Abstinence Should Not Teach Students Safe Sex Practices

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.

According to advocatesforyouth.org, “abstinence only education teaches students to abstain from sex prior to marriage.” These program has been proven to be ineffective. Abstinence only education is ineffective because it is not conducive in reducing teen pregnancy rates and sexually transmitted diseases rates. Abstinence only programs are less likely to teach students about birth control and contraception and how to access it. These programs has not been shown to reduce teen sexual activity.

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’

contraception except to point out the failure rates of various methods" (Brody). Some states have refused the federal funds so that their schools can determine their own ways to teach sex education, but 43 states participate in the program. With millions of dollars from the government every year, many schools now promote abstinence. They offer abstinence-only programs with encouraging titles such as "ReCapturing the Vision," "Teens in Control," and "My Choice, My Future!" ("Impacts…"). They encourage students to sign virginity pledges vowing not to have sex until marriage, to proudly wear their "purity rings," and to carry their ATM ("Many who Pledge…") cards (Kelly 44). These programs

Sex education for American youth has been a topic of discussion across the nation since the early 1980s. Teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease are two major problems throughout the U.S.. Sexually transmitted infections have been an ongoing problem for American people since World War I. To combat the growing teen pregnancy and STI rates, the U.S. established organized sex education. Since sex education has been integrated in schools across the nation, it has been heavily influenced by religion. The federal government has funded abstinence-only education programs for over a quarter century. Abstinence-only

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

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

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

Several studies suggest that these programs don’t even succeed in breeding fear. In 2007 a study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services found that abstinence only until marriage education does not even succeed in delaying the onset of sexual activity. (Watkins, “Absinence Education Not Effective”) By providing incomplete or biased information to adolescents, we are taking away their ability to make informed decisions about their bodies that may carry over throughout their adult lives. For example, in 2009 a group of 800 high school students was surveyed, 32% were unaware that oral sex can transmit infections other than HIV. Supporters don’t argue that official funding from the government began in 1996, but cry that it’s a

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).

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

There are many states that do not provide the kind of sex education that New Jersey strives to convey to its students. It more often than not ties in with the religious right proclaiming that students are too young to be exposed to sexual material, and thus sexualized as a result. These fundamental groups oppose any suggestion towards a comprehensive approach. Instead, they ask that their children be taught after grade school and additionally, they steer towards ‘abstinence-only’ education. Instead of teaching students how to protect themselves, they teach that the only way to protect oneself is by abstaining from sex. The problem arises, then, when these students decide to have sex. They are unaware of how to conduct themselves responsibly, how to take precautions to prevent against unwanted pregnancy and disease. What kind of ‘education’ are students receiving when they are withheld crucial information?

Coinciding with the onslaught of the new millennium, schools are beginning to realize that the parents are not doing their job when it comes to sexual education. The school system already has classes on sexual education; these classes are based mainly on human anatomy. Most schools do not teach their students about relationships, morals, respect, self-discipline, self-respect, and most importantly contraceptives. Everyday students engage in sexual activity, many of them with out condoms. This simple act jeopardizes these students' futures and possibly their lives. An increasing amount of school systems are starting to combine messages involving abstinence from sexual activity,