Samuel Brownback: Outta the Race

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is officially out. Here is the flowery explanation:

Said the Kansas senator: "My yellow brick road just came short of the White House this time."

Here is the more real explanation:

"We're out of money," said Brownback.

I'm gonna miss this guy.

Brownback Uses Stanley Kurtz Statistic

At the Republican debate the other night, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) cited a statistic that really made me raise my eyebrows. I couldn't wait for Factcheck.org to lay into him.

Here is what Brownback said, in an attempt to paint same-sex marriage as a threat to our society:

Brownback: In countries that have redefined marriage, where they’ve said, okay, it’s not just a man and a woman, it can be two men, two women, the marriage rates in those countries have plummeted to where you have counties now in Northern Europe where 80 percent of the first-born children are born out of wedlock.

Sure enough, Factcheck.org investigated his claim:

This sentence has so many problems it’s hard to know where to begin. Brownback's campaign tells us that the senator got that statistic from conservative columnist Stanley Kurtz, who frequently asserts that two Norwegian counties, Nordland and Nord-Troendelag, have an out-of-wedlock birthrate in excess of 80 percent. Kurtz does not provide a source for this number, although in a column for the conservative National Review, he does link to a Statistics Norway summary. But that summary doesn’t address the number of children born out of wedlock in any county. We have been unable to find any other support for Kurtz’s figures.

And besides, Norway doesn’t have legalized gay marriage. The Netherlands and Belgium are the only Northern European countries that do. They enacted it in 2001 and 2003, respectively. The Netherlands' rate of out-of-wedlock births is much higher than it was a decade ago, but in 2005 the rate was only about 35 percent. According to Statistics Netherlands, unmarried birth rates in both Belgium and the Netherlands have been climbing since the mid-1970s.

Finally, both Brownback and Kurtz talk about first-born children specifically, but the countries’ statistics bureaus don’t differentiate between first-borns and other children.

For more on Stanley Kurtz and his bogus claims about same-sex marriage, it's worth the time to read this and this. Basically, there is no evidence that same-sex marriages or partnership rights (which factcheck neglects to mention - probably because Brownback's statements were restricted to "marriage") have had any impact on divorce rates. It's also worth noting that Masachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

Abstinence-Only Renewal

The United States spends somewhere around $87.5 million each year on abstinence-only education. Given this hefty bill, Congress recently commissioned a study to determine if it was paying off. The result?

"The impact results from the four selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence."

Source:
Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs.

And just for good measure, here are a few more.

"Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse."

Source:
The American Medical Association, 1999.

"…It is a matter of grave concern that there is such a large incentive to adopt unproven abstinence-only approaches." "…the effective programs identified to date provide information about safer sex, condoms, and contraceptives, in addition to encouraging abstinence."

Source:
Office of National AIDS Policy, September 2000.

"…Investing hundreds of millions of dollars of federal and state funds over five years in abstinence-only programs with no evidence of effectiveness constitutes poor fiscal and public health policy…. Congress, as well as other federal, state and local policy makers, [should] eliminate requirements that public funds be used for abstinence-only education."

Source:
The Institute of Medicine, October 2000.

"Proponents of abstinence-only policies argue that providing information about contraception or providing condoms to adolescents sends a mixed message to youth and may promote sexual activity." However, "expert panels that have studied this issue, have concluded that comprehensive sex and HIV/AIDS education programs and condom availability programs can be effective in reducing high-risk sexual behaviors among adolescents. In addition, these reviews and expert panels conclude that school-based sex education and condom availability programs do not increase sexual activity among adolescents."

Source:
The Institute of Medicine, October 2000.

"…Two trends have contributed to the declines in teenage birth and pregnancy rates. First, the long-term increase in the proportion of teenaged women who were sexually experienced leveled [off]… In addition, among sexually experienced teenagers who used any method of contraception, condom use increased substantially."

Source:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1997.

"Although sexual abstinence is a desirable objective, programs must include instruction in safer sex behavior, including condom use. The effectiveness of these programs is supported by strong scientific evidence."

Source:
The National Institutes of Health, 1997.

"All adolescents should be counseled about the correct and consistent use of latex condoms to reduce risk of infection."

Source:
American Academy of Pediatrics, January 2001.

Basically, the program is a failure and doesn't even increase abstinence, let alone reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. So what does Congress do in response? Well, the House subcommittee wants to increase federal funding by $27.8 to $141 million. Apparently, the Democrats are complying with this in order to persuade Congressional Republicans to go along with their other domestic spending plans. But there's not even any guarantee that that will happen.

So what we have here is an expensive program that the majority party says it doesn't want, that the data shows doesn't work, and which apparently will just increase incidents of teenage pregnancy and STDs. And the Democrats are agreeing to increase its funding.

It's also worth noting that federal funding of abstinence-only education has a history of subsidizing religious proselytization. For example, over $1 million in federal funds were spent on the Silver Ring Thing, an abstinence-only group that attempted to achieve its goal by handing out silver rings lined with bible quotes. Currently, the Stop and Think program is receiving funds for abstinence-only education in Oregon. This group requires that its supervisors “possess an authentic relationship with Jesus Christ; possess knowledge of the Word of God, and the ability to communicate it’s [sic] truth; exhibit a loving and merciful spirit; [and] attend a Bible believing local church or fellowship.”

And just for fun, what do the presidential candidates think about this?

• John McCain "strongly opposes efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to eliminate abstinence-only sex education classes for school-aged children."
  
• Mike Huckabee says

  "Abstinence education provides a valuable counterweight to peer pressure and the message young people get from the popular culture encouraging casual relationships and separating sex from love, commitment and marriage. I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools. That is the responsibility of parents. I am disappointed that funding for abstinence education is not likely to be renewed by the Democrat Congress. This reversal only emphasizes how important it is for Republicans to take back Congress and win the White House with an authentic conservative in 2008. I miss the America I grew up in where the Gideons gave Bibles to fifth graders instead of school nurses giving condoms to eighth graders. With so much at stake, it's important that we return to the core values and guiding principles which have made our country great."

• Sam Brownback says

  "Abstinence-only programs are great examples of curriculums that send positive messages to young people encouraging them to protect themselves and their future. Teens who abstain from sexual activity are less likely to have children out-of-wedlock; less likely to live in poverty and on welfare; and more likely to have stable marriages as adults. Title V of the Social Security Act supports abstinence education and aims to keep our youth out of harm's way by protecting them from sexually transmitted diseases and other risky situations. Accordingly, I support the reauthorization of Title V and have recently sent a letter to the Senate Finance Committee asking Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to make this reauthorization a reality."

  
  

Brownback on Evolution

MR. BLITZER: I wonder if you’d want to spend 30 seconds and tell our audience out there where you stand on the issue of evolution.

SEN. BROWNBACK: I’d be happy to. And it’s interesting that we’re doing this here, at St. Anselm’s, who this — that saint had a philosophy of faith seeking reason. And that’s the issue that’s missing here, if I could highlight that point, is that I believe that we are created in the image of God for a particular purpose. And I believe that with all my heart. And I’m somebody — I’ve had cancer in the past. I’ve had a season to really look at this and study it and think about the end of life. And I am fully convinced there’s a God of the universe that loves us very much and was involved in the process. How he did it, I don’t know.

One of the problems we have with our society today is that we put faith and science at odds with each other. They aren’t at odds with each other. If they are, check your faith or check your science. And we should have a discussion.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

SEN. BROWNBACK: And we should engage faith and reason, like Saint Anselm did.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

SEN. BROWNBACK: That’s something we should do.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you

So Brownback is complaining that other people put faith and science at odds with each other, but just last week he had this to say on the topic:

"Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."

Translation: I have a religious conviction that this event happened in the past, and any science that contradicts with that is atheistic nonsense. But it's them, not me, who's pitting science against faith by not tailoring their science to my faith.

Brownback

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), seen on the above making a presentation to the Senate, recently published an op-ed in the NY Times in which he explains exactly why he does not believe in evolution. No scientific arguments are included, even though it is really a scientific question. Instead, Brownback talks about how great faith is and how reason cannot contradict faith, concluding that "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science." My reaction can be found here.

The GOP and Evolution

At the Republican debate last night, the moderator asked if any of the ten candidates did not believe in evolution. Three of the ten(Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee) raised their hands.

Just to flesh things out a bit, let's see what these guys have had to say about the topic in the past:

Sam Brownback:

• "it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific assumption"
  -Speaking in support of the Santorum amendment (at S6152) which would have teachers present objections to evolution whenever it is taught in science classes

Mike Huckabee:

• "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism."
  -Arkansans Ask
  
• "I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people."
  -Arkansans Ask
• "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."
  -Arkansans Ask
• "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that....I believe there was a creative process.''
  -Associated Press