Reinstate Abstinence Funding

Yesterday, I was asked why in a letter to the Wisconsin delegation in DC requesting their support for abstinence education funding, I included a final option to defund Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, SIECUS, etc.

I strongly agree that governments must inact critical budget reform and know many of our state delegation were elected because they have pledged to cut spending. If budget reform was the reason abstinence education funding was cut, I would be 100% behind its demise as a temporary measure. But not once have I heard saving tax dollars as a reason for killing off abstinence.

Even though I have witnessed many nonprofit colleagues close their services when they lost government funds, I also know many others who diversified their programming and funding years ago and so far have remained solvent, even if again working as volunteers. However, new federal grants for marriage and fatherhood initiatives have stipulated that abstinence programming could not be included in applications. The truth is social acceptance of unwed sex created all the problems these initiatives address. It makes little sense to spend millions on interventions while funding sexual libertarian organizations. But that is the political power of sexual freedom advocates as we watch our families disintegrate.

It seems logical to me that if the government is amenable to restoring the societal factors that together eradicate poverty--two-parent families, education, jobs, etc.--it must be bold enough to stop funding programs that create or support counter-productive life styles. At the very least, politicians should pay attention to other countries which have let free choice policies with a huge price tag overwhelm their national well-being.

I just gave our state representatives in Congress two ways to support abstinence education: restore funding or defund our opponents. I've been in this game a long time and know "the silent majority" will back abstinence.

Wisconsin Assembly Bills 348 and 349

Have none of the sponsors of these two bills read any of the exposes about Planned Parenthood in the last few years? The undercover work that has been done across the nation and in Wisconsin specifically should raise legitimate concern about this legislation. Planned Parenthood has been caught in mega-departures from their stated policies and procedures. Citizens should question the motivation of bill sponsors particularly those representatives from minority communities.

AB 348 changes the Women's Health Block Grant to "Family Planning" funding. At least that removes the impression that recipients will provide total women's health care. It also gives full advantage of increased pregnancy prevention federal funding to family planning clinics.

AB 348 eliminates the Department of Health Services' (DHS) administrative restrictions on sub-grants. Currently, only a government Health Department/Hospital receives funds but can sub-contract out the "women's health" services. For instance, a Planned Parenthood clinic operates in the Milwaukee -Mill Road public health clinic on a contract basis. This means private agencies can receive contracts in direct competition to health departments. So this bill removes a layer of government accountability for tax payer dollars.

AB 348 removes the ban on funding agencies that provide abortion services.

AB 348 provides new funding to family planning agencies for PAP tests and followup cancer screenings, but no other medical services. So it can be assumed that funding is limited to cervical cancer screenings only.

AB 348 provides new funding for private family planning agencies to hire racial minority nurses, mid-wives and physicians assistants.

AB 348 increases family planning funding each year of the next budget period.

AB 349 restores the eligibility for AB348 services from 200% of the federal poverty line to 300%. The family size for both adult male and female clients, ages 18-44, determines the income level for eligibility. Therefore, males can count all their children regardless of his custody or child support to raise his eligibility for free services.

AB 349 does not specify the family planning services a male would receive or whether those services would be limited to him or extends to his sexual partner who might not be eligible.

AB 349 eliminates the current requirement for minors' eligibility to be determined by the parents'/guardians's income and for parents/guardians to be notified of a minor's treatment.

AB 349 strips DHS of policy development restricting it to only the requirements in this law. DHS also must implement every waiver granted by the federal government. In other words, our state law gives federal law precedence stripping Wisconsin citizens of the right to in-state spending of their tax dollars.

Did these 31 legislators understand the bill their names are on?

Strong Communities...Healthy Kids Act

WOW! This is a bill so balanced that opponents have to lie about its content to spur discontent.

This bill returns Human Growth and Development curriculum decisions to local school districts rather than in Madison. It will modify the 2009 Healthy Youth Act. It changes mandated topics to recommended topics. It expects school educational programs to be taught by educators. It requires the state to apply for all funding applicable to recommended topics so that school districts can pay for their chosen curriculums.

This bill does not mandate abstinence education. It does not make Comprehensive Sex Education illegal. It allows communities to determine what is best with the direct input from their citizens. It recognizes that parents have the greatest influence on their children, as is consistently reported in teen surveys. It "levels the playing field" by placing responsibility for children on local adults.

Research studies are read by both sides of the sex education issue. Two recent studies indicate more than 70% of teens and adults think teens should wait until marriage to have sex (US Dept. of Health & Human Services) and a whopping 98% of adults believe parents should be their children's sex educators (Journal of Adolescent Health, 1/2011). Abstinence proponents are willing to trust the opinions and intentions of average citizens. Our opponents continue to strip control from them.