Why Would so Much be Spent?

I'm one of those people that sit up late at night reading the fine print on research and "white papers". I like to Google the names of researchers to see their credentials. I like to check out the funding sources. I do the things investigative reporters once did before there was Brittany Spears.

I just read a report put out by Legal Momentum and two Harvard University Programs. Legal Momentum is the reincarnation of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. The report charges that "abstinence-only programs harm women and girls".

First of all, I have been in this business for 1o years and no one, except those trying to deceive the public, would ever describe our programs as "abstinence only". But that's another story.

I am going to wager that this "research" never gets much media push because it is ridiculous. Harvard should be ashamed of itself to be connected to this biased harrangue.

My counter would be sexual activity is harming girls (women should know better) and boys whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. Presenting the entire picture of why abstinence is the best choice for teens can never harm them. Up until the oral sex craze, girls (not women or boys) suffered the greatest consequences of sexual activity. Since STI/HIV/pregnancy rates continue to climb, that would seem to be an important piece of information for girls to protect themselves. Somehow this report twists that into "cast women as gatekeepers of aggressive male sexuality". How about letting girls watch out for their own best interests? How about teaching boys that they do need to be vigilant of their futures and respectful of girls--doing them no harm.

Probably the most interesting tidbit was to find out the funder for this project was the John Merck Fund connected to the makers of birth control, emergency contraception and HPV vaccine. A quick look at their 2006 grants and it is obvious that they are funding non-profits to push their products and are bold enough to stipulate that outright.

But the most interesting $50,000 grant was to SIECUS to work with Advocates for Youth (also received $50000 to promote comprehensive Sex education to legislators) “to adequately prepare for and counter messaging and media work of the NAEA.”

In summer 2006, the National Abstinence Education Association wasn't even a kernel of an idea from a 1 hour discussion of 20 people after a summer convention. Although a decision was made to form the NAEA in the fall of 2006, it didn't even have a website until 2007. The organization was formally introduced in March 2007. Its office is staffed by two people; one commutes from Ohio. In 2006, the NAEA was a pipsqueak without any record of success in any category. Why would a drug company's memorial fund give even $1 to fight it? Perhaps, it already knew what the NAEA later proved. When concerned Americans heard both sides of the story, and one of those sides finally spoke for itself, they might not make the same choices.

When Title V funding was extended and CBAE funding was re-authorized, it was Democrats who changed the tide. Advocates for Youth were so angry that they put a tirade on their website home page and sent Congressional Democrats chess pawns implying they were our pawns. All we had to offer was information, dynamite leadership, and Americans willing to talk to their representatives.

I guess that's just too scary!