HHS removes LGBTQ+ 'gender ideology' from teen pregnancy program
The Department of Health and Human Services policy, announced in a July 1 memo to grantees, bans grant-funded programs from teaching about sex that is not heterosexual vaginal intercourse. It also bans "the eroticization of birth control methods" and bans any content on creating more pleasurable sexual experiences.
The policy goes on to prohibit any discussion of youth experiencing gender dysphoria or expressing transgender identities.
"The statute does not require, support, or authorize teaching minors about (ideological) content, including the radical ideological claim that boys can identify as girls and vice versa," the memo to grant recipients says. "Programs must be aimed at reducing teen pregnancy, not instructing in such ideological content."
Public health experts say the move could further stigmatize LGBTQ+ youth, who have higher rates of teen pregnancy than their heterosexual peers, and often feel less comfortable speaking to parents or health care providers about sex.
Emily Hilliard, the press secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that the new policy "ensures that taxpayer dollars no longer support content that undermines parental rights, promotes radical gender ideology, or exposes children to sexually explicit material under the banner of public health."
Corina T. Lelutiu-Weinberger, an associate professor of health sciences research at Columbia University in New York, said teen pregnancy rates are already disproportionately high among bisexual girls, so making it harder to talk about their sexual behavior puts them at higher risk.
A 2018 study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that bisexual girls had "nearly five times the risk of teen pregnancy, and those who identified as mostly heterosexual or lesbian had about twice the risk compared to teens who were completely heterosexual." Most of the disparity was explained by physical, emotional or sexual abuse.
Lelutiu-Weinberger said youth tend to figure out their sexuality alone because they don't want to talk about it with their parents. She said LGBTQ+ people also tend to have a harder time talking about sex with health care providers, who often are not comfortable about talking about sex, or may have their own biases.
"There is a lot of discomfort and mislabeling and often there are no conversations," Lelutiu-Weinberger said. "And both parties are uncomfortable bringing it up because of fear of stigma."
Amelia Stanton, a Boston University professor and investigator for the Sexual, Reproductive and Mental Health Disparities Program, said the changes don't align with science or promote the best interest of public health.
"If we're limiting that information, we're not offering tools for planning," Stanton said. "We're not offering the opportunity to really learn how to prevent STIs or how to have agency in sexual activity."
Stanton said heterosexual intercourse might align more with traditional values, but failing to teach kids about oral sex, anal sex and other sexual behavior that carries risk for sexually transmitted infections will cause the rates of those infections to increase.
Nearly half the nation's cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis in 2023 were reported in people 15 to 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Infections were disproportionately high among men who had sex with men.
Shanker, the former Biden aide, said that Congress created the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program in 2010 under President Barack Obama to replace an abstinence-only sex education model in place under President George W. Bush.
"We have a comprehensive program that's highly effective, and they're tinkering with it for political purposes instead of trying to achieve public health results for the American people," Shanker said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Columbia University's $220m Trump settlement exposes the Left's basic hypocrisy
Columbia University has just agreed to a massive $220 million settlement with the Trump administration after a fight that centred around rampant anti-Semitism on campus. The university has also agreed to a number of policy reforms, designed to limit future attacks on Jewish students and faculty. Of the settlement, $200 million will go to the federal government and the remaining $20 million to settle employment discrimination claims. Separately, the university has suspended or expelled students who seized the university library in the name of anti-Zionism. The headlines imply that Columbia's settlement is unique, but it may not remain that way for long. Harvard's former president, Larry Summers, a former Secretary of the Treasury, has said the deal should set a template for Harvard to settle its own deepening clash with the Trump administration. The issues at the two universities are similar. Left-wing academics are already furious about the Columbia deal, saying it is pure extortion and an unprecedented intrusion into academic affairs. The 'extortion' charge focuses on the Trump administration's efforts to cut Columbia's huge flow of federal money for research and limit its permission for foreign students to enrol. The issues regarding foreign students involve virtually all universities, and are still being argued in federal court. But the Left-wing attacks are largely wrong. They are right in saying that the Trump administration's initial demands went too far in seeking to supervise teaching, appointments, and scholarly work. Those would be wholly inappropriate intrusions into areas where university faculty and administrators should have sole control, as long as they comply with federal law. For any university to approve that kind of intrusion would stifle free speech and set a terrible precedent. Fortunately, those excesses are not part of the Columbia agreement. Where the Leftist criticism is wrong is to call financial threats against universities 'unprecedented' and to say that the Trump administration is using the fight against anti-Semitism as a mask for other punitive policies. For years, under Democratic administrations, the federal government has threatened severe financial sanctions against universities that did not comply with bureaucratic regulations. Those threats went unnoticed, beyond a narrow circle who were directly involved. Why didn't you hear about those threats? For two reasons. First, universities caved in very quickly because they were desperate for federal money. Second, most university faculty and administrators actually agreed with the then-government's politicised, progressive agenda. The mainstream media agreed with it, too, so they rarely if ever reported on this bureaucratic overreach. I saw this supine agreement first hand when federal bureaucrats audited the hiring practices of a major university. The university's DEI administrator told a small, supervisory committee of faculty that the university had completed a federal audit and was in full compliance with all laws and regulations. Then the administrator announced that the federal bureaucrats were demanding 'only a few changes' – demands that went beyond any legal requirements but advanced the bureaucrats' ideological goals. Faced with those demands, every scientist involved in the decision-making favoured immediate compliance with the government's extra-legal demands. Why? Because their research depended on federal money and they couldn't risk a drawn-out conflict, which could hold up their funding. The same hidden fist lay behind the government's effort to require the inclusion of biological men in women's collegiate sports. The threat is that the government will cut off money for other grants if you don't buckle to those demands. You never heard about those threats because universities assented to them so quickly. As for anti-Semitism on campus, it is wilful blindness not to see its pervasive, malign force today. It has been particularly visible and pernicious at Ivy League universities, except for Dartmouth, and at flagship state research universities, except for those in the South. As anti-Semitism has spread across university campuses, administrators and faculty have done little to stop it. Neither did the Biden administration. Many university administrators effectively tolerated the harassment of Jewish students and did almost nothing to punish the malefactors, at least until this week at Columbia. In some cases, faculty – especially in the Humanities, some Social Sciences, and some graduate programmes (notably, schools of divinity and social work) – actively supported the disruptions. The rationale is that social justice demands anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism quickly turns into full-scale anti-Semitism. If the settlement at Columbia and that university's belated decision to punish students who took over the library sets a precedent for other universities, that's good news and a victory for the basic Western values of religious toleration and civil discourse. The impact is likely to be felt well beyond Columbia University. Now that the Trump administration has scored a major win in this culture war, expect them to keep pressing other universities. Two final points about the Trump administration's willingness to confront Columbia and Harvard. First, taking on elite institutions is smart politics for a president who is reshaping his party around populist goals. Second, Trump is characteristically going head to head with the strongest adversaries he can find, not the weakest. He is not going after some small teaching college, which would undoubtedly cave quickly because it needs the money. He is going after Harvard, which has the deepest pockets of any university and a campus population that generally loathes him. Confronting them is a high risk strategy for Trump, but a high reward one, too. When the top Ivy League schools begin to settle with Trump, as Columbia just has, who else can resist? That question must be echoing through the ivied halls in Cambridge, New Haven, and Princeton. The answer, they will conclude, is increasingly obvious. It's time to strike a deal.
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
John Swinney responds to Mhairi Black leaving SNP
Black, who spent nine years as an MP, said the party's 'capitulation' on trans rights was part of the reason for her decision. She stressed she still supports Scottish independence but there have been 'too many times' when she did not agree with decisions made by the party. She told The Herald newspaper: 'Basically, for a long time, I've not agreed with quite a few decisions that have been made. READ MORE: The National newspaper front page as Donald Trump visits Scotland 'There have just been too many times when I've thought, 'I don't agree with what you've done there' or the decision or strategy that has been arrived at.' Black (below) said she is 'still just as pro-independence, absolutely', but claimed the party's 'capitulation on LGBT rights, trans rights in particular' had been an issue for her. (Image: Colin Mearns) She added: 'I thought the party could be doing better about Palestine as well.' The former MP said: 'If anything, I'm probably a bit more left-wing than I have been. I don't think I have changed all that much. I feel like the party needs to change a lot more.' Swinney however insisted the [[SNP]] will 'champion' [[LGBT]] rights under his leadership, adding the party is also using its 'international voice' to push the UK Government to take a more 'robust' stance on [[Palestine]]. Speaking to the PA news agency, he said: 'I very much regret the decision that Mhairi Black has come to leave the Scottish National Party. 'I wish it wasn't the case and I wish her well for all that lies ahead. 'The [[SNP]] is a party that is addressing the core considerations and concerns of the people of Scotland, around the eradication of child poverty, around ensuring we succeed in our journey to net zero, that we are able to improve the performance of the National Health Service, and we address the cost of living challenge that people face in our society. 'But we're also a party with an international voice, pressuring the United Kingdom Government to be more robust on the steps its take to ensure that the interests of the people of Palestine are addressed and the suffering of the people of Palestine is brought to an end. 'We are a party under my leadership that will champion the rights of all within our society, and making sure that we have the strongest possible position on LGBTQ rights in Scotland.' Black was catapulted into the political limelight in 2015 when she was elected to Westminster at the age of just 20, becoming the youngest MP since 1832. READ MORE: Anas Sarwar backs 'immediate recognition' of Palestinian state She was elected as the MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, ousting the former Labour cabinet secretary Douglas Alexander, as the [[SNP]] captured all but three of the seats in Scotland in the first general election since the independence vote in 2014. She became the [[SNP]]'s deputy leader in the House of Commons when Stephen Flynn took over as group leader. However she stepped down as an MP at the 2024 election, blaming the 'toxic' environment at Westminster. She was also diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) during her time at Westminster, saying previously the condition was picked up after she became unwell with 'burn-out' during her time as an MP. An [[SNP]] spokesperson said: 'The [[SNP]] is the largest political party in Scotland, united under John Swinney's vision of creating a better, fairer Scotland for everyone. 'After a year of disappointment and let-downs from the UK Labour Government, it's clear that real change will never come from Westminster and that independence is essential for a better future.'
The Independent
8 hours ago
- The Independent
$200M Columbia payout a ‘blueprint' for Trump to squeeze Harvard and other Gaza protest schools: report
The Trump administration views the recent $200 million deal with Columbia University as a 'blueprint' for how it can squeeze Harvard and other top colleges over claims they have failed to tackle antisemitism on campus, according to a report. Columbia agreed to pay the Trump administration a $200 million settlement in exchange for access to federal funding that was cut over claims the Ivy League school failed to combat antisemitism, the university announced Wednesday. The college laid off nearly 180 staffers in May after funds were cut. It comes as President Donald Trump's White House has for months attempted to bend Harvard and other academic institutions to ideologically driven demands. The deal with Columbia has paved the way for negotiations with other top schools, including Cornell, Brown, Duke and Northwestern, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited an unnamed White House official. In Harvard's case, the school has fought back in a lawsuit arguing that the government has illegally cut $2.6 billion of its federal funding. The Trump administration hopes to make an example of the country's oldest academic institution. 'The White House hopes to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from Harvard, in a deal that would make Columbia's $200 million payment look like peanuts,' the Journal reports, citing a person familiar with the talks. The Independent has contacted Harvard, Cornell, Brown, Duke, Northwestern and the White House for comment. The Trump administration pulled research funding from Columbia over what it described as the university's failure to deal with antisemitism on campus during the Israel- Hamas war that began in October 2023. Columbia then agreed to a series of demands laid out by the administration, including overhauling the university's student disciplinary process and adopting a new definition of antisemitism. Wednesday's agreement, which does not include any admission of wrongdoing, codifies those reforms while preserving the university's autonomy, acting University President Claire Shipman said. But the deal has divided academics and university leaders. 'This cannot be a template for the government's approach to American higher education,' Ted Mitchell, president of the university lobbying group American Council on Education, told the Journal. Mitchell said it was 'chilling' that Columbia's fine came without typical due process when investigating antisemitism claims. 'We're in a world now where the government can say to all these schools, 'Hey, we're serious, you're going to have to pay the piper to get along with the most powerful organization in the world,'' Michael Roth, president of Connecticut's Wesleyan University told the outlet. 'Which is the federal government.' Elsewhere, Harvard's former president Lawrence Summers lauded the deal as 'an excellent template' for other universities in a post on X. 'This may be the best day higher education has had in the last year,' he wrote, arguing that the deal 'preserved academic freedom.'
