Sex education has been a hot topic in the government and schools for years: do we teach abstinence-only, which includes inaccurate scientific information and scare tactics, or comprehensive sex education, which discusses condoms and, *gasp*, sex. The Bush Administration has been promoting abstinence-only education from the start, despite a study done by the Mathematica Policy Research group in April 2007 showing that participants of abstinence-only programs started having sex and had the same number of partners as non-participants. According to an Associated Press article released today, more states are dropping funding for abstinence-only education, and it’s sending a message.

A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls - nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.

About half of the girls acknowledged ever having sex; among them, the rate was 40 percent. While some teens define sex as only intercourse, other types of intimate behavior including oral sex can spread some infections.

    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.

Last year, the teen birth rate rose for the first time since 1991, according to a report released yesterday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among teenagers 15-19, the birth rate went up 3% from 2005 to 2006.

Unsurprisingly, these findings raise major questions about the effectiveness of the Bush administration’s abstinence-only sex ed programs—looks like we’re not getting much for the $176 million the federal government pours into such programs each year. The CDCP report comes on the heels of a major study of abstinence-only programs that

failed to demonstrate that they have any effect on delaying sexual activity among teenagers, and some studies suggest that they may actually increase pregnancy rates.

Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior research fellow, said implicating abstinence-only programs in the rising teen birth rate is “stupid.” Always good to see a right-winger’s perspective on the mess he helped create.

According to a study by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, abstinence-only sex ed has no effect on the sexual practices of teenagers.

And, according to the researcher, comprehensive sex ed programs

improved teens' knowledge about the risks and consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and gave them greater "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex."

I had pretty fabulous sex ed at my public high school, and I'm always shocked when I hear about the ridiculous stuff that my friends observed in less competent programs--hearing about their experiences makes me realize how crucial it is to make comprehensive sex ed a priority in public education. This study is one more in a long line of reasons to ditch abstinence-only programs and instead respect high school students enough to offer them practical knowledge about sexual health.

via Feministing, naturally.

Last week, comprehensive sex education expanded to three states. The Kansas Board of Education, in a 6-3 vote, will be ending its one-year abstinence-only education program for comprehensive sex education. In addition, Massachusetts’s governor, Deval Patrick (D) has also made a step towards comprehensive sex education by announcing that he may refuse the $700,000 federal grant. MA has had federally funded abstinence-only education programs since 1998. Lastly, Christine Gregoire (D), governor of Washington, signed two important laws into effect on Wednesday, May 9, 2007.

1. Public schools are now prohibited from teaching abstinence-only classes, although schools have the choice whether they want to teach sex education. All information must be medically and scientifically accurate.
2. Public schools must also provide information about HPV and the vaccination.

For more information on these three states, check out this full article on the Feminist Wire. They also have a link to the Mathematica Policy Research report about abstinence-only education (see my first post!).

~世界の革命

America loves sex, doesn’t it? Take a look at movies, TV, or any type of media: sex, sex, sex! And, on the same page, we are also a country of high moral standard. The government provides funding to states for abstinence-only education. A few mixed messages, huh? Here’s something to make your blood boil: over the past ten years, the Senate has poured $1.5 billion dollars into abstinence-only sex education programs. Has it decreased the number of teenage pregnancies? NO! According to the study done by the Mathematica Policy Research group, the number of pregnancies, in direct correlation to the abstinence-only programs, has increased (and we’re not talking about young marriages here). Guess teenagers aren’t following the abstinence program too closely.

So that brings us to the topic of comprehensive sex education. Now, before the conservatives start blaming the liberals for killing babies and corrupting America’s youth (after all, abstinence-only is solidifying our moral fiber…excuse my cynicism), it’s comprehensive. That means abstinence is taught along with condoms. This is in the form of the Responsible Education About Life Act (REAL Act, S. 972, H.R. 1653). The set up is very similar to Title V, which allots the money for the abstinence-only education. Here’s the breakdown: