Why they hate abstinence

Robert Rector, NRO - A few weeks back, the mainstream media were scandalized by a new study showing that abstinence education works. The study found that an eight-hour abstinence course dropped sexual-activity rates among teens by a third, and that the decrease continued two years after the course. By contrast, a “safe sex” program and a third program combining abstinence and contraceptive messages had no effect in reducing sexual activity or increasing contraceptive use.

Abstinence experts weren’t surprised. Eleven prior studies, which the media chose not to report, have shown similar results. The latest study, however, using the most rigorous methods, and published in the prestigious Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine of the American Medical Association, was too prominent to be ignored.

The claim that abstinence programs don’t work is one of several myths used to attack abstinence funding. In addition, opponents have claimed that the federal government funds only abstinence — but a recent study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that, even during the Bush presidency, the federal government spent $4 on programs proselytizing for condoms and distributing them to teens for every $1 it spent on abstinence.
You have to ask yourself why, why is it that progressives and leftists hate abstinence programs so much. Why is it that hussein obama and nancy pelosi have abolished federal abstinence programs and provided new funding for comprehensive sex ed? Why is it that, in the face of overwhelming evidence that abstinence education is working, they have abolished it? Why is it that even when teaching children to open their legs and go for it has failed to stop them from well, opening their legs and going for it, have they increased funding for sex ed? Why is it that they want to teach your children more and more about sex and at younger and younger ages.
...Nearly 40 percent of American children are born outside marriage, most of them to less-educated women who will have a tough time going it alone. In many lower-income communities, the rate reaches 80 percent. The decline of marriage and the growth of single parenthood are the predominant causes of child poverty in the U.S. The cost to taxpayers is some $300 billion in welfare each year. In low-income neighborhoods, abstinence programs were designed to be a small first step in confronting this disaster.
What better way to ensure more children are born into poverty and stay there, what better way to screw the poor over, what better way to suck money off the hard-working and use it to corrupt the struggling, what easier way to push the illegitimate children, without fathers deemed unnecessary, into crime and failure. What better way to hinder potential, what better way to stifle freedom, what better way to snuff out life legally and pretend you're performing a public service.

Tell me, what better way to screw over generation after generation.


  1. That's an interesting take, MK. Leftists know they must breed the next generation of dependents. Hmm, you might have something. My take on the left's hatred of this program was that it results in fewer pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions, depriving their beloved mills of work. Of course the Left, being a vast bag of shit, could very well hold both views simultaneously.

  2. It's all lumped in there together ar.

    Their sex ed is creating work for their slaughter houses. But those that escape their blade are doomed to a hard life or one of being a parasite and political pawn.

    Win-win, as far as the left are concerned.


All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them