Otherwise I'd be the target population for the White House's new Abstinence program.
Did I mention I'm closer to 30 than 20?
From the USA Today:
The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.Abstinence is probably the best policy for 14 year olds, though they should have accurate knowledge about contraception. When it comes to 17 year olds, the idea that 'just say no' will prevent pregnancy and STDs becomes silly. If we're talking about 24 year olds, it's downright ludicrous. At age 18, you're old enough to fight and die for your country in Iraq, vote, smoke, and be treated like an adult in the eyes of the law - but not old enough, apparently, to decide if a sexual relationship is ok outside of wedlock.
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.
"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."
The National Center for Health Statistics puts the percentage of 20-29 year olds having sex at 90%.
Wade Horn, the Department of Health and Human Services' assistant secretary for children and families says that the reason for the targeting of 19-29 year olds is that 19-29 year olds have the most babies out of wedlock. "The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children' ... The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."
My guess is that 19-29 year old women probably have the majority of babies period. I could be wrong, but I'm not.
The idea that the only acceptable form of a family is a 'Leave it to Beaver' sort of nuclear family is one deeply rooted in the Social Conservative mind. This change is an effort, funded by your federal tax dollars, to stigmatize anybody who doesn't fall in line with what a bunch of Christianist assholes think is right.
If a man and a woman (or two women or two men) decide that they want a child but don't want to get married, as adults, that's their business. The government shouldn't be interfering in their personal lives.
If the government's effort is to prevent accidental pregnancies among adults, 90% of which are sexually active, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that proper education about contraceptives is the better way to go.
Who says that the new, Radical Christianist Republican Party is out of touch with the real America?
Abstinence Only Christianists Republicans