SpokaneGOP.com

The Washington Post reported yesterday that, "Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for US efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases."

The new survey is game-changing in that it will force those who have railed against abstinence, if they are willing to follow the data rather than ideology, to re-think their position.

The study, that was conducted in four different middle schools in a Northeastern city, among 662 African Americans found that about 33% of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52% who were taught only safe sex.

The Obama Administration has eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted toward abstinence programs; this based on a series of reports that basically trashed abstinence. We sincerely hope he will re-think his decision in light of this and other surveys.

Perhaps the most telling statement comes from John B. Jemmott, III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study.

Sincerely,
 
Gary Randall
Faith and Freedom Network

HONOLULU (AP) — The Republican National Committee, pressed to find a way to more clearly distinguish itself from Democrats, on Friday adopted a rule that will prod GOP leaders to provide financial support to only those candidates who support the party's platform.

The resolution, enacted by voice vote with no opposition at the party's winter meeting here, is an alternative to a more stringent proposal that would have required GOP candidates to support 10 policy positions if they wanted party help.

That proposal, sponsored by Indiana RNC member James Bopp and backed by the RNC's more conservative members, was strongly opposed by party Chairman Michael Steele and a group of state party chairs.

The alternative, offered by RNC member Bill Crocker of Texas, does not contain a specific litmus test and thus grants party officials more flexibility in how to vet GOP candidates seeking party support.

It urges leaders of local, state and national Republican parties to "carefully screen" the voting record and positions of Republican candidates that want party backing, and determine whether they "wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions" of the party as laid out in its platform.

The platform is adopted every four years at the party's presidential nomination convention.

The new rule will not prevent support for moderate Republican candidates but will bar funding for those judged to be too far to the left, Crocker said.

"No more Scozzafavas, please. No more Specters, please. No more Chafees, please," Crocker said, referring to Dede Scozzafava, a GOP candidate for a U.S. House seat in New York whom conservatives opposed; U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched his party registration from Republican to Democrat last year, and former U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, a liberal Republican.

Crocker urged the party to "present candidates who will be attractive" to the people who, like those in the Tea Party movement, "are really dissatisfied with our political conduct over the past several years."

Bopp withdrew his proposal and supported the alternative, contending it will be more effective because party leaders will have to consider a broader range of issues than just those cited in his resolution.

His proposal would have barred financial help for GOP candidates who disagreed with three or more of 10 policy positions, including support for "market-based" health care reform and climate change policies, and opposition to gun control, government abortion funding and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

There appeared to be some disagreement over the practical effect of Crocker's resolution. Bopp said it requires party leaders to compare GOP candidate positions to the party platform. But Bob Tiernan, the GOP state chairman in Oregon, insisted it is not binding.

"There's nothing mandatory in it," Tiernan said.

http://www.krem.com/news/politics/83082177.html

Thoughts from the Executive Director
   
Last fall, during the statewide debate over domestic partnership, I participated in several debates discussing Referendum 71.  In them, we discussed whether there is any difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.  In support of my belief that there is, I repeatedly suggested that it is preferable for children to have both a mother and a father.  To me this is self-evident, but some find it very offensive.      
So, what should be done if the idea that mothers and fathers should be together offends you?  Eliminate it, of course.  That is exactly what HB 2793 does.  The bill, sponsored by Rep. Lynn Kessler and co-sponsored by nine others, amends the Uniform Parentage Act to eliminate the term "father" or "mother" from Washington state law.  The forbidden words would be replaced with the more inclusive term "parent". 
This bill is much more significant than the words that would be changed.  The state of Washington would be taking the position that moms and dads are interchangeable and neither is essential so long as one is there.  Parents are just parents, six of one half-dozen of the other.  It doesn't matter if you have one, two, or six. The important thing is just that kids have someone to love them.
These arguments resonate some because their paradigm requires them to believe it.  The rest of us realize the emperor has no clothes.  The problem is that policy is being proposed by those who insist the emperor is well dressed.  If this were a matter of personal preference, I could leave it alone. But it is not.           
Outside the context of homosexual rights, making policy that suggests moms and dads are replaceable and individually irrelevant is completely counterproductive.  Fatherlessness is already a legitimate national disaster.     
 
A recent study by the National Fatherhood Initiative found that the federal government spends $99.8 billion on programs that support father-absent homes.  Children in father-absent homes are five times more likely to be poor. In 2002, 7.8 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 38.4 percent of children in female-householder families.[1] A child with a nonresident father is 54 percent more likely to be poorer than his or her father.[2]
In light of this reality, does it make sense to imply that fathers aren't important? 
The intent of the bill is to suggest that families with "parents" are no different than families with moms and dads.  But in doing so, you diminish the importance of moms and dads.  Considering the tremendous social costs associated with broken families that legislators are trying to fix, this would be a schizophrenic thing to do.
 
To tell your elected officials how you feel about this bill, please call 1-800-562-6000.

 
[1]Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002, P200-547, Table C8. Washington D.C.: GPO, 2003.
[2]Source: Sorenson, Elaine and Chava Zibman. "Getting to Know Poor Fathers Who Do Not Pay Child Support." Social Service Review 75 (September 2001): 420-434.
                                                               
Best,
 
Joseph Backholm
Executive Director
Family Policy Institute of Washington