Abstinence Education: Let’s Do the Math
by: Penna Dexter - Jun 5, 2007 - comments: 1
Just in time for a Capitol Hill battle over abstinence education funding, a curious report was released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., a Washington D.C. think tank, conducted the study on just four of the nation’s more than 700 abstinence education programs and concluded these curricula had little impact on teen sexual activity. The Washington Post headline— Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs —was one of many that broadened the report’s message to imply that abstinence-only sex ed is not working.
The study followed children who were presented with an abstinence program at ages nine to eleven. These kids had no other abstinence education until they were evaluated four to six years later. At that time, some of them were having sex.
This ridiculous study contradicts fifteen evaluations documenting the effectiveness of abstinence education programs operating across the country. But it provided ammunition for members of Congress determined not to reauthorize the Title V abstinence education program, which expires June 30. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI,) chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Title V, said the program has not proven to be effective. Really?
Title V provides $50 million per year to be distributed to states on a formula basis for sex education programs teaching students that abstinence is the way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. To receive Title V funds, states must adhere to certain requirements, including teaching that sex within marriage is “the expected standard of sexual activity.”
Title V is one of three abstinence funding programs, and its language affects the others. President Bush has asked Congress to appropriate $191 million for all three programs for fiscal year 2008, an increase of $28 million from FY 2007 funding levels.
By contrast, the government funnels over a quarter of a billion dollars each year to groups like Planned Parenthood for “comprehensive” sex ed. The philosophy driving these programs is the model promoted by SEICUS, the Sexuality and Information Council of the United States. These groups don’t deny the obvious abstinence message: no sex; no pregnancy; no STD. But they assume some students simply cannot, or will not, abstain from premarital sex. So birth control and “safer sex” are major components of the curriculum. Comprehensive sex educators define abstinence as anything short of intercourse, preserving an emphasis on condoms to provide protection from the STDs that can result from such behavior.
How public schools do sex ed is up for grabs; whether or not they do it is no longer controversial. Perhaps it should be, because the record has been mixed.
Sex education courses were initially introduced in certain U.S. public schools in the 1940s to curb sexually transmitted diseases and reduce teen pregnancies. The federal government began providing some support for sex ed programs in the 80s, with Planned Parenthood and SEICUS driving the content.
The stakes got higher as HIV/AIDS reared its ugly head. By the 1990s, out-of-wedlock pregnancies and STDs had mushroomed along with federal welfare outlays. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act contained $50 million for abstinence.
Then, in 2000, candidate George W. Bush contended abstinence education was woefully underfunded. As president, he said, he’d spend as much on abstinence as on teen family planning. The country has made tremendous progress toward reaching that goal.
President Bush states clearly that the message to young people should be: “Save sex until marriage.” The administration’s abstinence funding message emphasizes not only eliminating the physical risk and reducing the economic costs to society, but also the negative effects sexual activity has on the mental and emotional health of young people.
This is key because the abstinence message in comprehensive sex education is not values-based. To get government funds, public school abstinence programs, by law, cannot contain religious content. But they can and do emphasize love, the proper role of intimacy, commitment, and especially marriage. A Zogby poll released in May (PDF, 100K) shows an overwhelming majority (83%) of parents want this taught to their children. By a 3 to 1 margin, parents want more funding given to abstinence education than to comprehensive sex ed. And 2 out of 3 parents think the “wait to have sex” message gets lost when contraception is demonstrated and encouraged.
With teen pregnancy and birth rates dropping, the abstinence education approach is now being applied to the growing problem of out-of-wedlock births among older singles. Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, is pleased to administer a program funding community-based abstinence education aimed at the 19-29 age group.
At press time the battle over abstinence funding in Title V has yet to be decided. But there will be others. Our leaders should not ignore the successes and the common sense surrounding abstinence education.
Not too many years ago, the youth culture’s mantra was “If it feels good, do it.” Today more teenagers are saying, “Let’s not.” There are strong indications that most of today’s teenagers reject the free sex ethos of their parents’ generation. On behalf of the culture, let the adults in Congress do the same.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Education, Sexual Purity, Abstinence
1 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jun 11th, 2007, at 6:14pm, TT wrote:
The reality of the situation is that, yes, sex is still rampant amongst teens today; perhaps even more so than it was years ago. When you deprive students of comprehensive health education and present them with the utopia of “abstinence-only” lifestyles, you endanger the thousands, and perhaps millions, of young people who for whatever reason - religious beliefs, socioeconomic background, environmental causes, family values - do not subscribe to this way of living. In a practical world, where parents can’t be around all the time and hormones are changing, it is a much safer route to go. In a perfect world, all teens would remain virgins until they were married; but for many teens, however you spin it and sell it to them, that world just doesn’t exist. Rather than waging a morality war, we must equip them with the knowledge to protect themselves.