Sex-Ed, Federal Style

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) comments this morning:

CALL ME CRAZY, but I don't see why the federal government should be spending tax money to tell grownups not to have sex...

The link is to a USA Today article describing the federal effort in the tone it usually reserves for any enlightened social policy that's coming out of the Bush administration. In addition to kids:

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

A bit of fisking. (And cue the spooky music.)

First of all, note the clever wording of the first graf above which carefully points out that the government's (i.e., Bush's) abstinence-only programs include millions of dollars in federal money to support them. Ooooooo! How awful!! You're supposed to be scared and outraged. Had the government promoted cases of free condoms, however, this article might never have been written. Suggesting limits on irresponsible rutting is probably more frightening to the lunatic left than the sudden appearance of a creche on public property during the "Holiday Season."

And say, what's the big brouhaha about "targeting the sexual behavior of adults"? The feds, along with state governments, already target the spending habits of adults (taxation), the smoking habits of adults (taxing and litigating a legal product into oblivion), the drinking habits of adults (lower and lower breathalizer limits which end up nabbing folks who drink less and less), and, well, shall we go on?

But it's when you get to sexual mores, and guidelines and policies designed to suggest limits to dangerous, unprotected and illogical sexual activities that the lefties—who've happily promoted the above-listed draconian prohibitions—go completely nuts. All you have to do is hint that the perpetual human orgy they promote might not be the way for society to go, and the phony civil libertarian slimeballs come crawling out of the walls to shout out their collective outrage to the heavens if they believed in the heavens. Their bottom line, which they never state publicly, is that they're really out to smash old-fashioned Judaeo-Christian ideas like marriage, faithfulness, and responsibility, all the better free individuals from archaic family shackles, the better to promote the revolution. (Gee, maybe cigarette smokers ought to get better organized when the government steps on their rights.)

Next, the paper introduces the predictable, scolding, "critics say" phrase. When it comes to Iraq, we rarely discover who these critics are. (Since the "critics" are no doubt in State, the CIA, or the NSA and don't want to be outed.) In this case, we now get at least one dude who goes on the record:

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."

That's right, Jim. We're losing touch with reality. And I guess you are the Arbiter of Common Sense. Unfortunately, the current reality on the ground was created by folks like you who eagerly promote abortions for 15-year old girls without parental knowledge or consent, dispense condoms like candy, and push sex, sex, sex at every turn, all the better to shatter any attempt at re-imposing a once traditional moral structure.

The abstinence campaign has everything to do with public health. It helps to cut down on unwanted pregnancies in a way that encourages a healthy respect for young women. And it could result in drastically reducing the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases in young people who feel pressured into indulging in frequent, unprotected sex. As usual, however, a lefty like Wagoner makes the broad and baseless pronouncement that he can't and won't defend. After all, he's a left-liberal. Thus, everything he says is therefore true. What a crock.

[BTW double-fisk: we went to the Advocates for Youth web pages. Yep, it appears to be a nonprofit, all right. But nowhere on the pages can we find out who's funding it, usually a sign that the organization is funded either via a Marxist or socialist organization or by illegally channeling funds from a presumably legitimate parent nonprofit. Nonetheless, we can peruse this list of "campaigns" this clearly left-wing organization supports:

The Rights. Respect. Responsibility.® Campaigns —Youth activists from around the country demanding young people's right to sexual health information and services including:
Emergency Contraception Campaign—Make EC available without a doctor's prescription for all women
The Keep it REAL Campaign—End censorship in America's schools
The Fix the GAP Campaign—Stop U.S. exportation of abstinence-only programs
International Family Planning Campaign—Encourage the U.S. to honor its funding commitments

Youth "activists" (leftist code for "radical agitators") "demanding" information and services. Who knew? "Demanding" is nearly always a very clear signal that we're dealing with the left here, for whom all subjective positions are nonnegotiable because they said so. But also, this organization supports "emergency contraception" for "all women" without a doctor's prescription!! How nuts is that? And we presume that "all women" includes 15-year olds who haven't notified their parents. "End censorship in America's schools." Are they kidding? Censorship of conservatives, no doubt, as socialist points of view are never censored in the schools. And the latter two items are out and out obvious: the U.S. should, no doubt, export only "safe-sex" programs and pay for them. God forbid that we teach people in other countries the value and virtue of family-formation, not to mention the benefits of abstinence in an HIV-ridden world. And precisely WHAT funding commitments? Check the link.]

The paper allows administration official Wade Horn a mild and logical rebuttal. But presenting this administration favorably is not the custom of USA Today. Observing tried and true MSM methodology, the story quickly introduces introduces two more critics who, of course, allowed to have the last word on this topic, leaving the reader with the distinct impression that the current administration policy encouraging abstinence is asinine:

Sarah Brown, director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, says abstinence programs are among many messages that have helped reduce teen pregnancy rates. But "the notion that the federal government is supporting millions of dollars worth of messages to people who are grown adults about how to conduct their sex life is a very divisive policy," she says.

But when governments, federal or otherwise, fight against parental notification of their minor child's desire for an abortion, that's NOT a "very divisive policy"? A divisive policy for the left is any policy that a conservative administration might implement or request. The only possible non-divisive policy for sex is one proposed by the lunatic left, obviously, all of whom are far smarter than we. And who'd want the Bushies to be able to spend "millions of dollars" on anything?

"We would oppose any program that stigmatizes unmarried people," adds Nicky Grist, executive director of the Alternatives to Marriage Project, a non-profit organization based in Brooklyn, N.Y., that advocates for the rights of unmarried people.

Yep, but you'd endorse any program that stigmatizes married people, wouldn't you, Nicky? The far-left's fear of taking anything other than a permissive stance on the issue of sexual conduct reflects their core belief in moral relativism. Taken to its logical conclusion, we probably should also have avoided "stigmatizing" the Islamofascists who plowed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

And note the inflation of "rights" here once again. Grist is concerned about the "rights" of unmarried people, while she apparently is unconcerned about the "rights" of the married people whose more stable household incomes often end supporting, via state and federal government largesse, those free-spirited unmarried people. Once again, we see a leftist pushing policies that are not aimed at "rights" at all but at the destruction of religion-based cultural traditions that support marriage while discouraging co-habitation. Given the overwhelming statistics showing that traditional families are the most prosperous and healthy social entities when taken as a slice of the overall demographic, why would we want to promote behavior that runs counter to this? Beats me, but Nicky never explains. Because, as a leftist, she doesn't have to.

[BTW #2 double-fisk: And exactly who funds the "Alternatives to Marriage Project"? Once again, we have no clue. Where is the funding coming from? We have to rely on this catty Q&A:

Less than 10% of our support come from sales of books and products. More than 90% of our funding is from people around the world who care about support and social justice for unmarried people.

Okay, 90% of their funding comes from people arround the world interested in "social justice for unmarried people." So what kind of people? North Korea's "Dear Leader," perhaps? George Soros? Again, a clear sign of a leftist organization is the clever way in which they dodge the issue of funding. And frequently use the term "social justice," which immediately causes me to check my wallet.

And hey, you thought there was no left-wing conspiracy involving the MSM? This website has a handy-dandy cribsheet for reporters who want to be politically correct and desire to subtly promote the agenda of AMP via the subtle manipulation of language. Here's one example of a tip for cooperative journalists:

Use language like "births to unmarried parents" or "non-marital births" rather than "out-of-wedlock births," "unwed mothers," or "illegitimacy." The phrases we recommend are widely-used, less judgemental ways to describe the same phenomenon.

This stuff is precisely why we continually raise issues of subversize language here in HazZzMat.

But wait, there's more. AMP is mounting a full-scale attack on organizations promoting marriage. Read all about it here. Clearly a major part of this organization's subversive aim is to actively seek to undermine anyone or any organization that actually favors marriage. In addition, there is on these pages a ceaseless promotion of homosexual marriage and even odder relationships. Please note: these folks are not egalitarians. Like all lefties, they want to destroy their opponents, and there's no way to succeed in this than by attacking 24/7 and enlisting press allies to help report the action.]

Let's get back to our regularly-scheduled program.

Brown wraps it up:

"I think the program should talk about the problem with out-of- wedlock childbearing — not about your sex life," Brown says. "If you use contraception effectively and consistently, you will not be in the pool of out-of-wedlock births."

Oh, really, Ms. Brown? But then you'd piss off Ms. Grist, who apparently wants bigger, better, and more special "rights" for those carefree cohabiters and independent rutters, who, of course, are the ones who are going to generate many of the out-of-wedlock births. But the telling phrase is the last one. In other words, just pull out the condoms, ring, and contraceptive foam, kiddies. And screw away, 'cause we know you will anyway. And we want you to do it as well, all the better to strike down those bourgeois notions of love, marriage, faithfulness, and responsibility.

Preaching abstinence promotes these higher values. But that's not what the left wants.

We're a little surprised that Glenn Reynolds, whose comments we generally admire, should actually comment approvingly on this balderdash. And we're wondering if he took a look at the free ride USA Today gave to the hard-left advocacy organizations who supplied quotes and probably promoted the writing of this hit-piece directed at a major Bush administration initiative. One hapless Bushie gets one short graf to respond to three hard-left critics who thus dominate the article's point-of-view. We wonder who really cooked this piece of advocacy journalism up.

Glenn generally takes a libertarian tack on things. But in this case, his libertarianism is being led down the primrose path. The anti-social tack of the lunatic left is on full display in the cited cited. The writer and her enablers are as anxious to destroy any sense of family and morality as the abstinance promoters are in preserving both.

We're not quite sure why Glenn would be taken in by the left's facile propaganda, which merely preserves the facade of libertarianism rather than endorsing it. What it is promoting is far more cynical and sinister.