Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (162606)	7/19/2001 10:13:56 PM
From: puborectalis	Respond to of 769670

Bad Bill in the House What's Your Opinion? Thursday, July 19, 2001; Page A26 HOUSE REPUBLICAN leaders yesterday delayed a scheduled vote on a version of President Bush's "faith-based" proposal to make greater use of religious organizations in the provision of social services with federal funds. The leadership wasn't sure it had a majority, which is just as well: This is a bad bill. It should have been written cautiously if written at all. Instead it was aggressively drawn, in part to score political points. In its present form it would infringe on civil liberties, civil rights and even the states' rights its sponsors profess to support in other contexts. The House should vote it down. Religious organizations already have wide legal latitude, denied to others, to engage in discrimination in employment. They can limit their hiring not just to members of their faith, but to people who adhere to whatever may be its "tenets and teachings," including those having to do with sexual orientation, marriage, divorce, pregnancy out of wedlock, abortion, etc. They appear to be able to do so without regard to whether a job has religious content -- when picking janitors as well as priests. Since the welfare reform act of 1996, they have also had a limited right to do so when spending not just their own money, but certain government funds. The act allowed, indeed encouraged, states to channel federal funds to faith-based organizations to help move women off welfare. The organizations were free, at least so far as the act was concerned, to follow their own hiring dictates, not the government's. The House legislation would give such organizations the right to apply for a broader array of grants in additional fields -- housing and education, for example. They would take their hiring exemptions with them; more federal funds could thus be used for what, in other circumstances, would be regarded as discriminatory hiring. In addition, the legislation would exempt the grantees from state and local laws forbidding employment discrimination, even by religious organizations, against such groups as gays. What business of the federal government is that? The Salvation Army wanted the Bush administration to provide such protection from state and local law through regulation. The administration demurred, or pretended to, even as the House was preparing at its request to provide even stronger protection by statute. That's a shell game. Current law also forbids faith-based organizations receiving federal grants from discriminating among recipients or applicants for services on religious grounds. In other words, they may not favor applicants of their own faith. The House bill pretends to extend that rule even while laying the groundwork for its evasion by authorizing the conversion of federal grants to vouchers. If the aid goes to individuals who then come to the organizations, the organizations are freer to conduct their programs as they please, is the reasoning -- and the bill would put fewer strictures on them. Similarly, they would be more free if funded through vouchers to engage in proselytizing. But that, too, seems to us a shell game. The separation of church and state has never been complete in this country, and never will be. Governments -- federal, state and local -- provide religious organizations with all manner of tax and other subsidies, and government funds are given to institutions with strong religious affiliations -- hospitals, schools, Head Start centers -- for the provision of services every day. So the line is blurred. But the fact that some public money is already spent to support religious institutions is not necessarily an argument for further relaxation of the boundaries. It is just as easily an argument for caution. Church and state are a flammable mix. This divisive bill ignores the danger. It ought not pass.

To: puborectalis who wrote (162606)	7/19/2001 10:21:52 PM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 769670

Teachers can't teach. Anything. Even sex education. Monday, 16 July, 2001, 17:50 GMT 18:50 UK Teenage myths about contraception The "morning after" pill: As effective as coughing? Some teenagers think Coca Cola and wrist watches are contraceptives. A survey for Doctor magazine highlighted a worrying lack of understanding about contraception among UK teenagers. The survey found many teenagers believed a bizarre range of myths and old wives' tales. The lack of understanding could be one reason why teenage pregnancy rates are soaring in the UK. One teenager was quoted as saying: "Putting a watch around your penis before sex means the radioactivity of the dial kills off sperm." Teenage myths I You can't get pregnant on a boat You can't get pregnant if you drink a lot of milk You get pregnant if you take folic acid Keeping your eyes closed stops you getting pregnant A boy is only fertile if his testicles feel cold There's no risk if you're standing on a telephone directory Others believed a Coca-Cola douche, standing on a telephone directory, or drinking a lot of milk would stop them getting pregnant. Still more thought they could not get pregnant if they stayed upside down for two hours, coughed immediately after sex, or had sex in the bath, on a boat, or with their clothes on. About 8,000 teenagers under 16 get pregnant every year in the UK, and rates of sexually transmitted infection in British teenagers are running at about 10%. The myths were among those told to 2,200 GPs surveyed by the magazine. Embarrassed It found 85% of GPs thought young people were not using effective contraception because they were too embarrassed to ask for advice. But 70% believed ignorance was the problem, and 70% believed teenagers were worried their confidentiality would not be respected. Teenage myths II If you drink a lot of alcohol you won't get a girl pregnant You can't get pregnant unless you have sex every night Coke douches work and you can use crisp bags as condoms You can't get pregnant if you don't have an orgasm You can't get pregnant if you have sex in the bath Phil Johnson, editor of Doctor, said GPs have a major part to play in helping teenagers understand sex and pregnancy. He said: "Many GPs don't advertise the fact they offer a confidential service. "There is no notice up about it; they don't train staff in it. They don't have a special leaflet for teenagers about it. "Teenagers are not told that under 16s can get contraception." Janine Jolly, senior development officer with the National Children's Bureau, told BBC News Online she was not surprised teenagers easily got confused. "We live in a very sexualised society where teenagers are bombarded with images of sex," she said. "But these are not necessarily educational and teenagers pick up a lot of mis-messages from gaining their information in this way". 'Too little, too late' Ms Jolly said that on the bright side, the government's teenage pregnancy unit was aiming to tackle these "urban myths". She said there were signs it was achieving some success by providing early-age, accurate education on sex and relationships in schools. But Jan Barlow, chief executive of the charity Brook which deals with teenage sexual health issues, said adults were continuing to fail young people. "Far too often young people tell Brook that the information they get about sex is too little, too late and it's too biological," she said. "They need plain-speaking and impartial information so that they can make informed choices. "It's time we nailed sex myths on the head with accurate information." news.bbc.co.uk