Lemon law: abstinence-only funding, Title X family planning funding

Over at Ezra Klein Nicholas Beaudrot reads the House Democrat's infamous Abstinence-Only funding increase in the new Labor appropriations bill.

I'm not entirely sure that the "pro-life gambit" wherein Democrats plus up federal abstinence-only education in exchange for an increase in Title X family planning budget and passage of the entire labor-H bill is a tactic geared towards pandering to the religious right or expanding the network. The labor-H bill is the second largest budget bill after the Pentagon, so it's a big deal. Given that Bush has no policy priorities that Dems can accept in exchange for the budget, the will have to attract the votes of enough Republicans to either create a veto-proof majority...

Read his entire line of reasoning here, plus diverse but intelligent comments, here.

What I'm curious about is how substantive the extra funding is going to wind up being. As I understand it the terms of the program as I understand it are fairly onerous to states (it provides far less than half of the total cost), if the money is accepted it imposes restrictions on what other sex ed the state can provide, and at least last Spring many states are dropping their participation in the program. Which is, of course, a good idea since abstinence-only education doesn't actually promote abstinence.

*If* that's so (I'm not saying it *is* so) then an increase in funding, while garnering a veto-proof majority, may not put much more bad money into actual circulation.

Bottom line: I'd really like to see the details, especially of the corresponding Title X provisions (I can't find anything current online), but I agree with Beaudrot's position that Appropriations committee chair David Obey is probably just trying to make lemonade out of lame-duck lemons.