Lets look at this in the terms of reality. The current administration is using this as an excuse to reward churches that supported them, by giving them taxpayer money. It is called payoff.

"It shouldn't be the government's business to fund this sort of thing," according to Michael McGee, Vice President for Education at Planned Parenthood.

Funny he should say this since Planned Parenthood receives federal funding to perform abortions.

What strikes me as odd is how the mega-churches have managed to enjoy that tax-exempt status all while influencing national elections.

If anyone could explain this to me I'd appreciate it. I'll bet that there are a lot of "special cases" out there, right?

Telling a lie to children about contraceptives is almost like killing them. If you don't arm children with knowledge, when they DO have sex (and they will) they'll be unprepared. They'll either have their own children way too soon (because abortion is a no-no too) or they'll end up diseased.

Thanks a lot!
-Chuck

I hate to be a nit-picker, but this article is factually incorrect. You are misleading your readers. The actual report does not say that "an abstinence program distributed pamphlets that suggested that the HIV virus can pass through condoms because latex is porous". The report states that material with inaccurate information is required to be corrected before any federal money can be used to fund the program. The erroneous condom information was an example of information that was found by the reviewers from that state that requires review prior to any federal funding. Why would you doctor up your reporting of this article? What is your agenda?

Contrary to what some are saying, young people today are NOT necessarily going to engage in risky, premarital sex, for several reasons. First, they're mostly pretty well informed about the physical, emotional, and mental dangers of promiscuity, and make intelligent, rational decisions accordingly. Second, many will forbear perceived immorality.
In the end, not providing birth-control, abortions, etc will enable those who do indulge to actually be responsible for their foolishness

"when they DO have sex (and they will)"

I reject this underlying assumption that so often appears in discussions about abortion, contraceptives, and sex education. Not all children are going to have sex before marriage and we'd all be better off if more children were given the kind of information that might help lead them to the choice of abstinence.
The problem with such information is that it is inextricably linked to issues of morality. Sadly our current popular culture rejects the inclusion of such issues. God forbid we show restraint or practice sound judgement in matters such as these. When it comes to sex we think of our children as little more than rabbits. And we give them virtual carte blanche to engage in behaviors with profound consequences, both physical and emotional, they are ill-equipped to fully comprehend.

this is part of our president's self- agenda. has cost lives in other third world countries.

Both approaches to sex education are needed. Not all teens are going to engage in pre-marital sex; there are some kids with good heads on their shoulders who make an informed decision to wait. Others will, and knowledge that will help them reduce the damage (yes, there will be damage!!) is important.

It is critical that both camps be based on science and reality. Both must be responsible for giving reliable information. There is nothing wrong with - in fact, there is a need for - faith-based organizations to provide encouragement to abstain, even if our tax dollars are supporting some of the efforts. I'm proud to be a part of that!