Even though Amy Schwarz is not an expert in adolescent development or sexual studies, she is an expert in the legislative system. I learned that politics play an important role in sex education programs from her article. A big reason as to why abstinence only programs are still the preferred sex education curriculum among schools is because of Title X, Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Security Act (TANF). It all started with Richard Nixon and the ever increasing teen pregnancy rates. The amount of pressure that was placed upon him to control the numbers of teen moms lead to Title X. I had no clue what Title X was before this article and how it was supposed to “reduce unintended pregnancies by providing
In regard to the assertion that: “Changing Utah’s approach to Abstinence only Education concerning non-consensual sex and teaching prevention education would lower cases of sexual assault.”
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
These programs focus on teaching teens and youth to just say no. These programs are so focused on keeping teens ignorant about sex and conforming to standards of heteronormativity, that according to Planned Parenthood, they purposely exclude information on “…birth control, safer sex and sex orientation” (“Planned Parenthood: Implementing Sex Education”, n.d.). As Planned Parenthood also states, although abstinence is the only method that fully prevents pregnancy and STDs (“Planned Parenthood: What is Abstinence?”, n.d.), the belief that abstinence education is sufficient in guiding decisions on sexual behavior is erroneous. According to the Texas Freedom Network, sex education in the state of Texas can be broken up into two subcategories of abstinence education; “Abstinence-only 74.6% (Abstinence Programs: 27.2%, Textbook only: 47.4%), Abstinence Plus: 25.4% (Worth the Wait 19.5%, Big Decision: 4.1%, Other Programs: 1.8%)” (TFN, 2011). The lack of informed discussion prevents young women from having the knowledge to make informed decisions about their sexual health, and thus limits their reproductive
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’
In 1913, sex education became a topic that was found to be an important education tool. Since then, this form of education has been a hot and debatable topic among many Americans. The original reason for sex education classes was to reduce problems such as sexually transmitted illnesses and prostitution. In recent years, abstinence has become the focus of sex education curriculum. Abstinence means refraining from sex completely. Although, it is the only one-hundred percent way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, abstinence-only instruction should not be the only form of sex education taught. Our youth need to know about all aspects of sex. This intails how to protect them if they choose to become sexually
Stover (2007) emphasizes on the political view of politics in research. The fact that researchers wants to complete a federally funded study on the effectiveness of abstinence-only education programs is questionable. It is evident in the findings that the abstinence programs mention in this article are a flawed design based on research. Stover (2007) researched the validity of how politics goes hand and hand regarding funding. The purpose of this study has brought awareness to the process of research and how the data can be manipulated.
Throughout history the Supreme Court has struggled with minors right to privacy against parental consent in regards to contraception. The question in which minors have the right to sexual activity and the extent to which the government may interfere with these rights was established when congress passed Title X. With alarmingly high rates of teenage pregnancy and limited resources for minors Title X was passed and created a nationwide system of federally funded, confidential family planning services in multiple community settings for minors (Maradiegue, 2003).
2. According to the Reproductive Rights Blog, the $114.5 million teen pregnancy prevention project signed into law by President Obama in December 2009 establishes a major turning point in U.S. sex education policy, according to a new analysis published in the Winter 2010 issue of the Guttmacher Policy Review. The project replaces many of the most firm and ineffective abstinence-only programs, which by law were required to have nonmarital abstinence promotion as their “exclusive purpose” and were prohibited from discussing the benefits of contraception.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of restrictive contraceptive legislation on unintended teenage pregnancy. Teenage pregnancy has declined steadily over the past 40 years, however in the past decade the rate of pregnancy among adolescents is rising. Restrictive contraceptive legislation such as abstinence only education, mandatory waiting periods, parental notification laws, or Medicaid funding restrictions could all play a part in the increase of pregnancy in teenagers. One study found funding for abstinence-only education programs were linked to increased birth rates among black and white adolescents (Yang & Gaydos, 2010). Another study found restrictive contraceptive legislation resulted in higher unintended pregnancy rates among adolescents. The implication of this review is state and federal policies should focus on improving education regarding contraception use and forming policies which improve access to abortion.
Abstinence pledges are becoming increasingly popular in adolescence, with over “2.5 million adolescence have taken public ‘virginity’ pledges”. Social movements have a set standard for these pledges, in which they promise to abstain from sex until marriage. The results have been a resounding success. This article shows that "abstinence pledge" programs are dramatically effective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers in grades 7 through 12. Based on a large national sample of adolescents, the study concludes that "adolescents who reported having taken a pledge to remain a virgin were at significantly lower risk of early age of sexual debut." Pledging delays intercourse for a long time. In this sense, the pledge works.
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
The first time that sexual education was recognized as an essential part of a national education curriculum was in 1892 by the National Education Association. There were many times in American history that showed progression in comprehensive sexual education and distribution of birth control until the 1970’s. In 1975, twenty state governments voted to place restrictions or completely ban sexual education completely. The Adolescent Family Life Act was passed in 1981 to fund programs that promote staying sexually abstinent until marriage. Fifteen years later in 1996, Congress funded $250 million for abstinence until marriage programs. However in 2008, half of the fifty states rejected renewal of government funding of abstinence-only programs because of new research suggesting that only teaching abstinence did not impede sexual behavior in teenagers.
I’ve never heard of the abstinence-only before marriage programs. I graduated high school in 1990 and there was no sex education at my school. There was a small section of the health class that talked about sexual reproduction and it was extremely brief. STD’s was never mentioned however teen pregnancy was a topic that was ok to discuss openly. It seems odd to have people sign a vow of abstinence during school. When people get into trouble they have nowhere to turn for help or support. I’m not for promoting sex is school, but it seems the better educated they are about negative aspects the more effective they would be at promoting abstinence. The military has mandatory STD training, which was nothing, but gross pictures and it worked
In an effort to make these rates lower , the U.S. government funded abstinence-only sex education programs for more than a decade. However, disagreements over whether this investment has been successful or if these programs should be suspended from all schools. Using the most recent information from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies, we show that “increasing on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates”. “These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the