Wednesday, April 02, 2008

The Science of Petition-Mongering

If you've been watching the controversy over the Montgomery County sex-ed curriculum starting in 2004, you will have heard a small group of "conservative" people trying to get the district to throw out some classes because they were going to teach about sexual orientation and gender identity in a fair, cool, objective manner.

One thing the anti-MCPS Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum did was to gather petition signatures from physicians at Shady Grove Hospital -- one of their people, Ruth Jacobs, is a doctor there. The signatures were taken as evidence that the medical establishment agreed with their anti-gay view and opposed the curriculum just like they did.

No less than Chuck Colson wrote in his column, "Dr. Jacobs put forward a petition signed by 270 doctors asking Montgomery County to warn kids of the health dangers related to homosexuality. Montgomery County ignored it." The site MassResistance said, "PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays) tells us that despite a petition signed by 270 PHYSICIANS, the Maryland Department of Education will forge ahead with an extreme and dangerous message to their children, that anal sex is an option just as valid and safe as vaginal intercourse!" And so on, you see how they tried to use this thing.

I suppose I should mention that the petition said none of that. It was a tepid statement that anal sex is relatively dangerous, with some journal citations and a couple of pages of jargonish text that doctors don't have time to read. Nothing at all about homosexuality.

So yesterday we got an email from one of the doctors who signed that petition. I will print his letter, but leave his name off, as I have not asked his permission and don't want to give him the publicity.
To those concerned,

I realize this may seem out of the blue, but I was alerted today to a Vigilance blog posting from February 6th 2007 which lists a number of physicians who are reportedly "anti-gay." While I signed the petition mentioned in the blog entry, it was under false pretenses. Nowhere on petition itself nor in the information provided to me by Dr. Jacobs was there ever any mention of homosexuality. As a resident of the District, I had no idea that there was even a curriculum debate within MCPS. I have contacted Michelle Turner, the spokesperson for CRC and have told her that they are portraying the petition differently to the public than they portrayed it to the signatories. I do not agree with the public portrayal of it as physicians who believe in "health risks associated with homosexual sex." When I signed it, I did so because it discussed the health risks of anal sex be it heterosexual or homosexual. I know a number of the physicians on the list and I can assure you that few if any of them intended to promote an anti-gay cause. As you can imagine, however, our unwitting use as pawns in a culture war could have very serious professional consequences. As easily as my friend "googled" me and found my name on that list, so could my patients and, in doing so, find me mentioned as part of a group that supports beliefs very different from my own. As such, I ask that you remove the list from that entry. I signed the petition because I was a victim of deception. Please do not allow that deception to propagate.

Respectfully yours,
***** , MD

He's worried about his business. He says he didn't know, and the others didn't know, what the petition they signed was going to be used for.

I wrote him back and said we won't be removing the list from our web site. Basically my feeling is that you shouldn't sign something if you don't know what it is.

This has happened before, you know. Back in February of last year we got a similar email, saying:
I am one of the physicians who signed the petition. When I signed I was not informed that this was a political issue, rather a medical one.

At about that time, I talked on the phone to another doctor who had signed the petition. He said, "It was irresponsible on my part. I didn't really have time to see what it was about. I wasn't aware of her organization and what its focus was. Really, I'm behind the school system on this."

Another physician whose name was on the list wrote to the school district to say that she hadn't known what the petition was when she signed it, and did not want her name to be listed as a signatory. Here's what she said:
To Whom It May Concern:

Dr. Ruth Jacobs circulated a petition at a Shady Grove Hospital Pediatric Department meeting recently after a brief presentation about changes to the sex ed curriculum for the public schools. Unfortunately the information she presented was one-sided and misrepresented the issues at hand. I would like to retract my signature on the petition in support of adding the statement that "anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice." This statement is not supported by scientific evidence and does not belong in the curriculum.

Sincerely,
***. MD

So listen, that petition was a hoax. It said some medical stuff about anal sex, and most physicians do believe there is a somewhat greater risk of disease transmission through anal intercourse, compared to vaginal sex. It didn't say anything about homosexuality, and anal sex is a practice that is overwhelmingly performed by straight people. But they went out and told the world that the physicians opposed teaching about homosexuality, because they'd signed those petitions.

The school controversy is pretty much settled. I expect them to try something else, stand outside the schools with bullhorns or something, put up billboards, whatever, the curriculum has been adopted, the classes have been taught, there's no problem, nobody turned gay.

Now the same group has moved on to another issue, with Ruth Jacobs as their President. Now they're outraged because the county passed a bill giving equal rights to transgender people. You might see where I'm going here. They are fighting this by trying to get a referendum, and they are using the same trick again. To get a referendum on the ballot, you need to get a lot of signatures, five percent of the registered voters, I think. You could never get five percent of registered voters in Montgomery County to sign a petition calling for the return of the right to discriminate against transgender people, but you can get people to sign a petition that "protects the children," or that keeps predators and pedophiles out of the ladies room, that "protects my privacy," as one guy's t-shirt said. None of these things have to do with the law in question, but if people aren't paying attention you can get them to sign a petition to keep sexual predators away from children, that keeps perverted men out of ladies locker-rooms. You might get five percent if guys sign for themselves and their wives, if the certifiers fill in a few names of people they "just know" would sign it, if certifiers certify their own signatures, stuff like that. If the Board of Elections doesn't look closely, and it turns out they don't, you might get that past them.

They turned in enough signatures to put the referendum up to a vote in November, and the Board of Elections certified them, but the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever's ways are going to come back to haunt them. We recently copied and pasted the list of offenses from a lawsuit that has been filed against the county Board of Elections for accepting those signatures, read about that HERE. There are twenty separate irregularities that can be seen on the petition documents themselves. The word "fraud" comes up, and a couple of names are mentioned. I've heard the numbers that are coming out of the office where people are going over the petitions, and they are big numbers, there are lots and lots of illegalities on those petitions. Not just people forgetting their middle initials, I'm not going into it but some of the things that were done are significant and intentional.

The petitions from Shady Grove don't matter any more. Those poor doctors signed something without thinking about what they were doing, and now this guy is wishing we would take the list down off the Internet. Sorry, I'm just not that sympathetic. The damage is done, they signed the petition and never did anything to take it back, the guy writes an email to TTF, like it's our fault Google finds his name on the Internet. Those signatures are public record, and his patients have the right to know he signed that petition and was part of several legal proceedings. Even if he can convince them he isn't anti-gay, it's going to be tough to argue that he pays attention to what he's doing. Which is a desirable quality in a physician.

The CRWhatever used that Shady Grove petition every chance they got. They told the papers about it, submitted it to the school boards and the courts. It was a good trick for them, it sounded good to say that hundreds of physicians agreed with them. Now they're saying that 32,000 registered voters support them in their anti-transgender effort. It just all seems a little too familiar.

35 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was absolutely nothing at all wrong with the Shady Grove petition. It stated a fact. The doctors signed because they agreed with the fact. If some want out now, they are simply playing political correct Twister. Spin the board again and they'll place their hands elsewhere. It's a perfect example of why the statements of professional association shouldn't form the basis for a school curriculum. They are subject to social and political comsiderations.

CRC used it in connection with the condom advocacy part of the curriculum not the homosexual advocacy part of the curriculum. The connection to homosexuality was made by TTFers who said CRC's objection to the anal sex instruction in the curriculum was part of a CRC vendetta against gays.

Jim's statement, which he has repeated many times, about straights practicing anal sex more than gays is disingenuous in extremis. Technically correct perhaps, it ignores the significance of anal sexual activity to the modern gay phenomenom and, thus, the attendant danger.

April 02, 2008 10:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CRC/G lies... and thinks that the citizens are dumb..what's new?

I don't think MoCo residents are eager to let them, the CRC/G, use Montgomery County for their hate-based and theocratic agenda.

Still shameful...

April 02, 2008 11:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See you in court, Anon.

April 02, 2008 11:40 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

It's interesting that Theresa posted her website URL in a response to Derrick recently. That website is evidence of the far from "fair and accurate" presentation demanded of any petition gatherer, and is the other bookend to Dr. Jacobs' misleading attempt to collect her Shady Grove signatures.

But that is not their goal. Their goal is to create controversy by whatever means (Jim has published their call for such actions in the past) and use that controversy to get free press coverage. By the time the hoax or the misrepresentation is discovered the lie has grown larger. Classic Rovian politics.

April 02, 2008 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dr. Jacobs' misleading attempt to collect her Shady Grove signatures"

Jim doesn't describe anything misleading that Dr Jacobs did to gather the signatures. Do you have something or is this just one of those things you throw out without substantiation, hoping people will just take your word for it?

What Jim did say is that some TTF supporters have put an improper significance on the petition but that's a matter of opinion and I doubt the average person would agree with Jim.

Aside from the fact that Dr Jacobs didn't mislead in collecting the signatures, she also did more than "attempt". She did get the signatures.

Your entire comment is deceitful.

April 02, 2008 2:47 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, if you read the post you would have noticed statements by four physicians who signed the petition and then said they had been deceived. Don't take my word for it.

JimK

April 02, 2008 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AnonFreak-

For some reason you sound a little scared about people discovering your lies. Not surprising... ;-)

Derrick

April 02, 2008 3:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, if you read the post you would have noticed statements by four physicians who signed the petition and then said they had been deceived. Don't take my word for it."

None of them said there was anything deceitful about the petition itself. They said they didn't know how it would be used. Not one of them said the petition was incorrect.

They agree about the dangers of anal sex, even with condom use. Whether that has any implication for the dangers of homosexuality is a matter of opinion. A couple of the doctors apparently have reservations about the social sensitivity of making the connections but it has nothing to do with facts and they certainly weren't mislead into signing a false statement. You've misconstrued, Jim.

April 02, 2008 3:44 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

The PETITION itself was deceitful. The purpose of a petition is not to collect data for research purposes, but to collect signatures for a political purpose.

I don't remember the wording of the petition, but if it said something like, "anal sex is more dangerous wrt STIs than vaginal sex," then most physicians would agree. I've never disagreed with that myself. If someone had asked me as part of a research project to answer "agree" or "disagree" with that statement, I would have agreed. If they then used it in a homophobic legal campaign I would be infuriated.

That is what these physicians are saying -- they didn't know that it would be used to promote a political agenda. As Jim has pointed out, it's their bad. They should know better, just as those people who sign any petition. Those signers should understand full well what they're doing, and also recognize that their agreement will be part of the public record.

In Ruth's defense, though it seems clear that she deceived her colleagues, which will only work against her professionally, she wasn't violating any law in doing so, only a professional code of ethics. In the case of the referendum petition, we will soon have the opportunity to prove you did violate the law in the collection of the signatures. Different rules apply for these two cases.

April 02, 2008 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Truth doesn't change, Dana, depending on what "political" use you want to make of it. Anal sex with condoms is either dangerous or not. When those doctors signed the petition, they weren't deceived about what it said, and they agreed with it. Whether that has what you call "homophobic" implications is irrelevant to whether it is true. That they would change their opinion depending on the "political" purposes one might use it for demonstrates a lack of professional integrity.

As for the petition drive in support of the referendum, I had nothing to do with it other than signing it. It's interesting how you guys keep attempting to get a conversation going here and try the case here on the internet. Give up. No one's biting. You'll have to make your case to the judge.

April 02, 2008 4:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red baron, no matter how you try to spin and twist this the fact is the petition was a lie. CRW uses it to claim all these physicians agree that gayness is dangerous and clearly few if any would have agreed with that.

April 02, 2008 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya, the petition was clearly not a lie. You can argue that the way CRC used it was deceitful although you're wrong about that too.

The petition itself merely confirmed that anal sex with a condom is dangerous. To extend that to an association with homosexuality would take some other facts about homosexual behavior but the petition didn't address that. I know you guys make some claims about homosexual behavior but that isn't what the petition was about.

The petition was truthful, Jim's post isn't.

April 02, 2008 5:09 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

This reminds of the NYTimes Magazine article back in 2005 when a Bush staffer was interviewed about reality and said something to the effect that the Bushies don't live in the real world; they create their own reality and impose it on others.

You've basically undermined your position, even with respect to "the truth," but you go on without a care.

Yes, anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex, and anal sex with a condom is probably riskier than vaginal sex with a condom. OK. So, now what? Did Ruth simply leave it at that? No, she didn't, which, as you point out, was deceitful. That is the issue here in Jim's post about petitions -- we're talking petitions and not STI statistics.

April 02, 2008 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are a piece of work, Dana. The one creating their own reality is you. You're saying the petition is a lie because you don't like it's implications. Doesn't work that way.

Go ahead and argue that homosexuals engage in safe practices but that has nothing to do with Dr Jacobs' petition. The petition was truthful and demonstrated the opinion of working professionals.

April 02, 2008 5:38 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron, you're as big a liar as Ruth. She and you use this petition to claim its wrong and bad to be gay. Few if any of the signees would have agreed with that. Ruth deceived them and their signatures on it mean nothing.

April 02, 2008 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you're as big a liar as Ruth. She and you use this petition to claim its wrong and bad to be gay. Few if any of the signees would have agreed with that."

The petition didn't say it was bad to be gay. It said anal sex with condoms is not safe. CRC used it to point out that the curriculum shouldn't imply that anal sex is safe when condoms are used. It was TTF that theorized that CRC was only doing this to attack gays. CRC never made that connection.

Regardless, the petition was truthful. Anal sex, even with condom use, is dangerous. The implications of that for gays is for gays to decide. Quite honestly, TTF objects to the petition because they want to encourage those with homosexual feelings to act on them and they are afraid this information would hinder that.

April 02, 2008 6:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "CRC never made that connection.".

LOL, you and the CRW are constantly making that very false point. You're both liars.

Red Baron said "Anal sex, even with condom use, is dangerous.".

Billions of monogamous gay and heterosexual couples have proven otherwise. Its just as truthful to say "Vaginal sex, even with condomn use, is dangerous" - you can still catch an STD from non-monogamous vaginal sex with a condom.

April 02, 2008 6:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Democrats are doing very well. Did you know Hillary's first job was working on the Watergate investigation?:

"Dan Calabrese's new column on Hillary Clinton's past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer's behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy's chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.

Why?

"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.""

April 02, 2008 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AnonFreak... You to wake up and smell the coffee...NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR PAST POST AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS BLOG.

April 02, 2008 8:52 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

Okay could someone tell me how in the world did we switch to Hilary Clinton?

If she didn't sign the petition in question, I don't see the point of her being dropped into this thread.

Now before anyone distorts what I just said as me trying to take away someone's right to free speech, let me just say that I support free speech.

I don't support evasive tactics.

April 02, 2008 8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr Jacobs didn't mislead in collecting the signatures...When those doctors signed the petition, they weren't deceived about what it said

Yes they were. Here's what the doctors themselves said about how Dr. J got them to sign that petition:

"I signed ... under false pretenses"

"they are portraying the petition differently to the public than they portrayed it to the signatories"

"I signed the petition because I was a victim of deception."

"When I signed I was not informed"

"the information she [Dr. Ruth Jacobs] presented was one-sided and misrepresented the issues at hand."


The petition itself merely confirmed that anal sex with a condom is dangerous.... It said anal sex with condoms is not safe.

No it didn't. The petition said evidence of the effectiveness of condoms to prevent HIV during anal intercourse is "lacking." Read it for yourself:

Health education is important. We the undersigned recognize that anal intercourse is a particular high risk sexual practice[1] and it is associated with the highest risk of HIV infection. We further recognize that "although there is strong evidence that condom use generally reduces sexual transmission of HIV, solid data showing the effectiveness of currently available condoms during AI, a particularly high-risk sexual practice, still are lacking."

As physicians, we are concerned for the health of the students and recommend that the new MCPS condom use lesson must use the Surgeon Generals [sic] statement[2] and NIH consensus conference[3] statement to warn students of the risks of anal intercourse and of the risks of condom failure during anal intercourse.

Signature................. Printed Name


The three footnotes were not on the petition itself, but on subsequent pages.

The material quoted within the petition was written in 1997. The Surgeon General the petition mentions is C. Everett Koop, who was Surgeon General from 1982-1989. The NIH consensus statement was written in 2000.

Everyone should brush up on their scientific understanding. The CDC reports:

Epidemiologic studies seek to measure the protective effect of condoms by comparing rates of STDs between condom users and nonusers in real-life settings. Developing such measures of condom effectiveness is challenging. Because these studies involve private behaviors that investigators cannot observe directly, it is difficult to determine accurately whether an individual is a condom user or whether condoms are used consistently and correctly. Likewise, it can be difficult to determine the level of exposure to STDs among study participants. These problems are often compounded in studies that employ a “retrospective” design, e.g., studies that measure behaviors and risks in the past.

As a result, observed measures of condom effectiveness may be inaccurate. Most epidemiologic studies of STDs, other than HIV, are characterized by these methodological limitations, and thus, the results across them vary widely--ranging from demonstrating no protection to demonstrating substantial protection associated with condom use. This inconclusiveness of epidemiologic data about condom effectiveness indicates that more research is needed--not that latex condoms do not work.For HIV infection, unlike other STDs, a number of carefully conducted studies, employing more rigorous methods and measures, have demonstrated that consistent condom use is a highly effective means of preventing HIV transmission.

Another type of epidemiologic study involves examination of STD rates in populations rather than individuals. Such studies have demonstrated that when condom use increases within population groups, rates of STDs decline in these groups.


It is this "inconclusiveness of epidemiologic data about condom effectiveness" that the petition pointed out. According to the CDC, this does NOT mean they don't work. In fact, the CDC recommends:

If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom.

For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission.

In order to achieve the protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly and consistently. Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their protective effect. Inconsistent use, e.g., failure to use condoms with every act of intercourse, can lead to STD transmission because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse.


Thank goodness MCPS has updated the condom use lesson so that our students can be protected by correctly and consistently using condoms.

April 02, 2008 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so take whatever numbers they have for anal sex, even if they are not completely accurate, and include them in the lesson. right now the lessons don't point out to kids that condoms are far less effective during anal sex (esp. in protecting them from catching HIV), then during vaginal sex.

Or, don't mention anal sex at all. But talking about using condoms for "oral, anal and vaginal sex" and then only telling the kids the statistics of protection for anal sex is wrong. It implies that they are protected at the same rate. They aren't. Just teach them the facts. Why in the world do you guys have a problem with this ?

April 02, 2008 11:53 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Stunning said…
"so take whatever numbers they have for anal sex, even if they are not completely accurate, and include them in the lesson.

Or, don't mention anal sex at all."

--
But that's just a band-aid. Even if they taught ignorance on the subject, or inaccurate information specifically, what do you suggest should be done about the godless heathen who support the rest of the fornication curriculum?

April 03, 2008 6:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

right now the lessons don't point out to kids that condoms are far less effective during anal sex...But talking about using condoms for "oral, anal and vaginal sex" and then only telling the kids the statistics of protection for anal sex is wrong. It implies that they are protected at the same rate. They aren't.

That's a lie. According to the CDC -- even under this Administration with a track record of appointees like Philip Cooney and George Deutsch, who resigned in disgrace after putting political spin on scientific reports by overriding scientists at American premier scientific government agencies -- it is unknown if condom use during anal sex is less or more effective than during vaginal sex. Almost all of the studies have been done on heterosexual couples. The scientific evidence about the effectiveness of condom use for anal sex is inconclusive. However, studies of populations show that increased condom use is associated with decreased STD rates.

Let's not forget that the condom demonstration film that MCPS used before this new one was implemented county wide, "Hope is Not a Method" -- that the CRC *fully supports as best for MCPS students* -- told our students the very same thing:

remember, whether you’re having vaginal, oral, or anal sex, condoms should be used to protect both you and your partner.

And the CDC tells us:

If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom.

This is important information for all kids, gay and straight, and it's a good thing MCPS tells them the same thing the CDC recommends rather than Anon's dishonest spin.

April 03, 2008 7:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the doctor who asked to have the petition taken down from the website had acted publically to condemn the petition and the distributor's tactics and agenda, then I would have sympathy for him. So many of the signers expressed remorse later, but they did not (to my knowledge) take a public stand.

Fortunately, our decision-makers were well-informed enough to not let the petition dissuade them from following the right course. But the fact remains, to quote an old saw, that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to remain silent."

April 03, 2008 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
The doctor-perhaps less culpable than the petition gatherers- is concerned because a thoughtless action he took could now affect him personally and professionally. And as David pointed out- not willing to come forward and make a public statement about it. however, we know a number of the petition gatherers objected to their photos being taken or giving their names. I believe it was because they were ashamed to have their activities be known to the wider public.

April 03, 2008 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The simple fact is, David, that the petition was not deceitful. Jim is wrong about that. Beatrice posted the wording above. She is actually right that my paraphrase was not correct.

From any point of view, though, it is wrong to imply that the protective benefit of condoms during anal sex is the same as during vaginal sex. The doctors who signed the petition were right to do so. Kids deserve to know that there is no proof of this. They may be considering engaging in this behavior and this is information they deserve to have.

And, you have to admit, David, your only objection is that including this information may dissuade teens who are considering homosexuality from doing so. Advocacy of dangerous activity is not a worthy goal of public education.

April 03, 2008 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The doctor... is concerned because a thoughtless action he took could now affect him personally and professionally."

Andrea, congrats. You've made a statement of substance. This is the reason professional associations' statements should not form the basis of school curriculums. These people can be as political as anybody and will often simply try to back the right horse rather than support the truth.

April 03, 2008 9:30 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

"This is the reason professional associations' statements should not form the basis of school curriculums. These people can be as political as anybody and will often simply try to back the right horse rather than support the truth."

So true.

How long do you think it will take to undo the toll that scientific inquiry has taken on public education?

April 03, 2008 1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're really an idiot, improv.

The problem is that, in the field of sexuality, scientific findings have been replaced by statements of associations. This hasn't happened in any other field.

Could you imagine a textbook that said "According to the American Association of Physicists, no object can move faster than the speed of light."? Or "The American Medical Association says the heart pumps blood through the body." You would never see such statements.

Yet, in sexual education, this is what education amounts to. The reason is simple. What advocacy groups want taught has, for the most part, not been proven.

April 03, 2008 3:30 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

But that’s really my whole point. How do we elevate the educational importance of religious dogma to at least the level of statements of associations?

April 03, 2008 5:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As usual, you have no point other than the tiny hole in the wall you apparently spent your days gazing at.

April 03, 2008 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The doctors who signed the petition were right to do so.

Some of the doctors who signed the petition stated they did so because of false pretenses, deception, and misinformation from Ruth Jacobs. They complained she portrayed the petition one way to the doctors who signed and differently to the public. Only a fool would think doctors "were right" to be deceived and misinformed by anyone into signing anything.

From any point of view, though, it is wrong to imply that the protective benefit of condoms during anal sex is the same as during vaginal sex.

Recommending people use condoms for oral, anal or vaginal sex does not imply that the protective benefit is the same for each. You make that false claim, Anon. Even CRC/PFOX disagrees with you on this one. They support the previous curriculum with it's condom demonstration film, "Hope is Not a Method," which states "remember, whether you’re having vaginal, oral, or anal sex, condoms should be used to protect both you and your partner."

Kids deserve to know that there is no proof of this. They may be considering engaging in this behavior and this is information they deserve to have.

If kids are considering engaging in any sexual contact, they deserve to learn that the CDC recommends:

If people choose to have anal sex, they should use a latex condom.

For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission.

In order to achieve the protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly and consistently. Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their protective effect. Inconsistent use, e.g., failure to use condoms with every act of intercourse, can lead to STD transmission because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse.


MCPS students are fortunate proper condom usage and these CDC recommendations are included in the tenth grade optional Family Life and Human Development class. Parents who prefer their own teens not learn proper condom usage or these CDC recommendations are free to withhold permission to take the class.

April 03, 2008 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
and the BLOG laugh -BWHAHAHA. Professional associations can't be trusted but a bunch of homophobic ranters can. The day I listen to Michelle Turner, Ruth Jacobs, Theresa Rickman, and Johnny Garza on anything- well, I guess it will be the same time as President Huckabee declares Mission accomplished in Iraq.

April 03, 2008 9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"BWHAHAHA. Professional associations can't be trusted but a bunch of homophobic ranters can"

I've got an idea. Let's trust the facts.

That's a notion guaranteed to scare any TTFer. It's a thriller!

It scared the APA so much that their latest brochure actually has some straight talk.

BOO!

April 03, 2008 10:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home