Moving Forward , May
7, 2007
Newspaper
Editorials on Comprehensive Sex Education
and Abstinence-Only Education
Over the past two weeks,
dozens of newspapers across the U.S. have been editorializing
in support of comprehensive sex education and in opposition to
abstinence-only. Interestingly, not one has editorialized in support
of abstinence-only education. This is heartening given the strong
public support for comprehensive Sex Education in America. In
fact, recent research commissioned by Moving Forward, an initiative
of the Women Donors Network and the Communications Consortium
Media Center, demonstrates that support is strong not just for
comprehensive sex education (86%), but also for teen access to
contraception services (76%) across almost all voters.
As the new Congress
decides the fate of comprehensive sex education
and abstinence-only education, the editorials point out a few
rather sobering facts of life:
Congress and the states
have spent a staggering $1.5 billion over the last 10 years on
these programs despite all the evidence that they simply do not
work.
Every day in this country 10,000 young people get an STD, 2,400
become pregnant, and 55 contract HIV
46 percent of all 15- to 19-year-olds in the U.S. have had sexual
intercourse at least once, yet only 10 percent of American school
districts currently practice a comprehensive sexual education
policy.
Read all the editorials
below. Please email us if you have seen any that we missed.
May 2, 2007 Vancouver
Sun: Ideology trumps reason in abstinence-only programs
April 28, 2007 The New York Times: The Abstinence-only delusion
April 26, 2007 Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale): Best way to stop
abortion is honest sex education
April 26, 2007 California Aggie (Davis): Congressional abstinence
study
April 25, 2007 Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield): Drop abstinence only
education
April 25, 2007 Orlando Sentinel: Fix sex-ed program; Our position:
Congress should recognize that abstinence-only message isn't working
April 25, 2007 The Lantern (Columbus): Abstinence sex-ed
April 25, 2007 The Boston Globe: Abstain from this money
April 24, 2007 Christian Science Monitor: Honesty about abstinence-only
April 23, 2007 Des Moines Register: Facts should be only sex-education
agenda
April 23, 2007 Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale): Teen sex; A lot
of money to state the obvious
April 22, 2007 Winston-Salem Journal: Abstinence education
April 22, 2007 Sunday Oregonian: Honeymoon's over for abstinence-only
fad
April 21, 2007 Star Tribune (Minneapolis): End ineffective abstinence
education
April 20, 2007 Daily Kansan (Lawrence): Abstinence failing as
sex education tool
April 19, 2007 Telegram & Gazette (Worcester): Just say no;
Congress should not fund discredited technique
April 19, 2007 Daily Kent Stater: 'Just say no' is no guarantee
April 18, 2007 The Boston Globe: Just Say No More Waste
April 18, 2007 Patriot-News (Harrisburg): Averting teen pregnancy;
Sex ed should be stressed, as well as abstinence
April 18, 2007 The Washington Post: Let's Talk About Sex; Just
saying no is not enough.
April 18, 2007 Yukon News: Abstinence programs don't solve the
problem
April 17, 2007 Philadelphia Daily News: Why is PA. riding 'abstinence'
gravy train?: State should abstain from applying for these funds
April 17, 2007 The Tennessean (Nashville): Abstinence has role
in broader, more realistic sex education
FULL
TEXT BELOW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideology trumps
reason in abstinence-only programs
Date: May 2, 2007
Source: Vancouver Sun
Smart people don't
spend money on programs that don't work. Policy-makers who continue
to advocate abstinence-only programs as the key to sexual health
in North America and overseas are letting ideology get in the
way of reason.
In the mid-1990s, the
government of the United States started a grant program to support
abstinence-only programs in American schools. In 1998, Congress
commissioned a study from Mathematica Policy Research to find
out how well the programs actually work.
The short answer, according
to data released last month, is that they don't work at all. Asking
whether abstinence programs work is not the same as asking whether
abstinence works. Everyone agrees that abstinence is the best
way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of disease.
Most parents and public health officials would prefer that young
people not have sex until they are in mature, long-term and monogamous
relationships.
The problem is that
there is no magic wand that turns teenagers into the people their
parents and the authorities want them to be.
Even ascertaining what's
going on in the lives of young people is a difficult task. As
the preamble to the Mathematica report points out, the number
of teenagers reporting that they are having sex has been declining
since 1991. Statistics aren't much comfort, though, to parents
who hear frightening stories about casual sex at ever younger
ages, about stupid sexualized party games and rituals that go
far beyond Spin the Bottle. Parents fear, understandably, that
the very definition of childhood is being eroded.
Given those fears and
the ubiquity of sexual images in our culture, the appeal of abstinence
programs is obvious. But if they aren't helping children, they're
only there to assuage the fears of adults.
Mathematica studied
the impact on students of four abstinence-education programs in
elementary and middle schools in Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin
and Mississippi. To receive funding, these programs must have
as their "exclusive purpose" the promotion of abstinence
from premarital sex.
Mathematica found that
youth in the programs were no more likely to abstain from sex
than their peers in the control group. Those who did have sex
while they were still teenagers had it for the first time at the
same age: 15. They had the same number of partners as their peers.
They were just as likely to become pregnant or contract a disease.
While abstinence programs
don't seem to do any good, they also don't seem to do any harm.
They didn't affect the students' understanding of sex and anatomy,
or make them more likely to engage in unprotected sex.
Many supporters of
abstinence programs are undaunted by the lack of positive results;
they say that more programs need to be studied. There isn't much
harm in doing more studies, but there is harm in continuing to
direct money to abstinence programs that could almost certainly
be better spent elsewhere.
There is also harm
in using foreign aid to push an abstinence-only agenda in poor
countries. If it doesn't work within the U.S., there's a good
chance it won't work in Africa either. Good policy in any country
is policy based on facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Abstinence-only
delusion
Date: April 28, 2007
Source: The New York Times
Reliance on abstinence-only
sex education as the primary tool to reduce teenage pregnancies
and sexually transmitted diseases -- as favored by the Bush administration
and conservatives in Congress -- looks increasingly foolish and
indefensible.
The abstinence-only
campaign has always been driven more by ideology than by sound
public health policy. The program's tight rules, governing states
that accept federal matching funds and community organizations
that accept federal grants, forbid the promotion of contraceptive
use and require teaching that sex outside marriage is likely to
have harmful psychological and physical effects.
At least nine states,
by one count, have decided to give up the federal matching funds
rather than submit to dictates that undermine sensible sex education.
Now there is growing evidence that the programs have no effect
on children's sexual behavior.
A Congressionally mandated
report issued this month by the Mathematica Policy Research firm
found that elementary and middle school students in four communities
who received abstinence instruction -- sometimes on a daily basis
-- were just as likely to have sex in the following years as students
who did not get such instruction. Those who became sexually active
-- about half of each group -- started at the same age (14.9 years
on average) and had the same number of sexual partners. The chief
caveat is that none of the four programs studied continued the
abstinence instruction into high school, the most sexually active
period for most teenagers, so it is not known whether more sustained
abstinence education would show more effectiveness.
Supporters of abstinence-only
education sometimes point to a sharp decline in teenage pregnancy
rates in recent years as proof that the programs must be working.
But a paper by researchers at Columbia University and the Guttmacher
Institute, published in the January issue of The American Journal
of Public Health, attributed 86 percent of the decline to greater
and more effective use of contraceptives -- and only 14 percent
to teenagers' deciding to wait longer to start having sex. At
the very least, that suggests that the current policy of emphasizing
abstinence and minimizing contraceptive use should be turned around.
As Congress prepares
to debate further financing, it should either drop the abstinence-only
program as a waste of money or broaden it to include safe-sex
instruction. Abstinence deserves to be part of a comprehensive
sex education effort, but not the only part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best way to
stop abortion is honest sex education
Date: April 26, 2007
Source: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
Author: Mike Berardino
The abortion debate
frustrates Joan Specht. She has been a nurse at Planned Parenthood
in Broward County for eight years, and was a labor and delivery
nurse at a Boca Raton hospital before that. She has helped deliver
healthy babies and has helped women who've decided to abort.
With the U.S. Supreme
Court recently ruling that lawmakers can ban certain abortion
procedures, she worries that women's control over their bodies
is being chipped away.
But she also has another,
more pressing concern: that teens aren't getting properly educated
to avoid unwanted pregnancies -- and the need for abortions --
to begin with.
"We're living
in a state of denial," Specht said. "The approach that's
being taken is so head-in-the-sand."
More and more, there's
been a push toward abstinence-only programs and limited sex education
in schools.
For that we have conservative
religious groups and the politicians who pander to them to thank.
After two terms of
Jeb Bush in the Florida governor's mansion and two terms of George
W. Bush in the White House, abstinence groups have gotten a big
funding boost and entrée into public schools.
So instead of learning
the whole range of options when it comes to preventing pregnancy
and sexually transmitted diseases, more kids are being taught
to just say no.
And what has it gotten
us?
More abortions than
ever in Florida and Broward.
In 1998, the year before
Jeb Bush took office, there were 82,335 abortions in Florida,
and 10,328 in Broward, according to state health records.
In 2005, the latest
year for which stats are available, there were 92,513 abortions
in Florida, 14,623 in Broward.
The records didn't
provide a breakdown of abortions by age.
On the bright side,
there has been a decrease in births by mothers 18 and younger
during the same period statewide, from 16,949 to 14,802.
Whether that's because
more teens are celibate, more teens are using contraception or
more teens are having abortions is open to debate.
All Specht knows is
it's getting harder for Planned Parenthood to get its message
out and provide services to teens.
Specht raised five
daughters, now 37-42, in Fort Myers, and she said Planned Parenthood
representatives would come into their high schools to give talks
on reproductive health.
"Now, we can't
even get into schools to present the information," Specht
said. "We've regressed."
The federal government
recently released results of a study it sponsored evaluating abstinence
programs in schools. It found that students in the programs had
sex at about the same rates and at the same age as those who weren't
in the programs.
Planned Parenthood
has been demonized for talking openly about sex and offering comprehensive
services, including emergency contraception (the so-called morning-after
pill) and abortions.
Planned Parenthood
doesn't do surgical abortions at its four Broward clinics, but
it does provide medication abortions with the RU-486 pill.
Specht would much prefer
that sexually active teens learn how to prevent pregnancy and
disease..
To that end, she oversees
Teen Health Broward, a program that provides counseling, testing
and contraception services for 13- to 17-year-olds. Some come
with their parents, some come alone. The cost is $30 for males,
$50 for females, and includes exams, Pap smears, STD/HIV testing,
condoms and birth control pills.
"It's all by word
of mouth," Specht said.
She said about 100
new teen patients enroll every month at clinics in Fort Lauderdale,
Tamarac and Pembroke Pines.
"We teach them
respect for sex and respect for themselves," Specht said.
"We talk about abstinence, but we also talk about the steps
they need to take if they don't remain abstinent."
How logical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional
abstinence study
Date: April 26, 2007
Source: California Aggie (Davis)
The recent congressional
study that found abstinence-only sexual education programs to
be no more effective than safe-sex education reaffirms findings
of other studies, and should encourage American public schools
to adopt a more comprehensive sexual education policy.
The study, which began
in 1997 and concluded Apr. 13, observed over 2,000 children from
middle school and older, mostly from schools in Powhatan, Va.;
Miami, Fla.; Milwaukee, Wis., and Clarksdale, Miss. It found that
"there were no differences between those who took this [abstinence-only]
program and those who did not," according to Mathematica
Policy Research Inc., which was involved in the study.
Undercutting President
Bush's recent $28 million increase in the budget for abstinence-only
programs, the study's findings demand that the federal government
consider funding comprehensive sexual education -- a program that
would include information about safe sex in addition to abstinence.
According to the Guttmacher
Institute, 46 percent of all 15- to 19-year-olds in the United
States have had sexual intercourse at least once. However, because
only 10 percent of American school districts currently practice
a comprehensive sexual education policy, according to Planned
Parenthood Federation of America Inc., it is clear that congressional
attention to this issue is necessary.
Despite the study's
findings, teen pregnancy rates dropped 36 percent between 1991
and 2005, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
These numbers could be attributed to the increased openness in
sexual discussion that has developed over the past decade in the
United States -- a trend Bush should have noted before allocating
millions of dollars to an outdated, ignorant and religiously motivated
budgetary decision.
Since the study only
included four states and examined only 2,000 adolescents over
10 years, its accuracy in representing teens' sexual behavior
could face criticism. However, because it is a congressional study
rather than privately conducted, it is promising, as it has a
greater potential to affect legislation.
A more thorough congressional
study should be conducted in order to represent the other 46 states.
While a more comprehensive study can be waited on, a more comprehensive
sexual education for the nation's youth cannot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop abstinence
only education
Date: April 25, 2007
Source: Berkshire Eagle (Pittsfield)
Abstinence-only sex
education is naive at best, dangerous at worst, and now we know
it doesn't even do what its advocates say it does. Buttressed
by a federal study revealing that abstinence-only programs have
no impact upon the behavior of students, Governor Patrick wants
to end state-sponsored abstinence programs and focus instead on
more realistic efforts. That proposal deserves support.
The governor plans
to join several other states in declining a federal $700,000 grant
for abstinence-only education that is so restrictive as to be
worthless. This puts him at odds with the House, which wants to
accept the money for the program while requiring school districts
offering the abstinence program to also provide sex education
classes. It makes little sense, however, to burden students with
two separate programs when one of them is worthless and a waste
of federal tax dollars.
The federal study of
2,000 teens in both urban and suburban communities revealed that
students in a control group receiving abstinence-only education
and those in another control group that did not were equally likely
to engage in sex and were also equally likely to use condoms.
While this strongly indicates that abstinence-only education has
no benefits, it doesn't measure the potential perils of a program
that is not realistic about teenage behavior. "Just say no,"
whether it applies to sex or drugs, is dangerously naive and simplistic,
and is no way to address serious issues from AIDS, to teen pregnancy,
to drug addiction.
Teenagers are more
worldly now than ever, and given the pressures of a pervasive
mass media, we will not be returning to a simpler time where they
can be shielded or dictated to. While teens should be encouraged
to avoid sexual activity until they are emotionally ready, it
should be assumed that they won't do so. It is wiser to be realistic
and educate them about contraception than it is to idealistically
hope they will abstain from sex, taking a chance that a disease
or unwanted pregnancy will result. Realistic sex education is
also a good way to cut down on abortions.
Six states, including
neighboring Connecticut, have opted out of a restrictive federal
grant program that does more harm than good. Unless Washington
lifts the restrictions and allows the money to be used for a beneficial
sex education program, Massachusetts should do so as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix sex-ed
program; Our position: Congress should recognize that abstinence-only
message isn't working
Date: April 25, 2007
Source: Orlando Sentinel
When it comes to sex
education, Congress should stop saying "yes" to schools
just saying "no."
Abstinence-only programs
at participating schools simply haven't worked, according to a
study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Kids enrolled in them over four to six years were just
as likely to have sex, and as early and with as many partners,
as other students.
But Congress has time
to fix the program, which unfortunately it has given $176 million
annually to maintain. When it comes up for renewal in June, lawmakers
should replace it with a comprehensive sex-education option that
adds safe-sex lessons to teachers just saying "no."
No use stubbornly subsidizing
that mantra alone when so many hearing it instead are saying "yes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstinence
sex-ed
Date: April 25, 2007
Source: The Lantern (Columbus)
Granville (Ohio) school
district recently received a proposal to expand its sex education
curriculum from abstinence only to an optional program on safe
sex and contraceptives, according to an article Monday in The
Columbus Dispatch. The new program would require parental permission
for students to attend the classes, and it comes on the heels
of Gov. Ted Strickland's decision earlier this year to reject
federal funding for abstinence-only programs.
A recent Health and
Human Services study found the abstinence programs, which cost
the federal government $176 million annually, to be largely ineffective.
The study showed teens who participated in abstinence education
have about the same sexual behavior as teens who did not attend
the classes. Both groups of teens experienced their first sexual
intercourse at the same age on average, 14.9 years.
The Lantern believes
it is imperative to teach children as young as junior high students
how to engage in responsible sexual behavior and minimize risks.
Some might say the only responsible sexual behavior is abstinence,
and we agree 14 years old is too young to start having sex, but
visions of chaste teens roaming high school halls are pure fantasy.
The best thing we can do is attempt to remove the stigma a little
so teenagers will make safe choices. We think the optional program
on contraceptives and safe sex practices should be the norm, with
abstinence listed only as one more option.
One thing often overlooked
but addressed by the Granville problem is educating teens how
to talk to their partners about taking the proper precautions.
It is not an easy topic to bring up, and we need to do our best
to change that.
Abstinence-only education
tends to fail on two levels. First, it is unrealistic to believe
teenagers going through natural changes are going to abstain from
sex. Abstinence education basically tells teens not to have sex,
and if they do they are on their own to deal with the consequences.
Second, the Dispatch article cited a Case Western study from 2005
showing abstinence programs sometimes exaggerate the rate of condom
failure and claim birth control pills increase the risk of infertility.
Those of us who graduated from Ohio public high schools saw firsthand
how abstinence education deals with the topics of birth control
and sexually transmitted diseases -- by showing slides of STDs
and emphasizing the only way to avoid them was through abstinence.
The National Campaign
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy says the most effective programs show
abstinence is the best choice but provide comprehensive knowledge
on birth control, contraceptives and other means to minimize risks
to those who have sex. We think this is common sense -- those
who do not have sex do not get pregnant -- but again they emphasize
the need to educate students on the options available to them.
Research by the Guttmacher
Institute has shown that by age 20, 75 percent of people have
had premarital sex. It is important that we recognize this reality
and remind everyone that there are a variety of ways to engage
in sexual behavior safely, and not just those proposed in Tuesday's
Penelope column.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstain from
this money
Date: April 25, 2007
Source: The Boston Globe
A GOOD school sex-education
program spells out the advantages of delaying sex until the proper
age but also informs students about contraception and sexually
transmitted diseases. In some districts in Massachusetts and elsewhere,
schools use federal grants funneled through the state to pay for
an additional program that promotes abstinence to the exclusion
of other means of birth control. Since a congressionally mandated
study last week showed these additional programs have no effect
on students' sexual behavior, Governor Patrick is right to stop
applying for the $700,000 in federal grant money that has been
supporting such programs.
His action, however,
does not put an end to abstinence-only instruction in Massachusetts.
The nonprofit organization providing the instruction, Healthy
Futures, also gets $600,000 directly from the federal government
for its work in about a dozen communities. School officials in
those communities should draw the same conclusions as the governor
has from the new study and reconsider their inclusion of this
instruction in their curricula.
It isn't just money
that the abstinence-only programs waste. They also waste the students'
time, at a point when students, parents, and teachers all complain
about the difficulty of finding enough time in the crowded school
day for elective academic subjects while also preparing students
for the MCAS tests. Sex education should be part of the public
school curriculum, but it should be comprehensive and it should
not be supplemented or replaced by a singular, ineffective approach
to sexuality.
Until recently, the
Commonwealth had used the grant money that Congress makes available
to the state for abstinence-only education to pay for public-service
announcements and supplementary educational materials. In late
2005, then-Governor Romney decided to change the state's policy
and steer the federal money to actual classroom programs that
were already being supported by the direct federal grants. It
was one of several steps he took to win favor with social conservatives
among Republican primary voters as he moved closer to his decision
to become a presidential candidate.
Some state legislators
still want the state to accept funding for the abstinence-only
classroom programs. They should review the thorough, four-year
study of four such programs that a Princeton, N.J., research firm,
Mathematica, recently completed. The study showed no significant
difference in sexual activity between students who had been in
abstinence-only classes and those who had not. Even before the
report, several states had decided to stop applying for the grants.
The verdict is clear. Students need sex instruction that is complete,
not based on one all-too-fallible strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honesty about
abstinence-only
Date: April 24, 2007
Source: Christian Science Monitor
It wasn't supposed
to turn out this way. The abstinence-only sex-education programs
on which the federal government has been spending around $176
million a year have been shown to have zero effect. That's right:
zero.
"Abstinence-only"
classes in public schools, funded by provisions of the 1996 federal
welfare reform law, focus on the message of waiting until marriage.
They do not teach about contraception or safe sex.
But a national study
that tracked 2,000 young people over several years has found no
evidence that such classes as currently taught actually increased
rates of sexual abstinence. It found that program participants
had similar numbers of sexual partners compared with peers who
were not in the specialized abstinence programs.
Among teens who had
sex by the end of the period of the study, the average age of
their first intercourse was the same for participants as for nonparticipants:
14.9 years.
This is especially
disappointing given that earlier research seemed to indicate that
abstinence programs were at least changing teen attitudes, if
not behavior.
The study, carried
out by the nonpartisan firm Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,
did turn up some interesting threads for further study. It suggests
that peer relationships are important predictors for abstinence
- in other words, that young people will refrain from sex if their
close friends do, too. The study also found no particular increase
in unprotected sex.
Sex education, of course,
is primarily the responsibility of parents, and shouldn't be confined
solely to the classroom. Parents, along with religious communities,
can impart messages of restraint, unselfishness, and commitment
that shape relationships. Where these values are lacking in the
home, then public schools can have a role, one with difficult
policy choices, as this report points out.
Critics of abstinence-only
have used the study to say, "I told you so!"
"This is social
agenda masquerading as teen pregnancy prevention," said Martha
Kempner of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of
the US. "This administration has allowed ideology to trump
science." Voices on the other side have called for the programs
to continue. And a top federal official, commenting that the study
lacked rigor, said the government has no intention of changing
funding priorities in light of the study - which was conducted
for the US Department of Health and Human Services.
So where do we go from
here?
To confront the apparent
failures of abstinence programs is not to give up on teen abstinence
as a standard.
The welfare reform
that led to these classes was a collaboration between President
Clinton and a Republican Congress. Now the Bush administration,
faced with allegations of ignoring science, has an opportunity
to refute that charge by heeding these findings and retooling
its efforts.
It may be that sex
education that includes abstinence is more useful than abstinence-only
classes. The head of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy
said Mathematica's research supports what other studies show:
"The most effective programs are those that say abstinence
is the best choice but birth control and protection are also worth
knowing about."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facts should
be only sex-education agenda
Date: April 23, 2007
Source: Des Moines Register
Abstinence-only sex
education doesn't stop - or even delay - teen sex. This was among
the findings in a recent study commissioned by Congress.
Researchers tracked
2,000 children from elementary or middle school into high school.
Just under 60 percent were assigned to an abstinence-only education
program. The remainder were assigned to a control group. By the
end of the study, members of both groups had their first sexual
encounter at the same average age. In both groups, only 23 percent
reported always using a condom when having sex. Those who were
sexually active reported having two or more partners.
Teens have sex. Even
when educators encourage them not to.
That's why sex education
should not be driven by ideology. Abstinence-only programs please
certain right-wing constituencies. But they apparently don't do
much for teens.
Sex education can and
should promote abstinence as the best option for teens. But the
programs must also acknowledge that many of these students will
not abstain from sex. Classes should teach about contraceptives
and safe sex and sexually transmitted diseases. Sex education
should inform teens about the real world - a world where people
have sex outside of marriage. It should help them understand the
risks and responsibilities that come with sex.
Abstinence-only education
is not only ineffective, it can be misleading.
A 2004 investigation
by staffers of U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman of California found 11 of
the 13 most popular abstinence programs taught to millions of
youth misled students with misinformation - such as HIV is spread
through tears and a 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
Iowa schools used curricula
among those found to contain "false, misleading or distorted
information."
In 2004, the Register's
editorial page examined a textbook for abstinence-only classes
in several Iowa middle schools. One lesson claimed that problems
from poverty to depression "can be totally eliminated"
by being abstinent until marriage.
You won't be poor if
you don't have sex until you get married?
That was news to us.
The Iowa Legislature
took a step toward improving sex education when it passed legislation
requiring these programs be factual and based on research. Gov.
Chet Culver signed the proposal into law Friday. Telling teens
the truth should be the only agenda in sex ed.
Read the report: To
read the report on abstinence-education programs visit www.mathematica-mpr.com
and look under New Publications.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teen sex;
A lot of money to state the obvious
Date: April 23, 2007
Source: Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale)
The Bush Administration
has spent about $176 million on abstinence-until-marriage programs
for teens to find out what many people already know: abstinence
classes alone don't dissuade young people from having sex.
A four-year study ordered
by Congress basically came up with findings that most 15-year-olds
could have told the government for free. Youngsters in abstinence
education classes -- a program in Miami was one of four that were
reviewed nationwide -- first had sex at about the same time as
other students who did not attend the classes, 14.9 years.
In a perfect world,
abstinence until marriage would be ideal. We do not live in a
perfect world. Most disturbing about the report is that among
those who did and didn't take the classes, only 23 percent said
they always used condoms.
Hopefully, the study
leads to more wide-ranging sex education. And maybe next time,
Congress could save a few bucks by just getting out and talking
to teenagers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstinence
education
Date: April 22, 2007
Source: Winston-Salem Journal
Abstinence education
isn't working. It's not persuading our children to delay sexual
activity until marriage, and it is not reducing unwed pregnancies.
That finding from a
congressional study should be enough to spur legislation currently
before the General Assembly. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Linda
Garrou, expands the sexual education curriculum for North Carolina's
children and brings with it a more realistic understanding of
what is happening in the lives of young people.
Make no mistake about
it. Abstinence education is extremely important, and it remains
part of the curriculum under the Garrou bill.
But schools cannot
adequately teach abstinence by themselves. Children arrive at
the school door bearing the values instilled by parents - either
values that parents with years of hard work taught them or values
learned on the street because parents relinquished their obligations.
In the real world,
a school teaching abstinence to a child who is getting no similar
encouragement from home is probably wasting its time. Parents,
families and support groups have a far greater impact on a child's
moral values than do teachers and schools. They are the bedrock
of the growth of a young person.
That's why this study,
ordered up while Republicans controlled Congress, is so important.
It says to people who really care about driving down the rate
of teen promiscuity that their focus on the schools has been misguided.
Their focus should be on families, churches and other social institutions.
Abstinence education
belongs in the curriculum. Students need to learn the many health
reasons why abstinence is best. But, in a diverse population of
children from families with a variety of attitudes toward sexuality
and human reproduction, children will not adequately learn moral
values in a public-school system. Morals are best taught in churches
and homes.
North Carolina children
need good, solid health and science education about sexuality.
The congressional study found that children who take an abstinence-only
sex-ed program engage in teen sex at the same rate as those who
have a broader program or none at all.
The difference between
the two groups, however, is that one is learning how to protect
itself from sexually transmitted diseases and the other is not.
One is learning how to prevent pregnancy when engaging in premarital
relations, while the other is not.
It's time for parents
to take their jobs seriously, to teach their children their values.
The schools can reinforce those values and provide the health
and science education needed in this area. North Carolina students
need a comprehensive sex-education program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeymoon's
over for abstinence-only fad
Date: April 22, 2007
Source: Sunday Oregonian
Oregon never embraced
the "abstinence-only" movement funded by the Bush administration.
It never decided, as a matter of state policy, to fight teen pregnancy
and promiscuity by treating premarital sex as a sin and contraceptives
as contraband.
Oregon instead supports
comprehensive sex education that encourages abstinence without
enshrining it. The approach has paid off. The state's pregnancy
rate for girls under 18 has plummeted by almost 50 percent since
1990 and remains well below the national average, equaling fewer
young families stuck in poverty and thousands of abortions prevented.
Meanwhile, the federal
government's billion-dollar investment in abstinence-only education
appears to be money down the drain. This shows the value of public
policy grounded in reality rather than wishful thinking -- and
of sex education that develops teenagers' brains and communication
skills rather than flogs their morals.
The federal government
threw about $1.5 billion into abstinence-only programs over the
past decade, with a sharp increase in spending under the Bush
administration. These programs teach teenagers to abstain from
sex until marriage. They avoid facts about contraceptives, under
the theory that this information undermines the abstinence message.
Unfortunately, the
programs don't do much good. A much-anticipated national study,
authorized by Congress in 1997 and released this month, found
that abstinence-only programs don't keep teenagers from having
sex.
About half of the 2,000
students in this long-term study remained virgins by age 17. The
other half lost their virginity at around 15 years old, on average.
The teenagers who received abstinence-only education behaved no
differently than the ones who didn't. They were also just as likely
to have two or more sex partners.
This is the uncomfortable
reality: Though today's teenagers are less likely to get pregnant
than their parents were, they still grow up in a culture that
sells sex.
Oregon gets about $400,000
a year in federal money to promote abstinence and additional funds
for family planning. It uses most of the "abstinence-only"
money for a worthwhile program that trains high-school leaders
to talk to preteens about dealing with peer pressure and avoiding
premarital sex.
Mostly, however, Oregon
strives for a comprehensive approach to sex education and family
planning. The state requires school districts that teach sex ed
to stress abstinence while also providing thorough information
about contraception. Oregon further ranks among the nation's top
10 states for its family-planning efforts and access to contraception.
It's no surprise that
Oregon's broad approach pays off in fewer abortions, fewer unplanned
pregnancies and fewer teenagers in the dark. The feds should take
notice -- and spend taxpayers' money on policies that work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End ineffective
abstinence education
Date: April 21, 2007
Source: Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
For nearly a decade,
Congress has spent upwards of $50 million each year to spur abstinence-focused
sex education for teens; Minnesota, in turn, has spend several
million dollars of state matching funds on ENABL, its version
of the program. This year it's time to stop the experiment at
both levels of government.
Public health officials
and parents alike recognize that teens who delay having sex until
they're older reap personal and societal rewards. The question
is how best to affect not only teen attitudes and beliefs but
teen behavior as well; we've now learned that the programs evaluated
in a multiyear study failed that crucial test.
A scientific, congressionally
mandated study reported last week that young people in the Title
V, Section 510 abstinence programs initiated sex at the same age
as other teens, and had the same number of partners. About half
of the teens in each group abstained from sex.
In short, teens who
received abstinence-focused education behaved just the way other
teens do. The only good news for abstinence education in the report
was that "contrary to concerns raised by some critics ...
program group youth were no more likely to have engaged in unprotected
sex than control group youth." They used condoms at the same
rate.
What this all means
is that while these programs did no harm, they did no more good
than any other sex-education program. As Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.,
put it, "American taxpayers appear to have paid over $1 billion
... for programs that have no impact."
The implication is
clear: While values and instincts led Congress to pay big bucks
to encourage "abstinence-only" education, its own research
effort points toward a new direction: innovative, comprehensive
pilot programs to establish what actually works best.
Such programs would
undoubtedly include advice about abstinence. As Martha Kempner
of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United
States told the Washington Post, "Comprehensive education
means teaching about abstinence and a myriad of other topics."
She included among those subjects "contraception, critical
thinking, one's own values and the values of your family and your
religious community."
Several states, including
Wisconsin, have rejected Title V funding, which requires participating
states' programs to refrain from discussing contraception and
to use marriage as the "expected standard" for sexual
activity. If Congress renews this program despite its lack of
efficacy, Minnesota should join them.
NO MORE, NO LESS: "Findings
indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than
control group youth to have abstained from sex and ... they had
similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the
same mean age."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstinence
failing as sex education tool
Date: April 20, 2007
Source: Daily Kansan (Lawrence)
A recent study commissioned
by Congress revealed last week what pragmatists have long suspected:
That abstinence-only sex education is failing. The study found
that students who participated in abstinence education programs
were not only just as likely as non-participants to have sex,
but also frequently had the same number of sexual partners.
Programs that promote
abstinence more than safe sex have been criticized for years as
ignorant and wholly impractical, and perhaps even dangerous, in
their opposition to birth control. Not surprisingly, the debate
has often been heated and fraught with theological implications.
Further, the implementation and execution of abstinence programs
in American schools has cost taxpayers around $175 million a year,
making it an issue that affects every taxed American.
Though many critics
will tell you differently, the primary problem of abstinence education
has never been its admittedly unsettling religious overtones,
which can come perilously close to religious education in public
schools. The real problem with abstinence education is that it
is rooted in absolutism, and thus refuses to acknowledge both
adaptations and realities of the evolving world around it.
The programs make one
dangerous assumption: That with proper motivation, hormone-saturated
teenagers can be convinced to overcome their most primal urges.
This goal is noble in purpose and perhaps someday achievable in
practice, but, as this study confirms, has proven both impractical
and costly in practice.
In the face of increasing
teenage sexual activity, the answer is not to retreat into a shell
of blind ignorance of the world around us. Uncomfortable though
it may make us, educators must acknowledge and address practical
solutions.
The roads of history
are littered with institutions and organizations that refused
to adapt to changing realities -- sex education is too integral
to children's health to become one of those institutions.
The study did include
one positive note: Students in abstinence programs were no more
likely to have unprotected sex than those in other programs. A
criticism of abstinence programs has been that their ignorance
of birth control can lead to more unprotected sex, but this study
dispels that point. At the very least, we can take solace in this
result of abstinence programs.
Abstinence-only programs
may someday be suitable in American education, but for now they
have proven too costly and too unfeasible. Proponents of such
programs would do well to recall the strange and new tension of
their own teenage years, and to recognize that absolute and unilateral
solutions rarely fit complicated health dilemmas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just say no;
Congress should not fund discredited technique
Date: April 19, 2007
Source: Telegram & Gazette (Worcester)
The federal government
must stop pouring millions of dollars of taxpayers' money down
the rat-hole of "abstinence-only sexual education."
A recent study conducted
by the government itself concludes that young people who attended
classes aimed at preventing pre-marital pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases by spurning sex are just as likely to engage
in intercourse as those who have not participated in such classes.
Neither did abstinence-program
participants have fewer partners, fewer pregnancies or fewer sexually
transmitted diseases.
Apparently the master
key to denying human nature has not yet been found.
Supporters of abstinence-only
efforts say they need more time to work with young people. The
control group studied had one to three years of abstinence education,
and the advocates say they now realize that teaching must be ongoing.
They attack the timing of the report's release: Grant funding
expires in June, so Congress must act before then if efforts are
to continue. They complain the sample studied was too small: four
out of 700 programs.
Abstinence-only sex
education is thinly disguised religious indoctrination. As such,
it is totally inappropriate to make it the first, last and only
word of purported public health classes in public school classrooms.
Instead it should be a part of a young person's education about
sex that comes from family and clergy.
While it would be a
sad mistake to deny the social costs inherent in premature sexual
activity, taxpayers' money should be used for safeguards with
a good track record, not experimental deterrents.
Congress should just
say no to the $87.5 million appropriation being sought for the
abstinence only-program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Just say
no' is no guarantee
Date: April 19, 2007
Source: Daily Kent Stater
Well, it's official:
Teenagers have sex.
Congress said so.
More accurately, a
study ordered by Congress has found that abstinence-only education
programs do not guarantee students won't have sex. The study,
which began in 1999, surveyed 11- and 12-year-old students in
four abstinence programs around the country and did follow-up
surveys in 2005 and 2006.
The study found the
students who attended one of the four abstinence classes were
just as likely to have sex as those who did not go to the classes.
They also had similar numbers of sexual partners. Even the ages
at which they lost their virginity (14.9 years old) were comparable.
Granted, we're not
experts, but if teens are having sex as young as almost 15, it
seems the $176 million a year the Bush administration is giving
to abstinence-only education could be put to better use.
Abstinence is an important
part of a teenager's education. But that's what it is, a part
of a complete education. Teenagers need to know how to practice
safer sex. As critics of abstinence-only programs have argued
and this study shows, some teenagers still choose to have sex,
regardless of the education.
Schools are supposed
to prepare students for the lives ahead of them. At one point
or another, sex becomes a part of their lives. Any school that
doesn't educate students about their sexuality is neglectful of
the students' needs.
There is more to teaching
safer sex to students than throwing a handful of condoms at a
kid and saying, "Use them." They need to know how each
form of protection and contraception works and the proper way
to use them. They also need to know what they cannot do.
Along with physical
protection comes the need to teach students how to mentally and
emotionally prepare and protect themselves. Sex isn't just a simple
act. Casting all of the risks of sexually transmitted diseases
and pregnancy aside for the moment, one of the biggest complications
associated with sex is emotion.
Young adults before,
during and after puberty have to deal with a whole new range of
emotions and feelings, not to mention hormones. It's very easy
to get caught up in the moment and go too far without thinking
about all the consequences. Students need some preparation and
explanation for what their bodies and minds are going through.
It's very easy to go from love, lust and passion to regret, shame
and embarrassment.
Sex education needs
to be comprehensive in that it does not ignore any aspect of being
a healthy, sexual human being. Abstinence and safer sex practices
both need to be a part of it. Students need to know they will
have to make a decision about their sex lives at some point in
their lives, whether it's to abstain until marriage or to have
sex before marriage. They also need to know about what goes along
with sex, from the physical to the emotional.
It's not supposed to
be an easy thing to teach because it shouldn't be an easy decision
to make. Sex is complicated no matter how old you are. There isn't
one right answer when it comes to deciding to have sex before
or after marriage. That decision is different for each person
because everyone feels ready at a different time.
That's why we need
to be prepared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Say No
More Waste
Date: April 18, 2007
Source: The Boston Globe
EACH YEAR, Washington
spends about $50 million and the states some $37.5 million on
programs telling elementary- and middle-school students that the
only way for young people to protect themselves from the harmful
effects of early sex is abstinence. But the programs do not work,
according to a four-year study mandated by Congress.
In the study's two
urban and two rural settings, high-school students who were graduates
of abstinence-only classes were just as likely to have had sex
as students from the four communities who did not attend the classes.
In both groups, to which the students were assigned randomly,
about half remained abstinent until interviewed in the follow-up,
at an average age of 16..5.
The federal programs
expire June 30 if Congress doesn't renew them. Based on the $7.7
million study of their impact by Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,
Congress should stop wasting taxpayers' money. Lawmakers should
also mandate that the Bush administration do similar research
on the effect of abstinence-only programs in President Bush's
comprehensive effort to address HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.
Congress has insisted that one-third of all HIV-prevention money
pay for abstinence-only training in those countries. It is conceivable
that such efforts are more successful outside the United States,
but until that is shown to be the case the abstinence-only training
requirement should be dropped in the overseas AIDS program.
It is striking in the
US study how similar the results were for the 2,000 students,
regardless of whether they went through the abstinence-only classes.
About a quarter of students in both groups had had sex with three
or more partners, and in both groups students initiated sex at
the same mean age, 14.9.
One encouraging result
is that the youths from the abstinence classes were about as likely
as the other students to use condoms when they had sex, refuting
the fear of critics of abstinence programs that such programs
leave young people less informed about how to protect themselves
during sex. In all four communities, all students also took health
classes that in some cases included instruction about contraception.
Abstinence, especially
when it is advocated by parents, clergy, and a student's peers,
should be part of the message that young people hear about sex.
But as a protection against sexually transmitted diseases and
unplanned pregnancies, the abstinence message goes only so far.
Congress should drop its abstinence-only programs and encourage
communities to offer comprehensive sex education that includes
information on diseases and the various methods of contraception.
Congress should also require a rigorous, study of abstinence programs
in Africa before spending more on them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Averting teen
pregnancy; Sex ed should be stressed, as well as abstinence
Date: April 18, 2007
Source: Patriot-News (Harrisburg)
A study ordered by
Congress has shown that students who took part in sexual abstinence
programs were just as likely to have sex as those who didn't.
The findings come despite
a $176 million annual federal outlay for such programs, a 17-fold
increase since they were started in 1996. If this level of funding
is to continue, Congress should insist that these programs incorporate
comprehensive sex education that includes information on contraceptives.
Bush administration
officials and other supporters criticized the study by Mathematica
Policy Research Inc. as focusing on only a handful of the hundreds
of programs available, and contend these so-called abstinence-only
programs need more time to work.
But 11 years and hundreds
of million dollars after their start begs key questions about
how much more time and money is needed? The issue isn't whether
a message of sexual abstinence should be sent to youth -- it should
-- but the fact that supporters steadfastly oppose sex education,
particularly that pertaining to the use of contraception in preventing
pregnancy and disease.
This stubbornly ignores
certain realities, including the potential that contraceptive
use can have in holding down spending for a number of social welfare
and health programs involving teen pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases.
But forget the implications
to society and bring it down to a personal level. If efforts at
preaching abstinence to a teen don't work, is he or she better
off having protected or unprotected sex?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's Talk
About Sex; Just saying no is not enough.
Date: April 18, 2007
Source: The Washington Post
BLIND FAITH in abstinence-only
sex education was seriously shaken last week with the release
of an authoritative study showing that, at best, such instruction
is like chicken soup for a cold: It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't
provide a cure, either. Students who participated in abstinence-only
programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not.
What makes this study noteworthy is that it didn't just gauge
knowledge of sex. It looked at behavior. And the behavior of the
2,000 teens in two rural and two urban communities who were surveyed
in 2005 and 2006 -- after they'd completed their programs -- would
alarm any parent.
Students who received
abstinence-only instruction were just as likely to have sex as
those in a control group who did not receive such education. Among
teens in both groups who had sex by the end of the study period,
the average age of a first sexual encounter was 14.9 years. In
both groups, a majority of those who were sexually active reported
having two or more partners. And in both groups, only 23 percent
said they always used condoms when having sex..
Maybe this report will
be a bridge between the two extremes of the sex-education debate:
the unrealistic no-sex-until-you're-married crowd and the untenable
it's-okay-as-long-as-you-use-contraception gang. What's needed
are sex education programs that deal with the real world -- programs
that encourage teenagers to delay having sex until they are ready
to handle the risk and responsibility and that encourage sexually
active youths to use contraception. Such programs do exist. Becoming
a Responsible Teen in Jackson, Miss., and Reach for Health in
New York are two that have been cited by the National Campaign
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy as being effective -- not perfect, but
effective. The Bush administration should consider using some
of the $176 million it spends on abstinence education to foster
more programs like those instead of pooh-poohing the latest evidence
that its efforts will not have the promised impact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstinence
programs don't solve the problem
Date: April 18, 2007
Source: Yukon News
Each year, Washington
spends about US$50 million and the states some $37.5 million on
programs telling elementary- and middle-school students that the
only way for young people to protect themselves from the harmful
effects of early sex is abstinence.
But the programs do
not work, according to a four-year study mandated by Congress.
In the study's two
urban and two rural settings, high-school students who were graduates
of abstinence-only classes were just as likely to have had sex
as students from the four communities who did not attend the classes.
In both groups, to
which the students were assigned randomly, about half remained
abstinent until interviewed in the follow-up, at an average age
of 16.5.
The federal programs
expire June 30 if Congress doesn't renew them. Based on the $7.7
million study of their impact by Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,
Congress should stop wasting taxpayers' money.
Lawmakers should also
mandate that the Bush administration do similar research on the
effect of abstinence-only programs in President Bush's comprehensive
effort to address HIV/AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.
Congress has insisted
that one-third of all HIV-prevention money pay for abstinence-only
training in those countries.
It is conceivable that
such efforts are more successful outside the United States, but
until that is shown to be the case the abstinence-only training
requirement should be dropped in the overseas AIDS program.
It is striking in the
US study how similar the results were for the 2,000 students,
regardless of whether they went through the abstinence-only classes.
About a quarter of students in both groups had had sex with three
or more partners, and in both groups students initiated sex at
the same mean age, 14.9.
One encouraging result
is that the youths from the abstinence classes were about as likely
as the other students to use condoms when they had sex, refuting
the fear of critics of abstinence programs that such programs
leave young people less informed about how to protect themselves
during sex.
In all four communities,
all students also took health classes that in some cases included
instruction about contraception.
Abstinence, especially
when it is advocated by parents, clergy and a student's peers,
should be part of the message that young people hear about sex.
But as a protection
against sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies,
the abstinence message goes only so far.
Congress should drop
its abstinence-only programs and encourage communities to offer
comprehensive sex education that includes information on diseases
and the various methods of contraception.
Congress should also
require a rigorous study of abstinence programs in Africa before
spending more on them. (NYT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is PA.
riding 'abstinence' gravy train?: State should abstain from applying
for these funds
Date: April 17, 2007
Source: Philadelphia Daily News
WITH THE election of
a Democratic Congress last fall, Christian conservatives around
the nation are afraid of losing their $191 million "abstinence-only"
gravy train..
But not in Pennsylvania.
Over the past six years,
the Bush administration -- while cutting food programs for poor
kids and failing to provide body armor for the troops -- has increased
seventeen-fold the money it spends for medically inaccurate, ideologically
based sex-education programs. The programs preach, and we do mean
preach, abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and sexually
transmitted diseases, not only censoring information on contraception
but also disseminating errors about the effectiveness of condoms
to protect against HIV/AIDs.
Now Congress is on
the brink of limiting this full employment program for the administration's
religious right cronies. At least seven states, including Ohio
and New Jersey, have said "Thanks, but no thanks" to
federal funding for the programs.
But not Pennsylvania.
The commonwealth says it will apply for federal funds to continue
this widely discredited program, which was found ineffective in
a federal study released last Friday.
We are tempted to demand
of the governor: Who are you and what have you done with Ed Rendell?
The Ed Rendell we thought we knew is "adamantly pro-choice"
(including the right to medically accurate information) and supportive
of gay rights. Evidence from a multitude of sources has shown
abstinence-only programs to be neither.
Rendell's reason for
putting Pennsylvania's hand out? Because the money's there.
"We're applying
for the funds because they're available," a spokesman said,
"and because there are organizations in the commonwealth
that want to do work with that funding."
But abstinence-only
programs aren't "walking around money" a la Fumo, which
spread around government largesse on innocuous programs to reward
friends and neutralize potential enemies.
The "work"
of these organizations includes denying young people information
about preventing sexually transmitted diseases. That's a matter
of life and death. The "work" these organizations do
marginalizes, if not demonizes, gay and lesbian teenagers.
The governor's cave-in
is even more disturbing because the promotion of "abstinence-only"
programs has been a major front in the Republican War on Science:
The Bush administration literally changed the scientific standards
by which the programs are evaluated to keep funding them.
Earmarks for abstinence-only
education were used as "pork" spending for Republican
political purposes by our unlamented former Sen. Rick Santorum.
The ACLU went to federal court and forced the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services to stop funding a Pittsburgh-based
program, the Silver Ring Thing, because it was using taxpayer
money to promote "a relationship with Jesus Christ."
But the main reason
to reject these funds is that these programs hurt kids by leaving
them vulnerable to misinformation. The Government Accounting Agency
last fall slammed HHS for failing to review the programs' medical
accuracy. When asked about the GAO study, the governor's office
said it would ask for evidence that the programs were being conducted
in "a medically accurate manner," (something it apparently
didn't do before.)
Ed Rendell maintains
that his position is not at odds with his previous stands on reproductive
rights. He knows better, and so do we.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstinence
has role in broader, more realistic sex education
Date: April 17, 2007
Source: The Tennessean (Nashville)
Government-funded programs
that promote abstinence until marriage over other sex education
have increased dramatically over the past decade, but their effectiveness
is coming under question.
Conservative members
of Congress and then the Bush administration have steered sex-education
programs that were established after the welfare overhaul in 1996
into abstinence-only instruction. The programs, which received
about $10 million a year in 1997, now receive more than $176 million
a year.
Critics have complained
for some time that the focus should be on comprehensive sex education,
including contraception and condom use, and it now appears they
have strong supporting data as well as a sympathetic ear in the
Democratically controlled Congress.
A study by Mathematica
Policy Research Inc. found that students who participated in abstinence
programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as
those who did not. The study tracked 2,057 youths over four to
six years in four communities nationwide. The study's control
group had one to three years of abstinence education. The youths
were mostly ages 11-12 when the study began, and 16-17 at the
end.
About half of the kids
who were in the abstinence programs had remained abstinent —
the same split as those who were not in a program.
As a result, critics
have stepped up their call for Congress to remove the abstinence-only
restriction on funding. Lawmakers should embrace that approach,
but they should also acknowledge that abstinence education has
a role.
As a lead researcher
for the Mathematica study noted, abstinence education did not
decrease unprotected sex, but it did not lead to an increase,
either. Some critics of abstinence programs have contended that
they lead to less frequent use of condoms.
Call it a learning
process — on the part of the federal government. About $1.5
billion has gone into abstinence programs since 1996. That's a
lot of money for a concept that can report only about a 50 percent
success rate.
Abstinence should continue
to be a part of sex education, but it must be well based in fact
and guided less by a socially conservative agenda. Last October,
a survey of 10 states by the Government Accountability Office
found inaccuracies were being taught in some abstinence programs.
In one case, texts "incorrectly suggested that HIV can pass
through condoms because the latex used in condoms is porous."
In another, kids were taught that "when a person is infected
with the human papilloma virus, the virus is 'present for life.'
"
Eight states have already
opted out of the abstinence-only funds because of concerns over
knowledge that is omitted as well as what is misrepresented. Tennessee,
which currently has about 16 programs statewide that use the grants,
is still in the program.
Comprehensive sex education
would confront the reality of teen sexuality, promoting abstinence
but also giving those kids who will have premarital sex necessary
information about family planning and health concerns.
Such programs could
aspire to better than 50 percent success.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving Forward is
a partnership of the Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC)
and the Women Donors Network. For more information, please contact
Laura Rogers, CCMC, lrogers@ccmc.org.
Back to Top
Send this page to a
friend!
