FINALLY!
It's not the teaching abstinance I have an issue with. It's that these programs use materials from the 1930s telling girls that they'll get pregnant if they touch themselves and get syphilis from kissing.

I didn't say anything that said they were using old materials in the story... are you sure about that? Why would schools need yearly monetary resources for this program, if they were just going to use the old materials from years and years and years ago? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
______________________

But anyway, here's my favorite line from the article:

I'm pretty sure the, "If you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant or an STD" has some basis in science. Perhaps the in the basic biology part...

Look, the government is wrong for only giving the money to schools for abstinence ONLY programs... but the opposition groups are wrong for not wanting abstinence to be taught at all.

But most importantly, the assumption that kids and teens will have sex no matter what we do, is dangerous. If we applied that line of thinking to everything, we would have total and complete anarchy. Why would we have any rules at all... aren't some people just going to break them?

And even if it's true... and there is nothing we could do... shouldn't we still try? Why should we just give up? If that's the case, then perhaps we should also buy the kids cigarettes, liquor, and some drugs too!

Abstinence only is bad... but sex education without abstinence, is bad too. Teach everything... and hope that something sticks.