"Gov. Mitt Romney, Mass., the presumptive Republican nominee for President, will soon announce his pick for a running-mate. I hope and pray that he will select a person that pro-life Americans can enthusiastically support," said Douglas R. Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI). "The last thing the Governor wants to do is alienate a large voting bloc by picking a person seen as lukewarm on the issue."
Scott said he is "skeptical of men like Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisc., and Gov. Mitch Daniels, Ind.," who had called on the Republican Party to put social issues on the back-burner. "I was appalled when Rep. Ryan suggested that Republicans 'rally around the tallest pole in our tent -- fiscal conservatism, economic liberty,' which essentially means pushing pro-life Americans to the back of the Republican bus." Scott said attempts by the two men to backtrack leave him unconvinced.
Scott said the one person reportedly under consideration that he just could not back is former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice because "she is simply not pro-life."
"Gov. Romney needs to send pro-life people a signal that he cares about these matters we feel strongly about by picking a running-mate every pro-life person can look to and immediately say, 'I am convinced. I will work as hard as I can to see the Republican ticket win in November.'"
Scott said he fears that if the Republicans win in November, life issues and other matters of social significance will be essentially ignored. "We do not need another election in which we do everything we can for a candidate only to learn that, once again, we have been patronized. I do not want to be patted on the head, told I'm a good pro-lifer, and thanked for all of my hard work during the campaign. I want the people I work for to do everything he or she can do to help bring about a society that respects all human life."
According to Scott, there are many great men and women who would be an excellent running-mate for the Governor, including Senator Marco Rubio, Fl., Gov. Luis Fortuno, P.R., Gov. Bobby Jindal, La., Gov. Bob McDonnell, Virg., Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Wash., Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Tenn., Gov. Mary Fallin, Okla., and Rep. Allen West, Fl. "We need someone on the ticket who believes social issues -- those that are literally a matter of life and death -- should be given a high place on the national agenda," Scott said.
Scott said that many pro-life politicians are poorly equipped to defend the pro-life position in a campaign. "The answers are there. Any candidate who does not believe being pro-life can be a winning position should let us know. We will show him or her exactly how to make it happen." Scott said that running from the issue makes it look like one is ashamed of being pro-life. "We are not the people who should be ashamed. We are not the people who think it is acceptable to kill preborn human beings as a 'solution' to social problems. Pro-life candidates should stand tall and proud and learn how to articulate the message to show that the real shameful position is that held by supporters of Roe v. Wade."
Source: Life Decisions International
Susan G. Komen for the Cure founder Nancy Brinker
The president and the founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure are both stepping down from their roles, the nation's largest breast cancer foundation said in announcing a major leadership shake-up. The high-profile departures come in the wake of continuing fallout from Komen's decision earlier this year to briefly end funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
President Liz Thompson will leave Komen next month and founder Nancy Brinker, who has long been the public face of the charity, will relinquish her chief executive's role for a position focused on fundraising and strategic planning, according to a statement released Wednesday by the Dallas-based organization.
It's the latest shake-up since news emerged in January that Komen had decided to eliminate its funding for Planned Parenthood for breast-cancer screening. Komen said it made the decision because Planned Parenthood was the focus of a congressional investigation, which was launched at the urging of pro-life activists.
Komen restored the funding after a three-day firestorm, but it didn't quell the criticism. At least five other high-ranking executives also have resigned, and organizers of many Race for the Cure events saw their participation numbers drop.
Brinker founded the organization in 1982, two years after her sister, Susan G. Komen, died of breast cancer. Thompson joined the group in 2008 to head research and scientific programs, and she was promoted to president in 2010.
According to the statement, which makes no reference to the Planned Parenthood decision or fallout, Thompson said the time was right for her to pursue other opportunities. She hailed the organization's leadership in pursuing a cure for breast cancer and for helping women and men with cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment.
"That legacy will continue. It has been a privilege and an honor to serve in this role," she said.
Brinker praised Thompson's work in expanding Komen's influence in scientific, community health, advocacy and global programs. As for her changed role, Brinker said she assumed the chief executive's duties at the request of the foundation's board in 2009.
"Three years into that role, and 32 years after my promise to my sister to end breast cancer, I want now to focus on Susan G. Komen's global mission and raising resources to bring our promise to women all around the world," she said.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, praised both women for their "profound contributions to women's health" and for helping elevate the importance of breast cancer detection and prevention. She also noted that "the Komen-funded Planned Parenthood programs have helped thousands of women in rural and underserved communities get breast health education, screenings, and referrals for mammograms. We are proud to continue this work together."
Some Komen affiliates were among those publicly opposed to cutting off Planned Parenthood. In the days after Komen decided to restore the funding, Komen policy chief Karen Handel resigned. She had opposed abortion as a Republican candidate for Georgia governor and had become a target of those angry about the decision to halt funding to Planned Parenthood.
Her resignation was followed, in quick succession, by Katrina McGhee, executive vice president and chief marketing officer; Nancy Macgregor, vice president of global networks; and Joanna Newcomb, director of affiliate strategy and planning.
And organizers of individual Race for the Cure events _ 5K runs and walks that account for most of the charity's fundraising _ saw participation decline by as much as 30 percent. Most also saw their fundraising numbers sink, although a couple of races brought in more money.
Race organizers have acknowledged the effect of the Planned Parenthood debacle, which angered people on both sides of the abortion debate.
In response to questions Wednesday about the controversy, Komen spokeswoman Andrea Rader said "I think Liz (Thompson) made clear in her statement that we feel that we've moved past that."
The foundation has invested $1.3 billion in community programs over 30 years to pay for screenings, education, and financial and psychological support for those fighting breast cancer, according to Komen's statement.
Contact: Terry Wallace
Source: OneNewsNow
Operation Rescue has obtained a recording and computer aided dispatch transcript that indicates on the same day that Tonya Reaves died from hemorrhage caused by a uterine perforation after a second trimester abortion, the Chicago Planned Parenthood that killed her ignored instructions from an emergency dispatcher to directly call 911 in the event of an emergency in order to prevent wasting precious time.
The Office of Emergency Management and Communications for the City of Chicago confirmed to Operation Rescue, in response to a FOIA request, that only one call was placed from Planned Parenthood's location on that day, and that call did not involve Reaves.
"This new information confirms that Planned Parenthood intentionally ignored instructions given to them earlier in the day by an Emergency Dispatcher and refused to employ the fastest means of getting help for their dying patient," said Cheryl Sullenger, Senior Policy Advisor for Operation Rescue. "In addition to waiting five and a half hours to get Reaves to the hospital, the further delay caused by refusing call 911 as instructed could have been the difference between life and death."
The recording is from a call placed at 12:43 p.m. on July 20, 2012, originating from the Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood, located at 18 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago. The Planned Parenthood office occupies the entire sixth floor of what is known as the Gage Building. The dispatcher is heard on the recording confirming that the caller's office is on the sixth floor. Operation Rescue confirmed that no other medical offices exist in that building.
Tonya Reaves received her fatal abortion at 11:00 a.m. on July 20. As Reaves lay hemorrhaging, an employee called to report that elsewhere in the clinic a 16-year old patient was "physically assaulted" by her mother. The caller indicated that the staff had to pull the two apart after they witnessed the mother kick and hair-pull her daughter and threaten her with further harm once her father arrived.
The 911 Dispatcher is heard admonishing the Planned Parenthood worker for calling 311, which caused a delay in dispatching aid to the scene. The 311 Call Center is used primarily to provide information regarding City events and programs and other non-emergency services.
The following is a partial transcript of the conversation:
Dispatcher: Okay, and once you called - you see, next time you need a police car to come out for any reason whatsoever, you need to call 911.
Caller: Right. Okay. I just -
Dispatcher: That way you don't waste time with 311.
Caller: I know, I know, I just (laugh) I just hate to use services to make, you know -
Dispatcher: I know. Well, they don't dispatch police cars. All they do is transfer you to 911.
Caller: Gotcha.
Dispatcher: So you're waiting in that queue and then they flip you over to our office.
Caller: Right.
Dispatcher: Now I don't have any of your information. So, what is your telephone number?
"This information shows gross negligence in the way Planned Parenthood managed Reaves medical emergency. Delays in getting her the care she needed were intentional. It crosses the line into what is likely criminal conduct," said Sullenger. "We renew our call for a criminal investigation into Reaves death. If those responsible are not brought to justice, it is only a matter of time before another woman suffers Tonya's tragic fate."
Documentation:
Hear Full Recording
Written transcript of call
CAD Transcript
Video Timeline in Reaves Death
Contact: Troy Newman, President, Cheryl Sullenger
Source: Operation Rescue/Pro-Life Nation
In 2008, a handful of notable pro-life evangelicals and Catholics threw their support behind a presidential candidate sworn to uphold elective abortion as a fundamental right.
They argued that doing so constituted an enlightened pro-life vote that was morally superior to the narrow party politics of religious conservatives. Instead of passing laws against abortion, so the argument went, the candidate and his party would "reduce" it by addressing its underlying causes.[1] True, they said, he was mistaken on abortion, but he was right on other, important "whole-of-life" issues such as opposition to war, concern for the poor and care for the environment.
The candidate's political strategy was simple: shrink the significance of abortion so it was more or less equal with other issues.[2] It worked. Twice as many white evangelicals age 18 through 44 voted for Barack Obama in 2008 than voted for John Kerry in 2004. Catholics, meanwhile, supported Obama at 54 percent, up seven points from what they gave Kerry four years earlier. The candidate got just enough pro-life votes from these groups to tip the election his way.[3]
"Of course abortion isn't the only issue -- any more than the treatment of slaves wasn't the only issue in the 1860s or the treatment of Jews the only issue in the 1940s. But both were the dominant issues of their day."
I submit that each of these alleged pro-life votes represents a profound misunderstanding of the pro-life position. The fundamental issue before us is not merely how to reduce abortion, but who counts as one of us. How we answer will determine whether embryos and fetuses enjoy the protection of law or remain candidates for the dumpster. As Francis Beckwith points out, a society that has fewer abortions but protects the legal killing of unborn humans is still deeply immoral.[4] Given what's at stake, it's vital that pro-life Christians persuasively answer five key questions before the 2012 election:
1. Are pro-life advocates focused too narrowly on abortion? After all, informed voters consider many issues, not just one.
Of course abortion isn't the only issue -- any more than the treatment of slaves wasn't the only issue in the 1860s or the treatment of Jews the only issue in the 1940s. But both were the dominant issues of their day. Thoughtful Christians attribute different importance to different issues, and give greater weight to fundamental moral questions. For example, if a man running for president told us that men had a right to beat their wives, most people would see that as reason enough to reject him, despite his expertise on foreign policy or economic reforms. The foundational principle of our republic is that all humans are equal in their fundamental dignity. What issue could be more important than that? You might as well blame politicians like Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt for focusing too narrowly on defeating the Nazis, to the neglect of other issues. Given a choice, I'd rather pro-lifers focus on at least one great moral issue than waste their precious resources trying to fix all of them.[5]
2. Why don't pro-life advocates care about social justice both here and in developing countries?
They do, which is why pro-life crisis pregnancy centers vastly outnumber abortion clinics in the U.S. and why committed evangelicals, most of whom are pro-life, give more than their secular counterparts.[6] Nevertheless, pro-life Christians should reject the premise that because they oppose the intentional and unjustified killing of innocent human beings, they must therefore take responsibility for all of the world's ills. Is the American Cancer Society wrong to focus on one deadly disease to the exclusion of others? It's highly unfair to demand that local pro-life groups take their already scarce resources and spread them even thinner fighting every social injustice imaginable. This would be suicide for those opposed to abortion. As Frederick the Great once said, "He who attacks everywhere attacks nowhere." True, as defenders of human dignity, we should care about the poor, clean water and the rights of others everywhere. The U.S. government, however, is not going to solve those problems in developing countries the way it can solve abortion here. For example, our government can't ban poverty or stop the sex trade of young girls in Thailand. That is the job of that nation's citizens and government. However, the U.S. government can and should ban the killing of unborn humans within its own borders. That is why prudent pro-lifers have always sought both moral and political solutions to that problem.
While poverty and the sex trade are evil, no one in America proposes legalizing them. Abortion is different. Far from reducing the practice, our government currently advocates it both here and abroad. For example, during his first week in office, President Obama restored funding to organizations that promote and perform abortion overseas. A year later, he signed a health care bill that subsidized insurance plans that fund it here in the U.S. At the same time, he rescinded federal regulations that protect doctors from forced participation in elective abortion and threatened to cut off Medicaid funding to any state that denied tax funding to health care entities that provide abortions.[7] Finally, he nominated to the federal courts justices sympathetic to the abortion license whose rulings could set the pro-life cause back for decades to come. Because ours is a government of the people, Christians have a fundamental duty to work within the political system to limit evil and promote good. Shouldn't social justice start in the womb?
3. Why don't pro-lifers oppose war like they do abortion?
War can be a moral evil, but it isn't always so. Careful thinkers make distinctions between intrinsic (absolute) moral evils and contingent ones. For example, the decision to wage war may or may not be wrong, depending on the circumstances. However, the decision to kill intentionally an unborn human being for socioeconomic reasons is an intrinsic evil and laws permitting it are scandalous. True, a general in a just war may foresee that innocent humans will die securing a lasting peace, but he does not intend their deaths. With elective abortion, the death of an innocent human fetus is not merely foreseen; it is intended.
4. Instead of passing laws against abortion, shouldn't pro-life Christians focus on reducing its underlying causes?
First and foremost, the abortion debate turns on the question of human equality. That is, in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, do the unborn count as members of the human family? With that fundamental question in mind, it's unreasonable for liberals to insist that pro-lifers surrender the legal fight to focus on underlying causes. As my colleague Steve Weimar points out, this is like saying the "underlying cause" of spousal abuse is psychological, so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their wives, the solution is to provide counseling for men. There are "underlying causes" for rape, murder, theft, and so on, but that in no way makes it misguided to have laws banning such actions.[8]
Moreover, why are liberals even concerned about reducing the number of abortions in the first place? If destroying a human fetus is morally no different than cutting one's fingernails, then who cares how many abortions there are? The reason to reduce elective abortion is that human life is unjustly taken -- but if that's the case, then restricting the practice makes perfect sense. Imagine a 19th-century lawmaker who said that slavery was a bad idea and we ought to reduce it, but owning slaves should remain legal. If those in power adopted his thinking, would this be a good society? True, politics isn't a sufficient answer to injustice, but it's certainly a necessary one. Martin Luther King Jr., once said, "The law can't make the white man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me."[9] Frankly, if Christians don't think the government-sanctioned killing of unborn children merits a political response, then they not only misunderstand the moral gravity of the situation, but also their mandate to love their neighbor as themselves.
5. Should pastors challenge church members who support politicians sworn to protect elective abortion?
Yes and no. They should challenge believers and nonbelievers alike with the truth that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being -- and that truth should impact who we support. They shouldn't claim that supporting a particular party or candidate saves us from God's righteous wrath against sin (only the Gospel does that) or that members of the opposite party are not Christians. Nevertheless, in a nation where the people are the government, Christians have a duty to apply their biblical worldview in a way that limits evil and promotes the good insofar as possible given current political realities. At the legislative level in particular (House and Senate races), that usually means voting for those that, though imperfect, will best protect unborn humans against one that sanctions killing them. The reason is simple: at the legislative level, political parties more than individuals determine which laws see the light of day. Consider the House of Representatives. If a party committed to elective abortion controls the chamber, it will squash pro-life bills and promote pro-abortion ones. Even if that pro-abortion party has a few pro-life members, those members will likely never get to vote on a pro-life bill unless their party is not in power.
If parties drive legislation, how should a pastor educate his flock on the relationship between politics and Christian morality? First, he should teach a biblical worldview affirming that all humans have value because they bear the image of their Maker. Second, he should challenge church members to live out that biblical view in every area of their lives, including their political affiliations. Third, he should stress that while no political party is perfect, on the question of fundamental human value, some parties are more in line with biblical truth than others. Suppose, for example, that it's 1860 and 50 percent of professing Christians in your church are members of a political party dedicated to the proposition that an entire class of human beings can be enslaved or killed to meet the needs of the white race. If you're a pastor committed to applying a biblical worldview in all areas of life, is this OK? You might be sympathetic to new converts coming to grips with Christian teaching, but mature church members? Pastors can't use church resources to endorse political candidates or parties, but they can (and must) teach that a biblical worldview informs our political behavior.
This column first appeared in the Christian Research Journal.
1 For an evangelical example, see the interview with Donald Miller on August 25, 2008: http://www.burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/09/interview-with-donald-miller.html. For a Catholic example, see Michael New, "Professors Robert George and Douglas Kmiec Debate Abortion, a Pro-Life Recap," Life News, June 1, 2009.
2 Alex Spillius, "Barack Obama Doubles Support from Evangelical Christians," The Telegraph, November 7, 2008.
3 "How the Faithful Voted," Pew Research Forum, November 10, 2008.
4 Francis J. Beckwith, "Why Reducing the Number of Abortions Is Not Necessarily Pro-Life," Moral Accountability, February 12, 2009. http://www.moralaccountability.com/2009/02/12/why-reducing-the-number-of-abortions-notnecessarily-prolife/%
5 See Randy Alcorn (EMP Blog, November 16, 2008) and Steve Hays (Triablogue, January 30, 2006) for more.
6 Helen Alvare et al., "The Lazy Slander of the Pro-Life Cause," Public Discourse, January 17, 2011; Arthur C. Brooks, "A Nation of Givers," The American (March/April 2008).
7 O. Carter Snead, "Protect the Weak and Vulnerable: The Primacy of the Life Issue,"Public Discourse, August 22, 2011.
8 Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture(Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), 169.
9 Speech at Western Michigan University, December 18, 1963.
Contact: Scott Klusendorf
Source: Baptist Press
The Diocese of Peoria has joined dozens of other dioceses and Catholic organizations in filing suit against the Department of Health and Human Services in an attempt to halt the implementation of its contraceptive-coverage mandate.
“I have an obligation to protect the Church’s ability to freely practice our religion," said Bishop Daniel Jenky. "Fortunately, we have recourse to the Constitution and the strong conviction of our Founding Fathers who clearly intended to keep the government out of the internal affairs of the Church. America’s great history and tradition of religious freedom is embedded in the First Amendment.”
“As bishop of the Diocese of Peoria, I cannot remain silent while the right of Catholics to practice our faith is being so gravely threatened,” he added.
Source: CatholicCulture.org
Life Legal Defense Foundation Demands Information About Planned Parenthood Death
The death of Tonya Reaves, a 24 year-old who died after an abortion at Planned Parenthood's Loop Health Center in Chicago, has remained a mystery because employees at the Chicago Office of the Medical Examiner failed to comply with the Life Legal Defense Foundation's request for Reaves' autopsy report. The controversial manner of Reaves' death on July 20th triggered a hailstorm of calls for abortion provider regulation in Illinois, one of the few states that allows abortion providers to function virtually unfettered with little or no oversight.
Attorney Allison K. Aranda, Senior Staff Counsel for the Life Legal Defense Foundation, stated that a formal public records request for Reaves' autopsy report was made in writing on July 23rd by a staff member of Operation Rescue, who received a denial of her request via telephone. The caller, from the medical examiner's office, informed Operation Rescue that their request was denied because they did not have family authorization or a subpoena.
Illinois law specifically states that all records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be open to inspection or copying, and nowhere does the state exempt autopsy reports from compliance. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Guide for Law Enforcement published July 12, 2012 by the Attorney General's Office specifically states that autopsy reports are public records and should be released. A 2010 Illinois Public Access Counselor review also stated clearly that autopsy reports in the files of the medical examiner are within the provenance of FOIA and concluded that, "the reports are public records and should be released."
"The medical examiner's office has no basis to deny my client's request for the autopsy report involving the deceased Tonya Reaves," explained Aranda, who called for immediate compliance from the medical examiner. In the event that Operation Rescue's lawful request for this public document is not met, Aranda promised legal action. She also noted that the medical examiner is already in violation of Illinois law, which provides that, "Each public body denying a request for public records shall notify the requester in writing of the decision to deny the request, the reasons for the denial, including a detailed factual basis for the application of any exemption claimed, and the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial." Operation Rescue received none of this required due process of law in their valid FOIA request for the autopsy report of Tonya Reaves.
The Life Legal Defense Foundation's letter to the Office of the Medical Examiner is here.
Contact: Tom Ciesielka
Source: Life Legal Defense Foundation
Andrew Moore (’14) participating in the
2010 Walk of Compassion in Ojai, Calif.
An uncle of a young pro-life advocate killed by a car during his
pro-life walk across America is flying to the U.S. to take his nephew’s
place and complete the remainder of the journey.
U.K. resident Paul Brilliant will attend his nephew Andrew Kentigern
Moore’s July 31 funeral in Concord, Calif. and then meet the pro-life
group Crossroads in Steubenville, Ohio to help complete their walk from
San Francisco to Washington, D.C.
Brilliant “really wants to represent Andrew's family and be with the
group as they make it to Washington, D.C.,” Crossroads president James
Nolan said July 25.
Moore was praying the Rosary and walking alongside a highway near
Indianapolis early on July 20 when he was hit by a car and killed.
Investigators found no fault with the driver and Moore might have
accidentally stepped onto the roadway.
The 20-year-old was a student at Thomas Aquinas College and was considering joining the priesthood.
His group had walked about 2,200 miles from San Francisco and had 600 miles remaining before reaching Washington, D.C.
The other volunteer walkers have decided to finish their walk in honor of Moore and his pro-life dedication.
“We are not surprised by their decision to continue,” Nolan said. “These
are some of the most amazing and dedicated young people I've ever met.”
The Crossroads travelers will suspend their nighttime walking for the rest of the summer.
Caleb Glaser, the leader of the central route which Moore walked, said the group still considers Moore part of the team.
“We believe that he will be walking those miles in spirit with us,” he said.
The treks will finish in Washington, D.C. on Aug. 11 with a noontime rally and memorial at the U.S. Capitol.
Walk participants speak to parish groups to encourage pro-life activism.
They stop at local abortion clinics to pray, to hold peaceful protests,
and to counsel those who enter.
The Maryland-based Crossroads has held pro-life walks across America for
18 years. It holds four simultaneous pro-life walks across the country
to witness to the sanctity of human life and to win converts to
protecting life from conception until natural death.
Its website is http://www.crossroadswalk.org.
Source: CNA
On July 6, 2012, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a
pro-abstinence staff report called “A Better Approach to Teenage
Pregnancy Prevention: Sexual Risk Avoidance.” This report details how
Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA), abstinence, truly lowers the rates of
sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) and unintended teenage
pregnancies as opposed to comprehensive sex education (CSE), which only
focuses on reducing these risks. Truthfully, SRA paves the way for
healthy teen development, because it is based on adolescent behavioral
theory, relies upon effectual techniques of public health prevention
programs, emphasizes the importance of parental guidance and support,
and teaches personal skills teens need to avoid dangerous sexual risks.
In the end, the report successfully drives home a pro-abstinence message
by concluding with 22 peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate that teens
have benefitted from SRA programs. To advance these efforts, the
Abstinence Education Reallocation Act is seeking to promote abstinence
by appropriating $15 million more for abstinence education programs and
$80 million less for President Obama’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Program.
Today’s push for abstinence education truly reflects how taxpayer-funded
comprehensive sex education has devastated our society. Based on the
idea that teens are predisposed to have premarital sex, CSE motivates
teens to make decisions about sexual behavior without parental guidance
and to use contraception and condoms. Although CSE does discuss
abstinence, it more so emphasizes “safe-sex” practices. Instead of
encouraging teens to avoid the risks associated with premarital sex, it
encourages them to become promiscuous and increase their chance of
getting STI’s. While Americans have become aware of these demoralizing
effects, the Obama administration has been heavily promoting CSE through
programs like Teenage Pregnancy Prevention, the Personal Responsibility
Education Program, the Pregnancy Assistance Fund, and Aban Ava Youth
Program. For example, the Obama administration demanded for the Aban Ava
Youth Program, CSE geared towards African-American children, to be
replicated, even though it had large shortcomings after it was
implemented.
Because sex education has had such devastating consequences on our
society, more young Americans have realized that abstinence is the way
to go. In fact, a CDC survey released last year shows that 75% of
American 15-17 year olds are abstaining from premarital sex. Thus, this
recent pro-abstinence congressional report could not have been released
at a better time than now. In support of the parent-child relationship,
this report promotes federal policy as a means of helping parents inform
their kids about the dangers of risky sexual behavior. Although both
the report and the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act are a step in
the right direction, we must always remember that more government
appropriations cannot solve our societal problems. Instead, parents need
to step up and educate their children about the risks of sexual
promiscuity and the benefits of abstinence. A resurgence of stronger
American families, rather than continuous government intervention, will
truly counteract premarital sex as a societal norm.
Contact Anna Maria Hoffman
Source: FRC Blog
