That's all. What about it? Isn't this supposed to be the era of families teaching their values directly to their kids? No "interference" or clashing information from schools, no public school discussion of birth control, etc.?

Isn't this the logical nine-month consequence of nearly a decade of denial?

How effective can Palin claim to have been as a parent unless this outcome was a real possibility in their family discussions? Should we really be idolizing the "no choice" aspect without examining whether she and her husband upheld this other important conservative family responsibility?

I think it's fine to teach abstinence as a "preferred alternative" but the basic reality is that kids are going to have sex whether you like or not. Why? For the same reasons adults have sex. It's kind of fun. To not teach sex education in school is utterly ridiculous IMO. I don't believe for a second that it encourages any sex drive that doesn't already exist and more importantly, it equips children with the proper information in the event that they choose to become sexually active. Keeping them in the dark borders on child abuse and, quite frankly, is not possible in this day and age.

to ask anyone to live w/o a healthy sex life-once past 18 years. Its miserable, and slows your maturing, at the least. Even St. Augustine believed in a hearty sex life, and ALWAYS had numerous girlfriends and concubines before he became a priest in midle age.

Oh my.

1891 Review of Reviews

In reporting Prince Edward's Edward VII, King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Emperor of India (1841–1910) ODNB
Close View the register entry >> call for the prevention of disease through improved sanitation, insists that we must not become the 'bondslaves of the doctors' and 'sacrifice the liberty of all in order to save a few from the inconvenience of ill-health'. After all, in almost every age doctors 'have committed themselves to blunders which have made them the laughing-stock of their own profession in the next generation'. Although the medical profession has 'undoubtedly a splendid record of achievement to show as the result of improved sanitation', their 'greatest blunder [...] in this generation' has been the Contagious Diseases Act which attempted to eliminate 'syphilis by legislation' but instead only served to 'give an enormous stimulus to the vice by which it is propagated'. (221) With this ill-conceived piece of legislation doctors became 'the New Inquisitors'

blueskies, before I point out some of the other stellar decisions made by the British Empire around this time... are you suggesting that this document supports the idea that teaching sex education promotes sexually transmitted diseases?

I believe in teaching comprehensive sex ed and having condoms available for kids (not sure to go as far as in vending machines in high schools, but possibly through who the health person is). However, there are people who do not want their kids to have sex education. The school can make available a document where a guardian signs saying they do not want their child to participate. My husband and I saw this when researching our local elementary school. They taught sex ed to elementary school kids with the basics being identifying their own body parts. We both thought it was very progressive to have this available.

There was a an article in the Journal of Adolescent Health titled: Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Here's the link: <link> The following is the abstract:

Purpose

The role that sex education plays in the initiation of sexual activity and risk of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) is controversial in the United States. Despite several systematic reviews, few epidemiologic evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs on a population level have been conducted.

Methods

Among never-married heterosexual adolescents, aged 15–19 years, who participated in Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth and reported on formal sex education received before their first sexual intercourse (n = 1719), we compared the sexual health risks of adolescents who received abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education to those of adolescents who received no formal sex education. Weighted multivariate logistic regression generated population-based estimates.

Results

Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively).

ConclusionsTeaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.