As if we didn't know this already, at least those with wisdom (no longer equated with common sense), a new study conducted by the Rand Corp. has recently received a lot of play in the media. Simply stated, teens who watch a lot of TV with sexual dialogue and behavior are much more likely to get pregnant, actually twice as likely (i.e., with the prerequisite activity of sex involved). Hmm… perhaps there's a connection between what we view/think about and our actions/subsequent outcomes?!? 

Of course, if the mainstream media is involved by giving this a lot of play, so you know there has to be an agenda. 

To find out more, please read on and especially check out the link to the article below.

I've sent out some info (with strong warnings) regarding both the www.teenwire.com and the www.takecaredownthere.org sites from Planned Parenthood. 

Here is an article http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/08/03/why_are_you_paying_for_this?page=full&comments=true that really describes what is going on with PP and their sites. AND remember, they claim to be helping to protect children and also claim that they don't promote sexual activity among teens!?! I'll let you be the judge of that! 

Please take a few minutes to read it and as you feel led contact school officials to check and see if anything from PP (or SEICUS, Advocates for Youth or ACLU endorsed programs/curricula, among others) is getting into your community, your child's school and mind. If so, let us know and we can help you organize and fight such filth and destruction and help to truly protect your children and community by finding ways to provide true Character-based Healthy Relationship education! 

Also, please contact elected officials and inform/educate them on this issue with the desire to see all public funding of PP and affiliates shut down! 

One final thought in line with Mr. McCollough's article - PP and their cronies are extremely good at marketing and research and, as such, have been able to receive over $300,000 annually (in the past few years) in taxpayer dollars all the while hiding their promotion of smut and filth (porn) and its destructive messages. They convince govt. officials through slick grants based on research to fit their agenda rather than truly good programs that help youth, marriages and families and then they use our taxpayer funds to pull the same "slick" marketing tricks on the public - and our children and youth are the main target! 

Would you rather have the Government in charge of "caring for and protecting your children" or parents and families?  If everyone seems to care for our youth then what's the difference?  Oh, it's huge!

Here it is - the final segment you’ve all been waiting for…

As I wrap up this series I hope you’ve found it both “entertaining” and helpful. I hope you’ll be able to put together a strong, logical argument in favor of programs that actually have been shown to help youth rather than just determine how many more are having sex and using “protection” (a very illogical and destructive outcome to measure your success on when health and life are at stake). 

The final 2 Assumptions and related Realities drive home the point that you know what assumptions do – ‘they make an #*! out of ‘u’ and ‘me’ (you can fill in the first three letters from the word assume)! The 9^th assumption simply points out the different emphasis that these 2 competing ideologies use – CSE using a static ‘medical’ model that doesn’t hold up in behavioral and social science research but they stick with it nonetheless; and AE/HR using social science research that begins with positive attitude change that ultimately leads to behavior change which is actually what shows up in the studies that truly reflect real-life outcomes. Which would you rather have your child learning about and included in as a function of their data - one who succeeded by wearing more condoms and/or partaking of more birth control or one who actually practiced self-discipline and took responsibility for their actions borne out of respect for self and others? The choice and the outcomes are pretty simple and straightforward – your choice!?! 

Assumption # 10 closes us out by looking at actual CDC data that shows very clearly the increase of CSE funding that directly correlates to the increased (or at least never decreased) number of teen births and the direct drop in this category once private (late 80s/early 90s) and then especially public funding (mid 90s) of AE/HR programs! It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to see and figure out the corollary relationship of CSE funding/programs and higher teen births and the positive and inverse relationship between increased AE/HR funding and programs and the reduction of teen births! 

Assumptions 7 and 8 and the accompanying Realities will help you to see which programs truly are “comprehensive” in teaching young people what is the best and healthiest choices and which ones are “just say yes”, not a healthy option from any angle. 

Please read on…

Assumption # 7 – AE/HR curricula are “just say no” programs?!?

Reality # 7 – Here is another shameful approach to try and gain credibility for their flawed and dangerous programs while discrediting good AE/HR programs. Even in the recent past with the positive outcomes associated directly with the increased funding of AE/HR programs, the CSE programs began to report them and take credit for them, even though they had never had any previous success in these outcomes that really matter (see Reality # 5 above). They then began renaming their programs as ‘Abstinence-based’ (that should reveal a lot). In studies of these newly termed “abstinence based programs” the average mention of ‘abstinence’ was 4 – 7 times in the entire curriculum with hundreds of mentions of sexual activity and condoms/contraception. The percentages and actual numbers bear out that they were ‘abstinence-based’ in name only and had no, or very little, desire to really promote good AE/HR education, simply the continued presentation of the physical act of sex! On the other hand every good AE/HR program was found to be full of personal efficacy, responsibility, respect and character development along with building and developing relational skills and respect for others that empowers young people to avoid risky sexual activity that can harm them now and almost certainly create problems and struggles later in life and relationships. AE/HR programs also cover the true efficacy/inefficacy of condoms and contraceptives so that the youth have a clear picture of what they may be getting into rather than just a physical act and a few moments of pleasure, if that, as many young girls report very little enjoyment or pleasure. AE/HR programs are much more that ‘just say no’ as they truly empower youth with medically accurate info on many levels, including reproductive anatomy and defining sexual activity (not demonstrating as is often the case, in some form, with CSE programs), not just whether a condom may or may not protect them as CSE programs base their ‘medical accuracy’ on. Perhaps it would be appropriate to state that CSE curricula are ‘just say yes’ programs in spite of all the evidence of risk and harm that accompanies unwed sexual activity (as they admit there is risk and they simply want to reduce it which they never really have been able to do on a Public Health level)! Sad statement regarding their approach to our youth and the expected outcomes! We can and have done much better and AE/HR programs are what make the difference.

Assumption # 8 – CSE is “comprehensive” sex education?!?

Reality # 8 – If you haven’t figured out by now which programs are truly comprehensive in dealing with all parts of the pre-pubescent and adolescent’s life then you either don’t want to, or have already sold out to the false assumptions and ideologies that have been completely debunked in this blog. If you have the stomach for it and really want to see the CSE agenda exposed for the ‘one-track’ curricula that is truly is, visit Planned Parenthood’s teen website – www.teenwire.com. But be warned as you will see some questionable at best, and pathetic at worst, approaches to “helping” teens navigate their adolescence, personal development and relationships. Once you’ve done this you’ll see that the only real “comprehensive” approach is the “whole-person” approach of AE/HR education. Check out the curricula on both sides and you will see for yourself. Enough said!

I hope you’re enjoying this little series but more importantly I hope you’re persuaded to take a harder look at what has passed for “comprehensive sex education” over the past 3 – 4 decades in our country and the devastating effects it has had on our youth, communities and society as a whole. This week we add 2 more assumptions that really expose the hypocrisy and horror that is CSE. 

Assumption # 5 deals with the implications and inferences that CSE advocates would have you take their word for without ever questioning what is really going on. Find out for yourself what is really happening. Assumption # 6 speaks to the CSE mantra of claiming “fear-based” tactics on the part of AE/HR programs while excusing themselves for doing the same things. After all, the outcomes we are dealing with should be feared and avoided at all costs but CSE proponents would never go there because if they did they would have to show you what their real life outcomes have been, and as the ol’ hillbilly said, ‘They ain’t good!” At the same time fear with positive alternatives is a good motivator! AE/HR programs is full of excellent ways to avoid the feared outcomes (the only way, actually) and replace them with positive alternatives both presently and for the future!

Read on…

Assumption # 5 – If we are getting students to use condoms/contraception based on our research, then obviously you must know and ‘accept’ that the unhealthy outcomes must be improving because we really are “protecting” them!?!

Reality # 5 – This is probably the one that frustrates me the most because it is based on a cover up by education and media in this whole arena of sex education in order to continue to promote CSE (you can figure out from these false assumptions that are easily and logically taken apart as to what their motives might be on your own). What they have done is make all their “medical accuracy” (a term they now attempt to incorporate in legislative language in the very way I’m describing it here – no overt language but “medical accuracy” is used and it applies to what I’m writing here) based on a “medical lab” model that simply does not hold up in behavioral and social science models, or in other words, real life! All of their assumptions are based on simply increasing the number of youth using condoms and from there they leave you to infer based on their “expertise” that everything is (and has been) improving. They never once, until AE/HR programs began to point out the real outcomes, used these outcomes as defense for their ‘success’ as they never could because they never were successful at what really mattered – positive differences in the lives of people!  If they had used these outcomes, prior to the positive ones directly in conjunction with the onset of AE/HR, it would have clearly pointed out the negative and increasingly bad results that were in direct proportion to the ever-increasing CSE funding. In other words, they duped the public into believing that condoms “protect” and if more people are using them (remember that means that ‘more’ people have to be having ‘more’ sex) then there must be less teen/unwed pregnancies, less abortions, less STIs/STDs. So they would report their great "medical accuracy" and "successes" in terms of increased percentages and numbers of people using condoms. However, what they never told you was that the implied and/or your inferred ‘positive outcomes’ never happened rather negative outcomes continued to rise in direct proportion to CSE funding. How many lives have been, and continue to be, ruined by this assumption and the lies that accompanied them?!?

Assumption # 6 – AE/HR programs are “fear-based” and full of shame and guilt, but CSE programs are not?!?

Reality # 6 – This is a simple one – I just ask CSE proponents what they teach? When they say ‘safe sex’ through use of condoms and contraceptives (as they always do in some form), I ask why?  When they begin talking about ‘protecting’ against pregnancy and STDs, I stop them and simply again ask, why? If there is nothing to fear then why are you promoting some form of ‘protection’ (although false and has never worked on a social and public health level)? We both claim to want to “protect” youth from unwed pregnancy and STDs, however their message is one of ‘reduction’ which clearly means that some will get pregnant and diseased but go ahead anyway; whereas, AE/HR programs seek to empower youth to make the healthiest and best decisions for their lives and relationships by eliminating risky sexual activity outside of marriage through practicing “self-control”(that we have now established youth have and can mature in) self-respect, self-esteem and respect for and responsibility toward others that will benefit them both now and in the future!

Please continue to think through these ‘assumptions’ and ‘realities’ with me and join us for the sake of our youth and future generations.

So for all you logically minded folks, read on…

Assumption # 3 – Pre-teens and teens don’t have “self-control” (extension of Assumption # 2 from Part 1) so we have to “protect” them!?!

Assumption # 4 – Teaching CSE doesn’t promote increased sexual activity?!?

As we wrap up these 2 illogical assumptions, and in case you're wondering if CSE doesn't promote sexual activity, take it from their own ads and promos. Here's an excerpt from an article that simply exposes the truth of the contraceptive agenda and the hidden 'sexual activity' agenda as CSE proponents continue to claim that they don't promote sexual activity...

<div style="text-align: center">'New York City Uses Valentine's Day to Launch Condom Campaign'</div>

In its efforts to make New York City an "even safer place to have sex," the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene unveiled its 2008 "safer-sex" campaign today. Free condoms with the slogan "Get Some" were distributed around the city.

Hmmm.... wonder what they might be implying with the double entendre slogan "Get Some"? I'll let you and your logical mind figure that one out as well as whether this may or may not be promoting sexual activity?!? 

With all the ‘hubbub’ surrounding President Bush’s last year, the dismal efforts, results and approval ratings of this Congress, the Presidential campaigns and election, the War on Terror and on and on, there is something that underlies much of this and the MSM (mainstream media), as is their custom, is totally subjective and biased in their reporting of this underlying issue. It is responsible for a great majority of the social ills that we face, which depending on how you look at it is either a sad commentary on our society and public health/education systems or a great opportunity to continue to create a socialist state (again as most of these problems stem directly from the programs that our government, government-run education system and liberal media have bought into, supported and even promoted and glorified)!

Read on for more on the first in a series on this issue and find out what CSE stands for and why it is truly “illogic” (with outcomes to match)…

Let’s get right to it - CSE stands for “contraceptive-based sex education” and if you look at the issues that plague our nation and society, most of them are intrinsically linked to the horrific foundations and outcomes of this flawed and “junk-science”- based ideology! From divorce and the broken marriage/home/family/children cycles to unwed/teen pregnancy to cohabitation and its devastating results to sexually transmitted infections/diseases (STIs/STDs) and all the related personal, relational and social ills, we find a foundational connection to the behavior endorsed in these programs. On top of that our government, media and public education/health systems continue to “attack” the problems with the same flawed programs. Now if that isn’t the definition of “insanity” – doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results – I don’t know what is? Is it no wonder that we have created a state that makes the socialist agenda look “promising”?Who else is going to “save us” from ourselves but ‘Big Brother’, except that ‘Big Brother’ is responsible for much of the problems! Read on… 

Let me propose that outside of a religious experience to save us, when it comes to these issues, if we would just use some common sense in both looking at what is being taught (the models) and the results on both sides, you will clearly see which programs are not only logical and therefore work, you will also see how illogical the models of CSE really are and why their results are and have always been horrible! You will hopefully also begin asking the questions and getting involved in trying to turn around the tremendous problem that most of the powers that be continue to support and fund through government, media and education.

In order to expose them here is a straightforward approach so you can clearly see the illogic model they used to form their programs and continue to use to perpetuate them in spite of dismal and deadly results. The format will be to simply use their own assumptions and results and show you how flawed and destructive they are and then trust that you will want to continue or join us in this fight to rid our system and our youth of these deceptive and devastating programs!

In this first part of this blog series I will introduce you to two of ten assumptions and address the remaining eight assumptions on a weekly basis over the next four weeks in order to help you get a clearer picture of true logic and illogic and help in the stand against this blight on our youth and society!

ASSUMPTIONS OF CSE

Assumption # 1 – Condoms/contraceptives of CSE are “safe” so we must promote them to “protect” our children!?!

Reality # 1 – “Safe” according to Merriam-Webster is free from harm or risk. By their own definitions, CSE programs call themselves “risk reduction” programs as they know several things about their “safe” programs that literally contradict their own calling of their methods “safe”! First of all, they know that at best condoms and contraception, even used together, are not “free from harm or risk” of pregnancy. They also know with regard to STIs/STDs that contraception offers no protection or ‘safety’ and that no condoms were ever made specifically to protect against these devastating and sometimes deadly diseases. While, based on their medical research model, they can show that there is some reduction of risk (again, not ‘safe’ - free from danger or risk) against some STDs, when translated to real-life situations and outcomes, said protection is greatly reduced and they never report this as it blows their “safe sex” assumptions out of the water. How sad that our youth have to deal with their definition of “safe”!

Assumption # 2 – Abstinence is the only 100% effective choice to avoid pregnancy and/or STDs/STIs, however, kids are having sex anyway so we must ‘protect’ them?!?

Reality # 2 – Very simply, teen sexual activity reached its high point unfortunately in the mid-90s, right before the public funding of Abstinence until Marriage Education and Healthy Relationship (AE/HR) programs, at slightly above 55% (which is by my math certainly not all kids having sex). Since that time this rate has dropped by nearly 9% to about 46% (a huge cultural shift) that has given millions of young people more hope and less destruction in their lives and futures. Finally, these positive changes are becoming the norm (only one slight uptick in this rate in 2005), but only after public funding became available and even then AE/HR programs receive only $1 for every $12 for CSE (which never worked)! Imagine if we promoted programs that believe in youth and really help them with real funding rather than a pittance?!?

Please stay tuned for Part 2 of this series next week and thanks for your help in this effort!

I was recently interviewed by a reporter from the local (Lexington, KY) ABC affiliate for a “sweeps week” report on Abstinence Education in the public schools.  It aired on Sunday, Nov. 4 on their 11 at 11 segment.  You can actually see the video for yourself at http://www.wtvq.com/midatlantic/tvq/search.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2007-11-05-0005.html to verify my statements in this blog.  You know I’ve got to be straightforward in my comments here.  

While I was never under the impression that the final edit would be favorable, or more important, objective, I didn’t think that the final result would be filled with out-of-context statements and outright lies!  The final comment that the reporter, Mr. David Zimmerman, made to me upon leaving my office after a 90-minute interview (of which you will see only about 60 or so seconds made it on air) was “I will get you a copy of this interview, you’re a good man and this is a good program.”  His final product belies completely his words and assurances which speaks a great deal as to his integrity. 

Read on for the details and deceptions that recently aired on WTVQ-36…

And, oh, by the way, let Mr. Zimmerman and TVQ-36 know what you think about their “objective” reporting!   Thanks!

What if I could show you in one piece of legislation how socialism works – completely? Would you want to know what that bill was and how it affects us? If so, read on…

The bill in the House is known as The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (H.R. 3162). What a joke!  

First of all, the bill, also known as the SCHIP bill in reference to the great expansion of government-insured children, extends this “benefit” to all children in families of four (or more) with annual income of $83,000 or less. I didn’t know I was that near, or actually in, poverty that I need the government to take over my responsibility!

This is first and foremost an attempt to draw more people into a Universal Health Care system, and there is a huge price to pay. The total costs have been estimated in the hundreds of billions – HMMM? Wonder who’ll be paying for all of this? You got it – the taxpayers who are not eligible for, or choose to opt out of, this program!  But of course, our ever expanding government is there to save us. And that’s not all; there’s so much more that makes this bill an experiment in total socialism.

Let me share a little more with you about this bill and why every “socialist” just loves it…and why it’s a joke. They claim in this bill that they also extended Title V Ab Ed funding for two years but they literally "gutted" the proven Ab Ed programs in the following ways: 

1) Calling for so-called 'medical accuracy' only for the Ab Ed programs (and defined by Planned Parenthood and contraceptive folks and always tied to contraception and condoms, never to real-life outcomes as somehow their programs have always miserably failed in this area of true “medical accuracy” but kept it from being the real litmus test) 

2) Calling for 'proven research' (again, based on contraception and condoms and determined by "peer reviewed journals" that are dictated by the liberal medical, media, and education monopolies under Planned Parenthood influence and persuasion—Heritage is one of only a very few that have garnered any government reviewed studies and subsequent articles out of over 700 Ab Ed programs in the US—so you can see what they're doing) and finally;

3) By stating that the monies will be available to "other programs" that don't emphasize the A-H definition of Abstinence according to Title V (wonder who got that added in).

So you can see what they have done with this and yet they claim they have extended "Ab Ed funding"! What a joke and it doesn't stop there – they also left off children in-utero from getting insurance coverage which opens the door for the child in the womb to be aborted and federal tax dollars to pay for it! What deception!

So here it is, Socialism in a nutshell, or rather one bill: They've accomplished a 'wonderful thing' (at least in their own minds) by insuring all these youth, and yet with the very same bill they open the door for tax-funded abortion and "contraceptive sex ed" programs which have, since the day they began to be touted as the "saving grace" for sexual activity and family planning over 40 years ago, raised every single negative outcome regarding sex in the public health arena (teen/unwed pregnancy, STIs/STDs, abortions, etc.) every single year until 1991 (when AB ED programs were separated and taught accordingly). Go figure?!

So what they've done once again is raise the cost of government (i.e., taxes) in order to "insure" many more children and with the same bill opened the door to teach and promote "sex ed" to the same children and inflict on them more individual and public health problems, infections, diseases, pregnancies and abortions for which this same bill will pay for (or rather you and I, the taxpayers, will have to pay more)! 

How hypocritical, but at the same time, what a great 'big government', socialistic bill and program – create the problems by calling it health, compassion and education and then create the taxes and programs to "remedy" all the problems caused by their own compassion, legislation and ensuing programs! 

You see, the more a socialist can convince you that ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’ are void of personal and social responsibility, the more easily they can use “false compassion” (i.e., void of Truth) to persuade you that their agendas, legislation and programs can give you just that – “Freedoms and Rights without responsibility!” However, while they may deceptively convince you that there is freedom from responsibility (i.e., license), there is absolutely no such thing as freedom from consequences! Their ‘freedom’ or license, in reality, abdicates responsibility and is without concern for, attempts to avoid, or passes the consequences of irresponsible actions to everyone thus appeasing those who act in selfish license, I mean freedom, and raises the cost for all of us without allowing for the discipline and recourse that will correct the licentious behavior, oh, I mean freedom. 

The more they convince you that freedom is license, as they have in this bill (and many others), the more we will see laws and government which excuse responsibility (personal and even social) and bring about licentious behavior and consequences that they will “compassionately” be there to take care of. How? With more “freedoms” and “rights” for you! Remember the more responsibility they convince you to abdicate in the name of your ‘rights and freedoms,’ the more control they assume and the more real freedom you lose. 

There you have it… Socialism at its best all in one piece of legislation! Can we afford to go there? Absolutely and literally not! 

Join me in educating legislators, administrators, our communities, leaders and parents in what is truly best for our children… personal responsibility, self-discipline, concern and true compassion for others! Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.

The recent studies that have been used to discredit Abstinence Education (AE), namely the Penn study on what parents/adults want taught and the Mathematica study on just four of the over 700 AE programs out there have been exposed as biased or bad research (on several accounts), and yet the mainstream media has made them headline news. However, two new studies that were done very objectively and proved the value of, and desire for, AE were relegated to little if no press or to the pages of the Internet.

This is extremely sad when you consider that we’re dealing with children’s lives, relationships and futures.

The key importance in this skewed reporting is that it affects the following:

• - Title V funding for Abstinence Education set to expire on June 30, 2007, if Congress simply takes no action.
• - Title V came about as result of Welfare Reform Act of 1996, Section 510, and contains the strongly researched and supported definition of abstinence and marriage.
• - If it expires it will make it much easier for the definition of abstinence to be changed.
• - Already “Contraceptive Education” (CE) groups have developed a “booklet” entitled The New Abstinence which essentially states that all sexual activity outside that which can lead to offspring (my paraphrase for brevity and cautiousness) can be considered “abstinence.” And they know full well that all of these other activities are risky and potentially harmful and many have long-term consequences!
• - In a surprising and “conflicting” move, Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) funding is being increased ($28 million) beyond President Bush’s budget recommendation, but the catch is that Family Planning is also being increased by the same amount of which almost all of this will go to Planned Parenthood for their “contraceptive education ideologies and ‘reproductive health’ clinics” (read on to see the “effects” and waste of contraceptive programs).

Regarding the aforementioned objective studies that would really clear the storm if acknowledged and supported, they were the recent Zogby study and the government’s own study done by the Administration for Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the CE programs that they endorse.

The Zogby study literally used wording from the actual training and teaching curricula of both CE and AE. When presented in this truthful light, parents wanted AE more than three to one over CE as they realized the positive benefit it would, and does, give to their children regarding personal efficacy and responsibility, self-control, healthy relationship skills, and sexuality.

The government study reviewed nine programs (of which Reducing the Risk is one and the most predominant one here in KY) and here are their own key findings:

1. CE curricula contains multiple examples of medical inaccuracy

2. CE does NOT emphasize abstinence (many claim they’re ‘abstinence based’)

3. CE does not clearly define parameters or definitions for abstinence

4. CE promotes risky sexual activities as “safe”

5. CE curricula is explicit and inappropriate

6. CE undermines the role of parents

7. CE is ineffective at delaying sexual onset

8. Congress must investigate the content, inaccuracies and ineffectiveness of funded CE programs and curricula.

The HHS study further revealed some startling components of the “contraceptive” sex education programs for teens as young as 13 that include:

• - Advocating showering together as a no-risk activity.
• - Promoting methods for sexual stimulation.
• - Conducting sexual role-play on how to help a partner maintain an arousal.
• - Describing how to eroticize condom use with a partner.
• - Suggesting teens wear shades or a disguise when shopping for condoms so adults and parents won’t recognize them.

On the other hand, numerous studies have shown that AE has done the following:

• - Reduced teen pregnancy rates to the lowest since the mid-1940s
• - Reduced teen sexual activity (from 55% in 1997 to nearly 46 % in 2005)
• - Delayed onset of initiation of sexual activity by at least one year to 18 months
• - Shown to reduce STIs and STDs in certain areas where AE is predominant

When all of this is taken into consideration, why would anyone advocate for continuing to gamble with the health and lives of our youth and the future of our world?

Call your Senators and Representatives, e-mail and fax them, and use these ‘talking points’ to drive home the point that you really do care, that you want AE funded with your tax dollars, and ask them to quit wasting our tax dollars on programs (CE) that actually cost us more, especially our youth! Let them know that you’ll be watching to see how they proceed on this crucial issue.

My entry this month is more questions than answers, although I’m sure you’ll be able to determine what is being said. Perhaps it will prompt more questions and answers from and for you to better understand what is being done and, even more poignantly, what needs to be done.

Having spent several years myself on higher education campuses, and even some time in the health centers, it became apparent to me that there was real hypocrisy taking place in these centers. Now, as the director of an abstinence program that has been researched and found to be highly effective and after reading the book, “Unprotected” by Anonymous, M.D., I am even more convinced that when it comes to dealing with health in regard to sexuality and sexual activity, there is not only hypocrisy and a double standard, but a very dangerous one, and our youth and young adults are paying a heavy price all in the name of “political correctness.” Before I continue let me clearly state that this is not directed at any individuals in any university health center, rather it is a blanket statement based on research, discussion and personal experience.

This price is being paid not only in their present health but also in relationships as well, both present and future ones. The evidence is clear and overwhelming that early and frequent sexual experience and activity outside of marriage is damaging in myriad ways including physical, mental, emotional, relational, and social (i.e., public health) costs and pain.

The politically correct response to this public health debacle in order to promote “free sex” on our university campuses has been devastating at best and criminal at worst in its outcomes. Consider the following questions and then tell me whether you agree or not:

Why do university health centers, along with university health education, constantly and consistently take to heart the stats and laws on smoking and its health-related consequences and then inform and educate their patients as to all the harms of smoking? Second-hand smoke? Smoke-outs? Smoke-free days, weeks, months? Smoke-free places on campus? Programs to help people quit smoking? Support groups that recognize the damage and help others quit? Places to avoid “smoke and smokers”? Aren’t we discriminating against all those who choose to smoke?

Why do university health centers, along with university health education, constantly and consistently take to heart the stats and laws on drinking, drinking and driving, underage drinking, etc.? Why do we even have laws that curtail and guide, or prohibit in the case of underage drinking? Why do they even teach… that drinking in excess is bad? Drinking and driving is against the law and bad for you? Binge drinking is harmful? Drinking in excess and/or under age promotes other harmful behaviors? Negative affect on inhibitions? Aren’t we discriminating once again against all those who choose to drink as they please?

The answer in both cases regarding discrimination is a resounding NO! We teach this because we have clearly seen the results of such activity and education and health is supposed to be all about what are the best and healthiest choices for us as individuals and then collectively as a society (i.e. public health).

So, let me ask a few more questions and see if you agree that there is something “funny” or “not so funny,” going on.

Why then do most, if not all, of these same university health centers across our country (bastions of education and ‘higher learning’) continue to neglect the same type of wisdom when it comes to an issue of much greater concern and destruction—that of risky sexual activity outside of marriage? Could it be that political correctness is more important than Truth, real education, and actual health? Why do they see students with an unintended pregnancy and most often suggest an abortion without discussing all the facts about the procedure and the aftermath, knowing that there are potential long-term physical, mental, emotional and relational consequences that should be weighed in order to make the best and healthiest decision?

Why, with a young patient that has one or several STIs/STDs, do they casually and repeatedly offer contraception and/or condoms, excusing and by default condoning the activities that cause the problems and knowing that it leaves the patient partially or fully exposed to even more physical damage and does absolutely nothing to protect their mental/emotional health? (Studies actually show that these risky activities have a very negative affect on mental/emotional health.) Why do they often see students suffering from depression, ‘cutting,’ suicidal thoughts (or dealing with a friend who has committed suicide), then diagnose as root or contributing causes a “friends with benefit” or “hookup” encounter or the breakup of a long-term sexual relationship (2 or 3 dates – pun intended as this constitutes “long-term” in this culture) and then completely dismiss the sexual activity as having any role whatsoever in the problems encountered?

Why are married students who come in with intended and planned pregnancies often counseled that an abortion might ‘free them up’ to continue along their educational and career goal paths? How traumatic is that for a desiring mother-to-be? Wise and healthy advice there!?!

There’s certainly no discrimination in these cases…simply a “free pass” given with little or no advice as to what might really help the student/patient, and even more, aid them in making the best and healthiest choices for their future!

What is really going on our campuses when political correctness and “free sex, contraceptive” sex education and ideology trumps the health and well-being of our young people and young adults? Whatever happened to true education and objectivity that gives and promotes the wisest and healthiest answers, encouraging those who rely on and trust in the “experts” to do what is best for them?

Perhaps there is another agenda, but I’ll leave that for another time.