Just Say No to HB 39

The NH legislature is getting back into gear for the 2006 session. A number of bills have already made their way to legislative services, and more will be forthcoming. This isn’t a budget year, so we will be spared the budget wrangling, and we’ll have more time to focus on what kind of legislation is being considered. Hot topics this year will include immigration legislation and changes in voter laws. Despite the lack of evidence of any voter fraud, we can expect to see legislation aimed at increasing the barriers to voter participation by certain populations – students, minorities, and the indigent. The police in New Ipswich and Hudson were thwarted by the courts, who ruled that criminal trespass laws weren’t intended to be used against undocumented workers. A couple of state reps from Hudson have proposed legislation targeting the same population.

The legislature will also be contending with everything that was held over in committee from last session. One such bill is HB39, “An Act relative to sex education in public schools.” This bill is aimed at turning comprehensive sex education into an abstinence only program. NH has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Last year DHHS received a big chunk of cash from the federal government for having such a low teen pregnancy rate. What we’ve been doing has obviously been working rather well – so it’s ironic (and moronic) that the response to success is to attempt to institute the sort of programs that are failing teens around the country.

There’s plenty of evidence that abstinence only programs aren’t working. Study after study shows that teens were more sexually active after going through abstinence only programs. Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Texas all had similar findings. In Erie County, Pennsylvania, 42 percent of teen girls who attended an abstinence only program were sexually active, compared with 27 percent of those who weren’t in the program. In Texas, tenth grade boys’ rates of sexual activity increased from 24 to 39 percent. California terminated its abstinence only programs in 1996, because it wasn’t working.

A report issued by Rep. Henry Waxman of California, found that some of the most popular abstinence only programs (federally funded programs) contained false statements about contraception, HIV transmission, abortion, and STDs. This misleading information increases the likelihood that teens in these programs will have unprotected sex.

HB39 stipulates that “Pupils shall be provided with statistics based on the latest medical information citing the failure and success rates of condoms in preventing HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.” If this information is coming from one of the aforementioned programs, it’s very likely to be false, and may actually result in kids engaging in unprotected sex – which will in turn result in actually increasing the teen pregnancy rate.

No one ever worries about kids getting too much exposure to math. Teaching algebra doesn’t result in the fear that kids will want to stay after school and figure out pi equations on the blackboard, or go into nerdy math careers. Despite all evidence to the contrary – the fear continues to be perpetuated that educating kids about their bodies, sexuality, and responsibility will result in unrestrained sexual activity, and orgies all over town. Teaching fear and repression has never worked. There was at least one pregnant girl in my little pre-Roe vs. Wade high school. There were even pregnant girls in the idyllic 1950’s. They just got shipped off to relatives for the duration – while discreet adoptions were arranged, or they had illegal abortions.

What the abstinence only proponents refuse to acknowledge, is that abstinence is, in fact, taught in comprehensive sex ed programs. We would all like to see kids wait until they’re older, and more responsible to begin having sexual relationships. Not everyone will heed that advice, as history shows us. Isn’t it better for those kids to at least have some preparation beyond “just say no?” We don’t just put a kid in a car, give ‘em the keys and say – go ahead and drive. We give them an education to prepare them for the reality of what happens behind the wheel. Shouldn’t we do the same with sex education?

NH has been successful in reducing the teen pregnancy rate – so to change what is working, to what is proven not to work is a concept I find utterly mystifying. HB39 is sponsored by Rep.Russell Albert of Rochester, Rep. Harriet Cady of Deerfield, and Rep. Kathleen Souza of Manchester. Rep. Souza is a member of both NH Right to Life and the national Right to Life organizations. It’s interesting to note that both Souza and Cady voted against legislation that would mandate the wearing of bicycle helmets by children. At least they’re consistent in their approach when it comes to kids and protection.

Abstinence only programs are politically and religiously motivated. They aren’t based in reality – they don’t care about teens, and above all – they don’t work! Do we really want to ruin young lives with this socio-political experiment? Please contact your state reps and urge them to just vote no on HB39.

“Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.” Butch Hancock

Summer is here, and the traffic isn’t horrible, isn’t even visible some of the time.

I drive to Concord at least once a week, and even around the lake in Meredith the traffic isn’t nearly as awful as it usually is. The price of gasoline isn’t going down – and probably never will. There are more cars on the road, and fewer SUVs. More SUVs and trucks are on the side of the road with For Sale signs on them. In spite of the endless heat and humidity, there is some justifiable fear about the cost of heating homes this winter. The economy is uncertain. Good jobs are still disappearing, and are replaced with lower paying service jobs. No wonder there is trepidation about traveling. The future isn’t looking so bright.

With skyrocketing fuel prices, one would think this would be a great time to form a sensible national energy policy that would lessen our dependence on oil, and encourage conservation. One would be wrong. The energy bill being crafted by our elected officials is anything but sensible, and actually increases our dependence on oil, while decreasing protections to our supply of clean water. The current energy bill is a valentine for oil and utility companies. The oil and utility companies have spent $367 million lobbying Congress in the last 2 years. Their reward for this persistence is $3.2 billion in new tax breaks to the oil and gas industries, $2 billion in funds to study ultra-deepwater research companies are already pursuing without our tax dollars, $125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the cost of reclaiming and closing orphaned wells. Even as we taxpayers are being asked to subsidize oil companies, they are enjoying record profits. Oil industry CEO’s received a 109.1% increase in their salaries, between 2003 and 2004.

The bill’s total package of tax breaks for energy companies comes in at around $11.5 billion. The Bush administration had recommended a paltry $6.7 billion in tax breaks. At a time where energy is increasingly needed, and record profits are being amassed by energy companies, one wonders at this corporate welfare. One doesn’t wonder for long, because in addition to the money spent on lobbying, Texas based Exxon Mobil contributed $935.266 to federal candidates for the 2004 elections, more than any other oil company. Chevron contributed $498,992 to candidates in 2004. Southern Co. a utility company contributed $1.1 million on candidates, and just won the repeal of a 1935 law that prohibits utility companies from using customer revenue to subsidize non-regulated business. We are hooked on oil, and our elected officials are hooked on energy money.

One of the most egregious provisions in the proposed House energy bill, would have allowed oil companies to duck out of their responsibility for clean up in areas contaminated by gasoline additive MTBE. The additive has polluted drinking water across the nation, including NH. Some members of the House put together a deal that would relieve the oil companies of any direct responsibility for MTBE cleanup – those poor beleaguered oil companies raking in record profits right now. These representatives suggested a plan that would allow polluters to put a small percentage into a special trust fund, and the rest of the tab would be picked up by the taxpayers. NH is in the process of suing some of these oil companies, which makes it all the more surprising that NH Rep. Charles Bass was one of the supporters of the deal to let polluters off the hook, at taxpayer expense.

The last energy bill before Congress didn’t pass, because of the contention over MTBE. Our entire delegation voted against the energy bill because of it. This year, Bass peeled off, and decided to cast his lot with Texas Reps. Joe Barton and Tom DeLay, who represent the state that is home to the polluters responsible for destroying drinking water in NH. Bass claimed that being on this committee allowed him a voice to help NH. It’s hard to envision how the plan was actually helping NH. Making taxpayers pay for the reckless disregard shown by the oil companies is a curious way of “helping” NH. The only beneficiaries are the oil companies, and the Texas Congressional delegation.

Why would Bass go against the best interests of his state? A look at his 2004 campaign donations may offer some insight. In a list breaking down contributions by business sector, electric utilities ranked seventh place in donating money to Bass, and oil and gas came in 20^th place. Bass also received a tidy sum from Tom DeLay’s PAC. In looking at sums already reported for the 2006 campaign cycle, Exxon Mobil is ranking in 7^th place as a Bass donor, and energy PACs are in 4^th place. Yessiree, Charlie Bass was doing a fine job for Texas, until the MTBE deal fell through, and was taken out of the energy bill. Congressman Bass now has some serious egg on his face, and a slimy money trail to follow through this next election cycle.

The energy bill doesn’t address conservation in a meaningful way, does not raise CAFÉ standards for fuel efficiency, and calls on utility companies to be getting 10% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. This would be laughable if we weren’t seeing the fallout from our national energy policy right here in NH. While driving to Concord earlier this week, I heard a bulletin on the radio, advising seniors, people with respiratory problems, and young children to avoid spending time outside because of the unhealthy levels of air pollution. We expect to hear this in LA, or Texas – but not NH. As long as oil men are running our government, and oil companies are providing vast sums of campaign funds to our politicians, we can expect to stay the course – continued dependence on unstable foreign oil, and increased dependence on serious polluters like coal and nuclear power. And whenever things go wrong, we can count on our legislators to find a way for the taxpayers to pick up the tab.

“Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.” George Washington