$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL
Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET
Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]
"Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.
well std's are def a problem in this country. And back in my whore days (big time) I hated using condoms. So I'm actually for this.
while all of this may not be "economic stimulus" it is certainly preventative care that saves tax dollars in the long run. Just put it in a different bill and let's move on. Unless of course you're Bill O and you want to ***** about spending $400 million on "funding abortions". Odd for the "no spin zone" to spin it into this talking point when the facts are this $400 million has always been alocated for overseas aid, not it is just being allowed to go to all family planning services.
Preventing stds is obviously a good thing, but how is this going to help the economy? This is just more bureaucratic waste (at least in this bill).
a healthy society is a productive society
Last edited by abe_froman; 01-28-2009 at 05:09 PM.
This is probably part of the overall push for nationalized health care. A prevention vs treatment cost issue. Short term vs. Long term cost thing. We should try to put this out to the private sector, which is my solution to 99.9% of all societal problems. Government should only be involved in oversight and things where there is no money involved in.
Member of the Owlluminati!
This is a separate issue and all....but I really don't see why government should be involved in any of that.Obama is already conceding that this type of stuff can be taken out and put in a separate bill. I don't see why they don't just take this std funds, contraception, and sex ed funding all in one bill. They should then title it "bringing the USA out of the dark ages of abstinence only"
Even the "abstinence only" stuff.
Usually when people argue this stuff, they argue about the pros and cons, which I think misses the point. I do not see how the sexual practices of the people, is in the realm of government.
It's easier to pave roads without an itchy crotch? I don't know....Preventing stds is obviously a good thing, but how is this going to help the economy? This is just more bureaucratic waste (at least in this bill).
Last edited by gcoll; 01-28-2009 at 10:28 PM.