New federal rule protects conscience and opens the door to pro-life family planning programs

Action: Read and send my pre-written message.

Your supportive comments by July 31
can help make sure this proposed rule
is finalized and becomes reality.

If a new proposed federal rule is finalized after a public comment period ending July 31, pro-life medical professionals and programs finally will be able to take advantage of family planning grants opportunities.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a new federal family planning rule to govern federal family planning (Title X) funds. Your supportive comments by July 31 can help make sure this proposed rule is finalized and becomes reality.

Meanwhile, the Christian Medical Association is joining with other national pro-life organizations to prepare training resources that can help you apply for a federal family planning grant (more on that training to come…).

By voicing your support now for this new rule, you also can help protect conscience freedom in healthcare. The new rule removes abortion participation requirements and enforces federal conscience law.

Planned Parenthood is a billion-dollar industry that every year
rakes in half a billion tax dollars and
performs nearly a third of a million abortions.

Breaking up the abortion industry's monopoly on federal family planning funds

Voice your view on conscience protections, patient and taxpayer benefits and parental protections

You can voice your support now for a  new federal family planning rule to enhance care, respect conscience and protect patients:

Read and send my pre-written message

The new rule will benefit:

• Patients seeking family planning services from health professionals and organizations with lifeaffirming values.
• Taxpayers who do not want their tax dollars to fund the abortion industry.
• Health professionals and organizations who could use federal funding to help provide services of family planning.
• Parents who want to be advised of and participate in their children's healthcare, especially regarding family planning. 

Meanwhile, the new rule also will help stop abuses by the abortion industry and others who under the old rule may have:

That awkward moment when sex ed research paralleled common sense and parental preference

A Congressional staff briefing today, presented by ASCEND, offered legislators research and common sense reasons to change direction in sex ed program funding.
For years, liberals/progressives/people mad at the Church have been railing against any approach to sex ed that veers off the party line that teens are going to have sex no matter what, so just break out the condoms on bananas instructions and the explicit curricula. If you can't stop them from having sex, might as well teach them how to have all kinds of sex.
Never mind that research shows that to provide a significant measure of protection against certain sexually transmitted infections and diseases, condom use requires not only manufacturing perfection (no breakage or leaks) but also methodological consistency (careful and systematic application every single time).
How many teenagers do you know who might be described as careful and systematic at any time, much less late at night in the heat of passion?
Maybe that's why so many parents prefer the educational approach now known as Sexual Risk Avoidance. They know what their teens are actually like, and besides recognizing the personal and health risks of sexual activity, they also give their teens a lot more credit for the capacity to make good choices than do liberal-leaning sex ed curriculum developers.
Sexual Risk Avoidance education also parallels public health strategies employed in programs designed to prevent smoking and alcohol abuse. Imagine an anti-smoking program that assumed that teens were going to smoke anyway, so let's encourage them to smoke cigarettes with filters.
As with most common-sense, parental-preferred programs, Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) education has faced intense opposition in Washington, DC. The Obama crowd insisted that research and SRA were incompatible and instead funneled millions into the controversial, "comprehensive" sex ed approach that pleads agnosticism as to whether or not teen sex is good or bad. The funding disparity between that approach and actually teaching teens how to postpone sexual activity in 2014 reached 20 dollars for "comprehensive" sex ed for every one dollar of Sexual Risk Avoidance sex ed.
Tha turned out to be a terrible gamble.
ASCEND, a terrific organization that courageously has stood strong for Sexual Risk Avoidance education in the face of tremendous opposition, summarizes what happened when the US Government shoveled your tax dollars with reckless abandon into "comprehensive" sex education:

HHS Report Shows Lack of Effectiveness for “Comprehensive” Sex Ed.

Five years and more than a half billion dollars later, it appears that what were promised as effective models for sex education curricula simply are not.  In a blow to the heavily-funded federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPP), new research shows dismal results for youth served in the program. Begun in 2010, the TPP program was called “evidence-based” by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and communities were guaranteed positive results if they implemented one of the curricula on the HHS-approved list, as shown by this quote found on the HHS website: “Evidence-based programs can be expected to produce positive results consistently.“[1] But the findings of the newly released research shows the promise was mostly inaccurate.

According to researchers who worked on the evaluation project, “most of the programs had small or insignificant impacts on adolescent behavior.”[2] A closer look at the research findings reveals that this summary may be a generous assessment of the results, since some youth actually fared worse when they were enrolled in some of the funded projects.

Compared with their peers who were in the program, teens in some TPP-funded projects were more likely to begin having sex, more likely to engage in oral sex, and more likely to get pregnant. In fact, more than 80% of students in these programs fared either worse or no better than their peers who were not in the program.

Valerie Huber, president/CEO of Ascend responded to the TPP results: “For years, we have been concerned that objective research protocols were ignored when making the ‘evidence-based’ promises for TPP.  As a result, school administrators and community stakeholders were led to believe that if they wanted their youth to thrive, they mustimplement curricula from the TPP ‘evidence-based’ list. Many well-intentioned decision makers did just that, but now they learn that this decision may have been ill-advised – and that their students may be at increased risk as a result.”

"This research gives us serious reason to pause – ask the hard questions - and be willing to amend what messages we are giving vulnerable youth. It’s time to bring honesty and transparency to the entire issue of sex education. The fact is that the sexual risk reduction approach, typified in the TPP program, holds no claim on successful models that guarantee sexual health for youth.”

The lessons from public health tell us two things that should inform sex education policies, beginning today:

1. The healthiest message for youth is one that gives youth the skills and information to avoid the risks of teen sex, not merely reduce them. This is a message that is relevant in 2016, since the majority of teens have not had sex, far fewer, in fact, than 20 years ago.[3] Therefore, we need to be more intentional with finding the best ways to help youth achieve this optimal health outcome.

2. TPP programs overwhelmingly normalize teen sex – a message that 1 in 4 teens say makes them feel pressured to have sex.[4] The recently-released TPP research appears to confirm this felt sexual-pressure. As a society, we must normalize sexual delay and make it a realistic expectation.

Huber suggests one more consideration: “Sex education posturing and policies should not be about winning or losing a debate. Policies must be about increasing the chances that all youth can obtain optimal sexual health and a brighter opportunity for a healthy and successful future.  Nothing less is acceptable.”

A summary of the findings from HHS can be found here.

________________________________________

[1] HHS, Office of Adolescent Health (OAH) website. Retrieved October 14, 2016 at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/oah-initiatives/teen_pregnancy/training/curriculum.html

[2] (2016). Special issue of American Journal of Public Health explores impacts of Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program. American Journal of Public Health: September 2016. 106 (S1):S9-S15.

Retrieved on October 14, 2016 at  http://www.news-medical.net/news/20160930/Special-issue-of-American-Journal-of-Public-Health-explores-impacts-of-Teen-Pregnancy-Prevention-Program.aspx

[3] CDC (2016) YRBS. Atlanta: Author. Retrieved October 14, 2016 at

https://nccd.cdc.gov/Youthonline/App/QuestionsOrLocations.aspx?CategoryId=C04

[4] (2015). Teens speak out. Ventura: Barna Research. 

 

 

 

                                                               ###

________________________________________

Ascend (formerly the National Abstinence Education Association) champions youth to make healthy decisions in relationships and life by promoting well being through a primary prevention strategy, and as a national membership and advocacy organization that serves, leads, represents and equips the Sexual Risk Avoidance field.

Dem, GOP platforms contrasted on life issues

Both major political parties recently issued new platforms that communicate contrasting core values to the American people. Following is a breakdown of where each party stands on the life issues of particular concern to readers of this blog: abortion, sex education, embryos and stem cell research and assisted suicide:

Abortion

The Democrat party platform maintains that “that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion” (p. 37).

The Republican party platform focuses on “The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can ‘be deprived of life, liberty or property’ deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that ‘all’ are ‘endowed by their Creator’ with the inalienable right to life” (p. 13).

Democrats: “We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people” (p.37).

“We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment [which prohibits most government funding of abortions]” (p. 37).

“We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and included as part of America’s global health programming. Therefore, we support the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care information and services, including the “global gag rule” and the Helms Amendment that bars American assistance to provide safe, legal abortion throughout the developing world” (p. 46).

Republicans: “We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare” (p. 13).

“We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage” (p. 13).

“Because of [Democratic party] opposition to simple abortion clinic safety procedures, support for taxpayer-funded abortion, and rejection of pregnancy resource centers that provide abortion alternatives, the old Clinton mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” has been reduced to just “legal” (p. 14).

“We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics” (p. 14).

Sex education

Democrats: “We recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions” (p. 37).

Republicans: “We renew our call for replacing ‘family planning’ programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. That approach — the only one always effective against premarital pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease — empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes” (p. 34)

Embryos and stem cell research

Democrats: No mention.

The 2012 platform had noted that “the President issued an executive order repealing the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.”

The 2008 platform had issued a call to “lift the current Administration's ban on using federal funding for embryonic stem cells– cells that would have otherwise have been discarded and lost forever–for research that could save lives.”

Republicans: “We call for expanded support for the stem cell research that now offers the greatest hope for many afflictions — through adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood, and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells — without the destruction of embryonic human life. We urge a ban on human cloning for research or reproduction, and a ban on the creation of, or experimentation on, human embryos for research” (pp. 37-38).

Assisted suicide and euthanasia

Democrats: No mention.

Republicans: “We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide” (pp. 13-14).

Where is the evidence for Obama's "evidence-based" sex ed approach?

Valerie Huber

I recently met at the US Capitol with Members of Congress and my friend and colleague Valerie Huber, President of the sexual risk avoidance education group ASCEND.
Ascend (formerly the National Abstinence Education Association) champions youth to make healthy decisions in relationships and life by promoting well being through a primary prevention strategy, and as a national membership and advocacy organization that serves, leads, represents and equips the Sexual Risk Avoidance field.
At our meeting at the Capitol, Valerie explained how the Obama administration disfavors the sexual risk avoidance education that parents favor, opting instead for the so-called "comprehensive" sex ed approach. "Comprehensive" sex ed programs expect teens to engage in sex and focus on the mechanics of sex and prophylactic measures.

Teens' tendencies thwart condom strategy

The comprehensive sex ed approach depends heavily on condom instruction. Yet as the FDA notes, the effective use of condoms depends on consistency, carefulness and rationality. Teenagers, by contrast, are often inconsistent, reckless and irrational. Studies of the brain offer evidence that the ability to rationally anticipate consequences and adapt behavior accordingly often does not fully develop until after the teen years.

Exposing the flaws in the "evidence"

ASCEND has released a statement entitled, "The HHS List of "Evidence-Based" Sex Ed Programs Presents Dubious Claims of Effectiveness." It explains how the administration continues to promote "comprehensive" sex ed despite a dearth of reliable scientific evidence:
------------------------------

Since 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services has provided revisions and additions to a list of Teen Pregnancy Programs they claim are “evidence-based.” The touted list is treated as a seminal guide for those who implement programs across the country to reduce teen pregnancy.

Spring 2016 saw yet another expansion of the so-called “approved” list increasing the total number of programs to 44. To earn a place on the list, a rigorous criteria for research design and implementation is set forth.

However, for many programs, a closer look shows serious breaches of many established research protocols.

And yet, these programs are presented as “national models,” meaning that when implemented the same positive results can be expected. So what has a closer look revealed?

"Model" programs are actually making matters worse 

For a program to be deemed a “national model,” at least one replication, with the same results, must be achieved. But only 16% of the programs on the list have even been replicated.

Of those that have, dubious and even dangerous results were reached.

Of the seven programs that have been replicated, six showed either “no change” or worse. Three programs demonstrated students faring worse than students who did not receive the program at all by being more likely to have sex, have more sexual partners, or less likely to use contraception.

And, disturbingly, these are offered as  “models” of programs designed to reduce teen pregnancy. 

Another concern includes the implication that positive findings from a program conducted in a clinical setting, for instance, can also be expected for those in a classroom setting.  However, such a generalization of findings from one setting to an entirely different setting is a violation of the most elementary research protocols.

Whatever happened to truth? 

The fact of the matter is the much celebrated “evidence-based” list of programs are not national models and should not be promoted as such.

They simply do not meet the expected standard of replication to be so deemed. Communities and schools across the country need to know the truth. 

Those who care about teen pregnancy and the growing epidemic of STDs among youth deserve research that produces honest information. We have some. But it is important that we do not say what we cannot say.

It is time for honest research to inform our efforts in working with teens on this most important issue. It is time to stop promoting approaches to sex education that have more to do with political and ideological agendas than with the health and well-being of youth.

------------------------------

Congress steps in

Thankfully, the current Congress is cognizant of the benefits of sexual risk avoidance education and has allocated funding for it. Accordingly, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) last week released a Funding Announcement for a new Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) Education Program. As ASCEND explains:

The new SRA program is the result of Ascend’s work with Congress to bring more sex education choice to communities. The FY 2016 federal budget contains $10 million for a sex education approach that is focused solely on giving youth the skills to avoid all of the risks associated with teen sex.

The goal of the new programs is to “implement sexual risk avoidance education that teaches participants how to voluntarily refrain from non-marital sexual activity ... and teach the benefits associated with self-regulation, success sequencing for poverty prevention, healthy relationships, goal setting, and resisting sexual coercion, dating violence, and other youth risk behaviors such as underage drinking or illicit drug use without normalizing teen sexual activity.”

The award process for the  FY2016 SRA Education program allows for annual awards over a 3-year project period as funds are available. 

As pending legislation, the Healthy Relationships Act, notes, 

The unambiguous message that postponing sexual activity is the optimal sexual health behavior for youth must be the primary emphasis and context for each topic covered by the education. The education must be age appropriate, medically accurate, and evidence based.

If Congress continues to fund sex education, the requirements of this legislation seem quite reasonable, especially given the serious health and emotional consequences of teen sexual activity.

Congress inches toward sane sex education policy

Some good news below from my friend Valerie Huber of Ascend (formerly the National Abstinence Education Association). The majority GOP Congress has increased the amount of funding allocated to sexual risk avoidance (SRA) sex education. 

However, a huge federal funding gap remains between programs that teach teens how to save sex while protecting their hearts and programs that teach teens how to have sex while protecting their sexual organs. The sexual risk avoidance strategies regarding teen sex parallel similar strategies for risky behaviors such as smoking and substance abuse.

The House has released the long-awaited Omnibus spending bill for Fiscal Year 2016. Tucked within the many pages of the bill are several policy changes in the nation’s sex education priorities. Three improvements have a direct impact on Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) education, funded through the annual appropriations process:

1.    Funding. Funding for Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA) education is doubled from $5 million to $10 million. The disparity is still great between SRA and so-called “comprehensive” sex education (or more accurately Sexual Risk Reduction [SRR] education), but this year’s omnibus is a step in the right direction. SRR education received funding at $90 million.

2.    New Language. Legislative language governing the SRA program ensures that students will receive clear and accurate information and skills to avoid sexual risk.  The new language is taken from the Healthy Relationships Act, introduced in the House by Rep. Randy Hultgren and Rep. Dan Lipinski, and in the Senate by Sen. Lindsey Graham.

3.    New Name. The term “sexual risk avoidance” more clearly describes the optimal health priorities of our programs. Congress replaced the term “abstinence education” for “sexual risk avoidance” to reflect the overriding health benefits teens experience when they forgo sexual activity. Consistent with how the public health community addresses other youth risks, the sexual risk avoidance approach offers a well-defined and consistent emphasis on information and skills that help youth avoid all sexual risk.

With the expected and quick passage of the Omnibus, these important improvements to federal sex education policy set a new precedent for teen health.

 “We are encouraged that Congress listened to the majority of Americans* who say that pregnancy-prevention-only programs are not enough for our youth.  They say that youth deserve all the skills to help them thrive – skills that are a part of SRA programs,” declared Valerie Huber, President/CEO of Ascend.

“We are encouraged that Congress is committed to reinforcing and amplifying the good decisions of the majority of youth. Most teens have not had sex – and that percentage has increased more than 15% over the past 20 years.** Finally, more sex education classes will help youth build healthy relationships, avoid all the consequences of teen sex, and ascend to brighter and healthier futures,” she continued.

“The legislative changes are important and the increased funding is one step closer to parity between SRA and SRR programs, a continuing goal for Ascend.”

Ascend applauds Congress for making important improvements to sex education funding and policy. The future of our youth trumps politics. The FY 2016 Omnibus sets a good precedent for that future.

*About 70% of Americans say students should learn how to avoid all the consequences of sex, rather than merely receive a pregnancy prevention message, according to the July 2015 Americans Speak Out Survey. Research conducted by the Barna Group. 

** The CDC reveals more than a 15% decrease in the percent of teens who have had sex from 1991-2013. Click here to see trends and further information.  

Ascend (formerly the National Abstinence Education Association) champions youth to make healthy decisions in relationships and life by promoting well being through a primary prevention strategy, and as a national membership and advocacy organization that serves, leads, represents and equips the Sexual Risk Avoidance field.

Excerpts from new book that encourages and equips people of faith to engage on controversial issues

Faith Steps

Logion Publishing, Washington, DC - published 2015

How can we remain true to the core teachings of our faith and winsomely engage others on controversial issues like sex, marriage, abortion, religious freedom, human trafficking and end of life issues?

As aggressive activists and ideologues try to eject persons of faith from the public square, we need to know and hold fast to the truth … and help others choose the path that leads to life, liberty and true happiness.

Excerpts

Engaging others: "People make their own choices; we are simply informing their self-interest. In love and compassion, offering evidence and reason, we simply present the clear choices and draw a line to the benefits or harms likely to result from those choices."

Marriage: "By uprooting and replacing the definition of marriage with a subjective notion based on emotional relationship … no rational parameters remain that would exclude further redefinitions of 'marriage' as between multiple partners, related persons, or even persons and non-persons."

Faith freedom: "While we can take comfort in the companionship of such a 'great cloud of witnesses' who have suffered for the faith, we also must fight for religious freedom while we have the freedom to do so."

Abortion: "Abortion advocates commonly contend that health and safety regulations, such as regulations required of other surgical facilities, would shut down their clinics. What does that tell you about the level of safety women encounter in abortion clinics?"

Worldview: "If we are each making up our own truth, each arriving at different conclusions, what do we do when our individually made-up worldviews conflict? One of two things can happen: coexistence or domination."

­­­Euthanasia: "Then, Xandra says, her father-in-law suddenly cried out. He said, 'I don’t want to die!' Xandra frantically looked to the doctor and at the others in the room. 'But no one was reacting.' Franz died from that second injection, whether he really wanted to or not."

Human trafficking: "The big ideas in our White House meeting agenda included developing a strategy to conduct medical research to establish the links between human trafficking and prostitution, AIDS, tuberculosis and other communicable diseases."

Sex ed: "Totally bereft of any reason to convince teens to wait, 'comprehensive' sex education focuses on trying to merely reduce rather than avoid the harm."

Faith & politics: "Christian engagement in government and policy advocacy offers an opportunity to show skeptics that faith can work in the real world–even in the intensely challenging, often battering world of public policy."

Engaging in culture: "We will seek to understand critically where a work of art, music or literature syncs with God's principles and where it diverges."

Endorsements

"Faith Steps is a perfect book for our time. Mr. Imbody offers solutions for how we can--and must--take back the high ground. This book is exceptionally well written by a man of great courage, knowledge and commitment." – Diana Lightfoot, Advisor, Carson for President

"A clear, poignant presentation of how to become a person of faith and have that faith transform your life and culture." – Gene Rudd, MD, Exec. VP, Christian Medical Association

"The chapter on worldview is worth the cost of the book by itself! A must-read for anyone who is serious about living out their faith." –Col. Donald Thompson, MD, Director, Global Health Outreach

Author

Jonathan Imbody (cmawashington@icloud.com) draws on decades of insider experience in Washington, DC in government relations and communications. He directs the 30,000-strong Freedom2Care coalition on freedom of faith, conscience and speech. He is also VP for Govt. Relations for the Christian Medical Association. His commentaries are frequently featured in USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times and other national media.

Get it today...

Amazon paperback: http://tinyurl.com/nhanq29

Kindle e-book: http://tinyurl.com/p2q8ywg  

---

 

Visit and "like" the Faith Steps Facebook page