Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

If you want to end abortion, why kill a grant that teaches about birth control?

March 23, 2013 - Andrea Johnson
A question for legislators who voted in favor of all those abortion restrictions this week. What possible sense does it make to kill a grant that teaches kids about birth control and could prevent some of those unwanted pregnancies?

Rep. Bette Grande, R-Fargo, is the legislator behind the amendment to an anti-abortion bill that would kill a three-year, $1.2 million sex education grant for North Dakota State University. That grant would pay for voluntary sex education for 15 to 19-year-olds in the Fargo area. Parental consent would be required for the program, which involves a partnership between Planned Parenthood and NDSU.

Legislators have been trying to quash that program for months, presumably because Planned Parenthood is involved, even though Planned Parenthood in North Dakota does not perform abortions. Perhaps Grande is not familiar with the reality of teenage sexual behavior. According to the 2011 North Dakota Youth Risk Behavior Survey, an anonymous survey given to junior high and high school students every two years, 44.8 percent of all high school students in the state have had sexual intercourse. By the time they reach their senior year of high school, 62 percent of kids in the state have had sex. Thirteen percent of freshmen through seniors have had sex with more than four people in their lifetime. Forty five percent of high school students have had oral sex. Fifty three percent of high school students in the state do not believe abstinence is very important to them at this point in their lives. Only 12 percent of those sexually active students have ever been tested for an STD. Given those statistics, I think comprehensive sex education might be very important for North Dakota teenagers. Don't you?

Last month Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem ruled that NDSU could accept the grant. There had been some question about whether the grant would violate a state law that forbids government funding to people or groups that encourage abortion, according to an Associated Press story. The state law was ruled invalid more than 30 years ago, because it conflicts with federal laws.

Expect more of the same if Gov. Jack Dalrymple signs this bill and other abortion-related legislation into law. The Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo has promised to take all of this to court and it will more than likely win an immediate court injunction. Grande and our other legislators have just pledged to waste a lot of taxpayer money on a very costly legal battle.

Dalrymple should veto this bill along with similar, misguided legislation passed this week. Surely we have better things to spend our oil surplus money on than defending unconstitutional legislation.

 
 

Article Comments

(55)

locomotive

Apr-06-13 9:37 AM

Planned Parenthood has received a lion's share of "unintentional" press this past week with the FL legislature incident. That dust will settle soon, I'm sure.

Now if PP wishes to be taken seriously, as in its recent press release about "care for women and children," they'll have to watch their p's and q's in establishing a presence in ND.

AndreaJohnson

Apr-02-13 11:36 AM

Legislators have come to their senses and killed the amendment to the abortion bill that would have threatened the NDSU grant. I am pleased to see that there is still a bit of common sense there.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-28-13 3:21 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with legalizing polygamy between consenting adults because for some it's a religious requirement. However, I think there would be too many problems with the tax code and family court issues. There's also the question of how many wives or husbands a person could legally have. If it's legalized for a man and two wives, it would be discriminatory not to allow him to be legally married to all seven or ten or 20 of his wives. And, if the sister wives all helped raise each other's children, could they be on the hook for child support or be given child custody rights if one of them wants to divorce her husband? That's the real Pandora's box. The lawyers would love it.

billldoesntgetit

Mar-27-13 11:08 PM

You doubt they would pass it? 20 years ago no one ever thought gays would be able to marry.

What this whole stupid business is about is "money" The root of all evil.

People who love each other don't fall out of or into love because of a marriage license.

The Supreme court is hearing this because its about getting Federal Rights so they can get Federal Money for their "other thing" whatever IT may be.

Once the Gays pass the triads will be next. Doubt away Andrea..These changes have come on over the last 15 years.. No one expected it to go this far and now its a civil rights issue. If its a civil right for 2 men why not a civil right for 2 men and one women..

Some people are very naive and short sighted when it comes to cause and effect.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-27-13 12:19 PM

If you're talking about polygamy, I have my doubts that it would pass because it would be a tax and family court nightmare. They might consider decriminalizing it for consenting adults. For some people like the fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims it is a religious practice.

billldoesntgetit

Mar-26-13 11:55 PM

Andrea if Obama care can pass the supreme court just about anything can.

In fact there is a new group waiting in the wings on the Supreme court ruling on gay marriage. Triads.. just the next step after the gays.. I told you it was coming..

locomotive

Mar-26-13 5:44 PM

I'd wait until the case is tried, in spite of expert opinions.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-26-13 2:50 PM

As it's unconstitutional, I highly doubt it.

billldoesntgetit

Mar-26-13 2:33 PM

I guess it was time for the Republicans and Conservatives to get to spend a little of the money on something they want and are passionate about instead of always having to play defense.. Time we get to score one for the Goodguys. Besides who know this may become the law of the land..

billldoesntgetit

Mar-26-13 2:31 PM

Yes just think how many abortions that money could have paid for.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-26-13 1:36 PM

Well, now that Gov. Dalrymple has signed the bill, it's time to wait for the court injunction and the bill for all those hundreds of thousands of dollars for defending this legislation.

Just imagine what else we could have done with all that money.

locomotive

Mar-26-13 11:36 AM

Yeah, that Paul Ehrlich. Wonderful guy. He's been featured lately on PBS. Rather chilling statements and alarmist predictions. Wow.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-26-13 9:52 AM

I wouldn't compare these cases to Dred Scot. From a personal standpoint, I think there are better uses for my tax dollars than defending this legislation.

Personally, I oppose abortion and would be comfortable with some reasonable restrictions, if they were constitutional. I don't think abortion is usually acceptable past the point the fetus is viable, which is probably at about 22 weeks -- not 6 weeks. I think abortion is regrettable but necessary if a doctor says it will save the life of the mother or if it will preserve her future mental or physical health or fertility. If a child is going to be so severely disabled that he will die immediately after birth, I think there are very few who wouldn't abort and I couldn't take that right away from them. These laws don't make allowances for those situations. Any good laws would.

Blocking the NDSU/Planned Parenthood grant also makes no sense.

waterjoe

Mar-26-13 9:46 AM

Again, read the amendment. It does not stop sex education programs. It only prevents taxpayer money from subsidizing abortion.

locomotive

Mar-26-13 9:33 AM

Legal "experts" have been proven wrong in court before. Consider lawyers on both sides of Dred Scott, for example.

AndreaJohnson

Mar-26-13 9:11 AM

I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't presume to say. Legal experts have said the Legislature has passed unconstitutional legislation. Perhaps they should have consulted something other than Wikipedia.

billldoesntgetit

Mar-26-13 8:13 AM

Maybe its time for America to do as Paul Enrlich suggested back in the 1980s..He stated..

"[We need] compulsory birth regulation... [through] the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size".

Maybe its time for us to use this method and let the Government control who can have a kid and who cannot. Then we wouldn't have to worry about abortion would we?

Planned Parent hood could just hand out laced water bottles and laced potato chips and all the abortion problems would go away.

disgusted

Mar-26-13 7:45 AM

Again, I repeat,what should the laws say in all your great wisdom?

AndreaJohnson

Mar-26-13 12:15 AM

Some laws, yes. In this case we have unconstitutional laws that will cost the state a great deal of money, won't be enforced and won't actually prevent abortions. Bad laws.

disgusted

Mar-25-13 9:19 PM

Oh, Locomotive! Absolutely.

locomotive

Mar-25-13 8:53 PM

In regards to all the other various laws that have been passed by state legislatures: if they haven't prevented certain behaviors (running the gamut from larceny to stalking to improper food handling), those laws have not been worth the effort to write them?

disgusted

Mar-25-13 8:45 PM

What should the bills say to prevent abortions?

AndreaJohnson

Mar-25-13 7:45 PM

Again, the various abortion bills passed by the legislature will NOT prevent abortion; there are documented results with comprehensive sex ed. programs like the one NDSU plans.

And this discussion has nothing to do with health care reform.

MattRothchild

Mar-25-13 7:40 PM

disgusted: stay tuned

disgusted

Mar-25-13 6:40 PM

I am shocked that the teens in Fargo are so isolated from the world that they need over a million dollars to be taught about sex and birth control from PP where abortion is on their front page. Roe v Wade was based on a lie. But, to the libs, the ends justified the means. I think I will start pushing for murder or killing of anyone who will cost long term medical and custodial care. I have switched my position on Obamacare and the 15 member panel. I think they need to start with all those in nursing homes who are in vegetative states and in their 20', 30's and 40's.

 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web