Local/State
Weather
Politics
Columnists
Nation/World
Offbeat
Special Reports
Report News
Text Alerts
Archives
Restaurant Inspections
Report Handicapped Parking Violations
Where sex offenders live
Who got busted or sued
State Employee Salaries
Fraud
Report Fraud/Abuse
Local Sports
High School
College
Clemson
Carolina
Battery
Riverdogs
Stingrays
National Sports
Sports Columnists
Family Circle Cup
Bridge Run
Moxie
Your Health
Family Life
Lowcountry Parent
Arts/Travel
Home/Garden
Food
Get Out
People
Faith/Values
Columnists
Group receives abstinence grant
Monday, October 20, 2008
COLUMBIA — A conservative group has been given a $3 million federal grant to promote abstinence in South Carolina.
The Palmetto Family Council says it will use the five-year grant to promote abstinence clubs and spread its message of waiting to have sex until marriage on social Web sites like Facebook and MySpace.
Group president Oran Smith says the organization will raise matching funds for the grant. The grant was awarded by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 27 comment(s)
Posted by ballachulish on October 20, 2008 at 6:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dang Republican socialists using federal money for social programs again.
Who's going to run the program, Bristol Palin?
Posted by guidedbystewart on October 20, 2008 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is ok to spend money, as long as it is spreading a conservative agenda, this crap should stop!
Posted by sc4peace on October 20, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about sex aducation combined with abstinence? At least if they do choose to have sex before marriage, they will know how to protect themselves- but Governer Palin says "Abstinence only" will be supported under her administration- looks like that didn't work with her child-so what makes her think her plan will be successful for all the other American families.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 20, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
spanker posted "These nutjobs also are one of the groups who pushed to force women to view ultra sounds before they could receive abortions."
Why would someone have a problem with that? Oh,thats right I guess ignorance is bliss to some. Shouldnt an important decision like an abortion be a well thought out informed decision? This is not a time for don't ask,don't tell,I don't wanna know. I have to add I think sex education should include more than keep your legs closed-end of discussion. I dont know why they dont compromise on this issue. Don't hand out BC pills to middle schoolers without parental permission,dont take kids to get abortions without parental involvement,etc. It should focus on morality and abstinence is the best choice. I have posted before that they should teach that its nasty and slutty for kids to be screwing everyone in sight. Make it "uncool". BUT kids need to be truly EDUCATED on the subject. Everyone tends to be so one sided on this issue. There really is a middle ground and I believe it would benefit everyone.
Posted by sc4peace on October 20, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
coolfreaknbeans- I couldn't agree with you more
Posted by ballachulish on October 20, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cool,
For once we are in agreement. I might add, that BC pills shouldn't cost and arm and a leg, and should be covered by insurance.
Posted by tc1 on October 20, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
+1 for Cool
Abstinence is the best choice for the individual and society. But every normal human animal knows that the brain does not get an equal vote with the rest of the body when given the right (wrong?) circumstances.
Posted by ColdBud on October 20, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great, more tax payer money being used to do what parents should be doing. Yet another case of the government getting involved in pushing certain views on issues that the government should have no say in what so ever.
I don't know how I can say this any more clearly.... "I do not want you (any entity) deciding what morals and values my children are taught. That is the responsibility of my wife and I, and our responsibility alone. Your opinions and views in this matter are NOT important as long as we are not breaking any laws."
What's next, the federal government paying someone to tell me that I should never drink sodas or beer? They're both bad for me too, right?
A complete waste of money.
My unmarried daughter is 19. She was sexually inactive until just recently. She understands and practices safe sex. Quite frankly, I hope she has an enjoyable sex life. I sure did.
Posted by tc1 on October 20, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CB,
I completely agree. UNTIL I have to pay for someone else's irresponsible pleasures. How should society deal with that?
Posted by tc1 on October 20, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW I don't know the answer to my own question. :(
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 20, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
Newt- You said between a WOMAN and her doctor. I was talking about KIDS. If you are under 18- you can't vote,you can't get a tattoo,hell I had to sign a form to get my childs EARS PIERCED!! But kids should be allowed to get abortions with no parental knowledge or consent? I think not. There is a story about a girl(age 14!) in Ohio who had an abortion without parental consent. A 21 yr old got her pregnant and then talked her into getting an abortion. This is a crime! I'm normally not a "link poster" but heres one link about the story.
http://www.wlwt.com/news/4379744/detail....
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 20, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tc1- I'll tell you this-my tax dollars WILL NOT pay for an abortion.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 20, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ballachulish- I agree BC pills should be more cost effective. One thing is all clinics that I have ever heard of offer free pills,condoms and comprehensive gynecological care. Which is awesome.
Posted by sc4peace on October 20, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are against the government getting involved in moral and personal choices- then you cannot be pro-life. That is the government invading a womans moral right to choose what is best for her and her body-
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 20, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt- Ok I'm really glad to hear that! Some people,believe it or not,support kids getting abortions without parental knowledge. It sounds like you and your husband have a good plan for your family. Unfortunately some families do not. When I say I support abstinence as being taught as the best option I don't mean pushing Jesus or touting scripture. I don't know of a single family/parent with a brain who would object to teaching kids not to have sex in middle school. Even if you are an atheist you know childrens bodies(or their minds) are not ready for sex. It doesn't have to be about republicans vs democrats,the religious vs the non religious.
Posted by eyfigueroa on October 20, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
coolbeans: the only problem I have with abstinence only programs, other than the fact that it is govt. subsidised, is that conservative religious groups are the ones that are pushing for its use in govt. schools. It is NOT a non-partisan policy.
But it should be a non-partisan issue.
You cannot go into these schools and truly believe that telling these kids to ‘just say no’ is going to work. Should the emphasis be on abstinence? Absolutely! That should be drilled into their heads. But to ignore what is really going on with today’s youth and only saying that God wants them to be pure for marriage is at best blind optimism and at worst dangerously blind naïveté.
Societal mores have changed and the way children can be reached needs to also change.
I have the same problems with these religious-backed groups bringing religion into govt. schools under the guise of sex education as I do with liberal extremists who think it’s okay to give 10 year olds BC or escorting girls to abortion clinics w/o parental permission.
There IS a middle-ground but neither side wants to go there.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on October 20, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To Newt- Knowledge is power!
Eyfig- I don't want ANY extremists on either side of the issue teaching my child. Quite frankly they're just looney as hell. You are right that no one wants to go there. But I sure as hell do! This issue shouldnt be divisive,it should bring us together. A nice common sense approach.
Posted by ColdBud on October 20, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not pro-life or pro-abortion. The government (laws) cannot fix that issue. Education, over a long period of time, is the only real answer. That education should come from responsible parents. I do not like the fact that abortions are even in existance, but I do not think the government can, or should, try and regulate the issue.
I have no real problem with sex education (the science of sex) being taught in schools.
tc1, I don't have and answer to your question either. I've stated more than one time that mandatory birth control may eb the only answer to many of the social issues we face now. Mandatory birth control would fly in the face of the stance I took above, so... I too, don't know the answer.
Posted by kontact on October 20, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So this spending is OK in the republican eyes??? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites. And to make it worse I do support that if we are going to have sex education that we should have ABSTINENCE education too. I just dont think that we need to pay this group 3 million to do what the sex ed teachers should already be doing. Could this be an example of PORK? If it sounds like a pig and acts like a pig then guess what? Its a darn pig.
Posted by kontact on October 20, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And 3 million dollars for myspace and facebook ads? My daughter could have done that for a free laptop and internet access for her 4 high school years!! Ohh and a new car for when she turns 16 next year. Talk about tha money we could have saved. She probaly would have been able to make better use of that money too. I just cant see how these guys are going to be able to relate to the kids anyway since they probaly have nothing in common. WOW
Posted by sc4peace on October 20, 2008 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cold Bud- I agree with you as well.
Posted by futurepastimperfect on October 20, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL LOL LOL You people whine about everything. No wonder the South lost the Civil War. LOL
Posted by diablo_tonto on October 20, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's why it's not good to "dine on that swine", Kontact! Especially $3 million worth of it???
Posted by ChrisPia on October 20, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.palmettofamily.org/boards.asp...
Posted by ChrisPia on October 20, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_bookrev...
Posted by kontact on October 20, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just saw the webpage.WTF!!!I should have known. Sure looks like this bunch knows alot about facebook and myspace doesnt it? WOW!! How are they going to spend 3 MILLION DOLLARS?? Am I the only one here that thinks this is the best legal sham they have seen in a while. I just might register republican next election cause obviously they getting paid promoting less gov't intrusion.
Posted by ironhorse on October 20, 2008 at 9:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Abstinence? Screw them!