Yesterday, three interesting things happened in Washington. The first two happened almost in concert: efforts by Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer to amend the Baucus bill with a “public option” for health insurance failed. The third and more politically interesting is that funding for abstinence education got a substantial boost. Sen. Blanche Lincoln voted against both the Rockefeller and Schumer amendments, and she voted in favor of increased abstinence education funding.

I’m not willing to make much of Ms. Lincoln’s votes against two amendments on a public option for health insurance. The House has already passed a bill with a public option included which ensures that it will be discussed in conference committee. Still, I do find it curious while a majority of Arkansans in support of a public option that Ms. Lincoln stands opposed to it.

But her vote yesterday in favor of increased funding for abstinence education is very interesting. Abstinence education, as many pundits reference, is a Republican wedge issue. It played a substantial role in the 2000 election of George W. Bush, and was a policy pillar during his administration. Yet, evidence from Johns Hopkins University shows that it has limited effectiveness in the real world.  In fact, during the Bush years when abstinence funding grew substantially, U.S. teen pregnancy and syphilis rates rose sharply.

In the 2008 election the issue hardly resonated with voters, despite Sarah Palin’s (an abstinence education advocate) meteoric rise to stardom.

President Barack Obama allowed for the Bush-level funding to expire, indicating to Americans his desire to give up on funding a program that wasn’t working. Still, the matter received Ms. Lincoln’s support. The amendment passed 12-11. Only one other Democrat, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, supported it. This prompted a glowing reaction from the Christian Coalition.