THE BANALITY OF EVIL: TRUMP'S FOLLOWERS AND THE DANGERS OF BLIND OBEDIENCE

THE BANALITY OF EVIL: TRUMP'S FOLLOWERS AND THE DANGERS OF BLIND OBEDIENCE

As we reflect on the events of January 6th, it's easy to label Trump's followers as red-eyed monsters, blindly following their leader into a violent insurrection. But the truth is much more banal and disturbing. These were ordinary Americans, blinded by their own prejudices and empowered by Trump's violent rhetoric.

The concept of the banality of evil, coined by philosopher Hannah Arendt (*see below), helps us understand how ordinary people can commit extraordinary acts of evil. Arendt witnessed this firsthand during the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official responsible for organizing the deportation of millions of Jews to concentration camps. Eichmann was not a sadistic monster, but rather a "bureaucrat" who was more concerned with following orders than with the consequences of his actions.

Similarly, many of Trump's followers were not inherently evil, but rather ordinary people who were swept up in his dangerous rhetoric. They were told to "take action" and "stop the steal," and they obeyed without question. The Milgram experiment(*see below) showed us that ordinary people are capable of committing great evil if they are ordered to do so by an authority figure. Trump became that authority figure for his followers.

But we must not excuse their actions. Blind obedience is dangerous and can lead to horrific consequences. We must be willing to think critically about our actions and challenge authority when necessary. We must also be vigilant in defending our individual conscience and moral values.

President Joe Biden has warned that Trump is a threat to American democracy, and he is right. Trump's false message that the election was stolen and his efforts to pressure Congress and Vice President Pence to overturn the result led to the violent insurrection at the Capitol. Legal experts are split on whether Trump could face criminal liability for his role in these events, but testimony from rioters who felt directed to take part in illegal acts by his speech could inform a decision by prosecutors about whether to attempt to build a case.

The banality of evil is a reminder that we are all capable of doing terrible things, especially when we are placed in difficult or dangerous situations. It is important to be aware of this and to take steps to prevent ourselves from becoming perpetrators of evil. We must challenge authority when necessary, and we must stand up for what is right, even when it is difficult.

As we move forward as a nation, we must remember the lessons of the banality of evil. We must resist blind obedience and challenge authority when necessary. We must defend our individual conscience and moral values. And we must never forget the dangers of following a leader who seeks to divide us and incite violence.

Biden warns Trump, 'MAGA' movement threaten American democracy | Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-warn-threat-democracy-trump-honor-mccain-2023-09-28/ 

The Trump world’s assault on the people who administer U.S. elections https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/campaign-of-fear/ 

Trump Attacks on Prosecutors and Judges Raise Safety Concerns | TIME https://time.com/6303523/trump-prosecutors-violent-threats/ 

'No Blame?' ABC News finds 54 cases invoking 'Trump' in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults. - ABC News https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889 

Trump targeted prosecutors in D.C. election case with threats, harassment, according to district judge | PBS NewsHour https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-targeted-prosecutors-in-d-c-election-case-with-threats-harassment-according-to-district-judge

Trump Wants His Enemies to Fear for Their Lives https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/09/trump-milley-death-fbi-threats.html 

Trump’s threats to Milley fuel fears he’ll seek vengeance in second term | The Hill https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4224405-trumps-threats-to-milley-fuel-fears-hell-seek-vengeance-in-second-term/ 

‘Trump said to do so’: Accounts of rioters who say the president spurred them to rush the Capitol could be pivotal testimony - The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rioters-testimony/2021/01/16/01b3d5c6-575b-11eb-a931-5b162d0d033d_story.html 

Trump is explaining exactly how wild and extreme his second term would be | CNN Politics https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/11/politics/trump-wild-rhetoric-2024/index.html 

THE DEFT DIVE

FROM BARD AI 

The banality of evil is a term coined by the German-born American philosopher Hannah Arendt in her 1963 book *Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil*. Arendt used the term to describe the disturbing phenomenon of ordinary people committing extraordinary acts of evil.

Arendt's book is a report on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking Nazi official who was responsible for organizing the deportation of millions of Jews to concentration camps. Eichmann was captured in Argentina in 1960 and put on trial in Jerusalem in 1961. He was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and was executed in 1962.

Arendt attended the Eichmann trial and was struck by how ordinary Eichmann seemed. She described him as a "bureaucrat" who was more concerned with following orders and advancing his career than with the consequences of his actions. Eichmann was not a sadistic monster or a rabid anti-Semite, Arendt argued. Instead, he was a "banal person" who was capable of committing great evil because he was unable to think critically about his actions.

Arendt's concept of the banality of evil has been controversial, but it has also been influential. It has helped us to understand how ordinary people can become involved in atrocities, and it has challenged the idea that evil is always perpetrated by monsters.

The banality of evil is a reminder that we are all capable of evil, and that we must constantly be on guard against it. We must be willing to think critically about our actions and to challenge authority when necessary. We must also be willing to stand up for what is right, even when it is difficult.

Here are some examples of the banality of evil in the real world:

• * Nazi soldiers who carried out the Holocaust were not all sadistic monsters. Many of them were ordinary people who were simply following orders.
• * American soldiers who committed atrocities in the Vietnam War were often ordinary young men who had been drafted into the army and were trying to do their job.
• * Police officers who use excessive force against civilians are often not bad people. They are simply making bad decisions in the heat of the moment.

The banality of evil is a reminder that we are all capable of doing terrible things, especially when we are placed in difficult or dangerous situations. It is important to be aware of this and to take steps to prevent ourselves from becoming perpetrators of evil.

Here are some things we can do to prevent the banality of evil:

• * Think critically about our actions and the consequences of our choices.
• * Challenge authority when necessary.
• * Stand up for what is right, even when it is difficult.
• * Be aware of the dangers of groupthink and conformity.
• * Speak out against injustice and discrimination.
• * Promote education and critical thinking skills.

The banality of evil is a serious problem, but it is one that we can overcome if we are vigilant and committed to doing what is right.

*The Milgram experiment was a series of psychology experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram at Yale University in the early 1960s. The experiment examined the willingness of ordinary people to obey the orders of an authority figure, even when those orders contradicted their own moral sense.

In the experiment, participants were told that they were participating in a study of learning and memory. They were instructed to administer a series of electric shocks to a learner (who was actually an actor) each time the learner made a mistake. The shocks were fake, but the participants believed that they were real.

As the experiment progressed, the shocks became increasingly severe. The learner screamed in pain and begged to be stopped. However, the experimenter (who was actually Milgram himself) continued to order the participants to administer the shocks.

Despite the obvious distress of the learner, a surprisingly large number of participants continued to obey the experimenter's orders. In fact, two-thirds of the participants went all the way to the end of the experiment and administered the maximum shock.

The Milgram experiment has been widely criticized for its ethical implications. However, it remains one of the most important and influential psychology experiments ever conducted. It has helped us to understand the power of obedience and the dangers of groupthink.

The Milgram experiment has had a number of important implications. It has shown that ordinary people are capable of committing great evil if they are ordered to do so by an authority figure. It has also shown that we are all susceptible to the power of groupthink and the desire to conform to the expectations of others.

The Milgram experiment is a reminder that we must always be on guard against the dangers of obedience and conformity. We must also be willing to think critically about our actions and to challenge authority when necessary.

Here are some of the lessons we can learn from the Milgram experiment:

• * Ordinary people are capable of committing great evil if they are ordered to do so by an authority figure.
• * We are all susceptible to the power of groupthink and the desire to conform to the expectations of others.
• * We must be willing to think critically about our actions and to challenge authority when necessary.
• * We must be vigilant in defending our individual conscience and our moral values.

The Milgram experiment is a powerful and disturbing reminder of the human capacity for evil. However, it is also a reminder that we have the power to resist evil and to choose the right thing to do, even when it is difficult.

PHILLY CHARTER SCHOOLS: THE BEYONCE OF EDUCATION OR JUST ANOTHER ONE HIT WONDER

PHILLY CHARTER SCHOOLS: THE BEYONCE OF EDUCATION OR JUST ANOTHER ONE HIT WONDER

Ah, Philadelphia charter schools. The topic that's more controversial than a cheesesteak with ketchup. But fear not, dear readers, for I have embarked on a quest to uncover the truth about these elusive institutions. And let me tell you, it's been a wild ride.

First off, let's talk about how charter schools work. They receive government funding but are managed privately by nonprofits. It's like if the government gave you money to start a lemonade stand, but then you got to make up your own lemonade recipe and charge whatever you wanted for it. Sounds pretty sweet, right?

But not everyone is a fan of this setup. Some argue that charter schools take away funding from public schools, leaving them with less resources to educate the students who need it the most. Others say that charter schools cherry-pick the best students, leaving public schools with a disproportionate number of students who require more resources and support.

So what's the deal with Philly charter schools specifically? Well, according to a series of reports by The Logan Center for Urban Investigative Reporting and Chalkbeat Philadelphia, there's a lot of work to be done. The reports found that charter schools in Philly are more racially segregated than public schools, and that students with disabilities are less likely to attend charter schools than their peers in public schools.

But wait, there's more! The reports also found that some charter schools in Philly have been caught inflating their enrollment numbers to receive more funding. It's like when your little brother tries to sneak an extra cookie from the jar, except instead of cookies it's taxpayer dollars.

But before we completely write off charter schools, let's acknowledge that they do have some benefits. Charter schools can design their own curriculums and electives, which can be tailored to the needs and interests of their students. And some charter schools have shown impressive academic results, particularly in low-income communities.

So what's the verdict? Are Philly charter schools good or bad? The answer is...complicated. There are certainly issues that need to be addressed, but it's not all doom and gloom. As with most things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Now, let's talk about something even more exciting than charter schools: the Philadelphia Renaissance Schools. These are public schools that have undergone a transformation to improve academic performance and student outcomes. It's like when Cinderella goes from rags to riches, except instead of a fairy godmother it's a team of educators and administrators.

But here's where things get really interesting: Cherelle Parker, the Democratic nominee for Philadelphia mayor, has some strong opinions on charter schools. She's been vocal about her support for Philadelphia Renaissance Schools, but has also expressed concerns about the impact of charter schools on public education.

So what does all of this mean for the future of education in Philly? It means that there's a lot of work to be done, and a lot of tough decisions to be made. But if we can come together and focus on what's best for our students, we can create a brighter future for everyone.

In conclusion, Philly charter schools are like a cheesesteak with onions: some people love them, some people hate them, and everyone has an opinion. But no matter where you stand on the issue, let's all agree on one thing: ketchup has no place on a cheesesteak.

How Philadelphia charter schools work, and why they’re controversial https://billypenn.com/2023/10/02/philadelphia-charter-schools-explainer-10-questions/ 

IDEA CLASH AT COLLEGE: ACADEMIC FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS. STFU MENTALITY

IDEA CLASH AT COLLEGE: ACADEMIC FREEDOM OF SPEECH VS. STFU MENTALITY

Are college campuses friendlier to liberals than conservatives when it comes to free speech? According to a new poll conducted by the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Centre for Public Affairs Research, the answer is a resounding "yes." But why is that the case? And how can we ensure that all voices are heard on campus?

First, let's address the elephant in the room: political correctness. It seems that in our quest to be inclusive and tolerant, we have become intolerant of anyone who doesn't share our views. We've created safe spaces where students can retreat from ideas that challenge their worldview, and we've labeled dissenting opinions as hate speech. But what if we're wrong? What if our beliefs are misguided or incomplete? Shouldn't we welcome opposing viewpoints as a way to broaden our understanding of the world?

Of course, that's easier said than done. It's hard to listen to someone who disagrees with us, especially if they're loud and obnoxious about it. But that's where academic freedom of speech comes in. It's the idea that professors and students should be free to express their ideas without fear of censorship or retaliation. It's the foundation of higher education, the reason why we have universities in the first place. Without academic freedom of speech, we'd be stuck in an echo chamber, hearing only what we want to hear.

But here's the thing: academic freedom of speech isn't just for liberals. It's for conservatives, too. And libertarians. And socialists. And anarchists. And anyone else who wants to join the conversation. We can't pick and choose which voices we want to hear. We have to hear them all, even if we don't like what they're saying.

So, what can we do to ensure that all voices are heard on campus? First, we need to stop demonizing people who disagree with us. Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they're evil or stupid or racist or whatever label we want to slap on them. We need to engage with them in a civil and respectful manner, even if we think they're wrong.

Second, we need to encourage diversity of thought. This means hiring professors with different perspectives and backgrounds, and exposing students to a variety of ideas and viewpoints. It means creating an environment where students feel comfortable expressing their opinions, even if they're unpopular.

And third, we need to defend academic freedom of speech at all costs. This means pushing back against attempts to censor or silence dissenting voices, whether it's through administrative policies or student protests. It means standing up for professors who are being targeted for their views, even if we don't agree with them.

In conclusion, academic freedom of speech is essential for a healthy and vibrant university community. It's not just a liberal or conservative issue; it's a human issue. We need to hear all voices, even if they don't fit our own point of view. So let's embrace academic freedom of speech, and if you don't like it... well, you know what to do. STFU.

Few Americans say conservatives can speak freely on college campuses, an AP-NORC/UChicago poll shows | AP News https://apnews.com/article/free-speech-college-campuses-0b2811fb35c9c6288b7517da7c9affd3 

Public perceptions of freedom of expression on university campuses paints a complex picture - AP-NORC https://apnorc.org/projects/public-perceptions-of-freedom-of-expression-on-university-campuses-paints-a-complex-picture/ 

THE VIRGINITY COMPLEX: HOW ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX EDUCATION FAILS KIDS

 

THE VIRGINITY COMPLEX: HOW ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX EDUCATION FAILS KIDS

Okay folks, buckle up because we're about to talk about everyone's favorite subject: sex education! Specifically, we're going to dive into the wacky world of Texas public schools and their partnership with crisis pregnancy centers to teach sex ed. Yes, you read that correctly. The same centers that try to talk women out of getting abortions are now trying to teach our kids about the birds and the bees. What could possibly go wrong?

First of all, let's talk about the elephant in the room: abstinence-only education. Look, I get it. Waiting until marriage to have sex is a noble goal. But let's be real, it's about as effective as a leaky rubber. Kids are going to have sex, and pretending otherwise is like sticking your head in the sand. Plus, abstinence-only education is about as funny as a root canal. It's like telling a kid they can't have candy and then never explaining why. Of course they're going to sneak it when you're not looking!

But seriously, folks. The power of human sexuality is greater than any MAGA Christian rules saying save it for marriage and other claptrap being spouted in Texas sex ed classes run by MAGA Christians. We need comprehensive sex education that covers everything from contraception to consent. And no, teaching kids about condoms isn't going to make them go out and have sex. It's like saying teaching kids about seat belts is going to make them go out and crash their cars.

Now, let's talk about these crisis pregnancy centers infiltrating our schools. They claim their approach is effective, but public health experts say otherwise. Their curricula can be misleading and biased, and they often use fear-based tactics to promote abstinence-only education. I mean, come on. Scaring kids into not having sex is like trying to scare a cat into not chasing a laser pointer. It's not going to work.

And let's not forget the elephant in the room: these centers are pushing an anti-abortion agenda. They're using their influence to sway young minds and promote their own beliefs. It's like letting McDonald's teach nutrition classes. Sure, they might talk about the importance of fruits and veggies, but at the end of the day, they're still going to try to sell you a Big Mac.

Look, I'm not saying we should ban crisis pregnancy centers from our schools. But we need to be aware of their agenda and the potential harm they can cause. We need to demand comprehensive sex education that gives our kids the tools they need to make informed decisions about their bodies and their health. And we need to do it with a sense of humor, because let's face it, sex is funny. It's messy and awkward and hilarious. So let's embrace that and teach our kids in a way that's both informative and entertaining.

In conclusion, folks, we need to take sex education seriously. We can't rely on leaky rubbers or fear-based tactics to keep our kids safe and healthy. We need comprehensive sex education that covers everything from contraception to consent, and we need it taught by qualified professionals who aren't pushing their own agendas. And most importantly, we need to remember that sex is funny. So let's laugh a little while we learn a lot.

How anti-abortion centers teach sex ed inside Texas public schools | The Texas Tribune https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/02/crisis-pregnancy-centers-texas-sex-ed/ 

Which sex ed approach works best for STI and pregnancy prevention? Research remains unclear | KQED https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/62450/which-sex-ed-approach-works-best-for-sti-and-pregnancy-prevention-research-remains-unclear 

PROOF POINTS: The research evidence for sex ed remains thin https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-the-research-evidence-for-sex-ed-remains-thin/ 

Comprehensive Sexuality Education to Reduce Pregnancy and STIs in Adolescents in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: American Journal of Sexuality Education: Vol 18, No 1 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15546128.2022.2080140 

THE DEFT DIVE

FROM BARD AI

Abstinence-only sex education (AOE) is a form of sex education that teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). AOE programs typically do not provide information about contraception or safe sex practices.

AOE programs have been widely criticized for being ineffective and harmful. Research has shown that AOE programs do not delay sexual activity or reduce rates of pregnancy and STIs. In fact, some studies have shown that AOE programs may actually increase the risk of these outcomes.

AOE programs have also been criticized for promoting negative attitudes towards sex and sexuality. These programs often teach that sex is shameful and wrong outside of marriage. They may also promote harmful gender stereotypes and reinforce traditional sexual norms.

Despite the evidence against AOE, these programs continue to be funded by governments and religious organizations around the world. In the United States, the federal government has spent billions of dollars on AOE programs since the 1980s.

Here are some of the key problems with abstinence-only sex education:

• * **It is not effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs.** Research has shown that AOE programs do not delay sexual activity or reduce rates of pregnancy and STIs. In fact, some studies have shown that AOE programs may actually increase the risk of these outcomes.
• * **It is harmful to young people.** AOE programs can promote negative attitudes towards sex and sexuality, and can reinforce harmful gender stereotypes. They can also leave young people unprepared to deal with the realities of sex and sexuality, such as unwanted sexual advances and pressure to have sex.
• * **It is not comprehensive.** AOE programs do not provide young people with the information they need to make informed decisions about their sexuality and sexual health. They do not teach about contraception or safe sex practices, which can leave young people at risk of pregnancy and STIs.

Comprehensive sex education, on the other hand, is a form of sex education that teaches about both abstinence and contraception. Comprehensive sex education programs provide young people with the information they need to make informed decisions about their sexuality and sexual health. They teach about contraception, safe sex practices, and healthy relationships.

Research has shown that comprehensive sex education is effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs. It also helps young people develop positive attitudes towards sex and sexuality, and can reduce the risk of sexual violence.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and other leading public health organizations recommend comprehensive sex education for all young people.

Here are some of the benefits of comprehensive sex education:

• * **It delays sexual activity.** Studies have shown that comprehensive sex education can delay the onset of sexual activity.
• * **It reduces rates of pregnancy and STIs.** Studies have shown that comprehensive sex education can reduce rates of pregnancy and STIs among young people.
• * **It improves sexual health outcomes.** Comprehensive sex education can help young people develop positive attitudes towards sex and sexuality, and can reduce the risk of sexual violence.
• * **It is effective for all young people.** Comprehensive sex education programs can be tailored to meet the needs of all young people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Conclusion

Abstinence-only sex education is an ineffective and harmful approach to sex education. Comprehensive sex education is the best way to help young people make informed decisions about their sexuality and sexual health.

FROM BING AI

Abstinence-only sex education is a form of sex education that teaches not having sex outside of marriage. It often excludes other types of sexual and reproductive health education, such as birth control and safe sex. ²

Some people may support abstinence-only sex education because they believe it is the only morally correct option for teenagers, and that it can prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). However, there is no evidence that abstinence-only sex education is effective at achieving these goals. In fact, studies have shown that abstinence-only sex education is ineffective, misleading, and even harmful to young people. ¹²⁸

Some of the drawbacks of abstinence-only sex education are:

• - It denies young people necessary and even life-saving information about their own bodies, reproductive health, and sexuality. [^10^]
• - It uses fear tactics to promote abstinence and to limit sexual expression. ¹³
• - It discusses condoms and contraception only in terms of failure rates, and often exaggerates these rates. ¹³
• - It provides no information on forms of contraception other than condoms, leaving young people unprepared for preventing pregnancy if they do become sexually active. [^10^]
• - It omits controversial topics such as abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation, or presents them in a negative or biased way. ²¹³
• - It teaches only one set of values as morally correct for all students, regardless of their personal beliefs, cultural backgrounds, or sexual identities. ¹³
• - It does not address the issues of consent, sexual violence, healthy relationships, or gender equality. [^10^]

Some alternatives to abstinence-only sex education are comprehensive sex education and abstinence-plus education. Comprehensive sex education teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STIs and unintended pregnancy, but also teaches about condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of these outcomes. It also teaches interpersonal and communication skills and helps young people explore their own values, goals, and options. Abstinence-plus education is similar to comprehensive sex education, but it stresses abstinence as the best way to prevent pregnancy and STIs, while also providing information on contraception and condoms. ¹¹³

Both comprehensive sex education and abstinence-plus education have been proven to be more effective than abstinence-only sex education in delaying sexual activity, reducing sexual risk behaviors, increasing condom and contraceptive use, and preventing STIs and pregnancies among young people. They also provide positive messages about sexuality and sexual expression, including the benefits of abstinence. They respect the diversity of students' backgrounds and experiences, and empower them to make informed decisions about their sexual health and well-being. ¹⁴⁷

Source: Conversation with Bing, 10/2/2023

• (1) Abstinence-only sex education - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education.
• (2) Abstinence Education Programs: Definition, Funding, and Impact on ... - KFF. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abstinence-education-programs-definition-funding-and-impact-on-teen-sexual-behavior/.
• (3) Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Are Ineffective and Harmful to .... https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2017/abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-are-ineffective-and-harmful-young-people.
• (4) Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Programs: Harmful and Ineffective .... https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/abstinence-only-programs.
• (5) Sex Education Programs: Definitions & Point-by-Point Comparison. https://www.advocatesforyouth.org/resources/fact-sheets/sex-education-programs-definitions-and-point-by-point-comparison/.
• (6) Evidence on the Effectiveness of Abstinence Education: An Update. https://www.heritage.org/education/report/evidence-the-effectiveness-abstinence-education-update.
• (7) Pros and Cons of Sex Education in School Children: Review - IDOSR. https://idosr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/IDOSR-JAS-51-42-45-2020.-UN.pdf.
• (8) Abstinence-Only Sex Education: Arguments For And Against. https://edubirdie.com/examples/abstinence-only-sex-education-arguments-for-and-against/.
• (9) The Pros And Cons Of Abstinence-Only Education In Texas. https://www.gogreenva.org/the-pros-and-cons-of-abstinence-only-education-in-texas/.
• (10) Abstinence Education: Weighing Pros and Cons | Education. https://www.education.com/download-pdf/article/98043/.
• (11) The Effectiveness of Abstinence Education Programs in Reducing Sexual .... https://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-effectiveness-abstinence-education-programs-reducing-sexual-activity-among.
• (12) Sex Education Standards Across the States - Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/sex-education-standards-across-states/.
• (13) Abstinence Only Education is a Failure | Columbia Public Health. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-education-failure.
• (14) Abstinence-Only Education States [Updated August 2023]. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/abstinence-only-education-states.