Abstinence Only Programs : Funding The Demolishment Of Human Rights

Abstinence education strives to create an environment in which students will be prepared to remain abstinent because it is the “only completely effective form of birth control. Creating an appeal to religious groups with the same ideology, these programs promote “the idea of sexual activity inside the context of marriage [as] the only proper behavior. ” (“Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage-Programs”) In the TED talk “Why We Shouldn’t Shy Away From Sexual Education”, Dr. V. Chandra-Mouli adds that “one of the main reasons for resistance to sexuality education is the concern that it plants the idea in children’s minds to have sex before they are ready…” Parents fear the idea of their children being influenced to have sex out of wedlock because it brings a higher risk of getting a sexual transmitted disease (STD) or becoming unintentionally

Sexual education is a highly debatable topic, but many believe the information taught to students should be abstinence-only. Abstinence-only education has been put in place in order to educate students about the social, mental, and physical benefits of resisting from all sexual activity. It emphasizes the unsafe impacts of participating in sexual activity before marriage and having casual sex. It also promotes the idea that sexual abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence education only permits the discussion of contraception and condoms in terms of failure in order to utterly discourage casual sex (Wilgoren, 1). Along with teaching the physical dangers of sex, abstinence education also teaches the mental dangers of sex (Abstinence-Only Education, 1). Sex has many risks and dangers that are not

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’

One major problem in America’s society today is teen pregnancy rates. In fact, “teen sexual activity, pregnancy, and childbearing are associated with substantial social, economic, and health costs” (Sedgwick). However, this problem is not one without a solution. The rise of teen pregnancy rates can be prevented and reversed by providing better access to birth control for teens, eliminating the negative connotation that accompanies abstinence, and implementing more efficient sex education in public schools.

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.

Public schools are attempting to teach birth control in their curriculum, but is it encouraging more teens to start being sexually active? “Studies show that 39% of schools teach how to use a condom; 58% of schools are encouraging their kids to wait, but they urge them to use birth control if they do have sex.“(Nicole De Coursey, Jennifer Hoppe, Amy Sims, and Caroline Sorgen) Most U.S. public school districts require the education about sex in class but not enough schools do not provide abstinence teaching programs. Abstinence messages are very important, but clearly the coverage of contraceptive topics is also crucial in helping our youth prevent unplanned pregnancy and STD’s. “One-third of teachers indicated that they had to be careful about what they taught because of the possibility of a bad community reaction.”(USA Today). Birth control was taught a lot more back in the 1980’s than it is compared to now. “Six in ten of teachers

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,

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 classes proved information about contraceptives, STDs and HIV prevention. It also is age appropriate and scientifically explained. Collins says it well that “by denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality, abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information they need to protect their health and well being.” Students when asked survey by the Kasier Family Foundation said that they knew more and felt better prepared to handle different situations. Abstinence only education just chooses to avoid it and does not take into account students who decide a different path. Abstinence only education supports say that by teaching the “abstinence-plus” education that they are sending mixed messages towards students. Current advocates for comprehensive education cite that “providing teens with contraceptive information does not encourage early sexual activity.” The Surgeon General David Satcher had said that based off of the information he had derived from both approaches “evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity….[it only] increased condom and contraceptive uses among adolescents who were sexually active.” (Collins 9)Most evaluations of many different types of

The controversial topic of whether or not sex education curriculum should teach contraceptive use or abstinence-only is heavily debated. In 2013, the U.S. totaled 273,105 babies born by teenagers, ages from 15 to 19 (“About Teen Pregnancy”). This raises the question: why is the number of pregnancies so high? Is the reason for that unsettling high, number because abstinence-only is being taught or contraceptive use is being taught? Students who are taught abstinence-only are more likely to wait to have sex, which results in the lowering of teen pregnancy. The abstinence-only curriculum also reduces students sexual activity.The sex education curriculum in the U.S. should consist of abstinence-only education.

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).