only alerts to SIDS and fetal alcohol syndrome? Are their patients too young for them to care that a girl could lose her fertility to an STD before she can fully comprehend what that means? Afterall, she'll be somebody else's patient by then! Why would they look upon sex only in its isolated physical dimension? Are they only treating illness now and not patients? Don't they care that physically, mentally, and emotionally immature children can carry scars of their sexual behavior well into adulthood affecting themselves and their ability to form loving relationships? To insure that all teens have access to birth control, does that now mean parents will be kept out of appointments and consultations at the pediatricians' offices as they are at the gynecologists' just in case the subject of sex arises? Will this be another cadre of doctors placing themselves between parents and their children's health?

Why would doctors be advised by their professional association that counseling their young patients to be sexually abstinent is no longer their role? What makes that different than counseling them to eat right, exercise, get enough sleep, not to smoke or drink alcohol or do drugs? Why is sexual abstinence an "ideology" and not sound medicine? Does it harm you? Does it cause you to get pregnant? Will you get an STD as a teenager because you don't partake in sexual exploration? Does taking birth control pills or injecting chemicals or excess hormones into pubescent girls make sound medical practice? Does any of this make sense? Are we at the point where we can swallow without question the opinion that artificially altering our girls so they can play around is superior to teaching them to respect their womanhood and enpowering them to seek real love and respect from the boys they meet?

WHATS THE MATTER WITH US?

Hopefully, the decision to make this a page one story was to raise those questions and not to give abstinence supporters another ridiculous battle to wage and our kids one fewer chance to become the best adults they can be.

The Down Low and AIDS Awareness

2005-07-06T14:31:00.000-05:00

The Wisconsin Abstinence Coalition commends the organizations in the African-American community of Milwaukee for raising awareness of HIV transmission through the phenomenon known as the Down Low.

Men on the down low describe themselves as straight and are in heterosexual relationships, often as husbands and fathers, but sneak sex with men on the side. Obviously, this exposes women and their babies to HIV/AIDS even though they assume they are in "safe" relationships.

By exposing the Down Low, and offering the new rapid HIV testing, women and children can discover their contagion early when treatment can be more beneficial. Rumors about jailhouse sex and inmate rape also must be confronted. However, first and foremost, men who have sex with men, whether they know they have HIV or not, need to accept the responsibility to tell women of their status prior to initiating a sexual encounter. When a killer is lose, in this case AIDS, all stops have to be pulled. In about half the United States, it is a crime to knowingly pass on HIV/AIDS to anyone. The knowing part is that you know you have it. Wisconsin does not have such a law.

An article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 25th, attributes only 720 of the 1755 African American AIDS cases in Wisconsin to homosexual sex. Even discounting the taboo of homosexuality in the African-American community that might have skewed that figure, a dangerous behavior is now affecting innocent people through no choice of their own. This is the point when the AIDS tradgedy becomes a public concern. It is one thing to make risky choices that have personal consequences; it is another to inflict those consequences on others to satisfy personal needs. A loving husband and father does not go on the down low nor does he have sex with prostitutes or other women. He doesn't bring the risks of his contemptible secret life into his own home.

Response to Richard Cohen's 4/5/05 Column

2005-04-05T12:14:00.000-05:00

Entitled "Not all his Choices were Good", Mr. Cohen's column criticizes Pope John Paul II as "stubbornly conservative", for his "implacable opposition to birth control", and for his support of "abstinence, a wholly unrealistic piece of advice". He condemns the Pope for not abandoning his religious principles to use his charism to fight AIDS and prevention of pregnancy.

What Mr. Cohen does not understand is that the Pope was so popular because he called everyone to be far more than the low expectations modern culture places on us. His belief in the inherent dignity of every human being drove him to inspire all of us to be dignified and to shower others with respect for their own dignity. He urged us to love as Christ loved us with a sacrificial, boundless love. He placed sex within the context of that level of love. He taught that the sexual expression of love is freely given, faithful, fruitful, and forever within a sacrament of marriage. He elevated sex to insure the dignity of the couple, their mutually supported growth in holiness, and the betterment of their children and their society.

That is how he fought AIDS, sexual use and abuse, poverty, and injustice. That is how he helped the Third World. He gave us a choice. We can choose to become the people that our inherent dignity calls us to be or we can choose to wallow in the demeaning behavior those that say abstinence is a farce condemn us to.

He did not fire a shot nor urge anyone else to do so and yet he is credited with a large part in the collapse of communism. How? He appealed to the dignity of Poles and all Eastern Europeans and urged them to demand that their dignity be respected.

A condom or a contraceptive does nothing to raise the dignity of the human race. Ultimately, they will not be a solution. The Pope was incredibly consistent throughout his teachings. He gives us a choice. His recommended choice will not harm anyone. Those that make it will be changed in many ways that can only benefit our world. Condemning him is counter-productive. and short-sighted.

Read his books on love-Love and Responsibility and the Theology of the Body. Anyone of any faith or no faith will be touched by his insight. Then decide.

Oral Sex: 1 in 5 HS Freshmen

2005-04-04T10:14:00.000-05:00

A miniscule study in a sexually-liberal state...1 in 5 HS Freshmen report having oral sex and 1/3 expect to do so in next 6 months. The most important clues for adults:
1. Oral sex is not a big deal for 14-15 year olds.
2. Oral sex is acceptable for this age group
3. Oral sex is less risky.

The last one is definitely not true; the only thing you can't get is pregnant.

What is surprising is that a Public Health official quoted in the article thinks that teenage ingenuity came up with oral sex all on their own. The "love and relationship" websites that support unmarried sexual activity regularly encouraged "outercourse" as a way to have sexual pleasure without danger of pregnancy. Oral sex was at the top of their outercourse pyramid. The condom stores and clinics that border college campuses push flavored condoms for oral sex. Green bracelets are being worn by young teens as a sign that they have oral sex. Teens are not behind the ideology, manufacture and marketing in these instances. Sexually-warped adults have led teens right down this oral sex lane. Don't let them spin this into concern for teens now so they can push condoms more.

HIV on the Rise in Wisconsin

2005-03-31T16:15:00.000-06:00

A 14.5% increase in new HIV cases in one year---48% of AIDS cases among MSM, 15.1% among drug users, leaving just shy of 40% for heterosexual sex (MSW)---for every 2.5 MSM cases there is 1 MSW case. A little less than 50% of all HIV cases occur in Milwaukee County.

Please note that no where in this article is male homosexual sex mentioned. That term has been replaced with "men having sex with men" (MSM). This is not accidental. It is a more inclusive term allowing for the men who have prison sex, expanded "recreational" sex, the "Down Lo", or perversions such as pedeophilia. The increase in the heterosexual HIV cases occur because these men consider themseleves heterosexual and also have sex with their wives, girlfriends or "hookups".

The Center for Disease Control is already generating policies and procedures to counteract this: testing in the prison population, for pregnant women and recommended testing in regular physicals. However, primary prevention information is slow to appear on this front. The standard condom message has not been bolstered by warnings about increased risk in heterosexual sex.

It is also sad that the new wonder drugs have lessened adherence to avoiding risk behaviors. Not using condoms is cited. Never mentioned is that the gay "bath house" and pickup bar scene has re-established itself, when at the height of the AIDS epidemic the high-risk behaviors that took place there were frowned upon.

Can sexual behavior continue unchecked? Is it a person's right to acquire HIV and pass it on? As a society, do we ignore that behavior is the cause? Do we just sit back and hope a vaccine is developed before this epidemic chooses our loved ones through no fault of their own?

Too Hot for Teens?

2005-03-22T09:57:00.000-06:00

The front page story in today's Cue section was about teen shows such as"The O.C." and "One Tree Hill". Are they too hot for teens? Yes, because they desensitize teens to inapporpriate sexual behavior as well as other risky and illegal behaviors. The suggestion for parents to watch the show with their older teens is a good one as it does provide the opportunity for dialogue. However, lets not put up Hollywood moguls for sainthood just yet. This is not to be ranked as TV public service in the face of a barage of public criticism about these shows. The parents are probably not overcoming the effect of the script material in any conversations.

Better alternatives would be some of the Lifetime Channel movies such as "She's Too Young" or last night's "Mom at 16". Both of these depict the consequences of living life as in these new teen hits. These films tear at the heart as the girl, her family and her "world" crumble under the weight of her sexual activity. "Mom at 16" repeats this Thursday and Saturday nights.

Compassionate Care for Rape Victims Bill

2005-03-14T14:01:00.000-06:00

Rape is a horrendous, violent attack. Every rape victim deserves compassionate care. Every rape victim should seek that care immediately at a hospital. That care should include a physical exam and scheduling of STD/HIV tests if a time interval is necessary. Those are the most logical medical outcomes of rape because a victim is susceptible to them 24-7-365.

Pregnancy , on the other hand, can occur only one day during a woman's cycle just after ovulation. Sperm can live in her reproductive track for about a week. So at most, a raped woman is vulnerable to pregnancy for a week. That week has to be proximate to ovulation. That is the only time EC is needed medically. If the woman is confident in her birth control-- 90% plus of women are on birth control--and knows when she ovulates, EC is unneeded.

This bill is a farce! It's introduction is not out of compassion for the victim at all. The purpose of the bill is to force faith-based hospitals to comply with an agenda against their beliefs. It is a smokescreen that insults the intelligence of women.

UW Ad: Bring EC on Spring Break (3/12/05)

2005-03-12T14:37:00.000-06:00

So the UW Health Services is advising coeds to pack their morning-after pills with their bikinis for Spring Break! To make it easy , students can call in for a prescription. No fuss of a doctor's appointment! No health history taken! No check for STD or to see if you are already pregnant!

Well Abortion foes aren't the only critics! Abstinence advocates are appalled at the inference that young women off to the sunny climes are going to be promiscuous. Sounds like the "choice" has already been made for them. Now which came first? Girls having sex or adults assuming girls should have sex?

On a beach all day, in bars all night, drinking beers and margaritas, meeting all new guys, knowing nothing of their sex or drug history, so "Don't Worry"--just take your emergency contraception. This is the best a medical facility has to offer? Lets just worry about pregnancy? What about HPV that could mean cryosurgery or cervical cancer? What about a nice case of Herpes for the rest of your life? How about a bacteria or parasite that hides away destroying your fertility or ability to deliver a healthy baby?

How about an ad saying, "Girls, this could be the most dangerous week of your life. You need to stay sober, be alert and stick with friends who care about you. If you are sexually active, give it up for the week. If you have made a commitment to wait for a husband, good for you! Don't regret this week because you partied too hard. Have fun without anxiety or regrets!"

We agree with Peggy Hamill of Prolife Wisconsin. This ad is an insult to young women. Being in Madison, if they are numb to this perversive message, hopefully their parents are not and will bombard the university with their displeasure.

Ladies, pregnancy is not a disease. Sex can be very hazardous to your health and well-being nowadays. Don't let them turn the joy of motherhood into the biggest evil standing in the way of your "fun".

2-19-05 Article: "Can our Students Abstain from Risk?"

2005-02-23T12:42:00.000-06:00

I always wonder if the writers of articles about sex education ever look at actual curriculums. I have looked at a variety of curriculums and believe me 'lack too many details' easily applies to comprehensive programs.

Lets face it, the designers of all these curriculums include what they think is important for kids to know based on their own very basic beliefs.

Condom-based curriculums assume that adolescents will be sexually active because it is a natural drive. Therefore, teens need to be taught to engage in sex by reducing the very real risks through using condoms. Lessons can include trips to stores to explore the variety of condoms available and practice in putting on condoms correctly on bananas or other penile substitutes. Avoiding pregnancy is also a major tenet so varieties of contraceptives are covered. Another major factor is removing the discomfort of having serious conversations with partners. Role playing is important for building refusal skills, determining a partner's sexual motives, discussing sexual histories and testing/treatment of STD, and incorporating "safe sex" into their sexual activity. What is too controversial to handle in classrooms can be covered by directing them to websites. It is all very here and now. It is directed at the ineviability of having sex.

Abstinence curriculums assume teens can use their brains to subdue their sex drive. It concentrates on exploring rational reasons for a teen to wait to have sex until married. Curriculums stress taking a life view by setting goals: pursuing an education, career, marriage and family. It challenges students to look at how STD, a history of multiple partners, and unwed pregnancy can destroy those goals. Then it takes them through the character traits they can develop that will help them meet goals. It stresses that sexual abstinence is a lifestyle that ultimately works in a person's favor. The traits one uses to refrain from sex as a teen will be the ones that are used to be a good student, a trusted employee, a faithful spouse, a devoted parent and an empathetic adult. This is not "Just say NO". It is directed at what is ultimately best for people and society.

Condom/contraceptive education has been well marketed to appeal to parental desire to keep their kids SAFE. Thus, we get headlines like "Can our kids abstain from risk?" Abstinence education gets lamblasted for facts, statistics, and data despite the fact those things ultimately are not what influences kids the most. How many articles do we see that challenge abstinence curriculums for what they really do teach? None? Abstinence does not teach that if you aren't abstinent you are bad. It teaches that choices you make now can affect your future, putting choices in a lifelong framework.

Lorraine Latham of Planned Parenthood bemoans her organization's lack of access to students in some communities implying it is only because of conflicting funding. She doesn't mention that Planned Parenthood has its own grants/funding to put their curriculums and teachers in schools as is the case with MPS. In some places, parents and schools have looked at all curricular options and have decided that abstinence curriculums have more to offer.

As to research on outcomes: If condom education, the predominant curriculums in our schools, worked so well STD and teen pregnancy rates should have plummeted by now. There is absolutely no data to prove that any sexually active teenager who uses condoms and contraceptives escapes all STD and pregnancy over the course of their unwed teen and adult years. Remember some STDs take time to develop and the person has to have regular testing to prove they are not infected. However, no proof is needed for the abstinent teen who engages in no genital contact; it is virtually impossible to contract a disease or get pregnant.

The charge that ONE curriculum cites that "HIV can be contracted through sweat and tears" is a hopefully erroneous interpretation probably based on the new saliva test for HIV. Everyone should be getting an honest answer for a legitimate question--if you can test for HIV from saliva, how is it not passed through saliva?

Bottom line: Any lesson needs consistent repetition for it to be learned and assimilated. High School freshmen outscore seniors on surveys because they have fresh knowledge due to ninth grade health classes. But that knowledge tends to dissipate over the years, no matter what the message, unless it is reinforced and assimilated when it is most needed. Denied that opportunity, keeping teens abstinent for at least 18 months longer is an incredible plus for girls. As their reproductive systems mature, diseases can become less invasive and young women become more knowledgeable and responsible for their own health. Unfortunately, the latter is because of awareness of their friends' experiences rather than medical or educational intervention. If abstinence education achieves even this level of postponement, girls benefit. Curricular goals might have failed but girls are still better off.

"Treating partners may help curb STDs"

2005-02-17T13:49:00.000-06:00

According to the news article, "People with chlamydia and gonorrhea are supposed to tell past sexual partners about their diagnosis and urge them to get treatment. A new study says giving the patients medicine to pass on to their...partners works even better." Now how could anyone object to this?

1. Antibiotics are being distributed without prescriptions, proof of their necessity, or assurance that they are used for the reason given. Are we ready for this precedent?
2. Most supportive legislation (including the unpassed WI bill) allows for dosage for only one partner. What if the infected person has had multiple partners?
3. The proof that this works--The gonorrhea patients were less likely to be infected at their 3 month checkup. This assumes only that those people were not reinfected by the partner who also took the antibiotic. Couldn't it also mean that they had not had any sex in those 3 months? A lightbulb goes off in some people when they get an STD--they get angry, they get guilty, or they get smart. It wouldn't surprise me that out of the 73% success rate, more than a few had taken time-off from sex
4. The success rate of infection was lower for chlamydia "because the antibiotics are less effective, especially for women, than the medication for gonorrhea". WOW!!!!
Does that mean women are fed another half-truth--their chlamydia is not resolved by a dose of antibiotic? Chlamydia is very dangerous for a woman and if it isn't eliminated by the antibiotic, and since it usually is asymptomatic, she rightfully could make the assumption that she has been cured when, in fact, the effects are progressing. Women obviously need to see a doctor and the docotr or clinic should make the contact to schedule her appointment. Should confidentiality trump medical necessity?
5. If a person has one STD, there's a good chance they have others according to the CDC. So if a partner is given the medication for one STD by a partner, s/he is never examined or tested for others which might be far more dangerous. Anything that keeps infected people away from a doctor is not a good thing in the long run.
6. The normal strains of gonorrhea are cured with an antibiotic (some strains are proving resistant as is being seen in Hawaii and California). The fact that gonorrhea rates are decreasing could therefore be attributable to the treatment of the disease, not the prevention of the disease due to a change in the causal behavior. It is important to understand this difference. The medical community considers this a victory. But there is always another STD around the corner for those who have multiple partners. The NIH study, confirmed by CDC, showed condoms significantly reduce gonorrhea only in males. Condom use is not the behavior change that benefits women; abstinence is.

Thank you, Polly Drew!

2005-02-14T09:57:00.000-06:00

Ms. Drew gave any abstinence education advocate all the ammunition one needs in just one column! Yes, Polly, you do see nothing wrong with teen oral sex. You have swallowed the entire weird viewpoint of the most extreme sexologists in the country.

Citing the moral criteria of SIECUS (SexualityInformation and Education Council of the United States) is downright offensive. This is the organization built by the followers of Kinsey. The "US" in the acronym means nothing more than it exists in the United States--the organization has no other stature, no authority, no proven credibility. Yet, their comprehensive sex education keeps getting shoved down our throats.

In their terms, a moral sexual relationship is : "consensual, non-exploitive, honest, mutually pleasurable and protected against STI and pregnancy". No love, no caring, no commitment, no meaning and no positive outcomes. Sex is pleasure with a barrier. Anyone who says yes--no matter the age, the sobriety, the duress or any other state of mind of the participant--makes sex morally correct. That covers the unpublicized, Kinsey idea that any sex is good sex if a "Yes" is involved. Its the theory that allows a rape victim to be attacked in court for provoking the crime. Its what gives clinics the illegal pass to not report men who impregnate minors. Its what will come up again and again in Michael Jackson's trial--the verbiage "he loves children", "he wouldn't hurt any child" ergo sex with a child is loving and not hurtful.

Ooops! But to be fair--they threw in "non-exploitive, honest". Now just how does a partner know in advance if both of them meet that criteria? Oh, I forgot. Partners are suppose to sit down before sex and discuss their intentions, the number of previous partners, their history of STI testing and treatment, explain expertise with their birth control, read the condom package together to assure "correct usage" and then mutually incorporate proper use into their sex acts. Parents, that is what your kids are being taught to do. Role playing this scenario is incorporated into sex ed to make kids "comfortable" with safe sex.

Ms. Drew also seems to think that teens just came up with this idea to separate "fooling around", that can include oral sex, from intercourse. Teens didn't. Neither did Bill Clinton. It has been a systematic, ideological campaign. Websites, just like the cited www.goaskAlice.columbia.edu, have pushed "outercourse" to avoid pregnancy for years. Teens surfing the net for love and relationship advice, usually not sex, get googled right to these advice sites through clever metatags. Today, probably toned down by fear of legal repurcussions, they are prefacing everything with an "abstinence is best" disclaimer. But it is at these sites where teens are advised that showering together can be a fun, safe debut to their sexual lives. Oral sex as safe sex has been almost a motto. Only in the last few years, when evidence showed STIs were occuring in the mouth and throat, were condom warnings added.

Then Ms. Drew returns to her "certified" and "respected" sex therapist for further advice. How dare anyone assume that a human being cannot control a sex drive with sheer brain power. Without our intellect, we are just animals. Which, of course, is another tenet of the Kinsey crowd--primitive urges are natural and should not be controlled. The primitive sex urge in the brain stem and intelligence getting stuck far away in the cortex is alot of hokus-pokus to make people think there is a reason they don't have to use their heads.

Finally, Ms Drew defames teens' curiousity as what will lead them to earlier and more frequent experimentation with sex. All adults have to do is keep a step ahead of them with info to keep them "safe". That is the role adults now have? No guidance, no modeling, no rules, no standards. Just let teens follow their primitive urges and curiosity. Don't let parents have any say just in case they could have influence. The only "right" a parent has is to pick up the pieces when their child's life falls apart from recreational sex.

By the way, all the Scandinavian teens might be proving in their sexually "open" countries by waiting to have sex is that they are smart enough to see the destruction sex has wrought in their lives and their families. Our teens are just as observant even when adults like Ms. Drew and Ms. Foley want to hide those facts.

City Retains High Teen Birth Rate

2005-02-03T11:05:00.000-06:00

#2 Again! Milwaukee has remained at the top of national teen birth rates for more than a decade. That is in spite of a series of campaigns, the efforts of local committees and agencies, and an escalating effort to put teens on birth control methods that do not require their vigilant responsibility.

There are two basic reasons for this: Teens are having sex and some teens want to have babies.
Why can't we just say both of these are wrong? They are bad for the teen, for her family, for the community, and, most definitely, very bad for the babies. A vicious cycle is in place and it will take more than bus ads and PSAs to stop it.

Abstinence should be a cog in the wheel of solutions. It makes no sense that it does not receive greater emphasis. Telling teens to refrain from sex will never be the be-all and end-all--too many social and economic factors are at work. But without abstinence as the foundational principle of all other efforts, nothing else has, or will, work.

It is devastating that OIC will lose Milwaukee's largest federal abstinence grant. Although its program was in its very initial stages, management deficiencies and criminality will give an undeserved black eye to abstinence education here. In the right hands, that money could have gone a long way to lower birth rates by showing teens much better alternatives.

There has to be a payoff for doing the right thing--maybe its time to invest more in the teens willing to postpone sex in favor of their education, job training and career launch.

"Viruses Added to Cancer List" 2/1/05

2005-02-01T13:25:00.000-06:00

Its official! Hepatitus B and C and some strains of human papilloma virus (HPV) are now known carcinogens. Abstinence educators have been criticized for years for using this information as scare tactics to counter unmarried sex. Others chose not to use this well-documented information because it didn't have this final government stamp of approval.

In the case of HPV, the most prevalent STD in teen girls and young women, the avoidance of its link to cervical cancer has been unexcusable. Official brochures from a major area hospital have failed to mention that link in articles about cervical cancer. Young women who have had cryosurgery to remove pre-cancerous cervical cells sometimes were never told that the condition existed because of their sexual activity.

Maybe women will finally know the major reason they are advised to have annual PAP smears--to detect HPV. They will also understand why the new guidelines for PAP tests are more lenient for seniors no longer in sexual relationships or for those who are monogomous as evidenced by longterm test results.

Polly Drew's Sunday Lifestyle column-1/30/05

2005-02-01T13:04:00.000-06:00

Miss Drew accepts that teens have, and perhaps should have, oral sex. Therefore, she admonishes adults to tell kids to use flavored condoms, dental dams, cut up condoms or plastic wrap. She even includes a nod to rappers who mention using a barrier during oral sex in their songs. Imagine the responsibility rappers are modeling for the rest of us!!!!

Its not heartening that a marriage and family therapist sees "protection" as the only issue here. In her questioning of her young patients, I hope she at least considers that their participation in oral sex could have something to do with their need of her services. We have spent several generations building the self esteem of girls and breaking down gender biases. Yet, no one seems to want to tell any young teenage girl that being on her knees with a boy's penis in her mouth was not the objective. The Ick factor of this type of casual sex has to be devastating to the teens and to their perception of what intimacy should be. I would hope a therapist would explore where they are headed with their "hooking up" behavior.

Then she advocates that people of all ages "must use a barrier every time they have any kind of sex" . Wow, lets take the most intimate, loving act--the act that binds a couple and brings children into this world--and lets put a barrier into it. But a condom won't be the only barrier. What about suspicion, fear, indifference and all those other emotions that ultimately will ruin the relationship. Is this what we really want sexual intimacy to become?

AIDS Transmission to Babies-1/31/05

2005-02-01T11:00:00.000-06:00

What a wonderful story that HIV transmission to newborns is almost wiped out in the US. There is a drug, AZT, and there is voluntary testing of pregnant women. It shows what can be done when all levels of government put their minds to something. There is no downside to babies not growing up with HIV/AIDS or dying before their time.

Perhaps offering HIV tests as a prerequisite for a marriage license is another way to stem the spread of HIV. The couple, if one or both were infected, might discover it early enough for drug therapy to have optimal results. They could decide how to live with the disease or even whether marriage would be an option.

Katie Couric TV Special

2005-01-26T22:14:00.000-06:00

The non-interview footage throughout the show was provocative and suggestive enough for the opening disclaimer that the kids slept in their parents motel rooms and signed pledges of no drugs, no booze and no sex. It was admitted that the photo booth was brought in so one has to wonder if the hammocks and dance music were as well. Katie mentioned "sexual tension" within the group and it looks like the photographers and editors captured just what was wanted. If the teens talked about sex for two days, their lack of inhibitions is not unusual.

The teens sounded pretty intelligent during the questioning especially when given the opportunity to speak in the first person. It became pretty obvious that initial responses were generally the grist of rumor mills--less was happening than was being talked about.

The most alarming commentary was the disconnect between sex and relationships. These young teens don't have the time, money or desire to have a relationship. The boys in particular didn't want the problems of a girlfriend. So sex has become recreation. One boy equated "hooking up" to going to a driving range to practice your skills before you play golf. Get better at the technique now, add love later.

It was generally admitted oral sex was about using someone and being used. Even if the girls didn't like it, there was a hopelessness for things to be different. They know what's right and what's wrong. What they seem to lack is the guidance and support to make the right choices. They get into situations where its just easier to give in.

The present and future emotional consequences of teen sexual activity needs more attention and that is where abstinence education takes the lead. Sadly, what most kids are getting in school now is a physical-only sex education so we shouldn't be surprised that teens have compartmentalized sex . But all the evidence of real life indicates that what the body does isn't separate from what the mind thinks or the heart feels. Abstinence curriculums are a better alternative because the process of decision-making is broader than whether to wear a condom or not.

NBC/People Magazine Survey of Young Teens

2005-01-24T17:00:00.000-06:00

This is a survey of predominately 8-10th graders and thus rife with all the inconsistencies of the age group. That said and without the comparative data on respondents (ie. boys or girls), there are some interesting points

Any form of sexual activity becomes more acceptable with age.
Based on all respondents, love is extremely important for sexual intercourse, but less so for oral sex.
While claiming to wait to have a sexual relationship with "the right person", few saw it as a prelude to a closer relationship
There is strong denial about the role of peer pressure in their decision but readily admit to curiousity or sexual desire.
Of those who have not had sex, 74% said that their decision to wait was the main reason.
Not wanting to disappoint parents far outweighed their friends opinions as a reason to wait.
Avoiding pregnancy is a major reason for choices about sexual activity.
Of teens admitting to oral sex or sexual intercourse, 46% said it is a casual relationship
They claim to heed the condom message, much less so birth control
Parents have lower expectations of teen sexual behavior in general and their own teen's in particular.
Parents are overwhelmingly the kids' source of sexual information and teens deny media's influence.

What does this tell abstinence educators?

Educate parents and encourage them to raise their moral standards.
Emphasize that the negative consequences of unmarried sex aren't dependent on age.
Support young teens who do commit to abstinence
The sound byte condom message has an audience. Stress that the message rarely reinforces the correct way to use condoms, making the message dangerous.
Casual sex is a reality at this age. Discourage using someone or being used for sexual desire.
Teens are not stakeholders in solving the problems of teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs and HIV. There is a dis-connect with their behavior. This has to change.
The survey did not cover any emotional consequences of sexual behavior. This needs to be emphasized in education.
If responses about the irrelevancy of peer pressure are accurate, then teaching decision-making skills is even more important.
The media IS an influence on everyone. Teens need to learn how to be discriminating consumers of information.

HIV drugs

2005-01-21T13:08:00.000-06:00

Bravo CDC! Now those who have been raped or made a rare, dangerous sexual choice can receive emergency drug treatment that can keep them from being infected with HIV. This is not a substitute for responsible behavior, nor should it be because of the expediency and intensity of the drug regimen. The looming HIV epidemic among youth and women in this country make this an overdue action.

Adding pre-marriage HIV testing to the already optional pregnancy HIV testing would be another step in this war.

Teen Sex and Parent Notification

2005-01-19T00:00:00.000-06:00

Re: Milw. JS article "Study sheds light on Teen Sex" 1/19

1. Beware of the research.

Has the net ever been more widespread (federally funded family planning clinics in 33 states) and the response so minimal? (1526 girls)
The responses came from girls already sexually active; 40% of whom were hiding visits from parents
The study was conducted by Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood
The quoted percentages don't add up
Much research on teen sexual activity use teens in detention facilities, or who are clients at family planning or STD clinics. It is easy on the researcher to have a captive audience. However, these results shouldn't be extrapolated to the general population.

2. Beware of the Results

The purpose of the study was to show that if parent notification laws were enacted, teens would not curb their sexual activity but would "use no birth control or unreliable methods". 46% would use "OTC methods such as condoms" (check blog on OTC Emergency Contraception), 18% would not use birth control trying withdrawal or rhythm method, 7% would stop having sex.
If 84% would do something different if their parents were notified, they must know their parents would not approve of their behavior. Therefore their parents have taught them values.
These teens have been given a way to circumvent their parents and their parents have lost the opportunity to influence their daughters.
Rather than proving parent notification laws are dangerous, encouraging girls to participate in unsafe sex, the opposite is proven. The laws might allow parents to moderate their daughters' activities with more scrutiny and stop the causal behavior.

3. Beware Researcher Bias

"Rhythm...method...which is far less reliable". Modern Natural Family Planning methods have replaced the old rhythm method. Couples trained in NFP have success rates equal to the best of prescription contraceptives. The researcher obviously doesn't know that.
Teens are, by nature, ill-prepared to manage the regimen of prescription birth control. If they were, family planning clinics wouldn't be putting them on the new long-lasting birth control. So to blame the method when teens are involved is in error. Teens will get pregnant, even when on birth control or using condoms, because of "user" error more often than product/method error.
The only reason the number of unplanned pregnancies and STD will continue to increase is because teens are having sex, not because they aren't using birth control. No method of birth control will save a girl from any STD. The researcher concludes just the opposite.

OTC Emergency Contraception

2005-01-18T13:30:00.000-06:00

Timed to coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Congress will allow the non-prescription, over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception. The decision was delayed last year until assurances could be made that teen girls could use the pills appropriately. A concern was that this pill is not meant as a substitute for regular contraception, and that teenagers would use it as such. That legitimate concern was handled by requiring prescriptions for girls under the age of 16.

Here's the problem with this whole emergency contraception idea:

1) Its market is supposedly females who forget to use their normal contraceptive or are victims of rape, date rape or a poor choice. Their objective is to not become pregnant.
a) The non-contracepting rape/date rape victim can only get pregnant a few days in her cycle. If she is not in her fertile time, she will not get pregnant. In that case, the pill is not medically warranted; it is an emotional balm.
b) The contracepting woman has to know enough about her birth control and its effect on her cycle to trust it. She has to know what happens if she skips a dose. If she is on a patch, or Seasonale, or injectibles, she needs to know if she ever would need Emergency Contraception. Do women or teens get this type of instruction from their doctors or do they have to read the instruction sheet? If they don't know enough to trust what they have, emergency contraception can become a regular safety net or a substitute which is not its purpose.

2) The under-16 prescription rule is a farce. The majority of girls under 16 are having sex with boys over 16 or men. The guys will get the pills. The girl won't have to tell anyone she's sexually active. She avoids responsibility for her actions and he doesn't face charges for rape. What a boon for men into pedeophilia and incest!

3) Look at what this does for rape victims and rapists! She "handles" the possibility of pregnancy but might never be checked for other medical outcomes. She can separate herself from emotional and psychological support she needs and would have been offered if she sought immediate medical attention. The rapist gets a free ride unless he has the misfortune of attacking a very strong woman who will report the rape anyway, submitting herself to the legal systems.

4) When prescriptions are required for all types of contraception, women must, or should, have a physical exam. These are medications that change the body's normal functioning and have side effects. If a woman has an existing medical condition or addiction, contraceptives become very dangerous. Emergency contraception is a double wallop of The Pill--that can't be good for some women.

5) We are in the midst of an STD epidemic and a growing AIDS epidemic among women and youth. Why would we promote anything that might lessen the chances of sexually active girls and women from getting medical attention to diagnose and treat these infections and diseases ASAP.

Does anyone ask why? Does anyone look at the "big picture"?

Consumer Report: Condom ratings

2005-01-14T13:59:00.000-06:00

A report in the February 2005 Consumer Reports magazine has generated controversey. In its testing of 23 kinds of latex condoms, two of the free condom varieties offered by Planned Parenthood scored lowest in air-infiltration tests measuring strength and reliability. Although Planned Parenthood has been dogged in its challenge of the outcomes, testing/evaluation and accuracy of Abstinence education, the same does not seem to apply in-house. As strong proponents of condom use, the fact that their products received the lowest ratings is shameful.

In response to the report, Planned Parenthood:
1) Criticized the testing method
2) Announced that in later "independent testing", the same condoms received excellent ratings
3) Claimed the facts were outdated; their "honeydew" model had already been redesigned. (Did they get prior warning from the CEO of Consumer Reports, a former Planned Parenthood of Maryland president?)

This is the second time in recent years that Planned Parenthood's condoms have made the news. Nonoxynol-9, a spermicidal condom lubricant, was found to cause vaginal damage that facilitated STD/HIV infection. In response, Wisconsin Planned Parenthood removed its condoms that contained the spermicide. However, since nonoxynol-9 was added to condoms by bypassing the FDA claiming it was a lubricant not a spermicide, public trust should have been severely damaged. But since the issue was glossed over in the media, rather than facing hard questions, Planned Parenthood was portrayed as a responsible agency.

Planned Parenthood: You promote condom use to prevent pregnancy, STD and HIV, but deny any responsibility that the approach is not working. You want to educate our children in consistent and correct condom use, but provide them with an inferior product. You claim only your programs are "medically accurate" and "science-based" but the evidence, if publicly presented, paints you into a corner. You blame abstinence advocates for creating public distrust of condoms as a panacea, but have been caught again not telling the whole truth.