LowerCaseRepublican

And now an announcement from the Ministry of Truth with Hannity, Rush, Dr. Laura et al.

Good thing the Christian Right doesn't murder people eith-- oh wait. www.armyofgod.com Pro-lifers murdering people. It's irony on a real basic level but I enjoy it. I actually just read a really good book "When Abortion Was a Crime". It's a history of abortion from 19th Century America until 1973 when it was legalized. It disturbed me greatly that the original anti-abortionists argued for the criminalization of abortion (and this is in the public record of America Medical Association publications of the late 1800s and early 1900s) because it would cause "race suicide" and immigrants and blacks would take over the population and take over political power. There was an overt sentiment of racism injected into the criminalization of abortion. Even when abortion was criminalized, abortions were still able to be had because women wanted them and many doctors knew women would do it themselves, so the doctors tried to do it medically as to minimize the death of the mother. Most of the AMA elite did not want abortion legalized because they admitted that they would lose money of child births and the new kids that they would have to give check-ups et al. It should also be known that for years until the criminalization of abortion that abortion before quickening (being able to feel the baby kick and move inside) was deemed perfectly acceptable. Women still proceeded to get abortions before quickening even into the 1900s because they still clung to the idea of quickening. In the 1930s, especially during the height of the Great Depression, abortion was widely accepted even though it was criminal because women could not raise children in a good home and the costs of giving birth would sink their families economically. As the 1940s and 50s rolled in, many physicians came forward to act against the criminalization of abortion and wanted it legalized. As the backlash against abortion came in full force in the 1940s and 50s, these doctors saw that women who wanted them were forced to go underground to get them. In these underground backroom abortions, women were forced to give "package deals" (a.k.a. trading sex for an abortion), the tools were not sterilized and damn near all the time, the abortionist was not a trained doctor at all. This drastically put the woman's life at grave risk. And oddly enough, the sociological data that Leslie Reagan (the author) uses shows that most women who got abortions were married and had kids but could not afford more...and this was also during the times that contracentives and anything resembling birth control was being criminalized for being distributed so there was no other real option (unless you think married couples just would abstain from having sex altogether which ain't bloody likely) The doctors were the original ones starting in the 1950s promoting the legalization of abortion and were later joined in the 1960s and 1970s by feminist groups. Having a woman's right to choose is key and integral because, as history shows, they will do whatever they have to to get an abortion if they need/want one. Personally, I think an open discussion about sexuality and contraceptives would drastically reduce the need for abortion in the first place. We live in a highly repressed society that views sex as taboo as can be seen from anti-sodomy laws that were recently struck down to laws that limit the amount of sexual toys one can have in their home (I'm looking at you, state of Texas) to the idea that abstinence education will stop kids from having sex. In my eyes, taking away the protective measures (i.e. condoms, birth control etc.) will not stop children from engaging in sex, but rather increase the amount of kids having sex...and this seems to be the case in Bush's tenure as governor of Texas. Since his tenure as governor of Texas, President Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers “abstinence only” rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.38 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states. The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration went further by distorting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the CDC to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs. In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at the CDC at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called “Programs that Work,” which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies. All five of the programs identi- fied in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website. Source: Scientific Integrity in Policymaking Report http://www.proudliberals.com/home/index.cf...8&T_ID=1&C_ID=0 This link has the source on it (I can't direct link to it since it's a .pdf file) Even Ronald Reagan said that he believed sex was "inherently tinged with evil." If we live in a society that is so Puritanical that it loathes its own bodies and desires, then no wonder we're having the problems we're having. An openness about sex and sexuality in American culture might just be the means to lower the need for abortion instead of criminalizing it (which has shown that it does not do anything to curb women getting abortions)

I got this from BartCop but it's pretty fitting: What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush? It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all. But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush? I'll tell you what would happen: Rush Limbaugh would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night, saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Dr. Laura would spend at least an hour on her radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. George Steffi and George Will would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true. Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Press saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Press saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Still with me? We're close to the end... MSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Wolf Blitzer would spend at least an hour on his show saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying. Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN (Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal. John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals? Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child. Barbara Olson would write a book condemning Dateline. Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline. Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline. Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline. Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline. William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline. OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A." Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton. My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?" When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal? Even you ditto-sheep have to admit that nobody on that list has EVER defended a fabricated lie against the president. There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television. The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing, Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.

The media is only as liberal as its conservative corporate owners.

I'm just saying the FACT that Clinton's lie about a BJ didn't kill anyone. Quit asserting the false premise that I am a Democrat, it's incredibly annoying to have to set you straight. Clinton, Reno, ATF, FBI...all liars and murderers. FBI caught on video cooking the bomb for the 1993 WTC bombing. As for Waco, excuse me when I get off the party line but the ATF/FBI shot fire into the compound and started the fire before the Davidians fired a single shot. According to all survivors, women and children, they tried to leave unarmed and the ATF/FBI kept them inside by shooting at them and hurling flashbangs at them. So essentially we have the ATF/FBI up to Reno and including Clinton that are liars and murderers. If they had a shred of decency, they'd commit hari kari.

But Tex, did Clinton's lie kill 550+ Americans and 10,000 Iraqi civilians? That's why I think Bush's lies and omissions are much worse.

Nothing.

CC, try checking out the executive order that Bush signed threatening imprisonment to FBI agents that tried to go after Al Qaeda in the months before 9/11. I believe it's W-1IY9 (it's something along those lines letter wise...it's a public record document) Or even better yet, read http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601 tough on terror Bush, huh You should really read the news from 1993...the FBI was actually implicated in helping to cook the bomb that was used at the WTC in 1993. They were caught doing on videotape admitting it. Dec. 13, 1993 Chicago Trib is one of the sources. Bush doesn't even stand up for Republican values. 45% growth in government in 3 years? Deficit spending up the ass instead of fiscal responsibility? Abusing the nation's military to the point where they are going to run out of money after October (yeah, Bush and Co won't ask for more money until after the election so the US Army will be bankrupt from October until December/January when they ask for more money. Or cutting veterans benefits and making it a longer time before they can get their first VA appointment when it's already a 6 month wait? Or even better yet...denying full health coverage to reservist and National Guardsmen yet still sending them off to die and get wounded in Iraq! Or the PATRIOT Act (searches without warrants etc.) -- I always thought Republicans were for less government in peoples' lives and a gay marriage AMENDMENT? Since when did Republicans think it was the government's place to dictate what people did as long as it didn't harm other human beings? That's what I used to think the Republicans stood for. Don't get me wrong, Clinton's a douche as well. I'm not an apologist for Clinton...just don't attribute things to him that are Republican spun lies. In my eyes, if all these past Presidencies and their administrations had any SHRED of honor they'd all commit hari kari right now since they're all a bunch of liars, thieves and murderers. For anybody to be an apologist for ANY of these assholes is beyond my comprehension. That's both Democrat and Republican. And as for the 9/11 photo I posted...they're real people jumping out of the WTC. It's making the point that 9/11 is a horrific event and should not be used in politics, especially when the FAMILIES who lost loved ones are asking for the images of 9/11 not to be used. And since we got a self proclaimed "war president" then why shouldn't we see the stark images of war? If they're down with images of 9/11 being used then why not push the envelope? Maybe now you see the sickness that is inherent in using 9/11 images for political gain.

I wonder why Bush didn't greenlight this ad to remind us of 9/11. If we're constantly being reminded of war with a self-proclaimed "war president" then why not push the envelope?

ChiSox, it's not the Dems that are the ones dissing Bush on this. A lot of the flak is coming from families who lost people on 9/11 and survivors of the attack.

http://www.georgewbush.com/TVAds/ Video of TV ads. I watched them. They seem pretty lame and could have done without the 9/11 references in them, IMO. Even some firefighters' organizations said that the images are powerful but should "not be used in politics" or political gain.

Not entirely different. I mean, it's still a very bitter environment over there towards US troops. The coalition (with the major world powers that is) has essentially fallen apart, Bush Sr. states this when he says "Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. (emphasis mine) Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." Like Jon Stewart said after playing a clip of W saying "I think we're welcomed in Iraq."...Stewart retorted "I guess the rocket propelled grenade is the Iraqi version of Aloha."

Camejo, IIRC, ran for governor of CA in the recall. I like his policies somewhat but American voters hate intellectual candidates. I mean, look at the debates...we get Bush saying "You're talking about Social Security like it's some sort of federal program." His idiocy is not a one time thing. And Gore wasn't much better (another corporate shill) but he was the more intellectual of the two. I mean, after the debates they asked voters in polls and they said "Well Gore looked smarter but Bush appeared more likeable." We were just somewhat lucky that the last "likeable" President played down his Rhodes scholar status. When professional wrestling is one of the top shows on TV, it's a crisis for democracy. People don't want to debate issues and the such, it's become ads like showing Max Cleland (Vietnam vet who lost 3 limbs in country days after being awarded the Silver Star) standing side by side with Osama bin Laden because Cleland is a Democrat and questioning the intentions of the "war on terror". Hence, news shows don't have actual debates on issues, just talking moron heads bashing each other over the skull with prepared rhetoric. Rarely, you can get a Michael Medved or a Justin Raimondo or a Robert McChesney or a Joe Conason who cuts away a bit of the rhetoric and they explain exactly "Here's why Candidate A sucks/is good at this issue." But let's face it, we live in an argument culture that likes to created a dichotomy between differing views so there is no escape from the labels. I mean, I'm a left libertarian (government out of personal freedoms but patrol corporations since laissez faire capitalism in practice has been shown to create some shady companies like Enron, Union Carbide etc. flaunting their nose at the law...so protections against corporate greed, corruption and environmental standards) but there's no point for that in the debate spectrum. If you disagree with Bush, you get labeled a Democrat (something I'm not) and if you agree with Bush, a lot of Dems and others put that in for agreeing with him on everything which isn't true for the most part. It's sort of why I like the Greens slogan "Neither right nor left...but out in front."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160842,00.html

Whoops. Sorry about that, it was a Time article...got my sources mixed up. http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm has the quotes and a scanned page of the article on it. Here's the quote for those that didn't want to read all of the link:

There's a difference between '91 and '03. '91: Bush Sr. said he wouldn't invade, topple the government of Iraq and install a new US friendly regime because in his memoirs, he discusses how f***ing stupid and completely insane the idea would be. '03: Guess the lesson didn't rub off on Jr.

I don't like Kerry that much...but I've gotta say, he's a bit more progressive than Bush and that's what gives him the edge in my book. With Nader not even gonna be able to get on the ballot in most states and the Greens going to field a weak candidate, my only choice is Kerry. It's a sad state of affairs but my vote's going to Kerry in November it looks like.

And I'm sure Rove had a nice laugh about that. Let's face it, this is gonna be one smear-a-riffic campaign...f***ing no holds barred on either side.

Bush is weak on national security. Overextending American forces and doing something that he said he would not do ("nationbuilding") http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?p...t/jon_7131.html President Bush vs Governor Bush debate...It's just the fact that right after 9/11 Bush said: The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number-one priority and we will not rest until we find him." 2001 Sep 13 then only a few months later.... "I don't know where Osama bin Laden is and I am truly not that concerned about him." Brady briefing room, 2002 Mar 13 So, not concerned about catching the guy who had 3000+ Americans murdered? That seems pretty lax on national security to me. I find myself agreeing with hardline right winger Pat Buchanan when he says: "How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution .... Have we not suffered enough - from Pan Am 103, to the World Trade Center, to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam - not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism. Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle...Either America finds an exit strategy from empire, or we lose our republic. The war Netanyahu and the neo cons want, with the United States and Israel fighting all of the radical Islamic states, is the war bin Laden wants, the war his murderers hoped to ignite when they sent those airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Where in the Constitution is the president empowered to "toss dictators aside"? And if it took 150,000 U.S. soldiers to toss Saddam aside, how many troops do Frum and Perle think it will take to occupy the capital of a nation three times as large and populous and toss the ayatollah aside? How many dead and wounded would our war hawks consider an acceptable price for being rid of the mullahs? Only great conceit could inspire a dream of armed world hegemony. The ideology of benevolent American empire and global democracy dresses up a voracious appetite for power. It signifies the ascent to power of a new kind of American, one profoundly at odds with that older type who aspired to modesty and self-restraint." I agree with some traditional Republican values but the neo-conservative movement makes me sick to my stomach.

SS24K, a different President might have done a few things differently. While I can only suggest the hypothetical, here are a few things that came to my mind. *Actually have a meeting of the bin Laden task force that was created before 9/11 (Bush/Cheney created one but never had it meet nor read any of the material that was presented to it; it just sat on the desk) *Listen to intelligence of our staunch allies like the Israeli Mossad who told us in January and into August that Al Qaeda was planning on using planes as bombs. (Sure, the argument can be made too that the US should have had some idea that this would be a tactic since 1995 when Clinton and the FBI uncovered project Bojinka) *Create better airplanes like El Al Airlines pre or even post 9/11. There can be a bomb on those suckers and it might not even down the plane. Plus there is no door to allow passengers into the cockpit. They also have a badass security process instead of TSA (Thousands Standing Around) ramping up all the unnecessary parts of security for the US. They even have a plain clothed trained sky marshal (one trained in breaking up hijackings) on every flight. They even have a decompression chamber that simulates high altitudes so if there is an altitude triggered bomb, it goes off there with nobody getting hurt. They have 2 bulletproof doors on the plane to protect the pilots as well. *Ashcroft wouldn't have been appointed most likely and new attorney general might not have pushed for the PATRIOT Act. The Justice Department has been asking for those sorts of privileges for years but finally got them in the post-9/11 hysterics since sanity wasn't exactly something on the menu...And we wouldn't have spent $8,000 to cover up the breast of a statue *The PNAC gang of Perle, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney etc. wouldn't have received as much power to dictate foreign policy manuevers. As Michael Medved (right wing pundit) said: "Americans must ascribe to prevention and protection, not punishment." Another President could have started ending our dependence on foreign oil...or even oil altogether. *Another President could hold companies accountable for emissions. Bush's policy grandfathered a lot of plants and also has gutted the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Another President would possibly have not done that or even enacted anti-global warming policies (President Bush thinks global warming does not exist before anyone asks) *Another President, post 9/11 could have created a well trained federal law enforcement agency in airport security (like many European countries have) that is paid well enough instead of the average dirt poor wages of most workers in the US and actually know what they're looking for so people don't have to wait as long, etc. This actually did come up but it was vehemently blocked by Bush and the House Republicans because it would interfere with private company profits in airport security. *Another President might not have had preventative detentions, arresting people without charges and holding them until further notice etc. I think we learned our lesson in WW II with the camps for Japanese citizens that this is not effective. Ascribing to the Geneva Convention and other international law would also be effective. *Use the money of military aid to Israel (don't get angry anybody...if they want the same amount of money that they would get from us, according to Prof. Henry Thompson of Auburn Univ., they would just have to raise the income tax on their own people 5% a year. They can still have the money, they'd just be providing it instead of the US) Then we can use that money and go to old Soviet republics, Pakistan etc. that are starving yet sitting on tons of old Cold War weapons. Why not use the money to buy the weapons up and blow them up so they can't be used? People get money to get fed and they don't have weapons to f*** us up. *Assuming any President would have gone after Afghanistan post 9/11, we should rebuild the country with roads, schools etc. Give them food that is actually part of the cultural palatte when we drop food. Do the same for Iraq, the old Soviet republics etc. Post WW I, we didn't aid Germany and their anger etc. was transformed into the election of Hitler into power. Another President might spend more than .01% of our GNP on foreign aid. We will be more secure when the rest of the world is not in poverty so we can get nice running shoes, etc. Madrasas are fundamentalist Muslim Wahabbi schools. They take in all students, give them food etc. and teach them the radical fundamentalist version of Islam. These are incredibly popular and have been multiplying faster than Starbucks in the Middle East. This is because the public school systems there have been gutted so more money could go to their military and paying of the World Bank/IMF debts. Spending US foreign aid to rebuild their public school systems might effectively shut down the Madrasas. *Another US president could but tougher sanctions on US corporations that use sweatshops (i.e. Nike, Gap, etc.) in foreign lands. The Alien Tort Claims Act is a good start but having the US actively go after these companies could cause a decrease in anti-American sentiment. Those are just a few ideas that came to my head. Granted some of them are pie in the sky, but since the entire thing is hypothetical with another President being in office, I thought of any and all critiques.

a test forum

Darryl Huff's book is fantastic. I'm glad somebody else has heard of it.

I actually just read a really good book "When Abortion Was a Crime". It's a history of abortion from 19th Century America until 1973 when it was legalized. It disturbed me greatly that the original anti-abortionists argued for the criminalization of abortion (and this is in the public record of America Medical Association publications of the late 1800s and early 1900s) because it would cause "race suicide" and immigrants and blacks would take over the population and take over political power. There was an overt sentiment of racism injected into the criminalization of abortion. Even when abortion was criminalized, abortions were still able to be had because women wanted them and many doctors knew women would do it themselves, so the doctors tried to do it medically as to minimize the death of the mother. Most of the AMA elite did not want abortion legalized because they admitted that they would lose money of child births and the new kids that they would have to give check-ups et al. It should also be known that for years until the criminalization of abortion that abortion before quickening (being able to feel the baby kick and move inside) was deemed perfectly acceptable. Women still proceeded to get abortions before quickening even into the 1900s because they still clung to the idea of quickening. In the 1930s, especially during the height of the Great Depression, abortion was widely accepted even though it was criminal because women could not raise children in a good home and the costs of giving birth would sink their families economically. As the 1940s and 50s rolled in, many physicians came forward to act against the criminalization of abortion and wanted it legalized. As the backlash against abortion came in full force in the 1940s and 50s, these doctors saw that women who wanted them were forced to go underground to get them. In these underground backroom abortions, women were forced to give "package deals" (a.k.a. trading sex for an abortion), the tools were not sterilized and damn near all the time, the abortionist was not a trained doctor at all. This drastically put the woman's life at grave risk. And oddly enough, the sociological data that Leslie Reagan (the author) uses shows that most women who got abortions were married and had kids but could not afford more...and this was also during the times that contracentives and anything resembling birth control was being criminalized for being distributed so there was no other real option (unless you think married couples just would abstain from having sex altogether which ain't bloody likely) The doctors were the original ones starting in the 1950s promoting the legalization of abortion and were later joined in the 1960s and 1970s by feminist groups. Having a woman's right to choose is key and integral because, as history shows, they will do whatever they have to to get an abortion if they need/want one. Personally, I think an open discussion about sexuality and contraceptives would drastically reduce the need for abortion in the first place. We live in a highly repressed society that views sex as taboo as can be seen from anti-sodomy laws that were recently struck down to laws that limit the amount of sexual toys one can have in their home (I'm looking at you, state of Texas) to the idea that abstinence education will stop kids from having sex. In my eyes, taking away the protective measures (i.e. condoms, birth control etc.) will not stop children from engaging in sex, but rather increase the amount of kids having sex...and this seems to be the case in Bush's tenure as governor of Texas. Since his tenure as governor of Texas, President Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers “abstinence only” rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females.38 Overall, the teen pregnancy rate in Texas was exceeded by only four other states. The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration went further by distorting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the CDC to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs. In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at the CDC at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called “Programs that Work,” which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies. All five of the programs identi- fied in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website. Source: Scientific Integrity in Policymaking Report http://www.proudliberals.com/home/index.cf...8&T_ID=1&C_ID=0 This link has the source on it (I can't direct link to it since it's a .pdf file) Even Ronald Reagan said that he believed sex was "inherently tinged with evil." If we live in a society that is so Puritanical that it loathes its own bodies and desires, then no wonder we're having the problems we're having. An openness about sex and sexuality in American culture might just be the means to lower the need for abortion instead of criminalizing it (which has shown that it does not do anything to curb women getting abortions)

Yeah and parents don't go absolutely apes*** when they find out their kid did something wrong like got busted for alcohol or what not. Right?

Many parents can get violent if they find out that their 14-15 yr. old has had sex. That's the natural reaction of parents... Most parents (especially fathers) go absolutely apes*** when they find out a kid did something without their knowledge (i.e. get a bellybutton piercing, get caught drinking etc. etc.). I know because a friend of mine had to hid a tat she got because her dad would have went absolutely apes*** and get out of control being angry. Now, imagine that you find out your daughter got knocked up...odds are first thing parents would do is wanna beat the s*** out of the kid that did it and have a very potentially violent reaction. So, if you were a kid would you want that sort of reaction to happen if you could help it? Its a protective measure against the possibility of violence that most parents would inflict and also the judgment that some parents would place on their kids.