Sadder news for young Americans

Another great article (this one's an op-ed, also from the NYT). It outlines abstinence-only sex education, and how awesome it is (detect a note of sarcasm there?). Here are the high points:

• Gonorrhea and syphilis rates are on the rise for the first time since the 1980s, and chlamydia is being diagnosed TWICE as often as a decade ago. MmmmmYummy
• 93% of Americans have pre-marital sex before 30, and abstinence-only education teaches that they will suffer psychological and physical damage as a result. Good thing to teach little Johnny and Jane-- this is about as good as the "hairy palms" myth for "self-abuse."
• We have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. Because apparently, condoms are bad. So the converse must be true: extra babies to unfit parents are good?
• Abstinence-only sex ed includes lies about HIV, including that it may remain in your body undetected for up to 10 years. I think they have this confused with Mad Cow. But they are different. I promise you they are.
• And the kicker (which goes to my last post): if we cut funding for this terrific abstinence only sex education, Congress could fund insurance for 150,000 children per year. Now that's prioritizing.

Way to go, President Bush. As usual, your laws and initiatives are so super-duper the rest of us wish we could extend your term. But alas, we cannot. You're OUT in '09, thank Jebus.

Sad news for SCHIP

SCHIP, the child healthcare bill, failed to secure enough votes to override Bush's veto (article here). I am not surprised that Republicans hate children, just sad. Ok, so that's a tad dramatic. But I am in mourning. C'mon, let's do something for the little 'uns?

re: Bush's veto of Child Healthcare

Congress wanted to spend $35 billion on health care for poor children, and in vetoing that, Bush said that he is "more than willing to sit down with the leaders and [find more money]" if it is needed. Specifically, he said he'd give $5 billion over the next 5 years. Which is almost "a little more money." Except that it's actually less. A lot less. And in my world, less does not equal more. Not in dollars, anyway. I think this could be good reasoning, though, because I could go to Nordstrom and tell them I want those $245 Blinde sunglasses, and I'll even give them a little more for them, say $50. Total. Because in this new way of thinking, $50 is more than $245. And I've really been wanting to start shopping at Chanel but could never afford it before. Now that more money = calculating 1/7 the stated cost and running with it, I can be the designer dud wearing girl I've always wanted to be. This sounds like fun! I'm going shopping, armed with Bush's unflappable logic.

P.S. Congress has vowed to override the veto, and while I do want to be able to shop at Chanel, this bill needs to pass and I hope it does. Sometimes, you gotta take one for the team. Which means that today my team is comprised of poor uninsured kids. I'm okay with that.

P.P.S.: A great quote from the article: "My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions."