The Blackbird Whistling, Or Just After

Scientists Plead -- "No More Ab-Only Funding!"

President Bush has proposed increasing funding for abstinence-only education to $204 million in 2008, despite the fact that the programs promote marriage as the only acceptable family structure, stigmatize and encourage silence in sexually abused youth, deny information to sexually active youth, and ostracize and condemns LGBT youth based on views that are entirely religious in origin. (This is not to mention all the studies, surveys, and reports that follow, which demonstrate the danger and sheer ineffectiveness of the AOE programs...)

In fact, abstinence-only programs have such freedom with the federal dollar that they recently broadened their target base to include all unmarried adults under the age of thirty! The escalating nature of this climate prompted a group of scientists to rally against Bush's proposal with a hard-hitting, fact-filled response backed with plenty of scientific documentation.

Earlier this week, professionals from institutions such as Columbia, Yale, and the University of California sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging her to discontinue federal funding for abstinence-only education. The letter went on to cite the mountain of recent documentation demonstrating the inefficacy and potential damage of these programs. They note the condemnation of abstinence-only teachings by the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine.

The opinions of these organizations is further enforced by recent Congressional testimony from former Surgeon General Richard Carmona:  

Dr. Carmona's testimony confirms the political motivations behind abstinence funding and the failure to address issues of efficacy and scientific accuracy. He suggested that ideology and theology have taken priority over women's health in the current administration. Dr. Carmona reported that the Bush administration "did not want to hear the science but wanted to, if you will, ‘preach abstinence,' which I felt was scientifically incorrect."

The letter  highlights “multiple deficiencies” in ab-only ed and expresses “surprise and dismay” that Congress proposes to “extend and even increase” funding abstinence-only education programs.   They attach various national and international studies and surveys, which fortify their position, including those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

By design, abstinence programs restrict information about condoms and contraception - information that may be critical to protecting the health of young people and to preventing unplanned pregnancy, HIV infection, and infection with other sexually transmitted organisms. They ignore the health needs of sexually active youth and youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning for counseling, health care services, and risk reduction education. Withholding lifesaving information from young people is contrary to the standards of medical ethics and to many international human rights conventions. 

The letter goes on to show that little evidence supports the efficacy of these programs to promote abstinence or reduce pregnancy and STDs in teens, while strong evidence suggests

…that many comprehensive sexuality education programs, which include information on both abstinence and contraception, do help young people delay initiation of intercourse.

AOE did succeed in heightening teenagers' doubts that condoms were effective in preventing HIV or other STDs. (Presumably decreasing the likelihood they will be used for this purpose once the boy or girl becomes sexually active.)

Virginity pledges were shown to temporarily delay the onset of sexual activity, but once these teens did begin to have sex they were much less likely to use condoms or seek reproductive health care of any sort.

Abstinence-until-marriage programs, which recently extended to target unmarried adults up to 29 years of age, presented an increasingly unrealistic goal as the average age of the onset sexual activity has lowered to 17, while the average age Americans get married is around 26 and continues to rise.

The letter also cites the 2004 Congressional Report , headed by Rep. Henry Waxman, that found disturbing inaccuracies in ab-only educational materials. 

The U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff found that 11 of the 13 most frequently used curricula contained false, misleading or distorted information about reproductive health - including inaccurate information about contraceptive effectiveness, purported health risks of abortion, and other scientific errors. Recent reviews of these abstinence curricula from Santelli and colleagues at Columbia University have found similar inaccuracies, particularly misinformation about the efficacy of condoms and contraception.

At the very minimum, the report can be summarized as finding that AOE programs typically

• grossly underestimate the effectiveness of condoms and other contraceptives in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs);
• make false claims about the physical and psychological risks of abortion;
• offer misinformation on the incidence and transmission of STIs;
• replace scientific facts with religious views and moral judgments; and
• distort medical evidence and basic scientific facts.

Lets look at this in a little more detail. The Washington Post reported:

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

In addition, the report found education materials that asserted

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse. (Actually, it's less than 3% when used consistently and correctly, as much as 14% with incorrect or inconsistent use)

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion.

Another curriculum tells youth that a long list of personal problems — including isolation, jealousy, poverty, heartbreak, substance abuse, unstable longterm commitments, sexual violence, embarrassment, depression, personal disappointment, feelings of being used, loss of honesty, loneliness, and suicide — “can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage.”

Similarly, other curricula teach that mental health problems are a consequence of sexual activity, without considering the evidence that these problems might themselves cause premature sexual activity, or that they might have a common origin.

 Gender roles got roped into the fray, with materials that often

present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support."

Another cirriculum instructs: “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.”

One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

As you might imagine, abstinence groups were displeased with the report and found all sorts of ways to call it inaccurate, especially since the teaching materials are all still in place. Choosing the Best responded to the fairytale criticism by explaining that the story

is designed to illustrate the differences in communication style between men and women. In addition to missing the point of the story, Waxman fails to mention that this program is for older teens, deals with “Making Marriage Work” and presents widely accepted, mainstream relational principles that encourage the development of listening and appreciation skills in a marriage relationship.

I guess the Choosing Best people consider this perfect justification for a federally-funded youth-targeted parable -- taking fault not for critics' interpretation of the message, which they uphold, but jumping to clarify the story's "age-appropriateness" for teens and supposedly sound application to marriage.

Just for good measure, here are a few tidbits from a Seicus Fact Sheet "In Their Own Words: What Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Say"

* “There are always risks associated with it [premarital sex], even dangerous, life-threatening risks such as HIV/AIDS. Using contraceptives does not change this for teenagers.” - FACTS Middle School, Student Handbook, p. 50

* "...students who do not choose to exercise self-control to remain abstinent  are not likely to exercise self-control in the use of a contraceptive device.” - Game Plan, Coach’s Clipboard, p. 27

* “AIDS can be transmitted by skin-to-skin contact.” - Reasonable Reasons to Wait, Teacher’s guide, Unit 5, pg. 19

* “A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?” -  Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 94

* “One thing that sex education and the media fail to communicate is the power of sex. Spies, who are trained not to give away government secrets, even lose their sensibilities and give in to the power of sex, often because of what a woman is wearing.” (SPIES?!) - WAIT Training, Workshop Manual, p. 86

* “These are simply natural consequences. For example, if you eat spoiled food, you will get sick. If you jump from a tall building, you will be hurt or killed. If you spend more money than you make, your enslavement to debt affects you and those whom you love. If you have sex outside of marriage, there are consequences for you, your partner and society.” - Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 11

Seen enough? Let's move on...

It gets even worse when our Christian Conservative abstinence "values" actually hamper the country from effectively saving lives in other countries that we've agreed to help. The letter to Pelosi cites the grotesque findings of the Government Accountability Office, which reported that  AIDS–ravaged countries qualify for US aid only if they spend one-third of the donated resources on abstinence-only education. This was mandated without  regard to overriding health and  poverty issues, deeply embedded cultural and religious differences, and rampant gender inequality which can eliminate a female's option to abstain.

As a result, thousands needlessly fall ill in the absence of pervasive condom education and dispersion because  we'd rather impose our Puritanical views of abstinence-over-information, in which most of our own citizens don't believe. This restriction also greatly impedes our ability help the sick and dying, as it doesn't allow funds to be allocated based on areas of need - at least not 33.3% of them.

Whether the letter will do any good or not remains to be seen. It would certainly seem that some response is called for. Read the letter for yourself with links to all the studies cited at RHRealitycheck.org.

*** More info (if you really need it)
Physicians Oppose Inaccurate and Dangerous Abstinence-only Sexuality Education in Texas Textbooks

The Case Against Abstinence-Only Sex Education (article w/Shelby Knox on BeliefNet)

PBS Documentary: The Education of Shelby Knox

A self-described "good Southern Baptist girl," 15-year-old Shelby Knox of Lubbock, Texas has pledged abstinence until marriage. But she becomes an unlikely advocate for comprehensive sex ed when she finds that Lubbock, where high schools teach abstinence as the only safe sex, has some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and STDs in the state.

Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact

MSNBC:  

    Doctors denounce abstinence-only education

    Abstinence-only sex ed defies common sense: Education  policy spreads ignorance, sends confusing message to teens

Abstinence-Only Goes Beyond Teens

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

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.

NoMoreMoney.org (for Abstinence Until Marriage Programs)
    *  In Their Own Words: What Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Say
    * Harmful Consequences Abstinence Only Doesn't Work

Colorado Ballot Initiative Seeks to Define "Personhood" At Conception

The Colorado supreme court gave the go-ahead to a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to assert that "personhood" begins at conception. Denver post writes

The amendment, if approved by voters, would extend constitutional protections from the moment of conception, guaranteeing every fertilized egg the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law.

How would this work, exactly? Do they get a social security number? Can you declare them as a dependent? What about the 20-50% of fertilized eggs that never implant to the uterine wall and are flushed from the body? Funerals? Do you need to file a "fertilization certificate" with the state as soon as you're sure? Could miscarriages be manslaughter? No more in-vitro. No more research using stem cells...

The typical craziness ensues in the comment board. Some make great points, but much of it is just frightening.

Anyway, you gotta love the guy in the article that equates abortion with the Columbine shootings...

"Let Me Live Free While You Live Like I Tell You" - The Misplaced Morals of the Christian "Libertarian"

Thanks to Suricou Raven at Moronality, I came across Vox Day's blog, Vox Popoli, by way of his pro-Coulter post "Ann Is Crystal Clear", which contends that

"...women's suffrage is completely incompatible with human liberty..."

Vox backs this with the vague reasoning that "emotion" always leads to fear, which always leads to heightened preoccupation with homeland security. At  least I think that's what he means from the single sentence he devotes to the point:

"One cannot defend freedom on the basis of emotion, as fear always runs to promises of security, however nebulous."

He slams-home his point of women-wreck-democracy-with-their-emotional-voting  with the astute realization that

"...no bald politician has been elected in either the United States or the UK with the exception of Eisenhower and Churchill."

I guess he means elected since women's suffrage. I'm also guessing that baldness is preferable because less hair means more brains (which would actually give most women an advantage) - or it could be because the youngish Vox is, in fact, ah-hem...balding? - (and oh the irony that Vox's email is "Vday")
 

But this is so ridiculous, it hardly merits mention. What I want to speak about is this emerging trend, apparently known as Christian Libertarianism. Vox's site has the brash sub-head of "Live Free or Die!" Denying half the population the right to vote is certainly on the right track.

True Libertarianism holds the noble principals of individual freedom and self responsibility. It advocates individuals making and accepting responsibility for their own social and economic decisions.In other words, you're free to life your life the way you want as long as doing so doesn't impinge on the rights of others to do the same...even when they do things you personally find depraved, dishonorable, or just plain dumb. And here's the problem. I'm not saying you can't be a Christian and a Libertarian, of course you can. But the moment you attempt to force others to live by the principals outlined by your religion, you are a Libertarian no longer.

In Steven Yate's lengthy essay "How I Became A Christian Libertarian" he chronicles his intellectual journey and attempts to rationally synthesize the two disciplines.

Although Yate's admits that "Libertarianism is rooted in a philosophy of natural rights that inhere in individuals, not groups," and goes on to say the tenets of Christianity are not the opinions of a group but rather...  well, simple truth. So it's okay.

As far as I can tell, most Christian Libertarians explain their stance by first quoting scripture illustrating that god approves of a hands-off government and then point to a handful of bible stories that may be viewed as representing individual freedom and culpability. Right about now doubts will be cast as to whether non-Christian individuals can possibly handle this type of freedom without an overriding moral compass to keep our "appetites" in check. Instead of the government, which in the least usually forms laws based on consensus and is morphable over time, we instead have the vastly superior authority of Christ dictating allowable and prohibited behaviors. Great.

So while Christian Libertarians believe in liberty and that we all should be free to make our own choices, women should be denied reproductive rights, sex education is for the (preferably married) 21+ crowd only, and the deviancy of homosexuality should not be recognized, condoned or rewarded by the state. The fact that homeowners and straight married couples are rewarded by the government, while not exactly libertarian, is not so much of an issue.

To be fair, I did find one somewhat moderate stance. Michael Bindner, author of the site "The Christian Libertarian Party Manifesto" makes the astonishing realization that

"As Libertarians, criminalizing abortion is forever off the table."

Hey, does this guy actually understand and embrace the principals of liberty? Well, no but he at least sees the hypocrisy so many others of his kind piously discount. Bindner basically says that abortion is morally wrong and we must work to stop it, but instead of outlawing the practice he wants to incentivize child-bearing and give special sliding-scale tax breaks based on the number of children in one's family. Unfortunately, this too goes against the foundation of Libertarianism by putting the government in the role of encouraging a large-family lifestyle and once again we have the government enacting procedures that effect all of its citizens based on the views of a particular group.

He also has the idea that businesses should be forced to advance and reward women who take a year off to have a baby in the same way they would for someone who worked that year. How this could ever be measured or implemented is unclear, and if it's good or not is not the point. This move makes him more Democrat or Socialist than anything else. The point is - it's not Libertarian!

Like I said, this is the"moderate" CL view on  non-Christian-friendly social issues.

The more common stance? Vox himself wrote an article for the Christian Conservative World Daily News in 2003, in which he explains

"The basic principle of Libertarianism is not anarchic. There are real limits. My free will ends where yours begins. Neither the community nor I have any claim whatsoever on your property or your life, and a libertarian legal system would be structured around that principle."

So far so good. And then...

"Do not be misled by the false "pro-choice" rhetoric of the infanticidal abortionettes; when one individual decides the fate of another, it is nothing more than the ancient law of tooth and claw. Still, their very terminology is the homage vice pays to virtue."

All the more disturbing because I basically agree with the first two-thirds of his article, which talks accurately about Libertarianism. And then he wallops you with this craziness at the end.

For some real self-contradiction and clumsy scramble of logic, check out Bindner's section on gay rights, where he tries to find cohesion with "everyone should have personal liberty" and "but gays are abhorrent and really shouldn't do those things."

Why did they even come into the Libertarian camp at all?

This is my point. "Yes, freedom. Freedom, except..." We all have our personal exceptions, and they are all different. If you allow any one person's, or group of people's exception to form a law restricting others, you are not for true freedom and liberty.

Okay, assault, theft, murder, fraud, personal violation, all these are punishable because they intrude upon the liberty of another. However, whether I wear a seatbelt in my car, or someone says fuck on the radio, or  two women marry and raise children, or whether my doctor and I (or my clergy and I, or my boyfriend and I, or just me alone) decide that I don't want to continue my pregnancy... The Libertarian stance firmly holds that none of it should be in the hands of a government that can take your money and/or lock you up not living the way it decrees.

Allowing Jesus to dictate the "exceptions" to liberty does not make the exceptions inherently okay. Your god is not my god so keep him out of my life!

So, Christian Libertarians, find a new term, you're corrupting what was once a perfectly legitimate political stance and sullying it with god. Damn it.

 

One more guy - I can't resist...

Okay, this guy is a nut-job, although reasonable enough to admit he doesn't speak for every Christian or every Christian Libertarian.

The self-delusion goes so far that The Fountain of Truth founder Doug Newman will talk all about liberty and individual freedom, and then detail all the ways that Bush has been too lenient on abortion and homosexuals. In fact, he seems to think Libertarianism means not wanting to pay your taxes and the "the government screws everything up." Inexplicably, though wanting to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, he seems to think the Branch Davidians should have been left alone...

In the midst of a nauseating number of pages of essays, quotes, and personal rants, I found this lovely poem called "The Old Paths" (anon), with stanzas such as:

I liked the old paths, when
  Moms were at home.
  Dads were at work.
  Brothers went into the army.
  And sisters got married BEFORE having children!

Moms could cook;
  Dads would work;
  Children would behave..

Women wore the jewelry;
  and Men wore the pants.
  Women looked like ladies;
  Men looked like gentlemen;
  and children looked decent.

Cursing was wicked;
  Drinking was evil;
  and divorce was unthinkable

The flag was honored;
  America was beautiful;
  and God was welcome!

We read the Bible in public;
  Prayed in school;
  And preached from house to house
  To be called an American was worth dying for;
  To be called a Christian was worth living for;
  To be called a traitor was a shame!

Sex was a personal word.
  Homosexual was an unheard of word,
  and abortion was an illegal word.

Laws were based on the Bible;
  Homes read the Bible;
  and churches taught the Bible.

If you believe no one should tell you how to live but others should be made to live the way you do - you're NOT Libertarian! YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST WHO DOESN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES!

Stop using liberty as your premise, and make up a new damn term for your political leanings.

1st Amendment Be Damned - Save the Troops From Playboy!

Did you know that men and women fighting for our country are not allowed to obtain pornography while on military property? No porn. They can kill and maim and torture and risk plenty of the same, but we must spare them the real evil of viewing sexually explicit images - or at least having them readily available. I'm not surprised that fundamentalist groups lobby for this, but I am shocked that it was ever enacted. In 1996 Congress passed the Military Honor and Decency Act, which prohibits

(1) the Secretary of Defense from permitting the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on property under Department of Defense (DOD) jurisdiction; and
(2) a member of the armed forces or a DOD employee acting in an official capacity from providing such material to another person."

Legislation was justified by the need to protect the "military's image of honor, professionalism and proper decorum," and to foster character and moral principal in the armed forces. (Vaessen, 1999) 

The ban's sponsors, Reps. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Robert Dornan (R-CA), have argued that pornography represents "an assault on military families" who use the stores regularly. The availability of pornography to troops, they claim, "undermines the well-being of [military] families" and "can also compromise [America's] defense readiness." Interesting.

Once the bans passed Bartlett concluded

"We're one day closer to an end to the disgraceful and indefensible practice of the Defense Department distributing smut on military bases."

Even today, ten years later, when we're at war in a country for questionable motives, using questionable wartime practices, Christian groups are up in arms (so to speak) because the DoD's pornography restrictions are not strict enough. Dear God, our troops have access to Playboy! This USA Today article details current arguments about the ban.

But really, how did this ever get passed and why is Congress wasting time debating it?

I found an informative breakdown of the ruling by Robert L. Vaessen, TSgt in the US Air Force with more than 20 years of military experience, who was plenty irritated by the bill at the time. He renamed it The Military Dishonor and Indecent Act of 1996, and chronicled the legislation's passing.

The bill was never opened for vote on the House floor, but was instead referred to the House Committee on National Security, where it was later attached to the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which specifies the budget and expenditures for the Defense Department. The only way to defeat the legislation on pornography would have been for President Clinton to veto the entire NDAA.

The constitutionality of the legislation has since been questioned by at least one judge, but the ruling  remained unchanged for a decade. 2006 saw the introduction of DoD 410570, an amendment that allowed for an item-by-item review to assess the degree of pornographic content. This led to magazines like Playboy and Penthouse reemerging on military bases.

...which of course led to the current uproar. This, in turn, led me to wonder...

So, who really cares?

Who, specifically, is so incensed over this? The answer was not difficult to discover. At the top of a rather short list is the American Family Association and its founder Rev. Donald Wildmon.

Wildmon. Sound familiar? He's been brandishing the long arm of censorship since the 70's when he took to task indecencies such as Three's Company, Phil Donahue, and the heartwarming Tony Randall series "Love, Sidney." (Love, Sidney!). The full list (1972-1992 from a report by Christopher M. Finan and  Anne F. Castro) is worth checking out. It runs from the predictable: SNL, Soap, Dynasty, The Simpsons,The Newlywed Game (all the Whoopie!), to the head-scratching: Mr Belvedere, Alf, Doogie Houser, Johnnie Carson, The Wonder Years,  Gimme A Break, Love Boat, Matlock, HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN? Hell, I'm pressed to think of a show from the 70's-80's that didn't make the list. What an evil, evil world.

Speaking of, a wikipedia article reveals Wildmon "has been accused of antisemitism for his views on the role of Jewish people in the media. In 2005 Wildmon threatened that if the Anti-Defamation League criticizes the religious right "we just won't support Israel anymore" He has also claimed that "Jews favor homosexual rights more than other Americans". I'm guessing that's a negative.

AFA Press Release on the Current Good Fight Against Porn

Blumenthal Finds "Values Voters" Growing More Extreme

Max Blumenthal on Huffington today:

On October 20 and 21st, I attended the Value Voters Summit, a massive gathering hosted by the Colorado-based Christian right mega-ministry, Focus on the Family, and its Washington lobbying arm, the Family Research Council. [...]

If anything, the movement seemed more extreme and paranoid than it did four years ago. [...]

Star Parker, a former welfare cheat who had multiple abortions, claimed to me that abortion is the leading cause of death among African American women between the ages of 25 and 34. Then she described her wish for the forced quarantine of all "sodomites." Parker was not a lone wacko milling around in the hallway; she was a speaker invited by the Family Research Council.

Check out his video report "Theocracy Now: In Search of Values at the 2007 Value Voters Summit" and see for yourself.

Morning After Pill For Rape Victims - The "Reluctant Compliance" of CT's Bishops

Angela Bonavoglia, author of Good Catholic Girls: How Women are Leading the Fight to Change the Church, and The Choices We Made: 25 Women and Men Speak Out About Abortion, has this great little piece in Huffington today. Also check

The Evangelical Crackup

Intensive article in the Times today about a deeply divided Christian right. Hard to believe when presidential hopefuls spout idiocy like this, but comforting none the less. And you gotta love this quote:

“Obama sounds too much like Osama,” said Kayla Nickel of Westlink. “When he says his name, I am like, ‘I am not voting for a Muslim!’”

We Don't Like Your Clergy - PA Judge to Nullify "Thousands of Weddings"

According to a USA Today article, a judge in York county PA recently re-interpreted  state law to find that ministers lacking a "regularly established church or congregation" are unqualified to perform marriages. Now, couples who have been married by  ministers ordained over the internet-based Universal Life Church, and who have filed the proper paperwork with the county are, sometimes years later, facing potentially invalid marriages.

State Rep. Katie True, a Lancaster County Republican who co-sponsored the bill, explains

"To me, if you want to perform marriages, you have to go to school and learn the teachings for the correct way to perform this extremely solemn ceremony," 

I mean really, you need what we feel is the right kind of clergy so your ceremony will be sufficiently "solemn", otherwise you're not married at all? Why does a wedding ceremony need to uphold other's standards of godliness ("correctness") in order to be legally valid? And why is this issue so upsetting that it needs to be corrected retrospectively?

This is an inherent problem of an institution being equally a religious and a legal matter. There is such a sense of personal attack when people consider marriage. if we allow two homosexuals to be married, what does that say about all marriage, about my marriage? After all, my god doesn't like that... If your minister isn't as devote as my minister, how can your marriage be valid? What does that say about all marriage? About mine??

The ACLU obviously recognizes a church-state issue and is considering action. MaryCatherine Roper, ACLU attorney in Philadelphia says

"lots of clergy don't have congregations but do other things, and to suggest that those are not legitimate ministers is insulting and disregarding the religious work of any number of denominations."

If the York county precedent holds in PA's other 66 counties, the potential for legal and domestic dispute boarders on chaotic, with the legitimacy of thousands of marriages hanging in the balance.  Yes, this issue really is that important.

Huckabee: Non-Marital, Non-Pro-Creation Sex is as Wrong as Drunk Driving or Beating Your Wife

Although I'm well aware the Christian right holds such views, it's difficult to believe that they think this mindset is so irreproachably  correct that it can be spouted off boldly on the campaign trail and no moral person will reasonably find fault. Mike Huckabee equates any sex that would require contraception, whether to prevent pregnancy or disease, as wrong. I mean really, morally wrong. As wrong as domestic violence and drunk driving. He expounds that having sex with a condom is like hitting your wife "not as hard", whereas abstaining would be like not hitting her at all.

Here's what Huckabee says about funding safe-sex programs to fight AIDS in Africa. When asked if his religious views would prevent him from funding such programs he replied that encouraging safe sex was similar to encouraging people to not "drive as drunk" or telling domestic abusers to not hit "as hard...

If we really are serious about stopping a problem, whether it's drunk driving...we don't say "Don't drive 'as drunk'?" ...This is an illogical thing that we apply to that one area that we don't apply to any other area. And I'm open-minded to listen to all the arguments, if someone can convince me a little reckless behavior is OK. Maybe that's the message. But it would seem to me that if we're consistent in saying reckless behavior is, in fact, undesirable we should ask people to move their behavior to the standard and not move the standard to the behavior...We don't say that a little domestic violence is OK, just cut it down a little, just don't hit quite as hard. We say it's wrong."

(From Huffington Post. Watch video here.)

Although every candidate has his or her foot-in-mouth moment (like, erm...Huckabee's suicide joke), Huckabee used multiple and redundant examples to illustrate his point. Only a month ago he addressed this issue much more moderately. Fielding a question from CNN about AIDS in Africa, he admitted that having condoms "is certainly is more effective than not having them," but stressed that people needed to be educated that condoms are not 100% effective.

Ironically, according to a CNN article:

Huckabee made the comments after speaking to a group of about 70 supporters at a restaurant in Columbia where the former Arkansas governor emphasized his consistent position on social issues.

“You’re not going to go to the Internet and find some YouTube moment of me saying something dramatically different..."

No, you'll go on Huffington Post or any of the dozens of other sites now posting the video. He seems to be shifting his tactics and this perplexes me.

At at time where Hilary is doing interviews in Essence about Bill's romantic side, and Obama clumsily tries to straddle the Evangelical black vote and the gay vote, candidates are pandering left and right because, as I've blogged, people often cast their vote on intangible feelings and nebulous faith. The right and wrong of this is another matter.

The point is, it appears the Christian far-right think their kind of anti-homosexual, anti-feminist, biblical-bound  beliefs represent such a superior world-view that they need not pander at all. Can they believe they are so right that this un-couched approach will win an election, cure homosexuality, end abortion, and transform the country? I think they repeatedly see what they want to see and ignore everything else. Therefore, they must. So, keep talking Huckabee...

Bush Appoints Family Planning Chief Who Is Anti-Contraception

Evil Condom. Evil, evil condom...

Reproductive rights advocates this week were outraged to discover that Bush chose Susan Orr, an aggressive abstinence-only proponent, as the new deputy assistant secretary for population affairs (DASPA). The DASPA oversees the nation's family planning program, known as Title X.  

In 2001, Orr enthusiastically supported Bush's movement to deny health coverage of contraception for federal employees stating, "...fertility is not a disease. It’s not a medical necessity that you have it [contraception].” Follow up questions were referred to the Office of Public Affairs, which reaffirmed her position with, “As she said then, the policy allows freedom of conscience and freedom of choice."

Later that week Orr wrote a Weekly Standard article to clarify the topic. "It’s not about choice," she said, "It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death."

So using a condom puts you in bed (so to speak) with the culture of death? The nation suffers a crisis of conscience when federally-purchased health insurance funds the pill for employees? I suppose if women's bodies are principally baby-machines and sex is exclusively for planned pro-creation, then sure, right on...

Susan Orr is currently in charge of $283 million in annual grants that are intended to provide low-income families with family planning services such as contraception and reproductive counselin and she is openly against birth control and sex ed.

Orr held the post of senior director for marriage and families at the Family Research Council, an agency whose mission statement speaks for itself:

"The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society...formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society."

If you need another clue as to their leanings, check out the issues on their "research" page. Or check out some dirt on the FRC compiled by RH Reality Check.

Orr's views are further crystallized in her article "Real Women Stay Married". 

Understandably, there has been some backlash over the appointment.  Democratic Representative Henry Waxman (CA) responded:

This appointment is absurd. Dr. Orr’s support of unproven abstinence-only programs would in itself raise flags about her commitment to comprehensive family planning for low-income girls and women. But in 2000, Dr. Orr said that requiring insurers to cover family planning supplies and services — a policy that promotes access to contraception in many states and the federal employee health program — is “about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.” This leaves little doubt about where she has stood on contraception access. […]

I’m no longer surprised by this kind of decision — ideology firmly holds the reins over reproductive health in this White House. But this lack of commitment to comprehensive reproductive health, combined with cramped budgets, is an insult and a disservice to the millions of low-income people who rely on Title X for family planning and preventive health services.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards believes

The appointment of Susan Orr is a nightmare for anyone who believes in birth control and sex ed. There are plenty of qualified, unbiased people who could oversee Title X without pushing an ideological agenda, but we don’t believe Susan Orr is one of them.

This is yet another example of the Bush administration putting politics ahead of women’s health care.

Planned Parenthood has drawn up an online petition to replace Orr. You can sign here.

More resources:

Contraception Foe Named to Contraception Post

Birth Control Foe To Run Office of Family Planning

Abstinence-Only Programs Fail - Official Report

Comments on Report

* On the lighter side -- pics of a condom-clothing fashion show in Beijing!