Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
With an appropriate disclaimer that I would give the same sex ed that you would, you're sounding like that guy who wrote "What's The Matter With Kansas", in which he says that all the red-staters voted against their own interests, but in which he made the mistake of thinking that he knew what their interests were as well as they did. I think they might say that you are judging by the wrong criteria.
|
Which criteria am I judging incorrectly: The additional cost ($43.6 million)? The number of STIs (3.11 more cases of chlamydia, $980 per 100 girls, HIV wasn't included in the modelling because the incidence in 2002 was too low)? The number of pregnancies (increase of 11.45 pregnancies, 7.44 births and 2.29 abortions at $60,952 per 100 teens)?
The model that they used may be wrong, and I am not certain that they are interpreting relevant statutes correctly (at least I hope not, because otherwise I have a lot of phone calls to make to clients tomorrow who will not be happy that they're going to have to rat out their patients and patients' sexual partners to law enforcement), but I do not think that the intent of the legislation was to increase teen pregnancy and STI.
