"Condoms? Never heard of 'em."While it is not known whether or not Jamie Lynn Spears is aware of contraceptive devices, once thing is certain: She did not learn about them in school. That is because the pregnant 16-year old actress attends school in Mississippi, one of 36 states that receives federal funding for abstinence-only sexual education. The program, known as Title V, was implemented in 1996 and has since allocated over $1.5 billion to promoting abstinence as the only sex education alternative available to teens. For states to receive funding, Title V requires that a state meet very specific sex education standards. Since it's inception, 14 states have opted not to receive federal funding, and Congress may eventually cut the program altogether.
In a modest step in the right direction, Congress this week passed a budget without an increase in abstinence-only funding. Funding for the programs had increased virtually every year since George W. Bush took office
So why would the government want to eliminate this program? Why would states turn down federal money? Intuitively, abstinence education makes sense, right? After all, you can't get pregnant or contract an STD if you don't have sex. The problem with abstinence-only education, however, is the "only" part. These programs, as opposed to comprehensive sex education, eliminate all discussion of contraception, except when noting the failure rates of the various contraceptive methods. This leaves teenagers woefully unprepared for sexual activity and this ignorance leaves them potentially more vulnerable to pregnancy and STD's.
I know what you're thinking. "But why do kids need to know about contraceptives if they are not having sex?" The answer to that question is simple: They're having sex.
-In a 2007 report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that abstinence-only education programs do not have any net effect on a teen's likelihood of engaging in premarital sex. In fact, students who had taken part in an abstinence program began sexual activity at the same age and had the same number of sexual partners as the control group. Of course abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STD's. The study found, however, that abstinence education programs do not actually result in promoting abstinence.
-Aside from being ineffective, a 2004 report released by the US House of Representatives concluded that these programs also contained false or misleading information about contraceptives, STD's and other sexual health issues.
-While abstinence-only programs do not work, comprehensive sex education programs, which emphasize abstinence along with contraceptive methods, have produced more desired results. A study released by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, stated that comprehensive programs were effective in "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."
-Studies of teens who have taken a "virginity pledge," a promise to abstain from sex until marriage, had a rate of STD infection equal that of non-pledgers.
The debate about abstinence education is relevant again, and not just because of Jamie Lynn Spears. In 2006, teen pregnancies increased for the first time in 15 years, as did the rate of unmarried women giving birth. In addition, the 2008 presidential election, and the GOP's desire to pander to socially conservative voters, has put the abstinence-only debate back on the map. Mike Huckabee has said, "I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools." Mitt Romney proudly displays his devotion to the abstinence education cause on his campaign website. John McCain has spoken about his pro-abstinence record in South Carolina.
So why are all these Republicans so proud of a program that had failed so miserably? There are three equally compelling explanations.
1) Americans are easily confused. Teaching abstinence and teaching abstinence ONLY are two entirely different issues. Conservative groups like to tout polls that find parents overwhelmingly support abstinence being taught in schools. Of course, this is no big surprise. Parents generally want their children to avoid sexual activity as long as possible because of the risks involved. Conservatives conveniently omit the fact that the same Zogby poll found that 75% of parents favor teaching teens about abstinence and contraception. Simply put, teaching kids about the importance of abstinence and allocating taxpayer funds to teach abstinence-only education are vastly different concepts, and Republicans are exploiting the average American's inability to distinguish between the two.
2) Republicans need the "Values Voters" to win elections. Like abortion bans, gay marriage amendments and the like, issues like abstinence education appeal to the "moral majority," and are essential to any Republican's chance of winning in 2008. Despite poll after poll suggesting these values issues are of low importance to voters, the Republican primaries have become a competition to see who can appear more socially conservative. One need look no further than the rapid decline of Rudy Giuliani's presidential dreams to observe the fallout of being a socially moderate Republican in 2008.
3) Republicans must paint Democrats as very socially liberal. Appealing to moderates and independents will likely determine which party wins the White House in 2008. Despite a multitude of Republican sex scandals in recent years, Republicans are already on the offensive when it comes to making the Democratic Party out to be the party of loose sexual morals. Barack Obama has caught flack from Republicans who misrepresented his comprehensive sex education policy. Also expect the unsubstantiated claims of Hillary Clinton's lesbianism and her support of NAMBLA to be ramped up if she wins the Democratic nomination.
So, with the 2008 election approaching, teen pregnancy on the rise, multiple studies undermining the program's efficacy, states opting out of the abstinence education funding, and Congress likely to cut funding altogether in the future, the "values" crowd is scrambling to pick up the pieces. In December of 2007, the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) had the following reaction to the news that teen pregnancy had increased in 2006:
"The alarming news today that U.S. teen birth rates are on the rise brings additional credence to the call for Congress to invest in abstinence education for America's teens."
So, in the opinion of the NAEA, when a program that has been proven ineffective becomes even more ineffective, the logical solution is to sink more money into the program.
This week, Fox News aired a report on abstinence-only education that featured Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Wright had this to say about those who oppose abstinence-only education:
In fact, they want to encourage [kids to choose to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions, so you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.
As for those "financial motives," one can infer that Ms. Wright is referring primarily to Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization that primarily provides pregnancy prevention services. That someone would claim that groups are encouraging teen sex is absurd, and the fact that Fox News would present this as if were somehow a sensible argument is appalling.
But alas, at least people are talking about it. Ever since the Republican Congress of the mid-1990's created the abstinence-only education program, funding has increased even as evidence of the program's ineffectiveness has mounted. So even if the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy is seen as an indictment of the U.S. sexual education system, at least she has people talking about it. Hopefully the government can address this colossal waste of taxpayer money before the War on Teen Sex becomes the next War on Drugs.
No comments:
Post a Comment