Should 'Abstinence-Only' Sex-Ed be Taught in Public Schools?

Recommend (0) Comments (0)

The contrast between programs is that abstinence programs tell the medically accurate truth, that condoms have an annual failure rate. This means that the more one relies (exposures) or the longer (number of years) one relies on a condom to protect, the more likely someone is to contract a sexually transmitted disease.

Abstinence programs, recommend that if you are not going to be 100% abstinent then it is important to use a condom correctly each and every time to reduce but not eliminate the possibility of sexually transmitted diseas. It is intellectually honest and medically accurate to apprise students of the fact that many sexually transmitted diseases are transferred from areas of the body that are not covered by a condom. Diseases like human papilloma virus are transmitted skin-to-skin. Diseases are transmitted differently, and therefore, one cannot give the rate of 2% failure as "comprehensive" programs site. The failure rate for becoming pregnant or for contracting Chlamydia, using a condom, versus contracting HPV, versus HIV,  are very different.

For many years, most programs teaching abstinence until marriage have cited Centers for Disease Control, and County health statistics as their sources of information. Most have a medical doctor on their board for reviewing curricula. Most school districts have sex education review processes. Classroom teachers who are qualified to teach sex education are generally in the classroom if speakers present inaccurate information or if students don’t understand. Therefore, the outcry for medical accuracy is a red herring.

Fourth, when parents hear the term “comprehensive” they believe that their child will be educated about the consequences of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and will be given the skills to avoid each of these. When students are taught not to smoke or not to use drugs they are not given the alternative to use filters on the cigarettes or where to have increased access for insurance sanctioned drug dispensers. Parents have little idea that their children are being taught anal and oral sex in elementary school.

"Comprehensive" programs promote access to contraceptive services and normalize a variety of sexual orientations and gender identity issues. When parents hear the term "comprehensive", they do not understand that contraceptives are being promoted to underage students promising no parental involvement or information under current confidentiality laws. Parents are always surprised that they have no right to understand any of the treatment or consequences for reproductive health for their son or daughter. Most parents are surprised to learn the consequences of child support under support enforcement laws and even more surprised to understand that "comprehensive/ abstinence-plus" programs rarely teach these facts. Parents generally believe that the activities of refusal skills and boundary setting as well as the social skills of communication, manners and appropriate behavior in dating will be included, however, they rarely are. Even sexually active students need the social skills and personal responsibility in order to follow through with a contraceptive method.

The conflict is a clash in belief systems. If one believes that teens are always going to be sexually active then a chemical solution seems prudent. If the teen is considered a whole person with emotional, social and familial consequences then the best solution is to take personal responsibility and use self-control in sexuality as it is required in many other risk behaviors and avenues of life.  In the latest Congressional hearings, five congressmen who have shrilly opposed abstinence programs and defiantly demanded statistical data showing that abstinence education works were asked the question by a colleague, “if the data showed that abstinence worked, would you vote for extending the funding to provide programming?" The reply by five of the seven panel members was "NO".

Is it about accuracy, is it about effectiveness, or is it about access and normalization of risky choices?