Please call the governor today and ask him to veto line 4513-9084 in the budget. Line 4513-9084 provides money for abstinence education in public schools. We know abstinence education is a waste of money. Please give him a call today!!
Office Phone- 617.725.4005
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
So... you're opposed to the teaching of abstinence? That's kind of freaky. There is a difference between abstinence education and abstinence only education... you know that right?
Also, it should be noted that this is an appropriation that's associated with a federal grant program that is administered by DPH... Trevor, do you know that this is abstinence only grant funding (and possible match, part etc.) from the federal government or are you just jumping at the word "abstinence?" Also, a veto would clearly eliminate the $712,241 appropriation... how much money in federal funding would we lose if it's vetoed? What would that mean for sex ed funding if this money is not abstinence only funding? Where does the money currently go? What would this mean for our schools?
If you've already done your homework can you lay it out? If you need to learn more about this can you do so and source it?
Sounds like you just searched the budget for the word "abstinence" and went all crazy without info.
I agree with migraine this should be looked into in respects to the allocations of money. But also, what the hell is "abstinence education" and why does it cost so much? Why does it need it's own line? There is NO NEED for abstinence education at all regardless if it is different than abstinence only. Um don't have sex, don't get pregnant or an std.... that costs money to tell people? It's an insult to the intelligence of youth to even need such a type of "education" funded.
Trevor, I think people were wondering if this funding also funded the other sex-ed programs too, and if it was abstinence only, or just abstience as a part of a broader program - but now we see it was vetoed so that answers that.
I should have been clearer. It was abstinence-only-until-marriage. And I agree that we should not be teaching youth to go out and have sex. (That banner is miss-leading to what I was trying to get at)
The teaching of 'abstinence' to me is just as yellow light as teaching a class about religion (not teaching religion.) Who is teaching it and what are the motives.
My fear comes from this...
"Mitt Romney yesterday announced that the state will funnel nearly $1 million in federal funds to a faith-based organization to teach abstinence to public middle school students in a dozen more communities across the state." (Boston Globe, April 21, 2006, State Widens Teaching of Abstinence)
Faith based organizations A. should not get ANY public funds B. be allowed to come into public schools and ‘teach’.
Every youth in this state deserves a fair and comprehensive sex ed. The intrusion of a national faith driven administration into our local public schools should be rejected.
6 comments:
So... you're opposed to the teaching of abstinence? That's kind of freaky. There is a difference between abstinence education and abstinence only education... you know that right?
Also, it should be noted that this is an appropriation that's associated with a federal grant program that is administered by DPH... Trevor, do you know that this is abstinence only grant funding (and possible match, part etc.) from the federal government or are you just jumping at the word "abstinence?" Also, a veto would clearly eliminate the $712,241 appropriation... how much money in federal funding would we lose if it's vetoed? What would that mean for sex ed funding if this money is not abstinence only funding? Where does the money currently go? What would this mean for our schools?
If you've already done your homework can you lay it out? If you need to learn more about this can you do so and source it?
Sounds like you just searched the budget for the word "abstinence" and went all crazy without info.
I agree with migraine this should be looked into in respects to the allocations of money. But also, what the hell is "abstinence education" and why does it cost so much? Why does it need it's own line? There is NO NEED for abstinence education at all regardless if it is different than abstinence only. Um don't have sex, don't get pregnant or an std.... that costs money to tell people? It's an insult to the intelligence of youth to even need such a type of "education" funded.
Trevor,
I think people were wondering if this funding also funded the other sex-ed programs too, and if it was abstinence only, or just abstience as a part of a broader program - but now we see it was vetoed so that answers that.
Migraine,
I should have been clearer. It was abstinence-only-until-marriage. And I agree that we should not be teaching youth to go out and have sex. (That banner is miss-leading to what I was trying to get at)
The teaching of 'abstinence' to me is just as yellow light as teaching a class about religion (not teaching religion.) Who is teaching it and what are the motives.
My fear comes from this...
"Mitt Romney yesterday announced that the state will funnel nearly $1 million in federal funds to a faith-based organization to teach abstinence to public middle school students in a dozen more communities across the state."
(Boston Globe, April 21, 2006, State Widens Teaching of Abstinence)
Faith based organizations A. should not get ANY public funds B. be allowed to come into public schools and ‘teach’.
Every youth in this state deserves a fair and comprehensive sex ed. The intrusion of a national faith driven administration into our local public schools should be rejected.
Post a Comment