At least, that's the argument the conservative Family Research Council seems to be making. In an email sent to FRC members, Tony Perkins attacked Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine's recent decision to cut off funding for abstinence only education -- which we know doesn't work. Interestingly enough, FRC is concerned about how this will affect the market, "The decision ... affects nearly 15 nonprofit programs ... Virginia's contraceptive-based, pro-adolescent-sex education programs will not be affected. In fact, most of them stand to profit substantially from the lack of competition. The most obvious beneficiary ... Planned Parenthood."

Wait, I'm confused. FRC is shocked that a program that is proved to not work is getting funding withdrawn from it and is claiming that the group that will profit is a nonprofit? Firstly, if they're so concerned with market values, then they shouldn't be so surprised when an ineffective program becomes unpopular and therefore gets less funding. Secondly, Planned Parenthood doesn't just do comprehensive sex education. They also provide prenatal care and regular pap smears to low income women where access to such health care is virtually nonexistent. In other words, Planned Parenthood provides a valuable service. Instead of subsidizing ineffective programs, we should work on funding programs that do work. Don't conseratives hate it when economics works against them?