Abstinence-Only Education

People such as President George W. Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers "abstinence only" rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. (2010 Union of Concerned Scientists) In addition, the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants' program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs. (Federal Register 65:69562-65, November 17, 2000). This

Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.

Moreover the lack of knowledge of contraceptive usage and birth control leads to high pregnancy rates as well. Comprehensive does what abstinence only does not. It informs students of how to use condoms, how to get birth control, and the risks of unprotected sexual activity. Abstinence only is not realistic in American society in the twenty first century. If teenagers are not informed of what is happening in their bodies and how to control it, they have the potential to attract unwanted consequences.

In 2005, nearly half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse. Plainly stating that abstinence programs do not work (USA Today). Abstinence programs were beneficial many years ago, but since they are ineffective in delaying teen pregnancy, then teen pregnancy rate has increased. Abstinence programs teach the “no sex until marriage” clause, but they don’t teach teens about birth control and the consequences of having sex at before they’ve matured. Although many studies argue that abstinence programs are educational and beneficial, other studies will show that they don’t delay teen sex, they don’t prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and are a waste of taxpayers’

The teenagers and children of today read about, listen to and watch all sorts of information about sex. While most adults have had some form of sex education, we must ask if this new generation is learning anything new or helpful from their sex education classes. The American culture and way of living is so absorbed in sex that children should be taught about it, people just can not agree on how to teach them. In her article New Sex ed Funding Ends Decade of Abstinence-Only, Kelli Kennedy proves that abstinence-only sex education classes and programs are not as good as regular sex education classes better than Shari Roan does in her article Teen pregnancy rates rises. Are abstinent-only programs to blame?

The issue of the paper Misinformed and Unprotected is that Abstinence-only programs lack to inform teens about sexual contact because the system is current set up as only teaching teens to not have sexual contact till marriage, leaving out important information for teens who what to learn how to be safe with sexual contact. The writer’s position on the paper is that the education system should be changed to inform teens more than just wait till marriage to have sex. The evidence list is that Abstinence-only education advocates claim that abstinence-only programs prevent premarital sex, but that the programs need to stop being publicly funded because these programs may make those who have suffered from sexual abuse feel ashamed and unwilling

Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased

Does “abstinence-only” programs mean abstinence-only lives for teenagers receiving this type of sexual education? There are those who fully support abstinence-only sex education while others deny its ability and believe it only under educates teenagers. From the latter, the author claims that abstinence only programs are not effective. He presents evidence to suggest this is valid, including that high school students need medically accurate information on how to decrease their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy because they are sexually active. Though the underlying issue has merit and the argument is sound and is valid because of logical

Abstinence only education is hindering the lives of teens in today’s world. Schools should stop teaching abstinence only education since, it increases the rate of teens having sexual relations with other people, it does not give students adequate lessons on preventing STDs, and the rate of teen pregnancy is higher for students who receive abstinence only education. As a nation we need to help teens protect themselves with this topic and most importantly approach it with caution. Many schools believe that abstinence only education is the most effective way to instruct students on the topic of sex when it clearly is not.

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

Actually, many states are paying more than ever for their students to receive an abstinence-based education. This leads to the next problem with abstinence-only education in America; cost. In 2015, $25 million in additional funding was granted for Title V, an 18-year-old federal program that doles out matching grants to states that agree to implement abstinence-only programs(thinkprogress). This program is not only harming the students, but also the tax payers! Tax payers who actually would prefer their students to be taught broad range of sexual education that would prepare them better for the real world. According to the results of a 2005-2006 nationally representative survey of U.S. adults published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, more than eight in 10 of those polled support comprehensive sex education (siecus). So the question is, why do we continue to support a cause that is not providing our students any benefit and taking away so much

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).

Within the United States, 38 states of the 48 states examined have some form of abstinence only education. Of those 38, 21 have laws in place that require schools to solely teach abstinence only sex education (Stranger-Hall, Kathrin F. and David W. Hall 4). The logic behind such practices is to prevent teenagers from engaging in intercourse and to decrease the rate of teen pregnancies. The curriculum of abstinence only programs stresses that teenagers should not engage in intercourse since that is the only way to guarantee one will not get pregnant. Information about contraceptives and safe sex to prevent pregnancies and the spread of STDs is not mentioned, and in fact is against those 21 states’ laws regarding use of funds to discuss in the class. The only information about contraceptives that is allowed while using those funds is emphasizing the failure rates (Advocates for Youth). Contrary to what these states are trying to accomplish, the rate of pregnancy is much higher than the median of the United States. Of the 48 states studied, the median rate of pregnancy is 62.5 per 1000 girls aged 14-19. However, the median of pregnancies for states with strictly abstinence only education is 76 per 1000 girls (Stranger-Hall, Kathrin F. and David W. Hall Table 3). The top 5 states with the highest pregnancy rates for girls aged 15-19 (recorded age represents the age at which the pregnancy ended) are New Mexico, 255 per 1000; Mississippi, 241 per 1000; Texas, 235 per 1000;

Several studies have shown an overwhelming amount of support for comprehensive sex education compared to abstinence-only education (Herrman et al. 2013; Bourke 2014). Despite the conclusions drawn in these studies, Congress have passed legislature to promote abstinence-only education in public schools in order for the schools to receive federal funding (Elders 2008; Rose 2005). Some states do not allow these sex education classes to emphasize contraception or even provide information on the topic (Rose 2005). The number of public schools with a sex education component in their curriculum has been declining over the recent years. It is believed that parents should be given more of an opportunity to decide when and how to approach the subject with their children (Jones and Boonstra 2004;