(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(D) Julie Gonzales
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
40%
20%
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Hetal Doshi
50%
40%↓
30%
(D) Jeff Bridges
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
50%↑
40%↓
30%
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Wanda James
(D) Milat Kiros
80%
20%
10%↓
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Alex Kelloff
(R) H. Scheppelman
60%↓
40%↓
30%↑
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) E. Laubacher
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
30%↑
20%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
55%↓
45%↑
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Shannon Bird
(D) Manny Rutinel
45%↓
30%
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
The article is no surprise. To paraphrase closely, the principal doesn’t agree that his school should teach teens about birth control. But the current comprehensive program that does teach abstinence and contraception will be retained.
When data indicate that comprehensive sex ed tilts toward fewer teen pregnancies and about the same amount of sex and std’s, it seems like it only helps and causes no harm.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…
But read the comments from DP readers. Or at least DP comment posters, since it’s not at all clear they all read the article.
And here’s where I gotta wonder- why is abortion an all or nothing proposition? I understand the anti-abortion position. Like most Americans, I could support some restrictions. But if the goal is to eliminate abortion, shouldn’t reducing the amount of abortion be a desirable incremental goal?
Especially when there is no political will for a total ban.
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Comments