William Tauzin: “I simply want to rise in opposition to this alternative offered by the Democrats for one of the many reasons that I hope…”

“I simply want to rise in opposition to this alternative offered by the Democrats for one of the many reasons that I hope we oppose it, but for an important one. The Democrats will argue that they want to put flexibility into the title V funding for abstinence-only education programs. What that means is they want to give the States the right to mix messages, to combine their contraceptive-focused programs with the programs that help young people understand that there is another choice called abstinence. We included the definition of abstinence education in the statute to protect the abstinence-only message from being diluted with the message of promoting condom or contraceptive use. We literally have to oppose an effort that will give the States the flexibility to mix those messages back up again. There are 25 different Federal programs funding contraceptive-focused education. There are only three income streams in the law that fund abstinence-only education programs and they are not mandatory on the States. The States have the flexibility, if they want, to opt out of the abstinence-only programs. As a matter of fact, 49 States choose to opt in. They like the programs. They put up $3 for every $4 that the Federal Government puts up. And if a State does not really like this program and does not want to be a part of it as the one State, California, does not want to be, they can abstain from the program.”