Ah, another remnant of the Bush era falls. Last week a bill was signed to stop funding for abstinence-only sex education programs. These programs do not dispense any information about contraceptives, pregnancy, or STDs, and studies show these programs do not actually increase abstinence among high school students. Maybe it increased the sales of purity rings, I don’t know.

Funding for comprehensive sex education can still be compromised due to an amendment to the health care reform bill led by Senator Orrin Hatch, that would:

revive a separate $50 million grant-making program for abstinence-only programs run by states. Democratic leaders must see that this is stricken, and warring language that would provide $75 million for state comprehensive sex education programs should remain.

***
An editorial from the National Journal discusses Duke University’s revised sexual misconduct policy, whose revisions sought to protect those that might be accused of false rape charges.

Duke’s rules define sexual misconduct so broadly and vaguely as to include any sexual activity without explicit “verbal or nonverbal” consent, which must be so “clear” as to dispel “real or perceived power differentials between individuals [that] may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion” (emphasis added).
The disciplinary rules deny the accused any right to have an attorney at the hearing panel or to confront his accuser. The rules also give her — but not him — the right to be treated with “sensitivity”; to make opening and closing statements; and to receive copies of investigative documents.

Let’s try to remember that the purpose of sexual assault policies is to protect the assaulted, first and foremost. Taylor seems incredulous at the notion that some of the revisions were due to “politically correct ideology more than by any surge in sexual assaults.” Uhh… and? Would it be more beneficial to wait for a surge of sexual assaults before any changes are made?

***
A judge prolonged a restraining order that blocks the implementation of a law that would require doctors to post sensitive information about nameless abortion patients– it would have included a “woman’s age, race, education, marital status, and reason for seeking an abortion.”

The reasons behind the initial law? To collate the reasons women obtain abortions in order to prevent them. Abortion is an incredibly sensitive and personal decision; no law should require doctors to collect sensitive information to post on a website. Anyway, collecting abortion statistics while women are in the process of obtaining one hardly seems like an effective way to prevent future unwanted pregnancies.
As the entry states, sex education is more beneficial; as are tackling other more complex issues some women seek abortions, such as failed birth control methods, poverty or lack of support.

***

Finally, a disturbing montage of clips in which pundits (right wing, in this case) use rape as a metaphor. Excessive taxes = rape, nuh uh.