Ignorance is bliss?

What does George Bush call proposing 270 million dollars on a program that has no proof of effectiveness?

Good government.

Now the American Medical Association has stepped into the reality based world and made a recommendation that only effective sex education programs be used to teach students about sex.

...AMA president-elect J. Edward Hill, MD, a family physician from Tupelo, Miss., tells WebMD that the issue is too important to back any sex education curriculum that is not evidence-based.

"The cost of teenage pregnancy - from the cost of prenatal care to the cost of caring for babies born to teens - is outrageous, not to mention the public health consequences of sexually transmitted diseases. Given those facts the AMA is compelled to take a stand on this issue," Hill says.

The evidence shows that abstinence-only programs don't work for all adolescents and these programs don't work in all settings, says Hill. He says that the AMA wants the federal government to fund only programs that have evidence of solid results.

I would think that all parents would want to give their children the best education possible, especially when it comes to an issue that could cause dramatic changes in their future at such a young age. Instead, the President continues to believe that ignoring the problem will somehow make it go away.

Teach children the only way to prevent against AIDS and pregnancy is to not have sex at all. But then tell them that if they still want to take that risk, that if they feel emotionally ready to make such a decision, they should use protection. No one wants to think of their teenager having sex, but if they are having sex, wouldn't you rather they were as safe as possible doing it?

I seem to recall that modern sex ed is relatively new (mid 80's?) and was a reaction to a high number of teens infected with STDs and teen pregnancy. If that is the case, then why would going back to a time before that, when we failed to talk about sex in responsible ways be any better?