'Ael told me to post this..
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Maine turns down sex-ed funds
By PAUL CARRIER, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
E-mail this story to a friend
Sex Education Programs
Maine is one of three states that reject federal funds to promote just abstinence in its sex-education programs. The schools do have information on abstinence and its abstinence. But the programs include safe sex information also. Does Maine emphasize abstinence enough?
Yes
No
Undecided
[ View Results ]
This survey is not scientific. The results are a snapshot of what readers who choose to take the survey are thinking. It is designed to allow readers to interact with the news of the day, and is not intended to be used for reference purposes.
The survey questions are created daily by the MaineToday.com staff. If you have questions, comments or suggestions about the online survey, you can e-mail us or call MaineToday.com editor Scott Hersey at (207) 822-4061.
See the results of past questions from the past seven days and find out about how the survey works, check Previous Days' Questions.
To top of story
AUGUSTA - Maine has stopped accepting federal funds for an abstinence-based sex-education program, in part because federal guidelines do not allow any of the money to be used to teach so-called "safe sex" practices. The decision by Gov. John Baldacci's administration makes Maine only the third state in the country to turn down the federal money. It comes amid a national debate over whether the government should promote only abstinence or should provide young people with information on birth control and other aspects of sexual activity.
Maine accepted federal abstinence funds annually from 1998 through last year. But officials said Monday that the state did not apply for $165,000 in funds during the current federal fiscal year and it will not seek $161,000 for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.
In the past, the state has used the money to run public-service announcements on television that encouraged young people to avoid having sex prematurely and emphasized communication between parents and their children. Perhaps the best-known announcements, which ran for several years, showed teenagers talking up abstinence in spots that used the recurring tag line "Not me, not now."
Under newly tightened federal rules, "This money has to be part of an abstinence-only program," and that would prevent the state from providing "comprehensive information" to simultaneously encourage abstinence and help sexually active young people, said Dr. Dora Anne Mills, the state's public-health director.
Mills said teen pregnancy rates and teen abortion rates in Maine have dropped substantially, so the state does not need the federal funds, anyway. And the fact that the federal government's guidelines say sex should be limited to marriage makes it hard to educate young people who are gay or lesbian, she said.
"This money is more harmful than it is good," Mills said. "You can't talk about comprehensive reproductive information."
State and national experts said Monday that Maine's decision makes it the third state, after California and Pennsylvania, to turn its back on the federal program. Groups on opposite sides of the issue disagree on whether Maine's decision will carry much weight in an ongoing debate over how best to teach young people about sex.
"It's definitely an anomaly" that will not have repercussions beyond Maine, said Robert Rector of the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, which supports abstinence education. "I think abstinence is basically gaining ground all the time," Rector said, so isolated reversals like Maine will not be very significant in the long run.
Lorraine Kenny of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, which opposes abstinence education, disagreed. Kenny said Maine's decision to forgo federal funding has national ramifications because "it's a very hopeful sign" that a comprehensive approach to sex education is winning important converts.
Until recently, the federal government allowed the states to emphasize three of the eight guidelines that govern use of the federal funds. But starting last year, federal officials "strongly encouraged us to emphasize all of them equally," said Nancy Birkhimer of the state Department of Health and Human Services.
Birkhimer said Maine used federal funds in the past to focus on the three guidelines that discourage premature sexual activity; show that alcohol and drug use make people vulnerable to sexual advances; and describe abstinence as the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
Two of the remaining five guidelines state that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity," and "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."
The state's move drew praise and criticism Monday from Maine groups that have conflicting views on the issue.
"I think it's a great decision" because there's no credible evidence that abstinence-only programs work, said Nicole Clegg of the Family Planning Association of Maine. The agency is part of a coalition that plans to hold a news conference at the State House today praising the state for backing out.
Noting that teen pregnancy is dropping in Maine, Clegg said the state began promoting a "comprehensive approach" to sex education in the mid-1980s and "you can see that the decline coincides with that." Mills said one in 14 teenage girls in Maine was pregnant in 1985, and that fell to one in 27 in 2003, one of the lowest rates in the country.
Mary Schiavoni of Heritage of Maine, a private organization that has a federal grant to promote abstinence education in schools, took a different view.
Schiavoni, whose group is not affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, said state government should accept all of the federal guidelines because they are designed to protect young people from sexually transmitted diseases and to help them form "lasting, enriching and successful relationships."
But Schiavoni also said state officials did the right thing by refusing to accept more federal money because "they recognize they don't qualify for federal dollars" under a program that teaches abstinence.
Maine turns down sex-ed funds
By PAUL CARRIER, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2005 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
E-mail this story to a friend
Sex Education Programs
Maine is one of three states that reject federal funds to promote just abstinence in its sex-education programs. The schools do have information on abstinence and its abstinence. But the programs include safe sex information also. Does Maine emphasize abstinence enough?
Yes
No
Undecided
[ View Results ]
This survey is not scientific. The results are a snapshot of what readers who choose to take the survey are thinking. It is designed to allow readers to interact with the news of the day, and is not intended to be used for reference purposes.
The survey questions are created daily by the MaineToday.com staff. If you have questions, comments or suggestions about the online survey, you can e-mail us or call MaineToday.com editor Scott Hersey at (207) 822-4061.
See the results of past questions from the past seven days and find out about how the survey works, check Previous Days' Questions.
To top of story
AUGUSTA - Maine has stopped accepting federal funds for an abstinence-based sex-education program, in part because federal guidelines do not allow any of the money to be used to teach so-called "safe sex" practices. The decision by Gov. John Baldacci's administration makes Maine only the third state in the country to turn down the federal money. It comes amid a national debate over whether the government should promote only abstinence or should provide young people with information on birth control and other aspects of sexual activity.
Maine accepted federal abstinence funds annually from 1998 through last year. But officials said Monday that the state did not apply for $165,000 in funds during the current federal fiscal year and it will not seek $161,000 for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.
In the past, the state has used the money to run public-service announcements on television that encouraged young people to avoid having sex prematurely and emphasized communication between parents and their children. Perhaps the best-known announcements, which ran for several years, showed teenagers talking up abstinence in spots that used the recurring tag line "Not me, not now."
Under newly tightened federal rules, "This money has to be part of an abstinence-only program," and that would prevent the state from providing "comprehensive information" to simultaneously encourage abstinence and help sexually active young people, said Dr. Dora Anne Mills, the state's public-health director.
Mills said teen pregnancy rates and teen abortion rates in Maine have dropped substantially, so the state does not need the federal funds, anyway. And the fact that the federal government's guidelines say sex should be limited to marriage makes it hard to educate young people who are gay or lesbian, she said.
"This money is more harmful than it is good," Mills said. "You can't talk about comprehensive reproductive information."
State and national experts said Monday that Maine's decision makes it the third state, after California and Pennsylvania, to turn its back on the federal program. Groups on opposite sides of the issue disagree on whether Maine's decision will carry much weight in an ongoing debate over how best to teach young people about sex.
"It's definitely an anomaly" that will not have repercussions beyond Maine, said Robert Rector of the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, which supports abstinence education. "I think abstinence is basically gaining ground all the time," Rector said, so isolated reversals like Maine will not be very significant in the long run.
Lorraine Kenny of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, which opposes abstinence education, disagreed. Kenny said Maine's decision to forgo federal funding has national ramifications because "it's a very hopeful sign" that a comprehensive approach to sex education is winning important converts.
Until recently, the federal government allowed the states to emphasize three of the eight guidelines that govern use of the federal funds. But starting last year, federal officials "strongly encouraged us to emphasize all of them equally," said Nancy Birkhimer of the state Department of Health and Human Services.
Birkhimer said Maine used federal funds in the past to focus on the three guidelines that discourage premature sexual activity; show that alcohol and drug use make people vulnerable to sexual advances; and describe abstinence as the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
Two of the remaining five guidelines state that "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity," and "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."
The state's move drew praise and criticism Monday from Maine groups that have conflicting views on the issue.
"I think it's a great decision" because there's no credible evidence that abstinence-only programs work, said Nicole Clegg of the Family Planning Association of Maine. The agency is part of a coalition that plans to hold a news conference at the State House today praising the state for backing out.
Noting that teen pregnancy is dropping in Maine, Clegg said the state began promoting a "comprehensive approach" to sex education in the mid-1980s and "you can see that the decline coincides with that." Mills said one in 14 teenage girls in Maine was pregnant in 1985, and that fell to one in 27 in 2003, one of the lowest rates in the country.
Mary Schiavoni of Heritage of Maine, a private organization that has a federal grant to promote abstinence education in schools, took a different view.
Schiavoni, whose group is not affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, said state government should accept all of the federal guidelines because they are designed to protect young people from sexually transmitted diseases and to help them form "lasting, enriching and successful relationships."
But Schiavoni also said state officials did the right thing by refusing to accept more federal money because "they recognize they don't qualify for federal dollars" under a program that teaches abstinence.