Abstinence? Heaven forbid!

Well, finally we know that there's at least one reason that the states will turn down federal money: Because accepting the funds would require teaching abstinence to young people. As the LA Times puts it:

[S]tates are turning down millions of dollars in federal grants, unwilling to accept White House dictates that the money be used for classes focused almost exclusively on teaching chastity.

It doesn't seem to indicate that the states can't use other money to teach children how to have sex or how to use contraceptives -- it's just that, with the federal money, abstinence must be taught. Of course, whether such funding or dictates are appropriate from the federal government is a whole other issue . . . but suffice it to say that it's par for the course for there to be plenty of strings put on every federal grant that states receive. Only here, for some reason, do certain (mostly blue) states find the accompanying requirements unduly intrusive.

So what's the terrible message that the states are being harshly required to convey? As the Times puts it, "Students are to be taught that bearing children outside wedlock is likely to harm society and that sexual activity outside marriage is 'likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.'" Is this untrue?

No doubt, it's important for children to be educated about sex, and, frankly, there's nothing wrong about learning about contraception, depending on the way it's done. Part of the problem is that, these days, "comprehensive sex ed" becomes little more than a way that groups like Planned Parenthood and educators who ascribe to its philosophy convince young people that having sex is normal and expected of them -- and that refraining from doing so is freakish and weird. The abstinence programs are important in large part because they level the playing field.