Crib Sheet: Sex Ed
Federally funded abstinence-only programs are failing us, but our government keeps pumping money into them. Find out why.
Crib Sheet, Naina Dhingra, July 11, 2005
Federally funded abstinence-only programs are failing us, but our government keeps pumping money into them. Find out why.
By Naina Dhingra, Advocates for Youth
On July 12, Campus Progress hosted a screening of The Education of Shelby Knox, a documentary, recently aired on PBS, about a Baptist teenager from Lubbock, Texas, who fights for comprehensive sexual education in her hometown, which has one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease in the state. The film premiered at this year’s Sundance Film Festival and spotlights the problems with abstinence-only education.
A gaggle of the most esteemed scientific institutions in the land, including the American Medical Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the Office of National AIDS Policy, have all issued scientific reports in support of comprehensive sexuality education – education that includes information about both abstinence and contraception.
Despite the advice of trained experts, Congress has chosen to ignore reality, allocating nearly half a billion dollars since the fall of 1996 to fund unproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that exclude information about condoms and contraceptives for the prevention of teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). And throughout his administration, President Bush has prioritized abstinence education and dramatically increased funding for these types of programs. In his 2006 budget, President Bush proposed pumping an additional $39 million into abstinence-only programs while cutting things like Medicaid and financial aid programs. By comparison, in 1999 these types of programs received no funding.
Recently, Rep. Henry A. Waxman released a report showing that many federally funded abstinence-only education programs use curricula that distort information about the effectiveness of contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, treat stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact, and contain basic scientific errors. Some of these false gems include: pregnancy can result from touching another person’s genitals, women who have abortions are more prone to suicide and sterility, or half of gay male teenagers in the U.S. have tested positive for HIV. Click here to read the full report prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Government Reform. Also, check out Campus Progress’ top 7 favorite quotes from abstinence-only curricula here.
What’s wrong with federal abstinence-only-until marriage requirements?
1. Federally mandated abstinence-only-until-marriage education jeopardizes the health and lives of young people by denying them information that can prevent unintended pregnancy and infection with STDs, including HIV.
Young people need to know how to avoid the potential negative consequences of sex. Research shows that teenagers who receive contraceptive education in the same year that they choose to become sexually active are about 70% more likely to use contraceptive methods (including condoms) and more than twice as likely to use oral contraceptives as those not exposed to contraceptive education. That is why the National Institutes of Health recommends that, although sexual abstinence is a desirable objective, programs must include instruction in safe sex behavior, including condom use.
2. Federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage education too often provides young people with medically inaccurate information.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage education provides no information about contraception and condoms other than failure rates – which are often reported incorrectly. These curricula encourage young people to believe that condoms and modern methods of contraception are far less effective than they are. (One frequently used curriculum states that 14% of women using condoms for birth control will become pregnant in a year; most statistics on the subject are closer to 2%.) In asserting that condoms are ineffective, abstinence-only-until-marriage education usually relies on studies that either pre-date today’s highly effective latex condoms or that are not scientific in their research and analysis and, thus, are not published in peer-reviewed journals. These programs also require teachers to instruct students that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.
3. Proponents of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs assume that, if young people do not learn about contraception, they will not have sex.
Throughout human history, people have had sex. (Actually that’s pretty much the predicate for human history.) And now, according to the CDC, 61% of high school students will have sex before they graduate. We need to provide sexual health education that deals with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be. Often, people had to rely on contraceptive methods that were not very effective in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy because highly effective methods were not available. Today, these methods are available to help people avoid unintended pregnancy and protect themselves from STDs – if they know about them. The fact that some U.S. teens report oral and/or anal sex while considering themselves ‘virgins’ underscores the fact that not having information does not prevent young people from having sex. It may, though, prevent them from making healthy choices.
What is comprehensive sexuality education?
Comprehensive sexuality education rests upon certain core values including:
- Every individual has dignity and self-worth.
- Sexual relationships should never be coercive or exploitative.
- All sexual decisions have effects and consequences.
- Every person has the right and the obligation to make responsible sexual choices.
Comprehensive sexuality education encourages young people to complement these values with the values of their parents, society, and culture and to define and clarify the values by which they can live fulfilling, satisfying lives. It includes a wide variety of sexuality related topics, such as human development, relationships, interpersonal skills, sexual expression, sexual health, and society and culture. Additionally, it provides accurate, factual and medically accurate information on contraception, abortion, and STDs. Comprehensive sexuality education does not supplant family values; rather it provides young people with the tools to integrate these values into their lives and decision-making.
What can I do?
In February 2005, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Responsible Education About Life Act—the REAL Act, H.R. 768 and S. 368. This important bill will provide funding to states for medically accurate, age appropriate, comprehensive sex education in the schools—education that includes information about both abstinence and contraception, from both a values and public health perspective. The REAL Act also provides for enhancing parent-child communication, developing decision-making and negotiation skills and providing education from a public health approach. Urge your Representative and Senators to co-sponsor this important bill.
For more information on how the Far Right and President Bush are censoring life-saving information from young people check out these resources:
Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact
Naina Dhingra, 23, is the Director of Public Policy for Advocates for Youth. She can be reached at naina@advocatesforyouth.org.
CNN’s Roland Martin Under Fire For Anti-Gay Tweets
Student Uncovers Lost Malcolm X Speech; Colleges Ranked for the ‘Socially Awkward’
Are Undocumented College Graduates a Wasted Resource?