Planned Parenthood, What next?

There was a little tidbit in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Friday about a daylong event called an African-American Day of Action "organized by Planned Parenthood" which would take place on Saturday 7/29 at the Urban Underground. The purpose was to teach skills to begin their pre-election campaign. The skills were "how to operate a phone bank and how to collect signatures for a petition" so it sounds like this is political advocacy.

First, I believe the law states that any organization that accepts federal funding, and Planned Parenthood receives millions, cannot devote more than a minimal percentage of their activities to political advocacy. Now I already know that Planned Parenthood in WI has a political action arm with a membership and a link to its website on the PPWI.org site. I already know that they distribute position papers to "educate" legislators on the bills before them as well as testify at all hearings en masse. I also know they have fancy mailings to districts where they want a candidate defeated, the "Shame on You" series. They also have Emails and newsletters to further their views. Maybe they have diversified their services so much (they do seem to be involved in everything), all that advocacy comes within the federal law parameters.

Although the focus of their campaign is protection of women's reproductive rights, this will impact the education of children. They are recruiting and training people in the black community to advocate for the agenda they promote and financially benefit from. Planned Parenthood staff actually teach condom/contraception education in the Milwaukee Public schools, receiving government funding to do so. The public schools teach abstinence education only through voluntary programs such as Best Men and Best Friends which are offered at a few sites. There are some additional after-school programs in school space but they are not offered by MPS. So lets not get the idea that some great change has occurred; all MPS students receive condom and contraception sex ed.

As of July 1st, the law changed in WI and now the expected behavior objective of sex education is abstinence for unmarried school pupils stressing the fact that abstinence is 100% effective in the prevention of STD and pregnancy. This is the only change in the status quo of sex education. So what is all the hubbub about? Comprehensive education wasn't outlawed; abstinence education didn't become the law of the state. Can thinking adults possibly be arguing that, even though teens are the most vulnerable to the consequences of sex, they should not be encouraged to wait? Unfortunately, as was noted in an earlier blog, lots of people of influence do take exception to anyone being encouraged not to have sex no matter how dire the reasons.

So is Planned Parenthood training advocates just so their contract with MPS is secure? Believe me, I have seen nothing in practice before or after this law that would indicate a change of heart in DPI, MPS or DHFS (where the State Abstinence Consultant is employed). Yes, DPI is writing a new framework for abstinence instruction. But Planned Parenthood, as the guardian of free choice, should have no problems with what I have previewed--it is primarily role plays for getting out of sexual situations. Learning refusal skills is just protection of free choice; its not abstinence education. However, since it isn't, the state cannot use federal abstinence dollars for that curriculum. Aha! So now those state employees need a funding source to create, train teachers in, distribute and evaluate the curriculum they want to develop. That would be a different grant than the funds currently used by Planned Parenthood. So it is all about money and salaries!!!!

Planned Parenthood is probably spearheading an assault because its proposed Responsible Sex Education Act failed. That would explain Rep. Tamara Grigsby's key role in the event--it was her bill. I just can't understand how they can take the same vulnerable minorities that have suffered the most from sexual behavior gone awry...the same people who "benefit" from free condom and contraception accessibility through multiple Planned Parenthood clinics in their neighborhoods, and USE them yet again to further their agenda. If they are so sure what they are doing is best for kids then try convincing those adults picking up the pieces of broken lives to be their advocates. There are many leaders in those neighborhoods that feel Planned Parenthood has done far more harm than good in their community.

Response to Dear Abby Column

Dear Abby:

I read the letter from “Wiser Now in the USA”, (7/19/06) which I thought was a very telling letter. I was disappointed that you chose to take the tact you did in your response.

Here was a young woman who had a baby at fourteen, in all probability impregnated by someone older, a statutory rapist. She continued the sexual pattern which she had been led into as a child, not surprisingly also repeating the pregnancies and enduring the “heart-wrenching” experience of adoption (but bettering the life of that child). After her first birth, she would have received full information on contraception from her doctor. Whether she chose not to use the prescription or, as is just as likely, as a teenager, she misused the regimen, other pregnancies were inevitable. But even if she knew nothing of contraception, her male sexual partners took no responsibility since they weren’t interested in protecting her, preventing a pregnancy, making a commitment or assuming fatherhood. This little girl was abused and used by men, and abandoned by adults who think her life is rosy if she just doesn’t get pregnant.

Thankfully, she now has “a chance” for an education and to provide for her children. I hope she is one of the success stories. But life doesn’t have to be that hard. Whatever she achieves, her children still have many problems to face that money won’t solve. Her four children need two parents who are committed to outlast all difficulties, to provide for their needs, and to shepherd their young lives to better futures. Her life at twenty-two hasn’t given her the experiences to do the latter. When she pleaded with other teens “please do not be like me” and urged other teen moms to volunteer at local schools, she showed a depth of understanding you totally ignored.

If you truly believe that “what people don’t know can hurt them” and kids deserve “straight answers”, then investigate yourself what is taught in sex education, read the teachers guides, look at the videos, review your own booklet. See if your beliefs are met. All programs taught in public schools will cover contraception and STDs. The difference will come in the emphasis. You condemn abstinence education but I can assure you that those that write the secular curriculums receive extensive medical information and advice that convinces them that abstinence must be taught first and foremost. They present information on contraception using effectiveness rates for common teen usage which does not approach the 90+% rates touted in comprehensive sex education. Most adolescents wouldn’t think to ask about how research was collected, how drugs were tested, what are the long term effects, are there contradicting studies; the program must present that information so they are informed consumers. In comprehensive sex ed, the steps for correct condom use is taught just once in school, years before 80% of students are sexually active. Rarely are students also told about the downside of condom use so they can make an informed assessment of its value. There is something a tad evil in teaching 10-14 year olds that a condom will “protect” them when they will remember little else but that word. No one without excellent skill, amazing concentration, and unwavering commitment at the moment of passion has “protection” with a condom. Without all three, a condom is just a piece of latex that makes us think we are “responsible”. The real truth is that sexually active teens have an abysmal chance to avoid STDs and will avoid pregnancy only with temporary sterilization options such as implants lasting 3-5 years. The younger they initiate sex, the greater the probability of life-altering outcomes.

Even if there were no pregnancies and no diseases, there are other reasons to be abstinent, especially as teens. All research supports optimal life sequencing; individuals, families, ethnic groups and society are better off if teens are encouraged to finish their education, secure a good job, get married and then start a family. There is nothing wrong with that pattern as an educational objective even if the individual later chooses not to marry or parent. But without the pattern, life becomes much harder, often relegating people to circumstances from which there is no escape.

Also before touting foreign pregnancy rates, check out the alarming STD epidemics in those countries. Don’t compare statistics with the USA because their reporting procedures and systems do not equal ours or each others; just look at the dramatic increases. “Enlightened” European views of sex have severely damaged marriage and family, are decreasing their native population to the point of societal crisis, and potentially increasing disease-induced sterility and death. Wow, let’s be just like them!

I agree that sex education should not be left up to the schools. Teaching kids that it’s okay for them to have sex (it’s just a choice), and implying that it can be safe or almost risk-free is wrong. Comprehensive sex now adds abstinence as just another contraception method, clueless to the benefits and responsibilities of an abstinent lifestyle. If it had been left in parents hands, maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now. “Ignorance was bliss” wasn’t too bad compared to “too little, too late”.

THE Jacksonville Incident

Having just returned from the Medical Institute Conference, I heard from the "horse's mouth" exactly what happened at the National STD Conference in Jacksonville last month. For the uninformed, there was a panel scheduled at this government health conference to discuss how abstinence education was a threat to public health. The scope of the panel was changed when a few legislators objected to the topic terminology when it is medically accurate and acknowledged that abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy, STDs and AIDS. The controversy was resolved by having a balanced panel discuss the pros and cons of abstinence education.

Dr. Patricia Sulak, OB/GYN and a contraceptive researcher, was asked to join the panel as an abstinence advocate. She is a convert to abstinence as an educational objective but believes sexually active teens must also know all the information necessary for their health decisions. I saw the power point presentation Dr. Sulak presented for which she was met with boos and heckling. The presentation encouraged the elimination of sex ed labels and to form an educational message/objective based on a set of medical facts. These medical facts are statements such as: "Adolescent sex and multiple partners are well documented health risk behaviors" and "Initiation of sexual activity is a critical health decision with possible long-term consequences if initiated during adolescence." Easch of those facts were backed up with research and statistics. Frustrated with the heckling, Dr. Sulak asked the audience if they could at least agree that, based on medical research, teens shouldn't have sex. That met with a resounding chorus of no-s.

Now, this was a medical conference attracting doctors, researchers, public health employees and STD specialists. Yet these professionals want to ignore the medical evidence to protect a social agenda that considers anyone has the right to have sex and make that decision without guidance or influence even if it is medically important. This is ignoring facts to advance an ideology. It was the first time Dr. Sulak had experienced this public expression that is contrary to the well-being of children. As she said, she usually speaks to friendly, or at least open-minded, audiences. But many assured her that we have been encountering this more often lately and it needs to be exposed. As I have stated in previous blogs, "position papers" in pediatric and adolescent health journals have advanced a social agenda without reference to medical considerations.