In the United States, approximately two-thirds of all high school seniors have engaged in sexual intercourse.1 According to the Department of Health and Human Services, approximately one in four persons will become infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) by the age of twenty-one.2 Additionally, the United States has one the highest rate of teenage pregnancy of any industrialized nation with about forty percent of woman becoming pregnant before the age of twenty.3 While there has been no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only based sexuality education programs either prevent the onset of intercourse or reduce the frequency of intercourse, the United States government currently finances three federal abstinence-until-marriage programs.4 By prohibiting State governments from promoting the use of contraceptives in their school sex education programs in order to receive Federal funding, the United States government is endangering the welfare of its citizens.  
    According to a report entitled “School-Based Programs to Reduce Sexual Risk Behaviors” commissioned by the Division of Adolescent and School Health within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Because incidence of pregnancy and STDs among teenagers is so great, these consequences involve not only the individuals involved and their families, but overall welfare dependency, unemployment, and medical costs in the United States.”5 In 2002, there were an estimated 750,000 pregnancies (450,000 live births) among 15-19 year old girls.6 With the proper use of a condom, chance of pregnancy can be reduced by 98%.7 Furthermore, sexually active teenagers have the greatest chance of becoming infected with an STD than any other age group.8 With about 9.1 million persons between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four being infected every year in the U.S., almost half of all new STD cases occur among young people.9 According to the CDC, at the end of 2003 somewhere between 1,039,000 and 1,850,000 people in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS.10 Of the approximately 40,000 new cases each year, about half occur with persons under twenty-five years old (usually infected through intercourse).11 With the use of a condom, the chance of infection from intercourse with a person with HIV-AIDS is reduced by 80 to 87%.12
    In 1981, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) “to promote chastity and self discipline” among adolescents by funding “family-centered” programs. The Act, sponsored largely by political conservatives, was used to almost exclusively fund religious and right wing groups that often maintain (without any significant scientific proof) that dissemination of safe sex practice information hastens the initiation of sexual activity and the frequency of intercourse among youths. Allegedly, many of these groups, including Sex Respect and Teen-Aid, relied on “scare-tactics” and misinformation about disease and pregnancy prevention in order to promote their abstinence-based initiatives. In 1983, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the program on the grounds that it violated the seperation of church and state as required by the U.S. Constitution. In 1993, the case between the challengers and the Department of Justice Counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) reached an agreement in which certain requirements must be met before the granting of funds through the AFLA to any sex education program. These stipulations include having AFLA grantees submit their curricula to the DHHS for  “consideration of whether the curricula teach or promote religion and whether such materials are medically accurate.”13
     A 2004 report from the office of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) found that two-thirds of government-funded abstinence-only programs contain misleading or inaccurate information pertaining to abortion, contraception, genetics, and sexually transmitted infections. The report prompted the Government Accountability Office to investigate the claims, releasing a report in 2006 supporting Waxman’s findings.14
    In 1996, Congress attached an additional abstinence-only Federal program to a welfare reform law. According to Title V of Section 510 of the Social Security Act, “Neither the State nor any of its sub-awardees may use Federal or matching funds under this award to promote the use of contraception.” All federally funded sex education programs must adhere to this requirement.15 Over $1.5 billion have been allocated to these federal and state programs since 1996. President Bush has requested $242 million for the funding of abstinence-only programs in his FY2008 budget. Since states are required to match federal funds for abstinence-only programs, some states are forced to divert money away from more comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs. Eleven states have refused to accept such federal programs because of these terms.16
    In 2007, Congress authorized an extensive year-long study by the Mathematica Policy Research, Inc found that students who participated in federal abstinence-only programs were just as likely to engage in pre-marital sex as those students who did not. They were also found to engage in sexual-risk behaviors at the same mean age and have the same approximate number of sex partners as students who did not participate in the federally funded programs. Another study focusing on individuals engaged in virginity pledge programs (promoting chastity until marriage) found that, although many did delay the onset of sexual activity, many of these youths (88%) still engaged in premarital sex but were less likely than non-pledgers to use contraceptives at first intercourse or to get tested for STDs.17
    Relying on evaluations of twenty-three separate national surveys, the “School-Based Programs to Reduce Sexual Risk Behaviors” report by the CDC found that comprehensive school sex education programs covering topics such as abstinence, conception, pregnancy, STD, and HIV-AIDS did not lead to an increase in sexual activity. Programs designed to promote the use of contraceptives, such as condoms, also did not increase the onset or frequency of sexual activity. “Indeed, all of them either delayed the onset of intercourse or had no effect upon the initiation of intercourse. Furthermore, of the four studies that focused on program impact on the frequency of intercourse, none found significant increases in sexual activity, and one found a significant decrease among the relatively small proportion of youths who initiated intercourse after program implementation.”18
    It is estimated that only 10% of school districts in the U.S. have comprehensive sexuality programs that promote not just abstinence but the use of contraceptives and safe sex practices.19 The CDC “School-Based” report stated that two studies it analyzed indicated that some comprehensive programs reduce the onset of sexual activity, limit the number of sexual partners, and increase the use of contraceptives. “Logically they should also reduce pregnancy, births, STD, and HIV rates.”20 It is the responsibility of the American government to ensure the general welfare of its citizens. When the federal government blatantly disregards rigorous scientific data in order to promote ineffective morality-based sexuality programs in state school systems, that government can be held accountable for actually harming the lives of its citizens.

   Read More »

The façade surrounding any resemblance of an honest and articulate argument which suggests that our military is engaged in liberation and not occupation quickly crumbles upon reflection of the fact that an estimated 70 percent of the Iraqi population wants American troops to withdraw from their homeland within the immediate future. When the great majority of a nation occupied by a foreign power denounces their presence, the citizens of that foreign power have a moral obligation to pressure their government to honor the credos upon which their nation was founded - namely liberty and the right of self-determination.

If we are to claim to have even a vague notion of an allegiance to the ideals of democracy and the equality of all men, this should and must be our charge. These principles were espoused as "universal truths" by our forefathers. Is the Middle East not within your universe?

An equally important question we must ask is: "Why do they fight?" Western powers have been entwined with the politics of the Middle East for centuries. It has not been until relatively recently, however, that the balance of power has been so grossly tipped in the favor of the Westerners. I urge you to read your history. The situation in Iraq is not a freak phenomenon that arose after Sept. 11.

The British encountered the volatile nature of an embattled Iraq (or at least the artificially created boundaries that the UK established) after the first World War. The British military described a major Iraqi insurgency that used guerilla warfare and was backed by an indignant population of Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds. British occupation of Mesopotamia was intended to secure their oil interests in the region. These same interests lead to a coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and British intelligence agencies in Iran in 1953 because of the actions of the democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who supported the nationalization of his country's oil industry.

The American- and British-led sanctions of Iraq caused the estimated deaths of half a million children in the '90s, starving the populace and reinforcing both terrorist recruitment efforts and Saddam's power. Saddam himself was a monster of our own making. When he horrendously murdered his own people with chemical weapon, he had already been a top CIA informant for decades and remained a strategic ally and trade partner, until he bit the hand that fed him with his invasion of Kuwait and threatened the security of our monopoly on Saudi Arabia's natural resources. And now impoverishment, desperation, and anger towards a marauding nation and its compliant citizens have met head-on with terrifying results.

Our foreign policies have been creating resentment and hatred around the world for the last half century. We have created a situation in which the possibility of democracy can not take root. We force a harsh dichotomy for the people of these nations, where they must choose between corrupt dictators and religious fundamentalists.

But what have you done? While you have been looking the other way, your country has soaked itself in oil and arrogance, and we are inching closer and closer to the flame of self-annihilation. Your friends and family members are being crucified upon the cross of energy dependence. This is not to mention the environmental degradation of your planet being caused by this same unchecked greed and ignorance. It is not enough to read of the atrocities of war and discuss it with your friends. Have you been so consumed with apathy that after four years of injustice you have yet to write a letter to your elected leaders?

Have you been too comfortable in your ivory tower to stand up for what is right? The Middle East is on the brink of a regional war that can devastate the world economy, families, and lives. What have you done to prevent this besides shake your head in disgust? Are you proud of your inaction? You hope for a leader, yet refuse to lead. What will you tell your grandchildren when they ask what you did to help end the "Petroleum Wars" at the turn of the century?

What are you going to do?P