More on the CDC thing
Aug. 10th, 2004 08:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenI was asked why the new CDC guidelines are bad, given that they mention that it's okay to talk about condoms as long as said talks include "medically accurate" information about how safe or unsafe they are. My answer got too long for an LJ comment, but as I'm quoting the guidelines directly I didn't want to shorten it. Hence, new post.
For anyone interested, the new guidelines are here..
First off, this part:
(3) Clarify the requirement of the PRP by requiring identification of a PRP of no less than five persons who represent a reasonable cross-section of the jurisdiction in which the program is based to ensure better representation of the community to be served.
In other words, local communities will have a say in what the programs will and won't entail. In an ideal universe, this is not a problem. In the world we live in there are many districts where people think that teaching Creationism is scientific, and that any book in the school library that mentions homosexuality is evil should be banned, if not burned. These are not the people you want making judgement calls on how a sex ed class handles the condom issue. Esp when we include this:
(6) Require funded recipients to include a certification that accountable state, territorial or local health officials have
independently reviewed educational materials for compliance with Sections 2500 and 317P of the Public Health Service Act. This is a new requirement in the revised Guidelines and follows the same rationale of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607 (1973) that defines ``obscenity'' by looking to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, as a way to ensure that material would be judged by its impact on an average person, rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person, or a totally insensitive one. The review responsibility, in the proposed Guidelines, is placed at the state and local level, specifically with state and local health officials. (emphasis mine)
Considering that I really doubt that any government sponsored program was using Debbie Does Dallas for any kind of sex ed, what exactly are we guarding against with this obscenity clause, particularly one which, again, allows the definition of obscenity to fluctuate depending upon the community? Sex ed should be no different than any other health education class. There's no obscenity clause in any of the flu vaccine pamplets, there shouldn't be in this one either. We shouldn't be worried about some cities in this country getting less information than others because someone in that town thought that the information was obscene. This should not be up to morals, it should be up to facts.
Finally, we have this:
Controlling the spread of HIV infection and the occurrence of AIDS requires the promotion of individual behaviors that eliminate or reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading the virus. Messages must be provided to the public that emphasize the ways by which individuals can protect themselves from acquiring the virus. These methods include abstinence from illegal use of IV drugs as well as from sexual intercourse except in a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.
[...]
USE OF FUNDS.
(b) Contents of Programs.--All programs of education and information receiving funds under this title shall include
information about the harmful effects of promiscuous sexual activity and intravenous substance abuse, and the benefits of abstaining from
such activities.
(c) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated to carry out this title may be used to provide education or information designed to promote or encourage, directly, homosexual or heterosexual sexual activity or intravenous substance abuse. (Again, emphasis mine).
So in other words, you can't have any funding unless you include a message about abstaining from sex. Which in theory might be okay too, except you can't have any funding if you "promote or encourage" sexual activity either. How likely do you think it is that anyone is going to get funding for a program that just talks about birth control, and condom usage? Zero likely, because it doesn't mention abstinance. How likely is it that a program that mixes abstinance with info about birth control and condom usage is going to get funding? Given who put all this into effect, and how he made abstinance-only education one of his promises of the last State of the Union, not as likely as a program which omits the birth control and condoms part.
Finally, given how these new guidelines push for abstinance education to be valued above everything else, and labels talking about condoms as "controvertial", how likely is it that this is going to work to help reduce unsafe sex and the spread of STDs including HIV? Based on studies of how similar programs have utterly failed to work: extremely unlikely.
So that would be the problem with it.
For anyone interested, the new guidelines are here..
First off, this part:
(3) Clarify the requirement of the PRP by requiring identification of a PRP of no less than five persons who represent a reasonable cross-section of the jurisdiction in which the program is based to ensure better representation of the community to be served.
In other words, local communities will have a say in what the programs will and won't entail. In an ideal universe, this is not a problem. In the world we live in there are many districts where people think that teaching Creationism is scientific, and that any book in the school library that mentions homosexuality is evil should be banned, if not burned. These are not the people you want making judgement calls on how a sex ed class handles the condom issue. Esp when we include this:
(6) Require funded recipients to include a certification that accountable state, territorial or local health officials have
independently reviewed educational materials for compliance with Sections 2500 and 317P of the Public Health Service Act. This is a new requirement in the revised Guidelines and follows the same rationale of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607 (1973) that defines ``obscenity'' by looking to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, as a way to ensure that material would be judged by its impact on an average person, rather than a particularly susceptible or sensitive person, or a totally insensitive one. The review responsibility, in the proposed Guidelines, is placed at the state and local level, specifically with state and local health officials. (emphasis mine)
Considering that I really doubt that any government sponsored program was using Debbie Does Dallas for any kind of sex ed, what exactly are we guarding against with this obscenity clause, particularly one which, again, allows the definition of obscenity to fluctuate depending upon the community? Sex ed should be no different than any other health education class. There's no obscenity clause in any of the flu vaccine pamplets, there shouldn't be in this one either. We shouldn't be worried about some cities in this country getting less information than others because someone in that town thought that the information was obscene. This should not be up to morals, it should be up to facts.
Finally, we have this:
Controlling the spread of HIV infection and the occurrence of AIDS requires the promotion of individual behaviors that eliminate or reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading the virus. Messages must be provided to the public that emphasize the ways by which individuals can protect themselves from acquiring the virus. These methods include abstinence from illegal use of IV drugs as well as from sexual intercourse except in a mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.
[...]
USE OF FUNDS.
(b) Contents of Programs.--All programs of education and information receiving funds under this title shall include
information about the harmful effects of promiscuous sexual activity and intravenous substance abuse, and the benefits of abstaining from
such activities.
(c) Limitation.--None of the funds appropriated to carry out this title may be used to provide education or information designed to promote or encourage, directly, homosexual or heterosexual sexual activity or intravenous substance abuse. (Again, emphasis mine).
So in other words, you can't have any funding unless you include a message about abstaining from sex. Which in theory might be okay too, except you can't have any funding if you "promote or encourage" sexual activity either. How likely do you think it is that anyone is going to get funding for a program that just talks about birth control, and condom usage? Zero likely, because it doesn't mention abstinance. How likely is it that a program that mixes abstinance with info about birth control and condom usage is going to get funding? Given who put all this into effect, and how he made abstinance-only education one of his promises of the last State of the Union, not as likely as a program which omits the birth control and condoms part.
Finally, given how these new guidelines push for abstinance education to be valued above everything else, and labels talking about condoms as "controvertial", how likely is it that this is going to work to help reduce unsafe sex and the spread of STDs including HIV? Based on studies of how similar programs have utterly failed to work: extremely unlikely.
So that would be the problem with it.
