Thursday, May 7, 2009

Obama budget eliminates abstinence funding, but not all looks good

Obama's 2010 federal budget eliminates funding for abstinence-only sex education. But...
Of the $110 million that are going to state-based teen pregnancy prevention programs, 75% are going to “evidence-based” programs, while 25% are going “new models” which aren’t explicitly defined. The danger here is that Congress might still try to slip abstinence-only programs into the budget during the appropriations process. David Obey, the Democratic chair of the Appropriations Committee, has tried to increase funding for abstinence-only programs in the past, and we need to make sure that he and his colleagues don’t allow this to happen now.
Also, the budget left the Hyde Amendment intact, which means that women on Medicaid or who rely on other federal health services will not be able to get abortions that way.

A step in the right direction, but still not a complete win, and rather disappointing.

h/t Feministe.


the world that is out to get you said...

If you're disappointed, i am happy!

Anonymous said...

Why should the government fund abortions, though?

At some level, there HAS to be some personal responsibility involved. You seem to advocate NO responsibility. If you can get an abortion whenever you want, you're already cutting responsibility in half, and then you want them to be free?

Where are the consequences of one's actions, when nothing comes out of pocket?

A man makes a mistake, and he's paying child support for the next 18 years. You want a woman who makes one to suffer no ill consequences whatsoever.

Amelia said...


Technically, your comment violated our comment policy, but it was so ridiculous that I posted it. (That means, don't expect further comments to be published unless you read the comment policy and figure out how to make them acceptable)

1) No responsibility? It's really interesting that you concluded such a thing when I only included one line of personal commentary in this post. You must have great powers of insight!

2) How exactly would timely and affordable abortions for all women "cut responsibility in half"? Seriously. I'm curious. Having the option doesn't make it mandatory. And I'm pretty sure that people would prefer to continue to use contraception instead of having to have an abortion every time they had an unplanned pregnancy from unprotected sex/contraceptive failure. Interesting how you associate federal women's health services with NO MORE CONDOMS! WOOOOOOO! I really don't see the connection.

3) Don't tell me what I want. You don't know.

4) Thank you!