Every dollar the government stops and starts spending, or stops and starts taxing, is social engineering.

It only took this administration to point out that those of us tied to reality world and the literal word of real experts have to push back, no matter the label.

What cracks me up about these programs is how weirdly ambitious they were.

These people believe that lack of abstinence and chastity and out of wedlock sex and children are the root of all social problems related to poverty. David Brooks has gone on about this for years. So... ambitious? They are showing us dumb liberals how to cure social problems. It's just a coincidence that this lets them off the hook for little things -- like massive economic inequality.

Thank goodness a story about DC that shows progress!

Thanks to our constitutional right to freely practice religion without governmental prosecution, anyone is free to teach "abstinence only" in their own homes. (And what a teachable moment: Your kid: "Mom, you say abstinence only, but my teacher says condoms prevent babies and AIDS. I'm confused." You" "Well, your teacher is not wrong. But in our family, we save ourselves for marriage because it's what God expects of us. Let me explain ....")

In the meantime, our children will get educated on how to protect themselves from disease and unwanted pregnancies.

Ondelette using the term "social engineering" in the Broadsheet article was what I meant as a good choice of words.

"Abstinence only" is an awful, hilarious term. From all evidence I've read (I have no kids) the practice works perfectly up until the point it fails completely.

As I've said before, one might as well call it "accidental pregnancy training".

Just a heads up, ACLU was written as ALCU. There is a link to the correct information but I thought it should be fixed. Thanks.

Point one, this article at least gives no clue whether the "abstinence program" involved 4 lectures and a skit during a 6th Grade health class on the theme of "Just Say Later," or twice a week insruction and discussion through Grade Twelve on negotiating relationships, analyzing advertizing and peer pressure, recognizing the link between alcohol consumption and unintended sexual encounters, forming peer alliances to resist promiscuity, etc. etc.

Point two, read this again:

"The study found that the average age of first sexual encounter both in the abstinence-only group and in the control group was 14.9; that 23 percent of each group had sex and always used a condom; that about 55 percent of both groups remained abstinent no matter what; and that 17 percent had sex and sometimes used a condom and 4 percent had sex and never used a condom."

If the abstinence-only group and the comprehensive-sex-ed control group had the same results, wouldn't that suggest that both programs' effectiveness was unsatisfactory?

the "control group" was not a group of teens in a non-abstinence-only sex-ed program, but a group of teens receiving no formal sex-ed at all.

So, the fact that the abstinence-only programs produced the same results as the "non-educated" (in terms of a formal program!) shows the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs at modifying behavior.

In addition, many abstinence-programs are not wholly accurate or truthful in educating their charges. They falsify statistics about condoms breaking ("All condoms will fail" etc.), about the likelihood of getting pregnant from non-intercourse sexual activirties, and other things as well.

So, the conclusion is that abstinence-only programs are a waste of money and time, and actually do a disservice to our teens.