Political Discussions
Abstinence only programs ineffectual
Posted by timethief • 9/06/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: abstinece only programs, Economy, mccain, palin, teen prenancy, usa
According to National Vital Statistics Reports, the most recently reported teen pregnancy rate from 2004 is 72.2 per 1000 teens or 7.2 percent.
With regard to the economy and Palin's stand on support for government funded abstinence only until marriage programing , perhaps you are unaware how many millions of tax dollars have been spent these ineffectual programs in the USA.
Republican John McCain, whose running mate disclosed that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, has opposed proposals to spend federal money on teen-pregnancy prevention programs and voted to require poor teen mothers to stay in school or lose their benefits. ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5V6UPINjUP1fphbDC1pXx4finGgD92UHUNO0
Hodges: Dealing with abstinence-only programs
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's vice presidential pick, backs abstinence-only sex education in schools. This week Palin revealed that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is five months pregnant. Critics point to her daughter's predicament as proof this type of education does not work.
Proponents of abstinence-only are against comprehensive sex education mainly because they believe that such programs subtly encourage children to engage in sexual intercourse. On the other hand, opponents point out that federal government studies have shown students in abstinence-only programs are just as likely to have sex as those not enrolled in such programs. www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_10395355
Only 26 states, including Michigan, accept these grants, which must be matched by state funds. Birth rates among 15- to 19-year-olds have plunged since 1991 when it was 61.8 births per 1,000. In 2006, the rate was 41.9, even after a slight rise in 2005.
Decline in teenage pregnancy rates precedes abstinence only until marriage funding
To date no NO valuation supports the effectiveness of abstinence only programs. None the less abstinence only programs that censor information on contraception has increased over 3,000% since 1996 reaching $83 million by 2000. And, states have enacted 34 legislative promoting or mandating abstinence only until marriage programming since 1998.
Using data from a 2002 national survey, researchers found that among more than 1,700 unmarried, heterosexual teens between 15 and 19 years old, those who'd received comprehensive sex ed in school were 60 percent less likely to have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant than teens who'd had no formal sex education.
The study found that teens who'd been through abstinence-only programs were less likely than those who'd received no sex ed to have been pregnant. However, the difference was not significant in statistical terms, which means the finding could have been due to chance.
In addition, there was no evidence that comprehensive sex education increased the likelihood of teen sex or boosted rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) — a concern of people who oppose teaching birth control in schools.
Lead researcher Pamela K. Kohler, of the Center for AIDS and STD at the University of Washington in Seattle told Reuters Health the study "also solidly debunks the myth that teens who learn about birth control are more likely to have sex."
Currently, the federal government champions the abstinence-only approach, giving around $170 million each year to states and community groups to teach kids to say no to sex. This funding precludes mention of birth control and condoms, unless it is to emphasize their failure rates.
Sources:
1. Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcome: estimates for the United States, 1976-96. Vital Health Stat 2000;21(56):1-49.
2. The Public Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. (P.L. 104-193, August 22, 1996.)
3. Abstinence only sex education is risky and ineffective Mike Stobbe, AP Medical Writer, wrote an article that reported a 3% increase in the teen birth rate—the first increase in 14 years.
4. Study: Birth control education helps reduce pregnancies in high school kids (March. 24, 2008)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.---director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania---said in his article, "Blind faith on sex-ed approach puts kids at risk" - "Actually, you cannot expect abstinence-only sex ed to be protective, effective or in any way useful at all. Ever. Period. Enough already. It's time to pull the plug on abstinence-only sex education. There are too many lives at stake to put up with a reproductive-health policy that is willing to kill and disable our kids out of an allegiance to a blind faith in something that does not work."
Abstinence students still having sex - Study tracked 2,057 young people in government-funded programs
April. 16, 2007 - 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 — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18093769/
User Comments
-
Of course these programs are ineffective, but since when has that ever stopped the right-wing from spreading their noise? It's not about effectiveness, it's about keeping the population stupid and therefore easy to control. -
The problem is that different people have different ideas of what "effective" means in this context. To a person who strongly advocates abstinence-only programs, a country full of sexually active teenagers who remembered to use condoms and so got pregnant and contracted social diseases in smaller numbers would not be a "success".
Obviously, many (probably most) people disagree with that, but debating whether or not it "works" is meaningless, since "working" means something entirely different to these two camps.-
But abstinence-only fails by that measure as well. It shouldn't surprise anyone, since AO is basically an exercise in trying to teach ignorance. What's the reasoning here, that if you don't teach kids about sex, they won't know how to do it?
There's absolutely no logical reason to expect any other result. It fails because it pretty much has to. -
The reasoning, Wisco, is that presenting something as an acceptable alternative makes it appear to be...an acceptable alternative. It's a little like the message you'd send if your health class on drug use went something like this: "one way to avoid the dangers associated with drug use is to refrain from using drugs. If you do choose to use drugs, then it's a good idea to know your dealer and avoid buying drugs off the street, since this will cut down on the likelihood of getting drugs cut with rat poison..."
I KNOW that there is a difference in that drugs are illegal and sex is not (dependent upon the age of the student), but the impact of the authority figure presenting something as a reasonable and acceptable choice is the same. Thus, if your goal is to reduce teen pregnancy and STDs by whatever means necessary, educating teenagers about birth control "works" (a little). But the goal of the abstinence-only movement is larger than that, and teaching kids how to have sex safely is rather akin, from that perspective, to setting out your car keys on the kitchen table and saying, "You're absolutely not allowed to take the car tonight, but if you do I certainly hope that you drive safely and return it to the garage by midnight." -
It works more than "a little" and it demonstrably works better than AO. The question -- as it so often when dealing with conservative ideas -- is whether you want to do something that works or whether you want to do something that feels good. Teaching kids that sex before marriage is bad, bad, bad and that's the end of that may feel good, but it's proven to be ineffective.
-
-
I'm always wary of studies, but I did however read a rather in depth study not long ago - I'll have to finds it - the study indicated that abstinence taught alone, and abstinence taught as a choice do not lead to the same results.
Abstinence on it's own leads not only to more pregnancy but STD'S. When abstinence is taught along with a full sex education curriculum, and if the parents also teach abstinence as their preference, but don't deny choice their child has a greater chance of not only staying clear of STD'S and unwanted pregnancy, but are more likely to remain sexual inactive for a longer period of time.
Mad X is right though, for those who advocate no sex ed and abstinence only it really doesn't matter. They do not care. The ideology overrules the consequences.-
Cooper, I think your last statement mischaracterizes the position a little. I think that it's important to remember that you are for the most part talking about people who honestly believe that sex before marriage has devastating and lifelong consequences completely aside from pregnancy and STDs. I think it isn't so much that ideology is more important than consequences but that the pool of consequences and their relative seriousness looks different from the other side of the fence.
-
Assuming one does turn away from sex beyond the confines of marriage, repents, confesses, receives forgiveness, and does not repeat the 'sinful' behavior, then what devastating lifelong consquences can there be?
-
Timethief, as I'm sure you well know, the abstinence only movement is populated by people who believe that sex is part of the lifelong bond of marriage, and designed to make two people one in a way that we are not with any other human being. The opportunity for that lifelong, exclusive bond is lost forever once a person engaged in another sexual relationship. Repenting doesn't give a teenager back the opportunity to share something special, sacred and EXCLUSIVE with the person he or she will become one with for the rest of his/her life.
You may disagree with that or feel that it's not important, but any understanding of or even viable argument with the proponents of that course of action must take into account that this is something they feel strongly will irreparably damage what they perceive to be our most important earthly relationship. -
Perhaps the taxpayers at large ought to be informed that their tax dollars are not being spent on these programs with the aim of preventing teen pregnancy and STD spread. Perhaps they need to know that the aim is a religious one.
-
Timethief, normally I'd agree - I am all about keeping religion out of government institutions but Abstinence - as an IDEAL - is not really a religious issue. I'm sure we could dig up many secular psychologists who work with adolescents who would confirm the pyschological aspects of what Tiffany was saying.
I do agree that Abstinence ONLY programs clearly do not work for all students, but abstinence as a supported and valid and healthy option for students is a good thing. Not as dogmatic teaching, but giving kids the emotional tools they need to help them say no without feeling their social life will be ruined.
As far as I am concerned, sex education at school should be about equipping kids with both the physio-medical AND emotional tools they need to help them navigate their lives. So I believe abstinence education has its place as part of a larger program that balances ALL the possible choices students will need to make. -
Comprehensive means comprehensive. Comprehensive sex ed includes abstinence, but doesn't rely on it entirely.
-
Agreed.
-
-
TimeThief..... I want to say again a great post and great research, you do such a great job of sticking to the facts!!!! I think a post like this is a little to deep for most, but great post. -
Well, I think I posted this before on another thread, but it deserves my revisiting. Who here was taught Abstinence only? I certainly was. Both my parents were and are devout Christians who taught me to never ever ever have sex until I got married, otherwise not only will I be sinning I will be mistreating my body and taking away my personal value. In theory this would be effective in advising me that saving myself for marriage would garner my self worth. However, teaching me nothing whatsoever about safe sex was a terrible idea.
I literally knew nothing. I didn't know about condoms, I had no idea about birth control. In fact even after I got married going to get birth control gave me anxiety. I wish my mother had taught me about so many things other than to just not do it. I joined the military at 18, had I not befriended another christian female who understood my background I would have been lost. She explained everything to me.
I will not teach my daughters Abstinence only, they will be taught to value themselves but I will give them the tools they need to not make the same mistakes I made due to ignorance.-
@210betty
Thanks for posting to this thread and sharing your experience and opinion with us.
-
-
Facts on Sex Education in the United States 12/2006
Sex Education Policy
(1) Currently, 35 states mandate either sex education or education about HIV/AIDS and other STIs, but their laws tend to be very general. Policies specifying the content of sex education are typically set at the local level.
Source: Guttmacher Institute, Sex and STD/HIV education, State Policies in Brief, November 2006, , accessed Nov. 28, 2006.
(2) More than two out of three public school districts have a policy to teach sex education. The remaining one-third of districts leave policy decisions up to individual schools or teachers.
Source: Landry DJ et al, Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies, Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(6):280–286.
(3) Eighty-six percent of the public school districts that have a policy to teach sex education require that abstinence be promoted. Some 35% require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people and either prohibit the discussion of contraception altogether or limit discussion to its ineffectiveness. The other 51% have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens and permit discussion of contraception as an effective means of preventing pregnancy and STIs. ibid
(4) More than half of the districts in the South with a policy to teach sex education have an abstinence-only policy, compared with one in five of such districts in the Northeast. ibid
Government Support of Abstinence-Only Education
(1) There are three federal programs dedicated to funding restrictive abstinence-only education: Section 510 of the Social Security Act, the Adolescent Family Life Act’s teen pregnancy prevention component and Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE). The total funding for these programs is $176 million for FY 2006.
Source:(Unpublished tabulations based on annual federal government appropriations for abstinence-only sex education.)
(2) Federal law establishes a stringent eight-point definition of “abstinence-only education” that requires programs to teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong and harmful—for people of any age. The law also prohibits programs from advocating contraceptive use or discussing contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.
Source: Dailard C, Abstinence promotion and teen family planning: the misguided drive for equal funding, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2002, 5(1):1–3; and Dailard C, Fueled by campaign promises, drive intensifies to boost abstinence-only education funds, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2000, 3(2):1–2 & 12.
(3) Federal guidelines now define sexual activity to include any behavior between two people that may be sexually stimulating, which could be interpreted as including even kissing or hand-holding.
Source: Dailard C, Legislating against arousal: the growing divide between federal policy and teenage sexual behavior, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2006, 9(3):12–16.
(4) New federal restrictions have been expanded to target adolescents and young adults between the ages of 12 and 29.
Source: Dailard C, New Bush Administration policy promotes abstinence until marriage among people in their 20s, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2006, 9(4):23.
(5) There is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex education that teaches young people about both abstinence and contraception.
Source: Dailard C, 2002, op. cit. (see reference 26); and Dailard C, Sex education: politicians, parents, teachers and teens, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2001, 4(1):9–12.
(6) Despite years of evaluation in this area, there is no evidence to date that abstinence-only education delays teen sexual activity. Moreover, recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs.
Source: Kirby D, Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001; Bearman PS and Bruckner H, Promising the future: virginity pledges and first intercourse, American Journal of Sociology, 2001, 106(4):859–912; Bruckner H and Bearman PS, After the promise: the STI consequences of adolescent virginity pledges, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2005, 36(4):271–278.
(6) Evidence shows that comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active. These findings were underscored in “Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior,” issued by former Surgeon General David Satcher in June 2001.
Source: Dailard C, Abstinence promotion and teen family planning: the misguided drive for equal funding, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2002, 5(1):1–3; and Dailard C, Fueled by campaign promises, drive intensifies to boost abstinence-only education funds, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2000, 3(2):1–2 & 12.
Source: Kirby D, Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001; Bearman PS and Bruckner H, Promising the future: virginity pledges and first intercourse, American Journal of Sociology, 2001, 106(4):859–912; Bruckner H and Bearman PS, After the promise: the STI consequences of adolescent virginity pledges, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2005, 36(4):271–278.
Reference: PDF file www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.pdf
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
