Does Obamacare push Abstinence?

One of the problems of passing legislation that no one has read is that no one is sure what it contains until it is too late. Now it appears that the professional abstinence pushers, that special interest group that sucks up taxpayer money to lie to schoolkids about sex, believe that clauses in it will refund their efforts. The Washington Post reports that "the rescue plan for the nation's health-care system will also save their programs..." [Please note that referring to the bill as a "rescue" plan is not objective reporting but media bias. It is the same as if the Post had said "disastrous plan." Journalists are supposed to report the facts and whether this is a rescue or disaster depends on your politics—but then the political bias of the Post has never been questioned.]

The Obama bill "includes $50 million for programs that states could use to try to reduce pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease among adolescents by teaching them to delayy when they start having sex. " Amazing that the government is involved in teaching people not to have sex.

Valarie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Assocation says they are "otpimtistic" about the Obama bill providing them funds. By the way, that there is now such an association shows just how quickly government funding creates special interest groups of parasites who then lobby to keep the program forever. This is why "temporary" government programs become permanent.

Hilariously only James Wagnoner of Advocates for Youth said: "This is a last-ditch attempt by conservatives to resuscitate a program that has been proven to be ineffective." First, this bill was proposed by conservatives but by statist progressives. Conservatives didn't support the bill, not that there aren't plenty of awful bills they would support. If the funding is provided then blame Obama for that one, not conservatives.

And since when did effectiveness become important in analysing government policy? Our foreign policy is ineffective and continues. The war on drugs is not just ineffective but also counter-productive. Ethanol subsidies do more harm than good, so do agricultural subsidies. If you made a line by line list of every project that government funded, put them all on a wall, and then randomly threw a dart at it, you would hit an ineffective program most of the time.

In essence the best of government is ineffective and at it's worst it is lethal and destructive. Calling a government program ineffective is a compliment since accuracy would probably be much harsher. Neither the Left, nor the Right, give a damn about effectiveness. Playing politics is not about solving problems but capturing resources and both sides do that very well to the detriment of the people.