|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
 
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
These program deny the reality that most teenagers engage in increasing intimate sexual behaviors as they age and that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 50 percent of high school students have had sexual intercourse. In addition, the requirement that abstinence programs discuss abstinence as the only sure way to avoid STDs “clearly prevents funded programs from discussing the effectiveness of condoms and contraception in preventing unintended pregnancy and disease transmission” and discourages the use of condoms. Abstinence-only programs also routinely suggest that condoms and other contraceptives are unreliable. The Choosing the Best program tells teens that condoms fail more than 25 percent of the time and that condoms are extremely difficult to use, requiring more than 10 steps, including the bizarre statement that the final, post-intercourse step to condom use is cleaning the genital area with “rubbing alcohol or dilute solutions of Lysol.” According to SIECUS, abstinence-only programs prominently discuss the most extreme consequences of untreated STDS and fail to discuss routine STDs prevention and screening, which leaves sexually active teens at risk. Sexuality educator Debbie Roffman, author of Sex and Sensibility: The Thinking Parent’s Guide to Talking Sense About Sex, says that efforts to scare teens away from sex with horror stories can backfire because it erodes their sense of control. “You want kids to be appropriately concerned, but you also want to leave them feeling in control. Tell them the truth, but tell them the good news is that these are preventable diseases—there are many things you can do to prevent them,” she said. The programs’ emphasis on abstinence until marriage as the “expected standard” also flies in the face of the fact that the vast majority of men and women are not virgins when they marry. They also assume that all people desire to enter into a “mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage,” disregarding people who choose not to marry and gays and lesbians who are legally barred from marrying. The programs also promote the idea that sexual activity outside of marriage is harmful, when there is no evidence to prove this is true and most people engage in sexual activity prior or outside of marriage with no negative consequences. The programs also attempt to stigmatize premarital sex as immoral and shameful. The Nevada State Health Division was forced to suspend public service announcements for its abstinence-only program after they generated controversy. The ads proclaimed that teenage girls often feel “dirty and cheap” when they break up with boyfriends they have had sex with, that condoms don’t protect against some STDs, and that sexually active teens are more likely to commit suicide. Where's the Evidence? In addition to delivering messages that may harm teens, abstinence-only programs are largely unproven as to their effectiveness in meeting basic public health goals such as preventing teen pregnancy and delaying sexual intercourse. A 2001 report by then-Surgeon General David Satcher said that there was no evidence that abstinence-only programs work and said sex ed programs should provide information on contraceptives and safe sex practices. The report called for “access to education about sexual health and responsible sexual behavior that is thorough, wide-ranging, [and] begins early.” There is evidence that abstinence programs may be damaging to teens. A study out in February of this year found that a five-year, federally funded abstinence-only program in Minnesota called “Minnesota Education Now and Babies Later” actually increased sexual activity among teens and increased expectations among teens that they would be sexually active. There has been an overall 28% decline in teen pregnancy over the past decade. While most sexual health experts attribute the decline to an increase in contraceptive use and a decrease in sexual activity due to better education, particularly about AIDS, abstinence advocates say the decline shows the effectiveness of abstinence education. “As abstinence education has spread from a few classrooms in the 1980s to thousands of schools across the country today, the message is getting through. Teens are making decisions for virginity, and the results are clear,” said Leslee Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, which serves as a resource for abstinence-only programs. The Heritage Foundation released a review of 10 “promising” abstinence-only programs, but none of the studies were peer-reviewed and most of the programs were small and had been operating for only a short time. The study did find that teens who took “virginity pledges” delayed sexual activity for 18 months longer than those who did not, but in a finding that seems to support the worst fears of comprehensive sexuality advocates, teens who took the pledge were more likely not to use contraceptives once they did become sexually active. A review of comprehensive sex ed programs sponsored by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found that these types of programs do not promote sexual activity among teens, as abstinence advocates charge. The review also found no evidence that abstinence-only programs were effective. The public supports comprehensive sex education. A recent poll found that only 15% of Americans believe that schools should teach abstinence-only and withhold information on contraceptives. The vast majority said that teens should be taught a more comprehensive approach, either one that stresses abstinence as the best approach but provides information on contraceptives (46%) or primarily focuses on teaching teens how to make responsible decisions about sex (36%). Whose Morality Is It, Anyway? In addition to being unproven programs that deprive sexually developing teens of the information they need to make wise decisions, abstinence-only programs promote a narrow moral view about the role of sexuality in human relationship supported by extremist organizations that oppose reproductive choice and women’s equality. According to Cornell University Law Professor Gary Simson, abstinence-only programs may violate the First Amendment because they “are rooted in the purpose of endorsing the view of sex urged by, and identified with, the Christian Coalition and its allies in the ‘religious right’.” Simon says that programs like Sex Respect are designed to “give effect to the conservative Christian view that both premarital sex and homosexual conduct are sinful and therefore to be avoided.” A federal judge found in 2002 that an abstinence-only program widely used in Louisiana schools improperly advanced religion and promoted religious messages. Money in the program was used to hold prayer rallies outside of abortion clinics and perform “Christ-centered” skits with abstinence messages. One program used the virgin birth to emphasize God’s desire for “sexual purity.” Under an agreement reached with the ACLU, the state will monitor future program content for religious references. People of faith overwhelming support providing young adults with the accurate information about sexuality that they need to make responsible choices. A national poll of 900 voters commissioned by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice found that American of all faiths want responsible sexuality education taught in schools, including 73% of Catholics and 67% of Christian fundamentalists. Religious support for sexuality education is long-standing. In 1968, influential Protestant, Catholic and Jewish organizations released a joint statement calling for each community to provide “resources, leadership and opportunities as appropriate” for sexuality education in light of their religious tradition. The American Baptist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and Reform and Conservative Judaism have passed resolutions affirming the need for sexuality education within their own faiths and the public schools. The Religious Coalition has several resources to help provide faith-based comprehensive sexuality education. In addition, the Rev. Carlton Veazey is serving on Dr. David Satcher’s National Advisory Council on Sexual Health, which is working to promote sexual health and responsible sexual behavior. But conservatives are busy as well. In addition to the doubling of funds for abstinence education in the president's FY 2005 budget, the next frontier for abstinence education is adults. Robert Rector envisions promoting the gospel of abstinence to young adults in their 20s as well as teens--a move that dovetails with Bush administration plans to devote $1.5 billion to promote marriage, especially among low-income men and women, to reduce out-of-wedlock births. But many public health experts argue that there is a better way to reduce illegitimacy that coercing poor women into marriage--comprehensive education about sex and family planning options. This report was researched and written by journalist and reproductive rights expert Patricia Miller for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. For additional information, please contact info@rcrc.org or 202-628-7700 ext. 12. For a foot-noted version of this article as a PDF file, please email info@rcrc.org |
||||||||||||||||||
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice • 1413 K Street NW • 14th Floor • Washington, DC 20005
P: (202) 628-7700 • F: (202) 628-7716 • E: info@rcrc.org • Our Privacy Policy