In today's Wall Street Journal --

"A push to promote sexual abstinence in teens -- backed by a steady increase in federal funding -- is starting to affect the way sex ed is taught in the U.S. In middle schools and high schools aross the country, sex-ed classes that discuss birth control as a way to prevent pregnancy and sexual diseases are increasingly being replaced or supplemented y curricula that promote abstinence until marriage and discuss contraceptives primarily in terms of their failure rates.

... The expansion of abstinence programs has been propelled by a steady increase in government funding ... Schools and other groups that accept the federal funding have to promote abstinence and play down the effectiveness of contraception. In January the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services effectively tightened its restrictions on what abstinence courses can teach ... an acceptable curriculum should include teaching about 'the potential psychological side effects (e.g., depression and suicide) associated with adolescent sexual activity' and stess points such as the following: 'Non-marital sex in teen years may reduce the probability of a stable, happy marriage as an adult' and 'Teen sexual ativity is associated with decreased school completion, decreased educational attainment and decreased income potential.'

... A bill in south Dakota seeks to prevent any instruction in the use of contraceptives in sex-ed classes. A bill under consideration in Missouri would prohibit groups that provide abortions from teaching sex ed in the schools, effectively banning organizations such as Planned Parenthood.

...'In my view, prevention strategies should be about getting someone not to do that behavior,' says Wade Horn, assistant secretary for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ' It's a message that parents and teens want.'"

Note that this is governmental behavior that amounts to lies, coercion, and intimidation. As it happens, an artical in the latest issue of GQ also deals with the trend. I found the following comment insightful:

"America's young people made love not war. But that dream failed, and people who watched it fail are dreaming an obverse dream: to usher in an age of peace and freedom by making war on making love."

Here comes my own:

Stupidity alone is not responsible for this. It has to be stupidity conspiring with inability -- being unable to enjoy as they in their midlife have lost any appetite, and perhaps competence as well, and forgotten all the joys and sufferings once young -- and the brazenness to call that inability a higher moral standard for the youth. Just how outrageous must that be.