Reproductive Rights from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

McCain's Birth Control Dodge

Mike Lillis — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:46:14 GMT

It was not what he said, but what he didn't say that's caused the uproar. Asked this week about the iniquities between health insurance coverage for birth control and Viagra, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sidestepped the issue.

"It's something that I had not thought much about," he told a reporter not very straightforwardly from the Straight Talk Express, his campaign bus. "I don't usually duck an issue, but I'm -- I'll try to get back to you."

That evasive response could anger many women voters. For decades, women's rights advocates have battled for contraceptive coverage as a simple necessity of health and well being. Though there is no male equivalent to prescription contraceptives, the fact that Viagra is covered under some plans while birth control is not smacks many as unjust. That McCain declined to weigh in on the topic may well be difficult to remedy.

As the video of McCain's comments raced across the Web, the issue quickly became campaign-trail ammunition for Democrats as well as the reproductive-rights community. Both groups assailed the likely GOP presidential nominee for being out of touch when it comes to women's health.

"Women in America are still waiting for his answer," Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement.

But the issue of a federal mandate for covering prescription contraceptives is one that extends far beyond a single candidate in a single election season. Legislation that would require most health-insurance plans to cover birth control has been bouncing around Capitol Hill for years. But a combination of factors -- including insurance industry opposition, conservative ideology, the taboo nature of the topic and a male-dominated Congress -- has conspired to defeat each vote. While McCain has hardly been supportive of reproductive rights, women's health groups say, these other pressures have defined the debate.

Chief among these pressures has been opposition from the insurance industry, for which coverage regulations have historically been anathema. Not only do coverage mandates cost the companies more money, the industry argues, but they infringe upon the commercial liberties of free-market capitalism.

But advocates contend it would benefit the companies to prevent pregnancies, rather than having to pay for them. "It's a heck of a lot cheaper to cover contraception than to cover a birth," said Adam Sonfield, a senior public-policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research group.

In addition, many Americans tend to treat birth control as a lifestyle choice, not a health-care issue. Indeed, many conservatives tend to treat the issue as a personal choice falling outside the realm of public health.

But statistics point to a different reality. The average woman, for example, spends roughly five years of her life being pregnant or trying to get there, and nearly 30 years trying to avoid pregnancy, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America, a reproductive rights group.

Suzanne Novak, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that existing federal anti-discrimination laws should make it clear that health plans must include birth control.

"In comprehensive health plans, they cover all men's needs," she said. "But for women, they've got this carve-out."

Not that there haven't been some victories along the way. In 1998, for example, Congress passed legislation requiring that prescription birth control be covered for federal employees. The mandate, however, didn't include the private sector. In the absence of a federal law, 27 states -- including Arizona -- have enacted mandates of their own. Those state mandates have caused many national plans to cover birth control even in states where the mandate doesn't exist -- another factor dictating the absence of a federal statute.

"The pressure to do something at a federal level has been relieved by state mandates," said Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute.

The issue surfaced this week after Carly Fiorina, a high-profile McCain campaigner and possible running mate, wondered whether there isn't a bit of sexism underlying health coverage determinations.

"Let me give you a real, live example, which I've been hearing a lot about from women," the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said Monday, while discussing women's health issues in Washington. "There are many health-insurance plans that will cover Viagra, but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice."

But the comments don't mesh with McCain's record on the issue. Twice in the last decade -- in 2003 and 2005 -- the Arizona senator has voted against legislation requiring insurance plans that cover prescription drugs to also cover birth control. Confronted with Fiorina's sentiments, McCain was stuck: If he replied that it is, indeed, unfair that contraceptives are not covered, then he flip-flops on his earlier votes; if he answered no, then he risks alienating women voters. Instead, he punted.

"I don't recall the vote," McCain said. "I've cast thousands of votes in the Senate."

The saga also reveals the power of YouTube and other video-sharing Web sites to stir debate -- and uproar -- over campaign-trail happenings. Tait Sye, a Washington-based spokesman for Planned Parenthood, said the group has been trying for months to broadcast McCain's stance on reproductive rights -- without great success. Yet the arrival of one video clip has delivered the message in a few short days. It's not one that will play well with any Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters who might be seeking an alternative to her former Democratic rival, Barack Obama.

"The message to women voters is that he's either out of touch," Sye said, "or he doesn't care."

Or the issue is too discomforting for some lawmakers to approach.

"When it comes to something like contraception, people get very uncomfortable," Cohensaid. "That's an attitude that John McCain evinces."

McCain Ducks on Birth Control Coverage

Matthew DeLong — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 23:40:00 GMT

PORTSMOUTH, Ohio -- This delightful exchange between Sen. John McCain and a reporter took place aboard the Straight Talk Express bus during the trip from Huntington, W. Va. to the town hall meeting in Ohio. One of McCain’s senior advisers, Carly Fiorina, caused the senator a bit of discomfort when she brought up the inequity of insurance coverage for impotence drugs for men, but not birth control for women. Here is the unedited transcript, from the pool report:

Q: Earlier this week, Carly Fiorina was meeting with a bunch of reporters and talked about it being unfair that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. And -

McCain: I certainly do not want to discuss that issue. (uneasy laughter)

Q: But apparently you’ve voted against (McCain laughter continues)

McCain: I don’t know what I voted –

Q: Voted against coverage of birth control, forcing health insurance companies to cover birth control in the past. Is that still your position?

McCain: I’ll look at my voting record on it, but I have, uh, (5 second pause) I don’t recall the vote right now. But I’ll be glad to look at it and get back to you as to why, I don’t -

Q: I guess her statement was that it was unfair that health-insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Do you have an opinion on that?

McCain: (after 8 second pause) I don’t know enough about it to give you an informed answer because I don’t recall the vote, I’ve cast thousands of votes in the Senate. I will respond to – it’s a, it’s a (nervous)

Q: Delicate issue (McCain laughs).

McCain: It’s something that I had not thought much about and I did hear about her response but I hadn’t thought much. But I will get, I will get back to you today on it.

Q: OK.

McCain: I don’t usually duck an issue, but I’m, I’ll try to get back to you.

While we are not holding our breath for McCain to raise the issue again voluntarily -- considering how carefully McCain has courted religious conservatives, many of whom oppose even discussing birth control in school sexual-education programs -- we might not have to. Coincidentally, the McCain campaign announced today it will reach out to women voters by holding an exclusive, women-only town hall meeting Friday in Hudson, Wis. Hopefully, one attendee will read this report and pick up the birth-control mantle.

Another Year for Abstinence-Only Education Funding?

Jessica Pearce — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:25:00 GMT

Tucked into a Medicare spending bill that passed the House yesterday is a provision that would extend a controversial abstinence-only education program for another year. It's so controversial that 22 states have actually opted out of taking the funding. Two more states have said they plan to decline the funds when the new fiscal year begins in October. The AP reports:

Some $50 million has been budgeted for [the program] this year, and financially strapped states might be expected to want their share. But many have doubts that the program does much, if any good, and they're frustrated by chronic uncertainty that it will even be kept in existence. They also have to chip in state money in order to receive the federal grants.

Abstinence-only education has taken plenty of heat. A 2007 report from the Dept. of Health and Human Services-funded, independent Mathematica Policy Research Group found that such programs had "no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth." Nonetheless, the push for such programs lives on.

In April, TWI reporter Matthew Blake covered a hearing where the House oversight committee took a look at the issue. Matt noted at the time:

The hearing showed that social conservatives continue to shape the public debate on [abstinence-only education]. Abstinence-only education, one plank of Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract With America," is now a big part of the Bush administration's public-health agenda, receiving $1.3 billion since 1997. Despite the current calls to end funding, the conservatives who framed the abstinence-only policy have created a formidable obstacle for opponents to overcome.

The Senate still needs to pass its own version of Medicare's funding bill before we'll know if this has a chance of making it another year.

Planned Parenthood Teams Up With MoveOn.org Against McCain

Matthew DeLong — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:35:46 GMT

When you watch Planned Parenthood's new viral Web ad, you may get a strong feeling of déjà vu. You might notice it has essentially the same premise as an ad -- starring actor John Cusack -- that was recently released by MoveOn.org, the liberal 527 group. That's because the two advocacy organizations are joining forces in a "kNOw McCain" campaign, to link the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to the views and policies of President George W. Bush. Actually, the Planned Parenthood ad takes it a step further, asserting that McCain is actually more anti-reproductive rights than Bush.

Like the MoveOn.org ad, Planned Parenthood invites viewers to take the Bush-McCain challenge. In the minute and a half-long spot, titled "Bush-McCain: Can you tell the difference?," people on the street are quizzed to see if they can pick which of the two Republicans holds a variety of views concerning family planning, sex education, birth control, and Roe vs. Wade -- the supreme court decision that guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion. Sometimes the answer is both, and sometimes it's just McCain.

From a Planned Parenthood press release:

Since he’s been in Washington during the past 25 years, Senator McCain has consistently voted against women’s health. From opposing funding for family planning programs to voting against requiring insurance coverage of birth control, McCain has taken extreme positions against women’s health and has not supported legislation that would help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. This has earned him a zero rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the lowest rating possible in the U.S. Senate. Just as alarming, John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, potentially putting the lives and health of women in jeopardy.

With two attack ads released this week by liberal 527s -- nonprofit groups that can run political ads outside of Federal Elections Commission regulations -- it is only a matter of time before conservative groups start hitting back against the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. My guess is it will be a matter of days, not weeks.

Abstinence-Only Education Endures

Matthew Blake — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:52:40 GMT

A congressional hearing Wednesday by the House oversight committee promised to "assess the evidence" on abstinence-only sex education.

That evidence includes two independent reports that abstinence-only programs have no effect on teenage sexual activity and do not meet a basic scientific standard. These studies have led to a growing momentum in Congress to eliminate abstinence-only funding.

But instead of analyzing these studies, a four-hour hearing by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform rarely moved beyond championing the value of pre-marital abstinence. The discussion played into the central tenant of abstinence-only education: only abstinence, not condoms or contraception, can prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

The hearing showed that social conservatives continue to shape the public debate on this. Abstinence-only education, one plank of Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract With America," is now a big part of the Bush administration's public-health agenda, receiving $1.3 billion since 1997. Despite the current calls to end funding, the conservatives who framed the abstinence-only policy have created a formidable obstacle for opponents to overcome.

"It's going to be hard to make inroads," said Heather Boonstar, a senior fellow at the Guttmacher Public Policy Institute, an organization that conducts sexual health research, "Social conservatives are going to fight it tooth and nail."

The oversight hearing looked like the next step toward ending a program that only discusses condoms and contraception in terms of their failure rates, and teaches, "A mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity."

The effort to end it gained steam after a 2006 Government Accountability Office report on abstinence-only programs, funded by the federal government's Dept. of Health and Human Services. GAO, an auditing arm of Congress, found that the programs were exempt from the HHS's usual requirement that its programs must give medically accurate information about condoms. In addition, the three abstinence programs studied weren't producing clear results and lacked any self-evaluation for success.

Last April, the Dept. of Health and Human Services-funded Mathematica Policy Research Group did its own evaluation of abstinence education. Beginning in 1997, when the federal government first gave states a total of $50 million toward abstinence-only education, Mathematica researchers followed students in four abstinence-only programs. They found that "abstinence-only programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth."

Since Mathematica's findings, 17 states have said no to federal abstinence-only money. "Forty-two percent of teens now live in states that have turned down funding," Guttmacher said.

But the $50 million to state government's is only part of the $176 million in this year's federal budget for abstinence-only education. Of that money, $113 million is federal grants given directly to Community Based Abstinence Education, or CBAE, programs.

Following the reports, congressional Democrats have pushed to eliminate this money. But Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, kept the program in this year's health spending bill, saying it would make President George W. Bush less inclined to veto programs Democrats wanted -- like reproductive health clinics. "Abstinence-only was in jeopardy," said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institution Center on Children and Families. "But Obey cut a deal."

Last month, 76 House members wrote to Obey, urging him to expend political capital on eliminating the state and CBAE programs from next year's budget. "Our tax dollars should be used to fund programs that benefit the public good," wrote Rep. James Moran (D-Va.), "not on unsuccessful, ideologically driven boondoggles."

A group of legislators, including Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), have introduced the Responsible Education About Life or REAL Act. It would move abstinence-only education dollars to abstinence-plus, or comprehensive sex-education. These would emphasize that abstinence is the sure way to prevent STD's and pregnancy, but would also explain the use of condoms and other contraceptives.

Shays, the last New England white shoe Republican in the House, tried to explain his position on Wednesday. "Sometimes I think we're trying to repeal the laws of gravity here," Shays said Wednesday, "There are natural instincts that young people will have and the REAL Act provides medically accurate information about both safe sex and contraception."

But despite the reports and the shifting political winds, his GOP colleagues refused to see the debate as one about medical accuracy. "This is a deep disagreement among competing values," said Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). "Abstinence-only education is the only holistic approach to teach about the distressing elements of premarital sex."

Rather than ignore these emotional appeals, comprehensive sex-education proponents spent much of the hearing trying to prove they are pro-abstinence. "There is a broad consensus," Rep. Henry A. Waxman, the committee chairman, said in his opening statement, "that the benefits of abstinence should be part of any sex-education effort."

The concession that the federal government should value abstinence seemed to enable conservatives to stick with their tried-and-true logic. "There is no more scientific fact," said Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), "that abstinence is the only way to prevent STD's and pregnancy."

Foxx and other social conservative's uncompromising stance gained traction in 1994, when the Republicans took control of Congress. Gingrich, as House Speaker, emphasized abstinence-only laws as a way to reduce the number of out-of-wedlock teenage mothers. The Republican Congress slipped $50 million for abstinence education into the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, after the bill had passed the House and Senate.

The provision laid out clear eight-point or "A-H" guidelines of what must be taught in order to receive funding. These include assertions like, "Sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."

Abstinence funding increased by $13 million in 1999, when Congress created the CBAE federal grants. The grants then grew exponentially under the Bush administration, going from $20 million in 2001, to its current level of $113 million in 2005.

Marcella Howell, a vice-president for Advocates for Youth, a nonprofit organization devoted to sex education, said abstinence education was an early priority of Bush's social agenda. "He kept saying during the 2000 presidential campaign he was going to triple abstinence funding," Howell said. "It was a component of his faith-based initiatives."

With Bush on his way out, Howell said that prioritizing abstinence education might be as well. "Democrats on the appropriations committee may feel enough pressure to eliminate the program," Howell said

But Howell said that for the funding to end, the debate must shift away from conservative ideology and toward accurate information.

On Wednesday, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). offered a brief glimpse of one such discussion. "The GAO when they do this report is a neutral arbiter," Welch said. "And the GAO has concluded these abstinence-only programs are not achieving results."

Correction: An earlier version of this story reported that Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) represents a district in Massachusetts.

Dingell to Investigate 'Abortion' Search Ban

Mike Lillis — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT

In the wake of news that a federally funded reproductive health database was programmed earlier this year to ignore searches containing the word "abortion," Congress has gotten in on the act.

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) announced today that the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which he chairs, will investigate the manipulation of the Population Information Online database, run by The Johns Hopkins University and funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Reports indicate that university employees blocked "abortion" searches after USAID officials expressed concerns that two articles contained in the database centered on abortion advocacy.

POPLINE is the largest database of its kind in the world, holding roughly 360,000 articles and records related to reproductive health.

In letters to both Hopkins and USAID, Dingell announced his investigation into "the restriction of scientific inquiry," and asked leaders of both offices to provide details about how the decision was made.

I am concerned that the restriction of certain search terms in the POPLINE database is an ideological decision, and not in line with the spirit of free scientific inquiry intended by the creation of such a database. In addition I am concerned that such a complete restriction was mandated after only two specific items were identified as questionable by POPLINE's funding agency.

Dingell said he wants responses two weeks from today. But given this administration's track record on releasing internal documents, he might not want to hold his breath.

More Stupid TV

Arthur Allen — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:50:16 GMT

The Today Show ran a groveling interview with ex-Playboy bunny and newfound alternative med-queen Jenny McCarthy on Wednesday. The text of the interview is here, on the Website of the anti-vaccine group Age of Autism. The way that the alleged journalists on this program fawn over McCarthy is troubling:

Jenny: “I wish a member of the CDC, or the FDA or American Academy of Pediatrics could stand next to me on the front lines, and go with me across the country to see these women who have a voice that no ones listening to. And I say, you know what- they might have silenced our kids, but they are not going to silence the mothers.”

Reporter #2 (Ann Curry): “Well they certainly haven’t silenced you and your son is doing really well.”

Reporter #1 (Natalie Morales): “Good for you.”

Jenny: “Oh ya- we’re gunna...” (makes a hand gesture like she’s punching someone)

Reporter #1 (Natalie Morales): “You’re going to fight. You’re going to fight all the way”.

Jenny: “Ya”

Reporter #1 (Natalie Morales): “Well I know a lot of moms across the country are applauding your message today.”

Reporter #2 (Ann Curry): “Jenny McCarthy affecting our hearts and our funny bone.”

It's troubling because of the fact that they're sending a message to millions of parents who watch this claptrap. The message is that vaccines are dangerous, that it's better not to vaccinate your kids. Vaccination is a cornerstone of public health, and if vaccination rates fall we could be struggling with diseases that have been wiped out in this country. That's the reality. But scientists don't make good TV. They have an uncomfortable habit of cautiously sticking to the facts. And with the Bush Administration cutting into federal science budgets and independence, they don't have the clout or credibility to fight back. I, for one, find this depressing.

Abortion Ban For American Indians Only

Mike Lillis — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:51:09 GMT

Following scant debate, the Senate last week approved an amendment to an Indian health care bill that would permanently prohibit the use of federal dollars to fund abortions for Native Americans except in rare cases. The move has prompted an outcry from women's health advocates -- who point out that a similar ban has existed on a temporary basis for years -- and from tribal groups, who are asking why Native American women should be subject to restrictions not applicable to other ethnic groups. Some charge that the Senate proposal is overtly racist.

The issue is a sensitive one in American Indian communities, where women are statistically more likely to be victims of rape or sexual assault than other American women -- but also where victims very rarely use the exceptions to the current federally funded abortion ban in the wake of those crimes. In the face of that discrepancy, advocates say, Congress should encourage victims to take advantage of the available services, not impose tighter restrictions.

The debate pits anti-abortion lawmakers on both sides of the aisle against health-care advocates who fear the latest move could set the stage for broader abortion prohibitions under federal programs outside the realm of Indian health services. In addition, there is the intrigue of scandal, for the sponsor of the controversial amendment, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), made headlines last year for his earlier entanglement in a prostitution ring. Several abortion-rights sources suggested that Vitter -- who built his political career on family-values issues -- is trying to bolster his conservative credentials in the wake of that embarrassment.

The controversy swirls around a federal law -- known as the Hyde amendment -- that prohibits abortion coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and Indian Health Service programs. While the Hyde law must be renewed by Congress each year, the Vitter amendment -- which the Senate approved on Feb. 26 -- would apply Hyde's restrictions permanently to IHS beneficiaries. For that reason, tribal health advocates charge that the Vitter language treads on the sovereignty of Indian communities and places unique constraints on native women.

"It's a very racist amendment," said Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center, "[because] it puts another layer of restrictions on the only race of people whose health care is governed primarily by the federal government. All women are subject to the Hyde amendment, so why would they put another set of conditions on us?"

Vitter's office did not return several calls and e-mails requesting comment.

A number of women's health groups have criticized the Vitter amendment as well, claiming it will have no practical effect on women's health services.

"Apart from being bad public health policy," Planned Parenthood said in a statement, "this language is duplicative of current law and serves only to politicize important legislation regarding comprehensive health care for Native Americans."

Though the Hyde amendment -- named for its sponsor, the late Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde (R ) -- first took effect in 1977, Congress must reapply it annually through the appropriations process. That, according to Vitter, puts the Hyde language "in a tenuous and precarious posture. It puts it up for debate and possible change of policy every year, every time we debate a new Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Therefore, it doesn't make the policy very solid, very secure, or very clear."

Vitter's amendment, attached last week to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, would eliminate that uncertainty by codifying the Hyde amendment as a matter of authorization, not appropriation. "I suggest that would be a positive statement for life, for positive values for the future," he said on the Senate floor Jan. 22 -- the same day that thousands of anti-abortion marchers descended on Washington. A month later, the Senate approved Vitter's amendment by a vote of 52 to 42.

But critics say the creation of a second law governing IHS-funded abortion services might confuse the issue if inconsistencies are found between the two mandates. Indeed, certain elements of Vitter's amendment stray from the Hyde language. For example, while Hyde allows federally funded abortions for victims of incest at any age, Vitter specifies that the incest exception pertains only to minors.

Marlene Fried, a founding board member of the National Network of Abortion Funds, said the practical implications of that difference would be minimal. Still, she added, the change is significant as "another way of narrowing the [Hyde] exceptions."

The issue is especially charged because Native American women are more than three times as likely to suffer rape and sexual abuse as other women in the United States. Yet despite that statistic, only 25 abortions were performed at all IHS facilities between 1981 and 2001, according to figures gathered from the IHS by the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center. (An IHS spokeswoman declined to release more recent IHS-funded abortion figures, suggesting that a reporter file a Freedom Of Information Act request.)

But, advocates say, Indian women continue to have the procedure off the reservation. "Native American women have abortions," Asetoyer said, "and anyone who tells you differently is out of touch with their community."

Susan Cohen, the director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive health research group, said the Hyde restrictions don't prevent abortions, but they can delay them as low-income women are forced to save the money to fund the procedures out-of-pocket. That delay, Cohen added, can lead to dangerous complications. "Having later abortions is in no one's best interest," she said.

Meanwhile, some tribal advocates are concerned that the Vitter amendment might carry additional political significance, as the Senate bill now moves to the House for consideration. Several sources said the controversial amendment is potentially a poison pill for the overall bill, for House Democratic leaders have been loathe to codify the Hyde amendment.

Not that the issue is entirely partisan. A number of Democratic lawmakers voted to approve the Vitter provision last week, including Sens. Ken Salazar (Col.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). Of that group, Landrieu and Johnson are up for reelection this year in relative conservative states, with Landrieu facing a tight race.

Three Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (Me.), Olympia Snowe (Me.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- voted against the amendment. All three have historic records of bucking their party on the abortion issue.

Vitter, for his part, voted against the final IHCIA bill on the same day that his amendment passed. The final bill was approved, however, by a count of 83 to 10.

Pro-Sex Rebellion Spreads to Des Moines

Jefferson Morley — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:50:57 GMT

Iowa is the 17th state to turn down federal funding for abstinence-only sex education, reports the Iowa Independent.