We already knew that Obama’s bailout to insurers came with the jane Crow’s CEO – protecting bigots’s rights of refusing to provide legal care for women for reproductive medical problems.

It turns out the church gets another bite of this

Health bill restores $250 million in abstinence-education funds

We are now finding about all the “little noticed provisions” our media kept hidden until it was time to placate the GOP (like the fact that it’s a GOP bill to begin with)

A little-noticed provision of the health legislation has rescued federal support for a controversial form of sex education: teaching youths to remain virgins until marriage.

The bill restores $250 million over five years for states to sponsor programs aimed at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by focusing exclusively on encouraging children and adolescents to avoid sex.

Well, of course we knew Obama owed the religious right from election time, but one would have thought Proposition 8 and Jane Crow EO would have settled that bill. But it seems there was a demand in cash as well.

That, and poisoning the minds of the young with nonsense. Which may lead to pregnancies than are then segregated from coverage, by the same nifty law.

Because to them, it makes sense

“We’re very happy to see that funding will continue so the important sexual health message of risk avoidance will reach American teens,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, a Washington-based lobbying group. “What better place to see such an important health issue addressed than in the health legislation?”

Indeed, where? In church? Fiction class? Mental health hospitals? Nah. Romneycare is it!

B0botland has a tough time justifying this. The OP felt the need to editorialize

on edit: I think this was one of the deals that was made to get some blue dogs on board.

Of course, poor babies.

Others see the glitch:

Why, why, why do Democrats have to pander to religious nuts like this?

Not just abstinence, but abstinence until marriage. I am 41 years old and never married. I’m supposed to be abstaining? Really?
Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy night!
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts)
11. I’m 53 and never married. Yeah, we’re supposed to stay virgins.

I fixed that problem in 1974.

and even some of the intended victims

I’m against telling young people to wait until MARRIAGE to have sex.

It’s not just stupid and impractical, it’s bigoted since most states don’t allow gays to marry.
7. That’s a lot of money to make sure teens get pregnant n/t

Some are fed up

Caving and pandering you can believe in. And, happy karma, Obama, et.al.

How’s that working so far?

Vut some have faith in the goodness of the bill

5. If this is not a good thing to have in this bill, why do the cheerleaders

keep telling me it is a good bill?

One can imagine that if this part is considered bad, there must be other bad parts as well? I think a quarter-billion dollars is big bucks, but hey, that’s just me.

I never saw a wild thing feel sorry for itself. dhlawrence
6. Are you suggesting we throw out the baby with the bath water?
The law needs work…not gotten rid of, IMO.

I have never saw so much work in selling a fixer upper.

Now, I ony have one question: I know there was a big fight over giving Viagra to felons. It didn’t pass, BTW as Reid thought it was not serious (not as serious as abstinence)

he Levitra legislation did not get a rise out of Democrats. “Offering an amendment dealing with Viagra for rapists?” Majority Leader Harry Reid asked, struggling for words. “I mean, this is — this — this is — this isn’t serious.”.

So, what I want to know is: can unmarried men use Viagra (covered in Romneycare)? Obviously they can – but do they need to be given a talking to by the recipients of the abstinence grants? Just so they can “think twice” about it? or rather this is just for Jane Crow – as women clearly need to seek the advice of their clergymen or their doctor in making any decision.