Posts with the tag abstinence

Abstinence-only proponents misread scientific study to their favor

Kim Leung — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:42:55 EST

For the very first time, a review of an abstinence-only program shows that the program was effective in delaying sexual intercourse among its participants. The study, published in the current issue of the Archive of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, stands as the only existing scientific evidence that shows that an abstinence-only program was effective.

Excited that science may for once be on their side, some opponents of comprehensive sex-ed are heralding this recent study as proof that the abstinence-only message not only works, but works better than comprehensive programs. But such claims grossly misinterpret the study. Abstinence-only proponents are choosing to see what they want to see, and manipulating the facts to back up their political agenda.

As it deals with the topic of sex-ed-- an extremely controversial issue in this nation--the study is highly susceptible to being misconstrued, apparently even by the mainstream media. The Washington Post published the misleading headline "Abstinence-only education programs might work, study finds"; The New York Times writes "Abstinence-only education is found to delay sex"; and The Christian Science Monitor remarks "it is the most comprehensive study...to bolster an abstinence-only approach to reducing teen pregnancy". As misinformation circulates around this recent study, here is what you need to know:

1. The "abstinence-only" program under review was more comprehensive than traditional abstinence-only curricula.
The program under review was actually more comprehensive than rigid abstinence-only curriculum. Instead of promoting an abstinence before marriage message, the program encouraged abstinence from sex until one feels ready, which is a very different message than the former. Because of that, the program does not actually meet the federal criteria of being an abstinence-only program.

That this particular program was found to be effective in delaying young teens from having sex and other more rigid abstinence-only have consistently been found to be ineffective may be due to the fact that the program under review is more comprehensive than traditional abstinence-only programs. The program was not infused with morality, was medically accurate, discussed condom use, and did not disparage contraception.

'Abstinence' Ed Study Is Actually Comprehensive Sex Ed -- And It Works

Kay — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:08:00 EST

If you read the Washington Post article about sex education yesterday, it would appear that abstinence-only education programs—the ones that progressives for years have fought against because they do not reduce pregnancy or STI rates—in fact work. Or at least, the headline reads, “Abstinence-only education programs might work, study finds.”

Except, of course, the "abstinence-only education program" touted by the headline was actually a comprehensive sex education program. And comprehensive sex ed programs work. We’ve known that for years.

The study focused 662 African Ameican students from four public middle schools and they were split into two separate groups: the "abstinence-only" group and the "safer sex–only intervention" group. It’s important to note that the abstinence-only part of the curriculum, as detailed in the Post article, involved “a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.”

Sounds like a pretty comprehensive approach to teaching about sex. Reminds us of the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that has been stalled in Congress for years despite the fact that it advocates for a sex education curriculum that includes age-appropriate, science-based, and medically accurate information about both abstinence and contraception.

The study found that two years after the classes, just 33 percent of the students from the abstinence-only program had started having sex as compared to 52 percent of students from the safer-sex group, 42 percent from the comprehensive program and 47% of those from the group that received the general health education curriculum. The abstinence-only education program also had no effect on condom use.

On the surface, it would seem that this is a victory for conservatives who for years have touted abstinence-only education programs as the best means to ensure that no one has sex until they are married. But the ‘abstinence-only’ approach in this study worked specifically because it was not like other abstinence-only education programs. It didn’t take a moralistic approach; it talked about condoms and other safer sex products and it didn’t focus on abstinence only until marriage—just until the teens were ready. Here we have an ‘abstinence-only’ approach that worked because it was really comprehensive sex education, which study after study has shown is the best mean to delay sexual activity among young people.

Instead of billing this study as a victory for abstinence education, it should be spun as a victory for comprehensive sex education. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute says the "abstinence" program in the study "does not meet the restrictive federal criteria … programs that, until this year, were eligible for federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding." The way this story was spun as a win for abstinence is another example of progressives losing ownership over their terms, and this is detrimental to our capacity to lobby for our causes. The real message must get out: Comprehensive sex education is how you delay sexual activity among teens, as even this study proves.

The next time the Washington Post publishes a story on this topic, let’s make sure that the headline reads like so, “New study confirms what we’ve known for years: the more comprehensive the approach to teaching about sex, the more likely teens will delay engaging in sexuality activity.”

--Arielle Fleisher

Putting Abstinence-Only Education Back in PEPFAR

Kay Steiger — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:21:53 EDT

Sadly, the hope that the abstinence-only funding restriction in PEPFAR has been dashed. This from RH Reality Check:

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) of "DC Madame" fame, plans to amend the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to reinsert the 33 percent abstinence-only earmark.
Sen. Vitter, not exactly a model for abstinence, or being faithful, has the audacity to put his hypocritical ideology ahead of evidence-based public health strategies that tell us abstinence-only should be removed from PEPFAR. He puts ideology ahead of his own reality in the ultimate paternalistic perversion of "do as I say, not as I do."

As I wrote before, this kind of legislation is disastrous and often ineffective at preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS. Furthermore, the fact that Vitter is putting women's lives at risk by preaching them to "be faithful" when he himself is suspected of not doing so (in an illegal paying-for-sex way, no less) is infuriating.

On The Failure of Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Programs

Concerned Citizen — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:04:23 EST

    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.

Faulty Studies used to Promote Conservative Agenda for Abstinence

Jamie Friedman — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:25:45 EST

In February, the Journal of Youth and Adolescence published a longitudinal study performed by a groups of researchers from Ohio State that indicated a strong connection between the onset of teenage sexual behavior and delinquency. Wait…. what? Their findings suggest the classic conservative notion that “sex is bad” and so concluded that the loss of virginity at a relatively young age appears to, as the researchers wrote, "open the doorway to problem behaviors." (Check it out on the Post). This is brilliant! What better way to continue the hoax of abstinence only education than to show that having sex no longer solely implies shaky morals, but in fact, now leads to a full blown criminal record?

Abstinence Education is Good for the Economy?

Kay Steiger — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:05:31 EST

At least, that's the argument the conservative Family Research Council seems to be making. In an email sent to FRC members, Tony Perkins attacked Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine's recent decision to cut off funding for abstinence only education -- which we know doesn't work. Interestingly enough, FRC is concerned about how this will affect the market, "The decision ... affects nearly 15 nonprofit programs ... Virginia's contraceptive-based, pro-adolescent-sex education programs will not be affected. In fact, most of them stand to profit substantially from the lack of competition. The most obvious beneficiary ... Planned Parenthood."

Wait, I'm confused. FRC is shocked that a program that is proved to not work is getting funding withdrawn from it and is claiming that the group that will profit is a nonprofit? Firstly, if they're so concerned with market values, then they shouldn't be so surprised when an ineffective program becomes unpopular and therefore gets less funding. Secondly, Planned Parenthood doesn't just do comprehensive sex education. They also provide prenatal care and regular pap smears to low income women where access to such health care is virtually nonexistent. In other words, Planned Parenthood provides a valuable service. Instead of subsidizing ineffective programs, we should work on funding programs that do work. Don't conseratives hate it when economics works against them?

Abstinence Funds? No Thanks, Says New York.

Kay Steiger — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:04:16 EDT

According to Kaiser Network, New York has joined a list of 11 states to refuse federal abstinence-only education funds in the last few years. The state will reject about $3.5 million this year in favor of teaching comprehensive sex ed. This shows that states are actually deciding that abstenence-only education is doing more harm than good, so it's not worth it to accept the funding.

The article highlighted this gem from Leslie Unruh, who tried so hard to keep the South Dakota abortion ban in effect, "A lot of kids that are abstaining are made to feel as if they are from a Victorian age and they are not with the 'Sex and the City' crowd."

Abstinence Education Doesn't Work

Kay Steiger — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:47:24 EDT

Shocker. The BBC reports today that a meta study (a kind of study of studies) published in the British Medical Journal showed that overall abstinence only education has no impact on the sexual lives of young people aged 10-21. The article said:

They found abstinence programmes had no negative or positive impact on the rates of sex infections or unprotected sex, the British Medical Journal said.
Abstinence programmes are popular in the US and have supporters in the UK.

The funny thing about this is the reporting. It's sort of reported with a "silly Americans and their attachment to abstinence education" attitude. It's true, though. For years Congress has been pouring money into such programs for years, and last month Congress even approved an increase in abstinence funding in exchange for more comprehensive sex education funding.

Among the scientific community, it's obvious that these programs just don't work. Additionally, I've always felt it reeked of moralizing to young people whose families may not share such conservative views on sex.

Wrap It Up

Zach Marks — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:13:11 EDT

A day after I write a piece about making progress in the field of sexual health, I get bumped back two spaces. I take a bathroom break but something on the office TV stops me in my tracks en route from the cubicle to bladder relief.

What Can Ten Billion Dollars Buy You? One Hell Of An Abstinence Campaign!

JonathanGarro — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:41:37 EDT

In days where the federal government spends trillions of dollars, where it costs 6,300 dollars a second to conduct a war, and where it costs hundreds of millions just to run for president, we can become jaded about just what ten billion dollars looks like. I often imagine what I would do if I had ten billion dollars. I haven't decided on anything yet, but let's just say the idea of having a lifetime supply of tacos isn't out of the question. Near the bottom of that very long list in my mind is conducting any kind of abstinence campaign in Africa in an attempt to curb AIDS, (that campaign is number 42,123 on my list, just ahead of buying a lifetime supply of spagettiO's).

It's just sex!

ODUMarc — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:29:37 EDT

Two points, really. The first is on the world’s fascination with “virginity” and America’s obsession over it. The second point is about the emphasis society tends to put on the act of sex.

Reading one of the Campus Progress web logs this morning, I ran across an interesting statistic – that just about or more than 50 percent of college students are “still virgins.” My question: why do we care? Why is it that, as a society, we treat losing one’s virginity as sort of a rite of passage in which a new person is born and the old, less mature person is gone? It’s to say, as if, a person’s accomplishment in life is based on whether or not that person has engaged in sex. With rite-of-passage teen movies like “American Pie” being a part of the popular culture, it seems the message we’re sending teens is: your worth and dignity is based on whether you’ve “done it.” Yet, they also get messages from the Christian-right about remain “pure” and “untouched” until marriage. The result is a clash of culture, in which, on one hand, the message is about the importance of having sex. On the other hand, the message is about “saving” oneself until marriage. What’s a kid to do, really, in that situation? If virginity is so special, how come the majority of us aren't even in touch with the person to whom we "lost" it? The truth is when it comes to virginity, there is nothing lost, and nothing gained.

Besides, what's the exact definition of a virgin anyhow? One who's pure in both thoughts and mind? One who's never orgasmed? One who's never had intercourse? One who's had intercourse but never orgasm? Does oral sex count? What about priest sex? It's all confusing, really -- yet we're still obsessed with the idea of virginity.

The fact of the matter is that there are more important things to worry about in one’s lifelong accomplishment than sex and “virginity.” We see movies like “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” but we don’t see movies like, “The 40-Year-Old Bum Who Hasn’t Done a Damned Thing to Make the World Better.”

Sometimes, I wonder why. Why can’t we just teach kids, from both the left and the right that sex is something amazing and wonderful that should only be had with responsibility, respect and readiness? Isn’t that a much better message than: if you aren’t having sex, you’re a loser or if you’re having sex, you’re a slut?

Wouldn’t it make the whole abstinence education debate much easier to digest? Wouldn’t it make birth control much more easily gotten? Wouldn’t it strike down patriarchy and society’s ideal of a family at its root? It certainly would. Just by changing our personal outlooks on virginity and sex, we can certainly make move the world in the right political direction.

Second point: why does society put such a strong emphasis on the act of sex? It is, after all, only sex. I don’t mean to sound like a frat boy here, but sex is just an act. It’s neither holy nor God’s gift. It’s neither divine nor special. It’s purely biological, just like any other activity that we engage in as humans. Sure, sex is certainly not making love, but it’s got a quality of its own. Just like going for a walk, having dinner or spending the afternoon with someone, sex is just an act. It only becomes special when the person with whom we are sharing it is special. Other than that, sex is just – sex. Why make things any complicated than life already is? To be sure, one should always be monogamous in a relationship, but let’s not treat sex anymore special than just a kiss. A kiss, after all, without any emotions put into it, is just a kiss.

What Happens in Bed Stays in Bed...

Graham — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:04:11 EDT

...at least, that's the situation for people who take abstinence pledges and the like. Apparently, they have sex too! From the Daily Illini:

WASHINGTON - Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes, and they first had sex at about the same age as their control group counterparts _ 14 years and nine months, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc. ...