Sex+Ed+in+Washington

= =

=Amy Flores= p.1 = = = = = = Ross Douthat comes to the conclusion that "if the fedral govornment wants to invest in the fight against teenage pregnancy, the funds should be available to states and localities without any ideological strings attached". In other words the government should keep funding abstinence programs and sex-ed classes to those state intrested. I am in agreance with his claim; family, friends, culture, self- essteem, and economics all influate a person's perspective on abstinence-versus-contraception. Therefore why invest money on states and teens who aren't intrested and won't receive the knowledge and impact it on their lives. The contravesial topics "drags the national government into a debate that should remain intensely local" as quoted by Douthat.Personally I found the sex-ed program in fifth grade benefitial, the whole class was really engaged and I believe we all gained life long knowledge. Challenge, Qualify or Defend the argument made in this article here:=====

== ==

[]
== == ==The author's agrument in this article is that the federal government should have no input on these teen-abstinence programs and teen pregnancy and that it should just stay local. My experience from taking an American Government class has led to agree with this. In my American Government class, I learned about the fine line of how much power the governement should have, and the problems that can occur if they cross that line. In the article, the author states that if the federal government wants to spend money in the fight against teen pregnancy, then that money should be available to the sate and localities because this is not a "one size fits all" situtation. The communties in Alabama want something completely different than the communtites in California or anywhere else. Therefore, the local governments should be in charge of handling and funding this situation to better adjust the needs of their population, not the federal governments.==