Abstinence Only Programs For Public Schools

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.

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’

Studies have also shown that abstinence-focused programs have failed to reduce STI rates. The American Sexual Health Association states, “More than half of all people will have an STD/STI at some point in their lifetime,” (“Statistics”). Comprehensive sex education would teach teenagers how to improve their sexual health, prevent unwanted pregnancies, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Providing students with this information does not encourage them to participate in sexual activity sooner. Several findings show that, “[Comprehensive sex education] effectively promotes abstinence and may delay sexual debut, reduce sexual frequency, reduce the number of sexual partners, reduce STI risk, and increase the likelihood of consistent contraceptive use,” (Jeffries 173). Comprehensive sex education will be beneficial to students by teaching them how to have sexual intercourse safely, if they choose to not remain abstinent.

The philosophy behind abstinence-only policy implies that the greatest risk of informing students about their options for contraception would be that educators are condoning premarital sex. The risks that our students are already taking, however, are greater then policymakers are considering. It is generally accepted that the majority of sexual intercourse among young people remains unprotected (Westwood, 2006). Abstinence-only curriculum is not preventing adolescents from having sex; it is just making them naïve to the risks they are taking with their lifestyle choices.

Abstinence programs don 't work because we see sexual content on tv every day. Sex Ed classes don’t teach things in the right way. Also people miss use birth control, abortion because Sex Ed makes it seem what its not. I believe that abstinence programs don 't work.

It’s safe to say that most of our school systems today use the “Abstinence- Only” approach. School systems teach sex education classes in middle school, where most students will not be in a situation where they must use the information used in these courses, such as contraceptives. In middle school, it is best to learn the Abstinence Only approach, while becoming a high schooler, it would be more effective to use the Safe- Sex approach to increase their knowledge on the consequences of sex. While reading an article, a high schooler engaged in a sex education class said,

"Declines in teenage pregnancies can be achieved through two mechanisms--changes in sexual behavior and changes in contraceptive use. Some observers have claimed that the declines are the result of increased abstinence..."(Darooch 2016). The key to a decline in teenage pregnancy and an increase in higher education is through abstinence. Teens need to be exposed to ways to stay free from sexual behaviors and encouraged by peers to stay pure. To keep teens included in family life and sure in their future will encourage them to stay safe and secure their lives. No one can make a teenager choose to stay away from sexual activity except themselves but influences from the outside will determine their answer tithe inevitable question at a party or on a date. Abstinence is not old fashioned, it is current and real and what should be elevated in society. America needs to turn around and look at where they are headed with young people and evaluate whether or not it is what they want to be making the desk ions for the world in years to

Imagine if the United States said “Okay, we’re banning driver’s Education in schools. We don’t think a sixteen year old is mentally and physically prepared to drive safely, and we don’t want to encourage that”. So of course, schools start pulling driver’s ed classes, but also say “Wait wait wait, sixteen year olds may not be ready to drive, but they’re going to anyway. Why not make it safer for them instead of putting them out on the road with no safety knowledge?” But, the country continues to say “They’re not ready so we’re not going to encourage that in schools” Sex education isn't just about pregnancy, it's about avoiding STDs and other health issues. The highest teenage STD rates are normally associated with abstinence-only education. Some STDs will cause life-long problems, and should be taught about to teens. Although there is an attempt to minimize teen pregnancy and stds, the rate of teen pregnancy is higher in the U.S. than other Western countries, Among teens aged 18–19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms, and 1 in 4 teens in the US receives information about abstinence without receiving any information or instructions about birth control.

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

Clemmitt (2010) states that currently the most effective approach to prevent teenage pregnancy is evidence-based sex education programs. The primary debate about the best method of preventing teenage pregnancy is between abstinence-only courses and comprehensive sex education. The author says that after operating comprehensive sex education, the Obama approach, many communities and county areas have drastically reduced the rate of teenage pregnancy. Studies and statistics suggested that abstinence-only courses have not contributed to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. The author points out that the abstinence-only courses also include sexually transmitted diseases classes and discussions of unhealthy relationship and making decisions, and abstinence

“The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases” (Stanger-Hall, Hall, “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates”). According to several studies, this is mainly due to the fact that numerous states teach abstinence-only education, which usually does not include material on contraception, STIs, nor pregnancy. The alternative to abstinence-only education is referred to as comprehensive sex-education, where the practice of abstinence is promoted, but students are additionally taught about contraception, STIs, pregnancy prevention, and interpersonal skills. Despite the beneficial results of this alternative, abstinence-only education is still taught all over the

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

Not teaching students proper material gives them a disadvantage to making better choices. The issue with educating students such a narrow minded program shows in the number of teenage pregnancies. If we were to take a look at statistics of the program being taught and the number of teen pregnancies for each state there would most likely be a huge difference. “Study result indicated that most abstinence programs did not delay initiation of sex and only 3 out of 9 had any significant positive effect on sexual behavior. In contrast, two thirds of comprehensive showed strong evidence that they positively affected young people’s sexaul behavior, including both delaying the initiation of sex, and increasing condom and contraceptive use among important groups of youth.(Kirby

Religious groups and parents argue abstinence only is all students need to be informed of in school but studies show that students sexually activity is not reduced by abstinence-only programs. The United States Department of Health and Human Services released a study in 2007 of