Pawlenty forgoes $850,000 in federal sex ed funds for strings-attached abstinence dollars
Tuesday, August 31, 2010 at 9:21 am
- 17 Comments
Tim Pawlenty. Photo: Facebook
Reproductive rights groups chastised Gov. Tim Pawlenty Monday for refusing federal money for comprehensive sex education in exchange for abstinence-education funds that will cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars. Advocates say Pawlenty’s decision to opt for the more expensive — and controversial — program arises from his presidential ambitions and not the best interests of the state.
Pawlenty had until Monday to apply for the federal Personal Responsibility Education Program, which provides $55 million in funding for comprehensive sex education programming in the states. Minnesota’s share would have been $850,000. But, Pawlenty turned down that money and applied Minnesota for the Title V State Abstinence Education Grant Program instead. The Title V program will require Minnesota to put up $379,307 in state funds in order to get $505,743 in federal funding.
Reproductive health advocates say the decision will set Minnesota back, not only financially but also in terms of sex education.
“We are outraged Gov. Tim Pawlenty is willing to continue to play games with the lives of Minnesota youth,” Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota told the Minnesota Independent on Monday. “During a time of tremendous budgetary challenges for our state, the governor has once again shown that he will put political games ahead of sound policy recommendations.”
She said Pawlenty is denying the state almost $1 million to support evidence-based sex education in exchange for “programs that have not proven successful in the past.”
In 2007, state officials found the federal funding for abstinence to be lacking and quietly dropped the program. The state opted out after federal guidelines mandated that the state teach that “sex outside of marriage was psychologically and physically harmful” and restricted any conversation about contraceptives.
House said that Pawlenty continues to “ignore the rising HIV and Chlamydia rates affecting young Minnesotans.” She added, “In effect, Pawlenty is turning his back on our youth, and his decision will have a profound impact upon the future of Minnesota youth.”
The Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting (MOAPPP) suggested that Pawlenty’s decision was based on politics.
“There’s been a concern in the field that governors across the country would use these funding opportunities to rack up political points instead of putting young people’s futures first,” said Brigid Riley, the group’s executive director. “It appears that that’s what is going on in Minnesota. Why else would you turn down almost a million dollars for youth programs that require no match, but take funding for failed programs that require a 75 percent match?”
Planned Parenthood president and CEO Sarah Stroez agreed: “It defies logic that the governor of a state in a budget crisis would turn away nearly a million dollars in federal funding for services that are profoundly needed across Minnesota.”
A MOAPP statement released Monday said, “More than 30 years of peer-reviewed research supports the fact that when young people learn the importance of waiting to have sex AND about preventing pregnancy and disease, they wait longer before having sex, have fewer partners, and use condoms and contraception more effectively when they finally become sexually active.”
“A lot fewer Minnesota teens will get this message as a result of this decision,” the group added.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter17 Comments
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 9:25 am
Why worry about teen pregnancy or sexual health at a time like this? There’s a BASE to pander to!
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 9:47 am
Even more of a reason to boycott Target for donating $150,000 to this guy. Maybe thats why he doesnt need the money- corporations can give him all he needs.
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 9:54 am
Actually the $150K of Target money was for Emmer, Pawlenty’s replacement. Emmer will be more of the same though, so philosophically no difference.
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 10:32 am
I’m trying to understand why someone who doesn’t trust the government to pay for health care would trust the government to teach kids how NOT to fuck?
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 11:21 am
Do we really think $850,000 is needed to tell people to keep their pants zipped up or does anybody think $850,000 would matter regardless? That money represents somebody’s wages. Not yours, presumably.
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 11:27 am
It has been proven again and again that abstinence education is ineffective. Why bother coming up with the 75% match given the state budget deficit when that money can be put to better use elsewhere?
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 11:34 am
Dennis must be confused today. Telling people to keep their pants zipped up is more abstinence teaching than comprehensive sex education, and we know darn well they won’t – sooner or later. Again:
A MOAPP statement released Monday said, “More than 30 years of peer-reviewed research supports the fact that when young people learn the importance of waiting to have sex AND about preventing pregnancy and disease, they wait longer before having sex, have fewer partners, and use condoms and contraception more effectively when they finally become sexually active.”
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 3:25 pm
I wish we had a governor who actually cared about the people of Minnesota instead of just his hardline conservative ideology.
Maybe we should bill him for the time he works against us instead of for us.
Comment posted August 31, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
When I taught at an inner city junior high school, I sometimes heard yelled in the hallway after school, “Hey come on over to my house and fuck.” Does Pawlenty think that abstinence only will have any effect on these kids? They need good comprehensive sex education, they’ve gone beyond abstinence. How much more damage will Pawlenty do to our wonderful state before he leaves office?
Pingback posted September 1, 2010 @ 3:50 am
[...] Education Program (PREP), which provides states with $55 million for comprehensive sex education programs. Instead, they applied for Title V funding, [...]
Comment posted September 1, 2010 @ 6:31 am
How refreshing that someone refused the government teat and the strings that so often come with it.
Also how typical that a politician would refuse to spend taxpayers money and get raked over the coals for it. No wonder our politicians have such a hard time not spending money, they are damned if they do and damned if they do not.
Comment posted September 1, 2010 @ 7:52 am
So PP is worried about Chlamydia. Do they or the rest of that bunch tell people that chlamydia, gonorrhea, HPV, herpes, etc. can be spread to the eye? The CDC, lost in their fine print, will mention that many STDs can be found on the thighs, buttocks, Ocular (eye) etc. They are passed on to from one area of your body to another by yourself (autoinoculation), by someone else who has touched a ‘sore’ before putting on or taking off a condom and they touching you. etc.
By the way there is now an antibiotic-resistant strain of gonorrhea.
Does anyone tell others to at least wash their hands before and after sex?
Look up terms like manual – genital and oculogenital. Seems like a those pushing ‘comprehensive sex education’ want the money – and people spreading diseases end up making more money being spread around for treatments – then they do in stopping anything. The end lesson to be taught is: if you do not want their baby or their disease, why are you wasting your time with them? Who profit$?
Comment posted September 1, 2010 @ 11:59 am
> How refreshing that someone refused the government teat and the strings that so often come with it.
This remark doesn’t make sense. The $850,000 grant has no strings attached, but the $505,743 requires the state to match this with $379,307. King Pawlessly could have rejected this too since the state has no money to spare in addition to the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only education not justifying this waste of money.
> Does anyone tell others to at least wash their hands before and after sex?
I think comprehensive sex education is far more likely to address the importance of personal hygiene and to discuss STDs and birth control than abstinence-only education ever will.
Comment posted September 2, 2010 @ 11:59 am
What do these sex ed programs do, and why are they so expensive? Are we talking about pamphlets and handouts, field trips, condoms and bananas, what?
Pingback posted September 2, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
[...] for funds from the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), which provides states with $55 million for comprehensive sex education programs. Instead, they applied for Title V funding, which has $50 million a year for states to implement [...]
Pingback posted May 2, 2011 @ 2:59 pm
[...] for funds from the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), which provides states with $55 million for comprehensive sex education programs. Instead, they applied for Title V funding, which has $50 million a year for states to implement [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
