Minnesota: "LAURA BILLINGS: Why let facts influence sex ed or gun control?"

[cuchulainn]

I think some of you Minn THRers should pen a letter to the editor on this one.

from Pioneer Press

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/5432969.htm

Posted on Thu, Mar. 20, 2003

LAURA BILLINGS: Why let facts influence sex ed or gun control?
Pioneer Press Columnist

One of the constant criticisms lobbed at liberals is that they base their politics on softheaded emotions rather than hard-nosed facts. So judging from two conservative initiatives introduced at the Capitol this week — a concealed carry weapons bill and another stressing abstinence-only sex ed — one has to wonder why Republican legislators have entirely overlooked all the empirical evidence against them.

The concealed carry weapons bill introduced on Monday by Sen. Pat Pariseau should be familiar to most of us, since it comes up nearly every session. Two years ago, it gained a bit of momentum, thanks in part to former Gov. Jesse Ventura's interest in firearms, the support of groups such as Minnesota Concealed Carry Reform Now, and letters to the editor citing the research of John Lott, author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime.'' Lott even came to visit the members of MCCRN. You can see his picture on their Web site.

Lott's research suggesting that relaxed gun laws actually reduce crime has been a boon to the National Rifle Association and its efforts to pass "shall-issue" laws around the country, even though his methods have been called into question by criminologists from Georgetown, Emory, Carnegie Mellon and Johns Hopkins universities. For instance, critics of his have long wondered where he came across a "national survey" cited in his book claiming that "98 percent of the time people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.''

When Lott was asked to produce the survey, he said he'd done it himself. When Lott was asked to produce the data, he said he'd lost it in his hard drive. When critics began to question his entire methodology, confusing correlation with causation, a woman named "Mary Rosh" rose to his defense calling him "the best professor I ever had.'' Lott later revealed to the Washington Post, that Rosh was, in fact, his own alternate Internet ego.

Since Lott has been largely discredited as a reliable source of information on gun policy, what do other studies say? Well, the FBI says the violent crime rate fell 25 percent between 1992 and 1998, but it dropped even more significantly — by 30 percent — in states with strict gun control laws. According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the violent crime rate fell by only 15 percent in states that relaxed gun control laws before 1992.

And what about those claims that law-abiding citizens need guns to protect themselves from criminals? An analysis of the Texas Department of Public Safety records by the Violence Policy Center found concealed-carry permit holders were arrested for 3,370 crimes — including murder, rape, sexual assault and weapons-related charges — between January 1996 and April 2000. These "good guys" were arrested at rates 66 percent higher than the general population. But why let facts get in the way of firepower?

The same sort of thinking (or lack thereof) is at work in the bill that passed the House Education Policy Committee on Tuesday calling for an emphasis in sex education on abstinence until marriage. Proponents of the bill fear it would confuse kids to teach them that abstinence is the preferred way to prevent pregnancy and STDs while also educating them about contraception and the like. (Or as Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake, put it, the latter method may destroy "young ladies' modesty.'')

Too bad these concerned legislators didn't consult the Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting, whose survey in 2000 found that 78 percent of Minnesota parents don't believe a comprehensive approach to sex ed — teaching both abstinence and contraception — sends a mixed message. In fact, 93 percent of them agree it gives kids the information they need to make responsible choices.

But why bother finding out what parents think? Abstinence-only education is hot these days, and 86 percent of school districts with policies to teach sex ed require abstinence to be promoted. It's so popular, in fact, there are now three federal programs dedicated to funding restrictive abstinence-only education, and no federal programs dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex ed, even though that's the curriculum favored by three-quarters of parents in the U.S. and in Minnesota.

Does the abstinence-only approach actually work? After years of study, a 2001 Surgeon General report and the sources from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy say such programs have not been shown to delay teenage sexual activity. They simply make it more likely that kids will neglect to use condoms or other contraceptives when they become sexually active, putting them at greater risk for STDs, HIV and unplanned pregnancy.

Given how emotional both of these issues have been in the Legislature in the past, it's unlikely we'll hear much logical discussion on the topics this session.

After all, why let the cold hard facts get in the way of a really hot argument?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Billings can be reached at [email protected] or (651) 228-5584.

 

[Nightfall]

An analysis of the Texas Department of Public Safety records by the Violence Policy Center ...

And therein lies your problem. Anything "analyzed" by the VPC is going to come off making every gun owner sound like a criminal, no matter the lengths. I'd love to have access to this report before the VPC got their hands on it, considering the experience I've had wading through the VPC's version of 'facts'.

 

[Pendragon]

The biggest problem with "sex education" is that people disagree on what that entails and adgendas get thrown in from both sides.

My main objection to sex ed is that so called "safe sex" is not very safe - there are several pretty nasty diseases you can catch even when using a condom. (they go around)

Educators want to teach sex because kids are "curious" and "will do it anyway" yet gun safety might "create curiosity" and kids should stay away from guns no matter what - who cares how interesting they may be - thats an unhealthy interest for children...

 

[Shalako]

Libs want to sexualize our children. They want to be the ones that "allow" the fun or are seen to be permissive. That way everyone identifies with the libs as the "cool" types that are into sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. Yeah, man, they are in touch.

They basically cram sex down the poor kids throats with all the condoms in school, MTV spring break every day of your life, and planned parenthood subverting the parent's authority.

It's really quite sick.

 

[Marko Kloos]

They basically cram sex down the poor kids throats...

Teenagers are raging hormone factories. They don't need MTV or sex ed to get the idea. How long has it been since you were a teenager?

It has always amazed me just how similar liberals and conservatives really are when it comes to keeping stuff from their kids' ears.

The liberals want to pretend guns don't exist, and they throw fits when their children even get exposed to the word "gun" in school. Their approach to teaching kids safety around guns is the total abstinence approach...don't talk about 'em, don't learn about 'em, and maybe they won't want to ever handle them if they have been kept ignorant about them all their young lives.
Conservatives decry this approach...and then turn around and use the very same strategy when it comes to teaching kids about their reproductive systems.

Teaching them how to use condoms is equated with encouraging them to have sex in conservatives' minds, just like teaching them about gun handling is equated with teaching them to become murderers in liberals' minds.

 

[Shalako]

Very good point. I will think on that......

 

[MeekandMild]

Libs want to sexualize our children. They want to be the ones that "allow" the fun or are seen to be permissive.

Its more than that. The sort of sexualization and promiscuity they encourage is really about social control.

Liberals want to encourage a society where 1) among the young people there are no long term male/female relationships based on deeper emotional attachments so that fewer people opt to pair off and start families 2) the females develop free floating anxiety and dysphoric mood with maladaptive attachment to the State as provider of emotional and social suppport 3) peer relationships between nonhomosexual males are stigmatized and marginalized.

It has always amazed me just how similar liberals and conservatives really are when it comes to keeping stuff from their kids' ears.

Well the conservatives have good reasons. The records going back for the last 200 years demonstrate upward social mobility correlates with delay of sexual experiance and downward mobility with early experiance. You can't say that about proper firearms education.

 

[F4GIB]

Luckily, the only people who read her column already think like her. She has no influence beyond the left wing of the DFL. She's always the shrill voice of the Nanny State.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Liberals want to encourage a society where 1) among the young people there are no long term male/female relationships based on deeper emotional attachments so that fewer people opt to pair off and start families 2) the females develop free floating anxiety and dysphoric mood with maladaptive attachment to the State as provider of emotional and social suppport 3) peer relationships between nonhomosexual males are stigmatized and marginalized.

 

[rock jock]

Conservatives decry this approach...and then turn around and use the very same strategy when it comes to teaching kids about their reproductive systems.

That's because conservatives (1) tend to value the human body for more than its utilitarian function, and (2) believe that children are not dogs that are slaves to their impulses.

 

[rock jock]

Liberals want to encourage a society where 1) among the young people there are no long term male/female relationships based on deeper emotional attachments so that fewer people opt to pair off and start families 2) the females develop free floating anxiety and dysphoric mood with maladaptive attachment to the State as provider of emotional and social suppport 3) peer relationships between nonhomosexual males are stigmatized and marginalized.

That is one of the best summations I have ever read.

 

[Marko Kloos]

That's because conservatives (1) tend to value the human body for more than its utilitarian function, and (2) believe that children are not dogs that are slaves to their impulses.

It doesn't matter much what they believe, since their beliefs contradict human nature as much as liberal beliefs on guns do.

Abstinence appeals do not work. They don't work for priests, for Pete's sake. Using abstinence as the only way to deal with hormones is as divorced from reality as using "Just say no" as the only drug education, or "guns are bad" as the only gun safety lesson. Dogma is always ineffective as remedy to social or health ills, whether it's based on conservative Puritanism, or liberal "Nerf World" social engineering.

 

[Blackhawk]

This stuff just won't flush no matter how many times you try. :banghead:

 

[rock jock]

Abstinence appeals do not work. They don't work for priests, for Pete's sake. Using abstinence as the only way to deal with hormones is as divorced from reality as using "Just say no" as the only drug education, or "guns are bad" as the only gun safety lesson. Dogma is always ineffective as remedy to social or health ills, whether it's based on conservative Puritanism, or liberal "Nerf World" social engineering.

That is simply not true. Look at the statistics for out-of-wedlock births prior to about 1950. It was a fraction of what it was today. And its not because kids could hide pre-marital sex since neither abortion nor birth control was widely available. The fact that some kids were sexually active does not discount the fact most kids were not. They were expected to exercise self-control and were held reponsible (financially and by way of social stigma) if they failed to do so. The abstinence programs of today are half-hearted efforts to satisfy legislation or school board decisions. Its like having VPC teach a responsible gun safety course to students and then wondering why it doesn't work. We hear the same thing from anti's all the time - people, especially children, can't control themselves enough to have guns, slaves to their hormones, blah, blah, blah. If you tell a child they are not responsible for their behavior, that their lack of self control is simply nature at work, you are creaing a recipe for disaster. Every time they have an urge to act out, whether it be with their fists or their sex organs, they have a perfect excuse.

The solution, I'm sure you would agree, is to remove any dicussion of human sexuality from the classroom. In today's climate, public school teachers have no more business teaching sex ed than they do religion.

 

[MeekandMild]

Abstinence appeals do not work.

Actually they do. Depending on which study you read they delay onset of sexual experimentation between a year and a half and two and a half years on the average. As far as psychological development goes for teens a year and a half is a LONG time. They also significantly reduce the total number of sexual partners, increase the turnover time between partners and increase the latancy period between partnering and sexual events. Thus, by an exponential amount they reduce the number who develop hepatitis C, HIV, chlamydia, NGC urethritis and other nasties floating about in the population.


I suspect, but have not researched the possibility they also provide a substrate for the kids to develop conensus opinions which are more socially apt and polish their "identify friend from foe" skills so making them less likely to mate with reproductively damaged persons.



Lendringser I suppose your stance is natural considering your libertarian ideas and the amount of disinformation which has been foisted on the public. You wouldn't be expected to actually wade through primary research into such matters but if you wish I can dig you up a link to MEDLINE so you can pull some review article abstracts.

Regards

 

[cuchulainn]

conservative Puritanism, or liberal "Nerf World" social engineering

FWIW, the left's Nanny State social engineers, not the religious right, are the intellectual descendent of Puritanism. They are of the same North East/New England strain of social control freaks with a tendency to self-righteous missions to save society from itself.

Excluding a brief, bizarre dabbling into transcendentalism in the first half 19th Century, that strain has been behind most of the moralistic "social betterment" movements throughout U.S. history, for both good and ill ... Great Awakenings I & II, abolition, prohibition, women's suffrage, ending Jim Crow, gun control, environmentalism. etc.

This strain long ago threw off its religious roots, but the original Calvinist concept of "The Elite" still is there, if a little twisted -- it's there even when adherents explicitly and vociferously reject religion. Jonathan Edwards would be quite perplexed at where his intellectual descendents took New England Puritanism.

Yes, abstinence does seem like it would come out of the Puritan strain, but it doesn't -- at least not in its modern occurence. Rather, the now-mostly-non-religious Puritan strain actually was behind the sex education movement of the 60s and 70s -- "We can address this social problem with this public mission. Yes, let's change society for the better!"

The anti-Puritan "leave us alone and our kid's moral traning to us" strain from outside the North East has created the modern abstinence movement as an alternative to sex education -- but its creation was not due to a desire to cram a "social solution" down society's throat, but to fend such a "social solution" off.

Absent sex education, the religious right never would have attempted to push abstinence training in schools.

 

[Beorn]

The solution, I'm sure you would agree, is to remove any dicussion of human sexuality from the classroom. In today's climate, public school teachers have no more business teaching sex ed than they do religion.

Heh heh. There's just one problem. It's that nasty little class called human physiology. And worse, it's an Advanced Placement Class (a College Preparatory even). Egads! It's designed for the smart kids too. What do we do? Do we put cardboard cutouts over the "naughty-bits" and then just roll our eyes and say, "well, you know, right?"

You cannot remove a teenager's curiosity. And many students do not have parents that are willing, able, or even capable of discussing frankly human sexuality.

I am a teacher. I am not a Health teacher, and I do not teach sexuality to students. I have always, always said that the 55 minutes per day I spend with a child cannot hope to compete with the several hours parents are supposed to spend with their child. But those teachers that do teach this very challenging class have a daunting task ahead of them. We don't put condoms on cucumbers, and no one is forced to watch the dreaded "segregated film-strip" like we used to watch anymore. As a matter of fact, parents may request that their child not receive Sex Education instruction. We receive a list from the front office every quarter about who is not to receive any instruction/information.

You want to know something funny...

At least 3 girls per year on that list get pregnant...

Yeah, their parents did a real bang up job on the facts of life, huh folks?

I was told by a professor of mine, "it is not a sin to be ignorant, but it is a sin to be willing to stay that way."

I cannot abide stupidity. I see more "lonely girls" and "willing sperm-donors" becoming teen parents, AND MY TAXES PAY FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE! Is it me? Am I insane? Or are the parents of today seriously derelict in their most basic duties?

I'll tell ya something. I don't want to teach religion. I don't want to teach sexuality. I just want to be a Music Teacher and Assessment coordinator like I was trained. I don't want to be a counselor, coach, confidant, surrogate-parent, disciplinarian (with absolutely NO authority by the way), or entertainer, nor do I want to constantly watch what I DO say so as to not offend some "numerically significant sub-group." I just want to talk about Beethoven, conduct my vocal ensembles, and make kids more effective thinkers and logical test-takers.:banghead:

I teach Music History, and you CANNOT talk about Medieval and Renaissance Music History without mentioning some religion. Catholic Masses, Lutheran Chorales, Anglican Part-song Books, Balinese Gamelan ensembles, Japanese Shinto Gagaku music, and even West African Hausa Funeral Music all are viable and important forms of musical expression. And they all happen to be religiously inspired.

Who invented written music? Monks. Who designed sight-singing systems? Monks. Who has used music to Glorify their Creators for thousands of years? Religious Institutions of all peoples.

Talking about Musicology without mentioning religion is like talking about the Medieval Feudal system without mentioning the King; not a very useful tale to leave out almost half of the story, eh?

I do not preach, I do not coerce, I do not profess a particular methodology over any other. I deal with straight facts, not a subjective truth. Facts.

Truth is something you're supposed to get from your parents or your clergyman. But many of the former are ill-prepared for their role in the life of a child and the latter can't reach the kids if no one takes a kid to a nearby church/chapel/synagogue/mosque.

You may decry teachers and their role in society, but good or bad, we are ending up molding the minds of young people a heck of a lot more than their own parents. I work with many Liberal teachers (who are almost appalled at my gun ownership), and I cannot say if that is a good thing or not. You want to take religion out of schools and then tell someone to keep "Under God" in the pledge? You can't have it both ways, man...

Unless you've been in a classroom where the kids are better armed and have better lawyers than the teachers, you can voice an opinion, but certainly have no business voicing that opinion with the preface of "I'm sure you would agree..."

Won't you agree?

Size 16 shoes firmly off of soapbox now... (waiting for flame strikes)

 

[Tamara]

According to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the violent crime rate fell by only 15 percent in states that relaxed gun control laws before 1992.

...and, hey, there's an unbiased source for ya!

 

[Tamara]

I remember sex ed.
I sorta forged my mom's signature on the permission slip so I could take it.
Only the government could make a movie about sex that would put an entire classroom of adolescents to sleep in 15 minutes flat.

 

[rock jock]

Beorn,

Perhaps I should clarify. Human physiology is a subject of science. Human sexuality is the why's and how's (and how-not-to's). The former I have no problem with. The latter cannot be taught without some framework of morality, whether mine or someone else's. If was simply a matter of presenting facts there would be no argument. But too often sex ed is a platform for promoting a certain viewpoint or lifestyle.

 

[Pendragon]

But too often sex ed is a platform for promoting a certain viewpoint or lifestyle.

Exactly.

I am not opposed to some sex education in schools.

What I am opposed to is teaching kids that a condom will protect them from everything. It simply will not - even when not defective and used correctly.

Yet, the condom is promoted as making kids baby and disease proof - certainly it reduces infection rates, but I think kids should be told about HPV and other diseases so they can make an informed choice.

 

[Beorn]

What I am opposed to is teaching kids that a condom will protect them from everything. It simply will not - even when not defective and used correctly.

I happen to know of 3 young ladies who got pregnant and were STILL VIRGINS!
Apparently, papa-to-be ejaculated outside and the super-sperm traveled up the uterine wall from OUTSIDE the vaginal opening.
What are we FEEDING these boys nowadays. I'd laugh if it weren't so sad...

Perhaps I should clarify. Human physiology is a subject of science. Human sexuality is the why's and how's (and how-not-to's). The former I have no problem with. The latter cannot be taught without some framework of morality, whether mine or someone else's.

I disagree. Human Sexuality is simply a class designed to introduce advanced human reproductive information to students after introductory information had been given in Biology Class (provided you signed the permission slip for your student that is...)
Now, here is part of the course outline for a Human Genetics and Sexuality Class:

Standard 1: Human Reproductive Systems

Key concepts: Structures and functions of the human male and female reproductive systems; events of the female menstrual cycle; barriers to fertilization; causes, modes of transmission, symptoms, treatments, and methods of prevention of major sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Suggested Time Frame: 2 weeks

It does note, however, that abstinence is still the only %100 effective way to prevent STDs. What else are we to do? What else can we say? When parents want us to do their job for them, then we teachers had better HOP TO IT! But, when their inadequacy as instructors in the basics of humanity becomes too glaringly obvious, they shut down all teachers, good and bad, to mask their incompetence.
Parents who cannot do their job shouldn't HAVE THE JOB. But do not clamp down on the only avenue for straight answers and talk that many of these students have.

Please, please, please, do not allow stupidity to run rampant through the gene pool. You know you don't want to see "Return to the Planet of the Cockroaches" do you?

 

[MeekandMild]

I happen to know of 3 young ladies who got pregnant and were STILL VIRGINS!

I once assisted on a C-section on an eleven year old mother who had an intact hymen and had no evidence of ever having been penetrated.

 

[Pendragon]

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

Just read the bold to get the gist...

...

Four of these studies looked at condoms as a factor in the risk of acquiring HPV infection (60, 62, 68, 135). None of these four studies reported a risk reduction for HPV infection associated with condom use, including the one cohort study (60). Genital warts were investigated in two retrospective studies (58, 134). In both studies, investigators found that condom use provided some risk reduction from warts among men (risk reduction of 30% and 52%). The one study (134) that examined the effect of condom use on genital warts among women found no statistically significant evidence for risk reduction (risk reduction of 30%). Cervical dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, or invasive cancers were examined in relation to condom use in 10 case-control or cross-sectional studies (1, 9, 31, 56, 59, 70, 85, 111, 120, 131). Of these 10, six studies reported that condom users had statistically significant reductions in risk, ranging from 39% to 80% (1, 59, 70, 111, 120, 131). Among the remaining four studies, two noted risk reductions that were not statistically significant (9, 31), and two found no evidence of partial protection (56, 85).

Conclusion

The Panel found interpretation of the studies on condom use and HPV infection/disease to be more difficult than for the other STDs. This is due, in part, to the conflicting evidence reported by different studies and the various different outcomes requiring evaluation. Furthermore, most of the reviewed studies did not obtain sufficient information on condom use to allow careful evaluation of the association between correct condom use without breakage and HPV infection or disease. For retrospective studies that focused on the long-term disease outcomes, this was also complicated by the difficulty in ascertaining condom use at relevant time points (i.e., years preceding the diagnosis of disease).
25
July 20, 2001 The HPV data were evaluated separately for the various outcomes of interest (HPV infection, genital warts, and cervical neoplasia). There was no evidence that condom use reduced the risk of HPV infection, but study results did suggest that condom use might afford some reduction in risk of HPV-associated diseases, including genital warts in men and cervical neoplasia in women.

...

HPV is a pretty ugly disease - causes genital warts and a few kinds of cancers. A condom is virtually useless to protect you - but the message we send out is "as long as you use a condom, you won't get AIDS and AIDS and pregnancy is all you got to worry about - and at least we can 'cure' pregnancy"...

It is grossly irresponsible.

 

[sm]

Tamara,
we had our coed sex education in the gym, same gym we shot air rifles, btw.
Nobody fell asleep, well maybe nodded during the movie, but, when students of each gender were paired up and had to put a condon on a banana...

Good points made. We didn't know about HIV in my day,didn' thevenhear of such till many ears later- we did know about STD's. Parents , for the most part spent time with kids and educated them. Teachers could and would answer questions without fear of reprisal.

lendsringer makes a good point on hypocrisy, just depends on which fence on what topic being debated, determines the 'side'one is on.

Sad thing is hormones gets crazy, kids and parents don't communicate, teachers get into trouble for -well teaching, force something on a hormone crazed kid and guess what they'll rebel.

I still think communication, and family a big part of societal problems. Parents don't or won't give love , disicipline, and the kids will find a way to fill a void. Sex, drugs, gangs...