"Traditional Values Coalition" tries to bully NIH on sex studies.

[UnrepentantSinner]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/7118769.htm

The Traditional Values Coalition, in an electronic copy of the list, commented on several studies, including one by a Michigan researcher about teenagers' sexual and mental health. The comments read: "Promotes a 'sex positive' attitude among teens; endorses sexual behavior and condom use among teens."

Andrea Lafferty, the coalition's executive director, called the grants a "total abuse of taxpayer dollars."

"We know for a fact that millions and millions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet over years on this HIV, AIDS scam and sham," Lafferty said. "We know what it takes to prevent getting the disease. It takes not engaging in risky sexual behaviors."

And check out the "Traditional Values Coalition" and tell me it's not a wing of the far right of the Republican party.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/index.php
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=60

[UnrepentantSinner]

None of you are in the least bit concerned about the super-Christers having this much influence on the NIH?

[hgc]

Yes. I'm very concerned. I'd like to hear from some of the non-religious conservatives here, supporters of the presidency of W, to express what limit you personally put on how much religion this goverment will promote before you decide to support someone else.

I don't see any difference between the agenda of Bush and that of Judge Moore and General Boykin.

[roger]

Yes, I am, but in more general/sweeping terms.

My first job consisted of doing cancer and other health statistics for NIH (through a contractor). I was only there a year, but in that time saw several studies either stopped or effectively stopped through lack of funding due to pressure to research the hot topic of the day. Basically congress would get lobbied to study 'X', there is no money to do that, so NIH ends up cutting program 'W'. Later on topic X drops from the public eye, who are now up in arms about the government doing nothing about Y. So, you guessed it, X gets cut.

There is definitely a need to shift your research focus to meet the current needs of the country, but these decisions should not be based on politics. If you start but do not complete a study, then you have not generated useful data (usually) and all of the money that was spent is wasted.

I am not blaming individual members of congress. Many times I'd get 11th hour calls from some doctor who was suddenly called in to give testimony so that program X could continue to receive funds. But there is tremendous political pressure being exerted, and a few stats by some junior programmer isn't always enough.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
None of you are in the least bit concerned about the super-Christers having this much influence on the NIH?
Sorry, but only in a condescending "point and laugh at those crazy Americans" kind of way. How come in a country which values freedom, individuality and separation of church and state, this kind of thing can happen?

[Nasarius]

I suppose "risky sexual behavior" includes premarital sex of any kind, since they seem to be against condom use. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Is the NIH (i assume National Institute of Health? correct me if I am wrong) a government office funded by taxpayer money?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
Is the NIH (i assume National Institute of Health? correct me if I am wrong) a government office funded by taxpayer money?

Yes.

Does the "Traditional Values Coalition" represent you and what do you think of their efforts to bully NIH to stop funding important research that might save lives?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by roger
There is definitely a need to shift your research focus to meet the current needs of the country, but these decisions should not be based on politics. If you start but do not complete a study, then you have not generated useful data (usually) and all of the money that was spent is wasted.

Great "big issue" point on the grants.

BillyTK,

Understand that our principles of freedom are under attack by the left and the right in this country. The left doesn't want anyone's feelings to get hurt while the right doesn't want anyone to have any fun.

Betwixt the too is a vast majority of people that are even more sick and tired of it all than the angry vocal minorities that get most of the press.

[Luke T.]

There are certainly a lot of pork-barrel, questionable research grants out there. A lot of wasted money. So if the Right is watchdogging the Left, and the Left is watchdogging the Right, I say good on them!

From the linked news article:


"I just keep thinking that this is a bad nightmare and I'm actually going to wake up from all this," said Clark, a physician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia who received a $300,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health for her project and to earn an advanced degree.

Clark said that NIH last week asked her to describe the usefulness of her study of teenagers' misconceptions about birth control. She had hoped for another NIH grant to study whether fears about being unable to get pregnant in the future discourage women from using birth control now.

So she already has been given 300 grand for one project, which helped to pay for her degree, and now she wants more. I wonder what kind of car she drives. How can I get a grant so I can earn an advanced college degree?

I think readers are expected to infer that somehow the Traditional Values Coalition is twisting the arms of congressmen who in turn are twisting the arms of the NIH who are in turn twisting the arms of scientists.

As if there aren't a slew of lobbies, Left and Right, doing some heavy arm twisting of congresmen and the NIH every day.

Is it really out of line for the NIH to actually question researchers on what kind of research they are doing, and what good they hope to accomplish, or should they just hand over big bags of cash, no questions asked?

The way things work and the way reporters wordsmith are not always the same thing. The article has huge holes in it, and expresses it own biases in as much as what it doesn't say as what it does say.

I visited the Traditional Values Coalition web site. They certainly are far to the right. Anti-gay big-time. But I think they have a reasonable complaint that abstinence is being overshadowed by condoms as the most recommended means of preventing AIDS.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Does the "Traditional Values Coalition" represent you

No

and what do you think of their efforts to bully NIH to stop funding important research that might save lives?

I dont care, but you act like this is so unheard of. Anytime you have government money going towards something, the source of funding is subject to the whims of the political climate.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Luke T.
1. So she already has been given 300 grand for one project, which helped to pay for her degree, and now she wants more. I wonder what kind of car she drives. How can I get a grant so I can earn an advanced college degree?

2. I think readers are expected to infer that somehow the Traditional Values Coalition is twisting the arms of congressmen who in turn are twisting the arms of the NIH who are in turn twisting the arms of scientists.

3. I visited the Traditional Values Coalition web site. They certainly are far to the right. Anti-gay big-time. But I think they have a reasonable complaint that abstinence is being overshadowed by condoms as the most recommended means of preventing AIDS.

1. But how much more money will society save when we get teenagers to start using contraception after they know it's not going to affect fertility later in life? I figure in welfare and court/incaceraton fees (for the one in ten children of teenaged mothers who winds up a criminal) alone we've saved the amount of the 300k grant. Sometimes it costs money to save money in the long term.

2. Groups like TVC aren't interested in making their membership aware, they're interested in mobilizing the troops. I find this effort as disconcerting an agenda drivin push for luddism as the Catholic call for people to stop using condoms.

3. Abstinance should be part of any sexual education program, be it for children or adults. But TVC won't stop with a condom/contraception parity, they will want all condom/contraception information eradicated in favor of "true love waits" and "no sodomy you sinnner!" messages.

Their agenda is simply dangerous.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
I dont care, but you act like this is so unheard of. Anytime you have government money going towards something, the source of funding is subject to the whims of the political climate.

So you don't care that lives will be put at risk, that we could have an AIDS explosion here in the states like in Africa? You don't care that non-AIDS STDs are rampant? You don't care that teenaged mothers generally don't produce the most well adjusted adults from their children? I'm sorry man, but I have to live in this society, I do care.

The politics/money canard is a tanget. Real lives are at stake, more so than whether mohair subsidies or the helium reserve continue to get funding.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


So you don't care that lives will be put at risk, that we could have an AIDS explosion here in the states like in Africa? You don't care that non-AIDS STDs are rampant? You don't care that teenaged mothers generally don't produce the most well adjusted adults from their children? I'm sorry man, but I have to live in this society, I do care.



Of course I care, but you mistaking think that this reasearch will do any good. When I was in school (a short 4 years ago) I saw and heard thousands of times to use protectiong, safe sex, STDs, yadda yadda yadda...You hear it so much it becomes noise.

Real lives are at stake, more so than whether mohair subsidies or the helium reserve continue to get funding.

Of course, but when has saving lives or solving social problems been a bigger priority than political ideology?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
Of course, but when has saving lives or solving social problems been a bigger priority than political ideology?

You're too young to remember Smallpox (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/index.asp).

We're both too young to remember Polio (http://www.polioeradication.org/).

I'm not saying that money is never politicized, and I'm not saying that some disease and their research isn't politicizeds (AIDS being at the top of that list), I'm just saying that some research that's very important shouldn't be suppressed because the religios (<-- not misspell btw) don't like the research or the findings.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

I'm not saying that money is never politicized, and I'm not saying that some disease and their research isn't politicizeds (AIDS being at the top of that list), I'm just saying that some research that's very important shouldn't be suppressed because the religios (<-- not misspell btw) don't like the research or the findings.

But what are you gonna do? We allow people of all political persuasions to push their view on everyone else.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony
But what are you gonna do?

I'm going to speak up about it and hopefully be greeted with more than shrugs and Tu Quoque.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
Is the NIH (i assume National Institute of Health? correct me if I am wrong) a government office funded by taxpayer money?

Good point. Since they are, whatever their research discovers must be wrong.

[BillyTK]

Hi UnrepentantSinner
BillyTK,

Understand that our principles of freedom are under attack by the left and the right in this country. The left doesn't want anyone's feelings to get hurt while the right doesn't want anyone to have any fun.

Betwixt the too is a vast majority of people that are even more sick and tired of it all than the angry vocal minorities that get most of the press.

Thanks for the explanation. The more I learn about the USA, the more strange it seems... We've got nutjobs over here pushing "traditional family values" (as if there's such a thing), but I carnt imagine them achieving anything more than publicity stunts which highlight their ignorance. Apart from the election of a far right Conservative government (which ain't going to happen in the present climate) I don't see them having much influence anyway. Still, where the US leads, the UK follows...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


1. But how much more money will society save when we get teenagers to start using contraception after they know it's not going to affect fertility later in life? I figure in welfare and court/incaceraton fees (for the one in ten children of teenaged mothers who winds up a criminal) alone we've saved the amount of the 300k grant. Sometimes it costs money to save money in the long term.

I did not get the impression it was a grant to educate anyone. It was for a study to see if fears of future fertility affected whether or not teens take birth control. This is obviously a study slanted toward only one aspect of the teen pregnancy/sex problem.

When you ask a kid why they don't use birth control, you are virtually sanctioning their having sex.

I would have to ask if she was also studying to see if maybe there were other reasons they don't use it. I would study to see why they don't just abstain from sex and avoid risk, of pregnancy and AIDs and everything else, entirely. I would make sure I'm getting as big a bang for my tax dollar as possible.

2. Groups like TVC aren't interested in making their membership aware, they're interested in mobilizing the troops. I find this effort as disconcerting an agenda drivin push for luddism as the Catholic call for people to stop using condoms.

Maybe you didn't visit their site. They are all about awareness. Maybe not your/our kind of awareness.

I find it interesting the interpretation/spin they put on a study of "spirit mediums." Did you see that?

3. Abstinance should be part of any sexual education program, be it for children or adults. But TVC won't stop with a condom/contraception parity, they will want all condom/contraception information eradicated in favor of "true love waits" and "no sodomy you sinnner!" messages.

Their agenda is simply dangerous.

I believe abstinence, outside of any religious aspect, is the way to go and should be the most heavily stressed means of avoidance of pregnancy and STDs. It just isn't so at this time. It is all about condoms, which is what is really dangerous.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I believe abstinence, outside of any religious aspect, is the way to go and should be the most heavily stressed means of avoidance of pregnancy and STDs. It just isn't so at this time. It is all about condoms, which is what is really dangerous.
What's dangerous about promoting condom usage?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Luke T.

I believe abstinence, outside of any religious aspect, is the way to go and should be the most heavily stressed means of avoidance of pregnancy and STDs. It just isn't so at this time. It is all about condoms, which is what is really dangerous.


I don’t think we should promote hedonism, but we shouldn’t discourage it either. What's wrong with all the different methods of "safe sex" being taught and letting the kids decide for themselves? I'd like to see a program that teaches kids all the different types of "safe sex", and the pros and cons of each type. No matter how many times kids get drilled with the information about STD's, condoms and the whole nine yards, the decision is ultimately up to the individuals.

Like I said before, I heard all about "safe sex" throughout Jr. high and High School. Did I practice safe sex? No, but I knew the risks, I just didn’t care enough, I was too interested in pleasure.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

What's dangerous about promoting condom usage?


I don’t want to put words in his mouth. But I think he is saying it is dangerous in that condoms are not 100% secure.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony



I don’t want to put words in his mouth. But I think he is saying it is dangerous in that condoms are not 100% secure.

Neither is getting up in the morning and walking down the steps to the kitchen for breakfast.

I guess then we should not encourage people to eat breakfast, because they might get hurt doing so.

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Neither is getting up in the morning and walking down the steps to the kitchen for breakfast.



Really? Tell me, how many STD's have you contracted while walking downstairs?

[c0rbin]

Sex is a risky endevor for anyone at any age--part of the turn-on. It is foolish for anyone to assume that teenagers are going to not have sex.

Telling them not to is wishful thinking.

Suppressing information because it countermands one's values is pure stupid.

LukeT, I agree that teaching that abstinence is the very best way to avoid STD and pregnancy.

I actually failed a sex-ed test because I answered the question "What is the best way to avoid getting pregnant?" with the following: "Use a condom" because I thought the implication was "What is the best way to have sex and avoid getting pregnant."

Ooops:o

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony



I don’t want to put words in his mouth. But I think he is saying it is dangerous in that condoms are not 100% secure. IIRC, condoms are one of the most effective forms of contraception and prevention of transmission of GUIs and HIV. Unprotected sex is even more dangerous.

It would appear useful to quote renata's post from the Abstinence vs Early Sex Education (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19892) thread:
Originally posted by renata
Saw this, it was relevant to the topic

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=3&u=/nm/20030527/hl_nm/condoms_students_dc
Making condoms available to high school students does not make them more likely to have sex, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Contrary to some arguments, students at schools where condoms were available were less likely to have sex, said the researchers, who studied students in Massachusetts.

"Condom availability was not associated with greater sexual activity among adolescents but was associated with greater condom use among those who were already sexually active, a highly positive result," Susan Blake, of the Department of Prevention and Community Health at George Washington University said in a statement.

"When condoms are available in schools and are successfully used by sexually active adolescents, they may be an effective means of preventing potentially harmful outcomes such as HIV (news - web sites), STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) and pregnancy," Blake added.


And that, just all like other studies will whizz right by the people who are ideologically driven on this issue.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by c0rbin
LukeT, I agree that teaching that abstinence is the very best way to avoid STD and pregnancy.

Or maybe not:
Sex ed doesn't work, but abstinence is worse: researcher (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/06/14/sexed020614)
HAMILTON, ONT. - Sex education doesn't work, a team of McMaster University researchers has found.

And neither do the other methods of preventing teen pregnancies, a study headed by Alba DiCenso, a professor Faculty of Health Sciences, shows.

[...]

Abstinence programs, which are very popular in the Unites States since the Bush administration has backed them, are the worst, she said. The pregnancy rate of young women in abstinence studies actually went up.

SIECUS Fact Sheet on Sexuality Education (http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0007.html)
Issue: Are abstinence-only-until-marriage programs effective?

Answer: To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse.

[c0rbin]

BillyTK, I understand that the real-world application of teaching methods might be as you posted, however, one cannot refute the simple truth that if I don't want to get someone preggers, the most certain way is to avoid having any sex.

edited for cumbersome language.

[BillyTK]

Hi Corbin,
BillyTK, I understand that the real-world application of teaching methods might be as you posted, however, one cannot refute the simple truth that if I don't want to get someone preggers, the most certain way is to avoid having any sex.

edited for cumbersome language.
I don't deny that abstinence is the best way to avoid STD and pregnancy, and I've no intention of even attempting to refute it. Unfortunately, teaching abstinence is a whole other kettle of adolescent hormones, and that's all I was responding to.

[c0rbin]

:cool:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Maybe you didn't visit their site. They are all about awareness. Maybe not your/our kind of awareness.

I find it interesting the interpretation/spin they put on a study of "spirit mediums." Did you see that?

It's about mobilizing the troops. These types of groups know they can get people pissed off enough about the "gay agenda" and the "secularists" to get the letters flowing to Congress. It's rigth there on the top of opening page.

Join the Take Action Network Today!!!

To Register your account, please click here:
https://www.traditionalvalues.org/signup/index.php

I couldn't find the spirit medium part.