<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fueling the Sex Ed Controversy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog-aauw.org/2008/06/11/fueling-the-sex-ed-controversy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog-aauw.org/2008/06/11/fueling-the-sex-ed-controversy/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:00:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen</title>
		<link>http://blog-aauw.org/2008/06/11/fueling-the-sex-ed-controversy/#comment-495</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Karen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aauwnational.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, after reading the blog post, I had to see the article in question myself. Imagine my surprise when the link to KMart&#039;s page returned this notice:

   You have reached this page because the product you selected is no longer available on our site, or is temporarily out of stock due to high demand.

I wonder whether KMart was embarrassed enough to pull the product or these crazy pants are selling like hotcakes. Let&#039;s hope it&#039;s the former.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, after reading the blog post, I had to see the article in question myself. Imagine my surprise when the link to KMart&#8217;s page returned this notice:</p>
<p>   You have reached this page because the product you selected is no longer available on our site, or is temporarily out of stock due to high demand.</p>
<p>I wonder whether KMart was embarrassed enough to pull the product or these crazy pants are selling like hotcakes. Let&#8217;s hope it&#8217;s the former.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: christyjones</title>
		<link>http://blog-aauw.org/2008/06/11/fueling-the-sex-ed-controversy/#comment-480</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[christyjones]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aauwnational.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-480</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tamra: Thank you for your comment. You bring up something very important to mention - every state and locality have different approaches to whether or not comprehensive sexuality is appropriate for their schools. Currently, if a state would like to offer comprehensive sex ed they have no option to fund it with federal money dedicated to sexuality education. All federal money dedicated to sexuality education is dedicated to abstinence only sexuality education. 

Many states do believe, though, that comprehensive sex ed is best, as does AAUW, and so they fund their schools with state money for comprehensive sex education programming and they look to organizations, local and national, to provide the best, medically accurate and age appropriate sex education for their schools. Those groups receive their funding from a myriad of places but still receive no federal money dedicated to comprehensive sex education.

We know that abstinence only education does not work, and so AAUW has taken the stance that there should be federal money dedicated to comprehensive, age appropriate, medically accurate, sex education. 

For an additional source of information, refer to: www.siecus.org.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tamra: Thank you for your comment. You bring up something very important to mention &#8211; every state and locality have different approaches to whether or not comprehensive sexuality is appropriate for their schools. Currently, if a state would like to offer comprehensive sex ed they have no option to fund it with federal money dedicated to sexuality education. All federal money dedicated to sexuality education is dedicated to abstinence only sexuality education. </p>
<p>Many states do believe, though, that comprehensive sex ed is best, as does AAUW, and so they fund their schools with state money for comprehensive sex education programming and they look to organizations, local and national, to provide the best, medically accurate and age appropriate sex education for their schools. Those groups receive their funding from a myriad of places but still receive no federal money dedicated to comprehensive sex education.</p>
<p>We know that abstinence only education does not work, and so AAUW has taken the stance that there should be federal money dedicated to comprehensive, age appropriate, medically accurate, sex education. </p>
<p>For an additional source of information, refer to: <a href="http://www.siecus.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.siecus.org</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ruth Wahtera</title>
		<link>http://blog-aauw.org/2008/06/11/fueling-the-sex-ed-controversy/#comment-477</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ruth Wahtera]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aauwnational.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I received a request for action from Advocates for Youth about this issue.

&quot;When it comes to sex education, it&#039;s hard to put a lot of faith in the U.S. Senate right now. After all, this is the group of &quot;leaders&quot; who have failed to pass the REAL Act and failed to end Title V abstinence-only programs when they had the opportunity.

Apparently, they&#039;re at it again.

Now they&#039;ve reached a new low. On Thursday, June 12 the Senate will vote on an 18-month extension of Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding in its new Medicare funding package. In a bill that has nothing to do with sex education Senate Democrats decided to authorize abstinence-only-until-marriage funding through the end of 2009.

TAKE ACTION NOW: No back-door extensions for abstinence-only programs! Tell the Senate to remove the Title V extension from the Medicare package.

We&#039;ve been told that they&#039;re trying to save the next president from the &quot;controversy&quot; of sex education.

Let&#039;s save future officials the trouble and just end all funding for these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs!&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I received a request for action from Advocates for Youth about this issue.</p>
<p>&#8220;When it comes to sex education, it&#8217;s hard to put a lot of faith in the U.S. Senate right now. After all, this is the group of &#8220;leaders&#8221; who have failed to pass the REAL Act and failed to end Title V abstinence-only programs when they had the opportunity.</p>
<p>Apparently, they&#8217;re at it again.</p>
<p>Now they&#8217;ve reached a new low. On Thursday, June 12 the Senate will vote on an 18-month extension of Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding in its new Medicare funding package. In a bill that has nothing to do with sex education Senate Democrats decided to authorize abstinence-only-until-marriage funding through the end of 2009.</p>
<p>TAKE ACTION NOW: No back-door extensions for abstinence-only programs! Tell the Senate to remove the Title V extension from the Medicare package.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve been told that they&#8217;re trying to save the next president from the &#8220;controversy&#8221; of sex education.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s save future officials the trouble and just end all funding for these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs!&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tamra</title>
		<link>http://blog-aauw.org/2008/06/11/fueling-the-sex-ed-controversy/#comment-475</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tamra]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aauwnational.wordpress.com/?p=194#comment-475</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The statement made that comprehensive sex ed does not get federal monies is false. They have been getting federal monies way before abstinence programs. The monies are trickled through state and city agencies and through organizations such as Planned Parenthood which historically was started as an organization to legalize the sterilization of minority women, mainly African American women.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The statement made that comprehensive sex ed does not get federal monies is false. They have been getting federal monies way before abstinence programs. The monies are trickled through state and city agencies and through organizations such as Planned Parenthood which historically was started as an organization to legalize the sterilization of minority women, mainly African American women.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

