Why Pro-Lifers Oppose "Family Planning" To Reduce Abortion: Pro-Life Leader Jill Stanek Explains

What's the explanation as to why abstinance only edcuation doesn't work by any scientific standard?

Does Jill Stanek oppose condoms or sterilization for married people? I am unclear if she opposes all birth control at all times, or is she opposes all types of birth control for single people and also opposes certain types of birth control in all cases.

hootie1fan,

"What's the explanation as to why abstinance only edcuation doesn't work by any scientific standard?"

That's an easy one to answer - because people won't abstain. The 'scientific standard' you seek is wrapped up in human behaviours. People actually like sex. Well, most people. I'm not too sure that anyone who doesn't support family planning, diminishing that noble goal - that every child should be a wanted child - to a "sin" (lesser or otherwise), ever get much pleasure out of the act. And they think other people shouldn't either.

"This does reinforce many civil libertarian's worst fear: the pro-life movement would be willing to go after contraceptives if they won the abortion battle."

Sadly, Michael, you're typing in the wrong tense. They already are. Google (or search the Crunchy Con blog right here on B'net) to find out more about pharmacists who won't stock condoms, birth control pills, etc. They want only to impose their (ahem) 'moral' 'values' on others. Yes, even those not of their (or any) particular faith.

IMO, they should follow Anne Landers' sage advice to MYOB. (MTOB???)

I personally have fairly conservative values myself, but here's my point, it's not the government's responsibility to legislate my morality on other people. Bans all abortions or anything anyone even remotely associates with aboriotn the USA, ban all artificial birth control in the USA, make pre-marital sex a crime, ban all divorce......

We live in the USA. The government rule of all should be based on the Constitution for the greater good. Just because your greater good doesn't involve behaviors your God tells you are bad doesn't mean other have to agree.

I don't know where to begin. I echo almost all the objections to Stanek. What particularly angers me are her blanket and misinformed assertions about comprehensive sexuality education. So CSE has "ruled the roost" for 40 years? If only! The federal government has funded abstinence-only for more than a decade. Before that, there was either no sex ed, or bad sex ed, in most states. CSE has caused illicit activity to go up? Show me those statistics. Every report I have read (see Guttmacher Institute and SIECUS for the best information) indicate just the opposite -- teen pregnancies and STDs go up when kids don't have the information they need. Take Stanek's antiquated, draconian moralizing out of the equation. Don't talk sin or even right and wrong. Think only about what is better for our kids -- providing accurate information about sexuality, or keeping them in the dark -- and you tell me which is the correct, moral option.

But what about married people trying to limit the number of children they have, to keep it to a number they can reasonably support?

The problem with comparing sex to illegal drugs is that we as a species do not need to "shoot up" in order to stay alive. As a group, all creatures have to reproduce at some point - but none have to do heroin in order to stick around. Indeed, drugs seem to have the opposite effect.

I compare sex to food, instead. You see, we all need to eat in order to live. Food is a good thing, a blessing from God that helps to sustain us on earth. But when we start to live to eat, then it's a problem. We need to be taught how to eat healthily - to do so in moderation, and to only take in the things that are good for us. Stay off the Twinkies and limit your portion size!

Just so, sex is a blessing from God, but too much of it, or the wrong kind of it, is enormously damaging. Children (and adults, too) need to be taught how to use sex appropriately, as a means to bond two married people together in eternity and in a Godly life together.

Jill Stanek writes: "All statistics show comprehensive sex ed and 'family planning' (widespread contraceptive distribution) have only served to increase illicit sexual activity and its consequences. The other side needs to prove how it hasn't."

I am happy to oblige. I could point Ms. Stanek, and your readers, to a number of studies, but for starters a fact sheet from the Guttmacher Institute has plenty to refute her accusations.

For one thing, teenage pregnancy rates have been on the decline for the last decade, not because of abstinence-only education, but in spite of it. The major reason for the decline is teenagers' knowing enough to use contraception. Sadly, one in five adolescents receive sexuality education that stresses abstinence only and does not provide information on contraception. Imagine how much lower rates of unwanted pregnancy and STDs would be if adolescents were better informed.

Second, abstinence-only programs, which Ms. Stanek favors, are ineffective in persuading teenagers to delay sexual activity. In fact, teens who receive abstinence-only education are every bit as likely as their peers to be sexually active, and more likely not to use protection when they do.

Third, as Guttmacher points out, "comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active."

The citations for all of these facts are included on the Guttmacher fact sheet. If Ms. Stanek can point to any peer-reviewed studies to support her charges against comprehensive sexuality education, let her produce them. The ball is in her court.

Timothy Palmer
Religious Institute

Jill writes: "Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Steve, you're a believer. You know the rules God set up are for our own good. We breach them, we suffer consequences. We compromise, we suffer consequences."

Doesn't this tap right in to the idea of bearing an unwanted, unplanned child as "punishment" -- consequences "suffered?"

Also, why is this entire discussion about extra-marital or pre-marital sex? What about married couples who believe they are suffiently blessed with as many children as they can handle with their emotional, spiritual, and tangible resources? What about people who, unlike Jill and Steven, are not "believers" but are still citizens. How much freedom can, should people have about their family size and can elected officials limit it -- or not -- according to their own beliefs?

And just what is your point, Bob? That we should follow whatever doctrine you were quoting. Sorry, not happening.

Steven said, "So I emailed Jill Stanek, an important pro-life leader (she's the Chicago nurse who almost single handedly made Barack Obama's opposition to Illinois' "born alive" legislation a big issue in the 2008 campaign)."

Jill Stanek was very effective at slandering Obama with her false statements. Even though her statements have been proven wrong by many reliable sources, Steven continues to give voice to the falsities. Factcheck.org and politifact.org had several detail analysis of the issue that did not support Stanek's slandering statements(a sin according to the Bible).

Clarifying the record on the born-alive bill September 5, 2008

http://tinyurl.com/5cgcb6

The above link is an article from the Chicago Tribune by Rick Winkel, the Illinois Republican who introduced the born alive bill in the state Senate. He said, "none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide," despite his disagreement with them. "Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive."

The state of Illinois investigated Jill Stanek's claims that she had witnessed infants left to die in dirty utility rooms. They investigated her claim because it would have been a felony under exisiting Illinois law. The investigation could not find any support for Jill Stanek's claims.

A day or two after Dr. George Tiller was murdered, Stanek put pictures of the Nebraska abortion clinic for the doctor that performed late term abortions on her website. In my opinion, she was waving a red flag for another crazy murderer.

The Oxford University team reviewed 13 US trials involving over 15,000 people aged 10 to 21.
They found abstinence programmes had no negative or positive impact on the rates of sex infections or unprotected sex, the British Medical Journal said.
Researchers found none of the abstinence-only programmes had an impact on the age at which individuals lost their virginity, whether they had unprotected sex, the number of sexual partners, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases or the number of pregnancies.
One trial did show a short-term benefit with participants reporting that they were less likely to have had sex in the month following one abstinence-only programme.
But the researchers said this finding was offset by six other trials that showed the programmes had no effect on the participants' recent sex lives.

Two thoughts: 1) Ms. Stanek's answers demonstrate that first and foremost, she is addicted to her own dogma, and assumes that since she is, so must all of us. 2). She must have been asleep/on another planet the last eight years, during which abstinence-only was the only form of sex-ed allowed in school, and the teen pregnancy rate shot up.

Then again, the factually challenged religious moonbats of the Right never pay any attention to this, do they? Enforcement of their 10th century dogma is all that matters.

Tom: Statistics FAIL

Data: 51% of population self-identify as pro-life; 49% of population non-pro-life
Data: 82% of population are pro-comprehensive sex ed; 18% of population anti-comp
Assumption: 100% of non-pro-life are pro-comp
Calculation: 49% x 100% = 49% of population are both non-pro-life and pro-comp
Calculation: 82% - 49% = 33% of population are both pro-life and pro-comp
Calculation: 33% / 51% = 64.7% of pro-life population are also pro-comp

Of course the term "pro-life" is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not necessarily mutually exclusive, depending on the ideology of the person defining the terms.

On the one hand, Pro-Life Catholics say, "Yes, when it comes to voting, there are many issues: health care, war, poverty, immigration, the environment, etc., but the abortion issue trumps them ALL, so you must vote Pro-Life!" Then, when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies and therefore the desire for an abortion, Pro-Life Catholics say, "NO birth-control pills, NO condoms, NO vasectomy, NO IUDs! They are EQUALLY as wrong as abortion!" What happened to the "hierarchy of issues"???

I have no idea whether Stanek is a pro-life leader or not, but her answers here and her attacks on Obama show us that she is not an honest leader. She plays fast and loose with the facts and appears to insist that we must use her personal religious doctrines as the foundation of laws. She has almost taken "Every sperm is sacred" as a hymn of her dogma. Every time I think I can work with those who call themselves pro-life, I run across someone like this who refuses to listen to anyone.

Steve - spend some money fixing these defective comment boxes.

Quite a good spin in using the term "pro-lifers" because so many are pro-death penalty and will blow up clincis and kill doctors who perform abortions - they are really just anti-choice. I'm a pro-life person but believe what a woman does to her body is her choice!!!

Steve, your intellectual curiosity and insight continue to impress me. I believe that there certainly are degrees of sin--that stealing a pack of gum is less of a sin than child abuse, that telling a white lie is less of a sin than adultery. Some members of the radical right believe this too--that murdering an abortion doctor is less of a sin than abortion, for example, or that killing homosexuals is less of a sin than being gay. There are examples in the Bible of lesser sins being sanctioned to prevent greater ones. I fail to understand Stanek's unwillingness to budge, even if what she's opposing would support something she dearly longs for.

And to Cate: Uh, no. Just no. You are not "pro-choice" if you only support ONE choice. Pro-choice means that the government should not be ruling a woman's body and uterus and sexual practices with an iron fist. Furthermore, I reject your example as a false comparison. First of all, since when has the mainstream media ever blamed God for a disaster? The knee-jerk reactions would be stuff like, "did the pilot screw up?" "Was the plane too old?" "Should the government be regulating airline safety measures better?" Secondly, the vast majority of abortions happen when the "baby" is no more than a cluster of cells or a tiny embryo. It is not sentient. It cannot think or feel pain. Until the 10th week of pregnancy (close to the end of the first trimester), it isn't even classified as a fetus. Just because it has the POTENTIAL to develop into a person does not mean it should be treated like a person. It is an insult to those who have lost their loved ones in tragedies to equate the death of a fully formed, sentient person with relationships and memories to the termination of an unthinking, unfeeling potential person.