Amy Schwarz's Title X, Community-Based Abstinence Education

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

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.

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 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 constant pressure that the Texas government apply on the teenage population about sex before marriage makes them think that their only solution when a teenage girl gets pregnant is abortion. Abortion is legal and accessible in Texas, and the majority of Texas metropolitan areas have abortion clinics. This kind of education would work better if the state chooses to teach about contraception methods, and the importance of abstinence. The only proven method for reducing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, the studies say, is to combine the abstinence message with one that teaches young people how to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease . However, the state opposes to teach about contraception because they do not want to give the impression that the state supports premarital sex. This conclusion from the Texas government is completely awful, because if the state teaches the teenage population about the importance and usage of contraception methods many teenage pregnancies could be prevented. Contraception can be extremely effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies when it is used consistently and correctly. Abstinence only is not a realistic approach for everyone, because what about those teenagers that have been sexually assaulted

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

At this time in the United States, there is no federal law requiring sex education in public schools leaving the decision to mandate sex education at the state level (Planned Parenthood, n.d.). While the federal government does not require states to teach sex education, they do provide funding for sex education programs (Planned Parenthood, n.d.). The federal government has never provided any funding for comprehensive sex education while they have provided funding for abstinence only sex education since 1982 (SIECUS Annual Report, 2016; Donovan, 2017). However, within the last decade there has been an increase in funding for teen pregnancy prevention (Donovan, 2017). This could be largely due to the numerous studies that show a more desirable

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

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.

In El Paso, just like many other cities in the conservative States, the chosen form of sex Ed. is abstinence only, thus making it so that most middle and high schools do not offer the option of even taking the comprehensive class. This causes issues of public and personal safety to arise, as well as reckless endangerment. Most people, especially teenagers, do not know their anatomy as well as they believe they do, nor of any diseases that may be transferred through menial tasks such as; sharing a toothbrush, sharing edibles, etc. Abstinence only teachings have been proven to be ineffective as they do not prevent teenage pregnancy, the start of the act, nor the number of partners a teen might take. Comprehensive abstinence classes have been

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.

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

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).