Brody file has the scoop on Romney’s stance:
“Governor Romney effectively used available federal funds through the Title V program to implement abstinence education in Massachusetts classrooms. The governor feels that it is important for this alternative to remain available for school districts who want to promote the teaching of abstinence to our young students. As he has said in the past, Governor Romney never had any parent complain to him that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school, but a number of parents wondered why we don’t speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice.
Brody then adds this commentary:
Pretty straightforward on abstinence only programs but is the Governor OK with federal dollars being used to support some of those other comprehensive sex ed programs? I asked that question in a follow up to the campaign two days ago. I never did get a response on that.
I really hope the answer to this is no federal funding on sex education. I am guessing that Romney would say no federal funding but allow states to make their own choices. If states pick up the tab, that would be their choice; but I hope even then he would say government has no role in educating youth about sex- therefore while legal it is inappropriate.
Here is quote from a 2006 press release:
“In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice,” said Romney.
“Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood,” he said. “This is more than teaching kids to say no it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character.” Link
May 24th, 2007 at 11:56 am
[...] post by Jason and software by Elliott [...]
May 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I am all for the cutting in federal funds in any places, including this sex education fund, and let states deal with them! I hope Mitt will come out in that direction! Do anyone else know what Rudy, McCain, Fred and others stand for?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Huh? Seems like quite the non sequitor here.
The quotes from Mitt express support for the teaching of abstinence.
I dont see anything there that supports teaching abstinence ONLY.
That seems to be Brody’s fantasy “I really hope the answer to this is….”.
Where does he, or you, come to the conclusion that that is what Mitt supports?
Hey, maybe we can eliminate all biology while we are at it. All science too, for that matter. It all strikes me as devilishly secular stuff!
May 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I agree with Tano. It doesn’t seem from the quotes or the press release that Romney is in favor of abstinence *only* programs as a blanket strategy, but simply favors promoting abstinence to a greater degree. The Romney quotes don’t explicitly say or suggest *only*.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
You guys should spend a little more time on Huckabee and less on the big three. His statement has none of that political junk that Romnry’s has and is so much more straightforward.
“Abstinence education provides a valuable counterweight to peer pressure and the message young people get from the popular culture encouraging casual relationships and separating sex from love, commitment and marriage. I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools. That is the responsibility of parents. “I am disappointed that funding for abstinence education is not likely to be renewed by the Democrat Congress.
This reversal only emphasizes how important it is for Republicans to take back Congress and win the White House with an authentic conservative in 2008.”I miss the America I grew up in where the Gideons gave Bibles to fifth graders instead of school nurses giving condoms to eighth graders. With so much at stake, it’s important that we return to the core values and guiding principles which have made our country great.”
May 24th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Isn’t this:
“I am disappointed that funding for abstinence education is not likely to be renewed by the Democrat Congress.”
in contradiction with this:
“I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools”
? And just what political junk are you referring to in Romney’s position, to be clear?
May 24th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
How many Peter’s have we got on here?
I know you, you’re the New Yorker for Huckabee, I’ve read your blog.
May 24th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
It’s nice to have a Huckabee supporter here, and we’d love to have you contribute, but word to the wise, don’t attack anybody’s candidate before you really get to know them, this place is full of loyalists, so the best way to get their attention is to focus on the positives of your candidate, without the comparisons, unless challenged.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
“I am disappointed that funding for abstinence education is not likely to be renewed by the Democrat Congress.”
in contradiction with this:
“I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools”
How is teaching abstinence “teaching about sex or contraception in public schools?”
And Tommy, please don’t people what they “know,” it’s not very nice.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Mitt believes in abstinence education so much, that he believes it should be voluntary?
May 24th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Peter, I’m not a Mitt supporter. In fact, I’m a Fred Supporter. So I’m not one to defend Mitt. What I meant was that get to know the posters opinions before you attack their candidate or they will gang up on you. Trust me, when I started posting here, I would have twenty different Romney or Rudy supporters drilling me at the same time. The best way is to just say,” Here’s what Huck has to say about abortion.” Let them engage you.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
This place can get heated in a hurry, but they’re all good people who are very passionate about their candidate…. passionate to the point of being idealistic, in some cases. The best way to approach them is to open them up so that if you’re candidate rises, and their’s falls, they are willing to jump on board.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Well, I guess in the strictest sense, it’s not talking about the ABC’s of the birds and the bees, but it is a sex ed. strategy. I guess you could argue that while it’s about sexual behavior (explicitly, the abstention thereof), its not about *sex* itself. That is a fine line, in my view, but I respect the distinction.
I’m not sure it’s the best strategy in all places, though. I’m persuaded that in some areas, talking about safe sex is a very logical public health endeavor.
Am I happy with that situation? Of course not! Of course we don’t want our kids to have premarital sex anywhere in the USA. But addressing promiscuity will never be effective if done through governmental policies anyway. Of that much I’m pretty sure. In the meantime, kids should be aware of what they can do to protect themselves if they choose to engage in high-risk behavior, but this should always be presented in conjunction with the safest, most responsible, and only moral choice: abstinence before marriage.
I’m still a little vague on Mitt’s proposal, but it seems pretty reasonable. In a nutshell, abstinence education should increase, not necessarily in lieu of safe-sex education, and the final details need to be worked out on a more local basis.