This is my English 102 Paper. Enjoy. Forgive me for the formatting being a touch inconsistent. The internet links are missing in the Works Cited due to HTML problems -- If you want them for some reason, just let me know.
Should Abstinence-Only Education be Federally Funded?
I think most American parents would prefer that their teenage children abstain from sexual activity. No one wants to think about the fact that their 15-year old son or daughter could be having sex, and it is a well known fact that abstinence is the only certain way to prevent teenage pregnancy or contraction of a sexually transmitted disease (STD). But the power of abstinence to prevent pregnancy and STDs is, for many students around the country, the only sex education available at their public schools. This is because they are receiving federally funded abstinence-only education.
Since 1998, under Title V, Section 510 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the U.S. government has annually provided $50 million dollars in funding to be made available to states that teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only acceptable behavior for unmarried school-age children (Hauser 1; Trenholm et al. 13). Under this program, for every three dollars that a state uses to fund its abstinence only programs, the federal government will provide four dollars (United States, Abstinence 16). In addition to state programs, the government provided $113 million dollars to Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) during fiscal year 2007 and $13 million dollars for The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) (Siegel et al. 8-9). As quoted by United States Government Accountability Office, in order to be eligible for Title V funding, an abstinence-only education program must meet the following criteria:
A. has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B. teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-aged children;
C. teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D. teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E. teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F. teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
G. teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
H. teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. (13)
No organization which receives abstinence-only funding is allowed to teach anything “inconsistent” with the above A-H principles (Schleifer 12).
Meanwhile, many schools are teaching that while abstinence is the best way to protect oneself from pregnancy and STDs, those who are sexually active can take measures to reduce their risk. These sex education programs are known as “abstinence-plus” or comprehensive sex education and include information about condoms, contraceptive use, and making healthy choices. These programs, while often advocating abstinence as the healthiest choice for teenagers, also give students information they will need if they become sexually active. To the contrary, abstinence-only sex education programs are only allowed to teach the dangers of sexual activity and the benefits of remaining abstinent. They are not allowed to discuss contraceptives or condoms except to emphasize their (often exaggerated) failure rates (United States, Content 12). Abstinence-only education programs should not be federally funded because they provide students with distorted or inaccurate information, are overall ineffective at changing sexual behavior, and fail to provide students with potentially life-saving information regarding safe-sex practices.
A primary argument of abstinence-only education proponents is that students should be taught to remain abstinent; they do not need to learn about condoms or contraceptives. First of all, this statement is a dogmatic logical fallacy. The statement being made is based on the moral view that teenagers should not have sex until they are married and assumes that all people should think that way. Second, research is showing that teenagers are not choosing abstinence after participating in these programs (Trenholm 17), which means they need to be informed for when they do become sexually active.
As stated in a United States House of Representatives report, “abstinence-only curricula teach moral judgments alongside scientific facts” (15). Instead of keeping a separation between church and state, the government appears to be funding a program that sends students a religiously charged mandate for how they should act outside of school. In New York State in FY 2005, 53 percent of the abstinence-only education funds were granted to faith-based organizations with no federal or state level evaluations taking place to verify the absence of religious materials within the curriculum (Siegel et al. 23). Policies like this one will ensure that teenagers receive ideologically and religiously distorted information about their sexuality.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), provides the grants to state and community based abstinence-only education programs (United States, Abstinence 14-15). But according to a United States Government Accountability Office investigation into the accuracy and effectiveness of these programs,
ACF does not review materials for scientific accuracy in either reviewing grant applications or in overseeing grantees’ performance… ACF also does not require its grantees to review their own materials for scientific accuracy. (18-19)
As a result, abstinence-only education programs are notorious for containing inaccurate or completely false information (United States, Content 7-21). Many curricula inaccurately represent findings from existing legitimate research in an attempt to scare students into abstaining from sex. Multiple curricula refer to a study which found that condoms, under typical use, fail to prevent pregnancy 14 percent of the time over the course of a year (United States, Content 15). But many of these curricula distort the data to teach students that condoms have a 14 percent failure rate after each use, or that condoms fail 14 percent of the time under consistent, correct use; in fact, condoms only have a 2% - 3% failure rate over the course of a year when used “consistently and correctly” (United States, Content 15-16, qtd. in Siegel et al. 15).
Similar distortions are found in curricula when referring to condom effectiveness against HIV. One flawed 1993 study has long since been discredited by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and even the HHS (who is ultimately responsible for funding abstinence-only education). Nevertheless, it has been used by several abstinence-only programs to illustrate the falsehood that condoms fail to stop the transmission of HIV 31 percent of the time (United States, Content 12-13). Teaching these greatly exaggerated condom failure rates is assuredly not likely to encourage teenagers to use protection if and when they do become sexually active.
Because the above listed A-H guidelines dictate what can and cannot be taught in abstinence-only education programs, gay and bisexual students are inherently discriminated against (Schleifer 36). Under instruction that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity,” these students are being told that because of the current law in most states, which prohibits marriage except between a man and a woman, they should never have sex (Scleifer 36; Siegel 19). Homosexuality is generally not discussed or only talked about in a negative light; many programs only refer to homosexuality as something which puts people at high risk for HIV/AIDS (Schleifer 37). This is dangerous for homosexual and bisexual students because it leaves them feeling ignored or demonized and unconfident about the effectiveness of condoms.
One point of monumental importance that has drawn much criticism towards abstinence-only sex education is the fact that studies are showing that it does not work. One study, completed by Advocates for Youth, took a look at ten evaluations of abstinence-only programs that were conducted by their respective states (Hauser 1). Of these state funded evaluations, nine surveyed students’ short-term intentions to abstain from sex until marriage (Hauser 2). The evaluations showed that only three of these nine programs made a positive influence on students’ intentions to abstain (Hauser 2). However, of those three states (Arizona, Washington, and Florida), only Florida did a short-term evaluation on changes in sexual behavior, and found that these behaviors had increased (Hauser 2). Of the ten evaluations, five conducted impacts on sexual behavior over time, and according to the study, “No evaluation demonstrated any impact on reducing teens’ sexual behavior at follow up, three to 17 months after the program ended” (Hauser 3). Furthermore, Arizona’s abstinence-only students’ opinion about contraceptives actually dropped after attendance in the program (Hauser 4). These state evaluations showed no sign of long-term success in abstinence-only sex education.
There is but one major federally funded evaluation into the effectiveness of abstinence-only education. This evaluation, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., concentrated on “Sexual Behavior” and “Knowledge and Perceptions of Risks Associated with Teen Sexual Activity” (Trenholm et al. 16-17). It used an experimental design method, which included a randomly-picked program group that was given abstinence-only education and a control group which was not (Trenholm 16). It showed that students who attended abstinence-only education programs were no more likely to abstain from sex than those who did not attend the training(Trenholm 17). They did not wait any longer to have sex (Trenholm 18) and were just as likely as control group students to have had two, three, or four or more sexual partners (Trenholm 18). It appears that these programs work great for the heterosexual students who were going to remain abstinent anyways. For everyone else, it is likely to make them feel alienated, rejected, or uninformed.
With so much criticism of abstinence-only education programs taking place, there must be a far greater number of Americans who support abstinence-only education programs to justify the $206 million dollars spent in 2006 in federal grant money (Stover 3) - right? Wrong. A study conducted by National Public Radio showed that 82 percent of Americans think that sex education should provide students with information about condom use and contraceptives; in addition, “77 percent think such information makes it more likely the teens will practice safe sex now or in the future.” The study also revealed that nine out of ten Americans (91 percent for boys and 89 percent for girls) believe that boys and girls are not likely to abstain from sex until marriage. These data reinforce the idea that abstinence-only education support is coming from moral entrepreneurs rather than the American taxpayers who pay for these programs.
Several states have taken action against federal abstinence-only policies by rejecting Title V funds (“Update”). In addition, according to Stein’s article in the Washington Post, “Two other states -- Ohio and Washington -- have applied but stipulated they would use the money for comprehensive sex education, effectively making themselves ineligible.” Until 2006, four states had rejected Title V funding, but in the wake of the Mathematica Research study which found abstinence-only education programs ineffective, 2007 found no less than fourteen states rejecting Title V funding (Stein). Perhaps the growing number of states rejecting ideology-based curricula funding will send a clear message to the capitol that a policy change is in order.
According to the United States Government Accountability Office, “Reducing the incidence of STDs and unintended pregnancies among adolescents is an important objective for the Department of Health and Human Services…” (United States, Abstinence 5). Abstinence-only education proponents insist that their programs are the best way to achieve this goal. Many decry comprehensive sex education programs by saying that educating students about contraception and condoms will encourage them to engage in sexual activity (Stover 2). What these critics are failing to account for is that a vast majority of comprehensive sex education programs, while informing students about contraceptives and the importance of consistent condom use, are also teaching them that abstinence is the safest and only sure way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs. The most effective way to “reduce STDs and unintended pregnancies among adolescents” is not to try to scare children out of having sex; rather, it is to give them scientifically accurate information and let them use knowledge to make decisions for themselves.
It appears we have two sex education options for today’s schools. Option one is that we can teach students that we expect them to remain abstinent until marriage and not teach them about how to use a condom and contraceptives, then see them become sexually active anyways (as studies show they will) without the knowledge they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Option two is that these teenagers become sexually active with knowledge of how to properly use a condom and use contraceptives, because they were taught that while abstinence is the only way to completely protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs, there are measures they can take to significantly reduce their risk if they choose not to abstain.
Considering the issues listed above and the first increase in teen birthrates after a 14-year decline (Kotz), it is important that the government promptly revise its policy of providing funding for abstinence-only education programs. These ineffective programs are doing much more harm than good by providing students with false information, censoring basic instruction about obtaining and using condoms and contraceptives, and discriminating against homosexual, bisexual, and sexually active students. They also inherently impose a specific religious moral view upon students who have a right to receive accurate information and make decisions for themselves. It is imperative that the government only support comprehensive sex education curricula that are verified to be scientifically accurate and appropriately address subjects such as obtaining and using contraceptives and proper and consistent condom use. A policy which is based on the denial of select information to a group of people does not belong in a nation which prides itself in personal liberties and freedom.
It is okay to teach abstinence as the only way to protect oneself from pregnancy and STDs 100 percent of the time. It is not okay to lie to students by saying “there is no such thing as safe sex.” It is not okay to exaggerate failure rates of condoms and contraceptives to discourage their use. It is not okay to turn teenage sex into something evil because it is something you morally disagree with. It is not okay to teach a class that is judgmental towards homosexuals or ignores their existence altogether. It is time for the government to rethink their strategy for reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates.
Works Cited
Hauser, Debra. “Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact.” Advocates for Youth. 2004. 15 April 2008
stateevaluations.pdf>
Kotz, Deborah. “A Debate About Teaching Abstinence.” U.S. News & World Report 142.23 (31 Dec 2007): 28. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. Clark College, Cannell Lib. Vancouver, WA. 17 Apr 2008
Schleifer, Rebecca. “Ignorance Only: HIV/AIDS, Human Rights, and Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Programs in the United States. Texas: A Case Study.” Human Rights Watch 14.5 (Sep 2002). ERIC. EBSCO Host. Clark College, Cannell Lib. Vancouver, WA. 17 Apr. 2008
“Sex Education in America.” National Public Radio. 24 Feb. 2004. 10 Apr. 2008
1622610>
Siegel, Loren, et al. “Financing Ignorance: A Report on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding in New York.” Ed. Galen Sherwin et al. Reproductive Rights Project. September 2007. New York Civil Liberties Union. 25 Apr. 08
Stein, Rob. “Abstinence Programs Face Rejection.” Washingtonpost.com 16 Dec. 2007. 28 May 2008
Stover, Del. “Should We Be Teaching Sex Education or Sexual Abstinence?” Education Digest 72.5 (Jan 2007): 41-48. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. Clark College, Cannell Lib. Vancouver, WA. 17 Apr 2008
Trenholm, Christopher, et al. “Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs: Final Report.” Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Apr 2007. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 26 Apr. 2008
publications/pdfs/impactabstinence.pdf>
United States. Government Accountability Office. Abstinence Education: Efforts to Assess the Accuracy and Effectiveness of Federally Funded Programs: GAO-07-87. October 2006. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO Host. Clark College, Cannell Lib. Vancouver, WA. 15 Apr. 2008
---. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Reform. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs. Dec. 2004. 26 Apr. 2008
20041201102153-50247.pdf>
“Update: Fight Over U.S. Abstinence-Only Programs Deepens.” Contemporary Sexuality 42.2 (Feb 2008): 7. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Host. Clark College, Cannell Lib. Vancouver, WA. 17 Apr 2008
