Abstaining from Sex Education Politics
Abstaining from Sex Education
Earlier this month the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) held a conference on sexually transmitted diseases. The conference was slated to include a panel discussion entitled “Are Abstinence-Only Until Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?” However, Indiana’s Republican Congressman Mark Souder complained to the Health and Human Services Department about “the controversial nature of this session and its obvious anti-abstinence objective.” Consequently, the title was changed to “Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth,” and advocates of abstinence-only sex education replaced two members of the panel. It’s troubling that a conservative Republican was able to wield so much influence over a federal agency at the expense of science.
A spokesman for Rep. Souder said he was concerned that the panel would promote nothing positive about abstinence-only education. Apparently, that was because one of the panelists was scheduled to address the evidence linking abstinence-only education and rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases. This panelist and another individual were removed from the panel and replaced by Dr. Patricia Sulak and another physician, both of whom are proponents of abstinence-only programs. Although the other panelists went through a peer-review screening process, neither of these individuals did. And while the other panelists had to pay their own way to attend, the CDC used taxpayer dollars to pay for both abstinence proponents.
Dr. Sulak is the director and author of a pseudo sex education program entitled “Worth the Wait.” This program is used in grades six through high school in 31 school districts in Texas. According to a review of the program by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, Worth the Wait relies on messages of fear, discourages contraception, and attempts to make students feel guilty rather than educating them.
The Worth the Wait program discourages any meaningful discussion of contraception. An entire lesson is entitled “Why Contraceptives are not the Answer for Teens.” Dr. Sulak apparently believes that if contraception is presented as improper, teens will simply choose not to have sex. Yet studies suggest that almost half of all teenagers are sexually active. By refusing to discuss contraception, this program leaves teenagers more likely to engage in sex without contraceptives, making them susceptible to pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
And the program provides misleading information by encouraging students to take so-called virginity pledges. Students are asked to sign a pledge that they will not have sex until marriage. And it advises students, “Research has shown that teenagers who sign abstinence pledges are much less likely to have intercourse.” This has been proven false many times over. Studies have shown that at best, abstinence pledges simply delay the onset of sex. And studies have demonstrated that teenagers who take such pledges are less likely to use contraceptives when they become sexually active.
A 2005 study of abstinence-only sex education programs in Texas, where Worth the Wait is used, found that they had “little impact” on teenagers’ behavior. The study by the Texas Department of Health determined that girls in the ninth-grade were five percent more likely to engage in sex after taking abstinence-only programs. And boys in the tenth grade were 15 percent more likely to engage in sex after participating in abstinence-only classes. The study’s lead researcher concluded, “We didn’t find strong evidence of program effect.”
Ironically, the day before the CDC panel on abstinence-only programs was held, Harvard University released the results of a comprehensive study on abstinence pledges. The National Institute of Child Health and Development conducted the government-sponsored study. Over 14,000 teenagers were interviewed between 1995 and 2001. The study found that 52 percent who took the pledge had sex within one year of doing so.
Conservative Republicans have aggressively funded abstinence-only education programs since President Bush took office. Over 100 such programs have been funded in recent years. Congress allocated $168 million for abstinence programs in last year’s budget. This year, $182 million was funded for abstinence-only education, and $204 million has been allocated for 2007. But it isn’t benefiting our nation’s teenagers.
In 2004 the House of Representative’s Government Reform Committee issued a report on federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs. The report determined that out of the 13 most popular programs, 11 contained “unproved claims outright falsehoods.” Some of the false statements included assertions that a man can get a woman pregnant by merely touching her, that women who have abortions are prone to suicide, that AIDS can be spread through sweat, and that condoms cannot prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Clearly, these programs supplanted science with political ideology.
It was inappropriate for Congressman Souder to exert so much influence over a federal agency. And it’s offensive that the Bush administration allowed him to do so. Science should remain free from political persuasion and ideology. The health and welfare of the country’s teenagers depend on abstaining from sex education politics.
posted by Name Held by Request | 10:39 AM
15 Comments:
Pushing pseudo-science for political reasons
should be considered a violation of ethics. Things like this make me furious at everyone who supports mass religion. Either directly or indirectly, that support encourages things like this.
Depends on the Religions. Don't confused my religion (Jewish)
with these quasi religious political hustlers. Their Christianity (G-d, I am getting tired of that word) is what's driving this. They invented the phrase Judeo-Christian. We didn't.
When you say religion, please clarify. Other than that, I agree completely.
These quasi-scientists that scream abstinence only lie to these kids. My brother (laughing at the asshole all the way) was told he could get a woman pregnant by kissing her and that holding hands can pass HIV from one to another.
Luckily, he has two teachers and an accountant in the family (All with Master's Degrees) that debunked everything the 19 year old fundie freeper said.
Fortunately your brother has a family to talk about these things with.
I feel bad for all of the kids who get so much mis-information and get no opportunity to discuss these things openly with knowledgeable people at home.
I've worked for the FDA for 6 years, and I can tell you that they've done
the same thing to the FDA.
This is an absolute outrage
"Faith-based" sex-education is dangerous and puts our entire nation at risk.
Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for it is absolutely unconstitutional and criminal.
The CDC means absolutely NOTHING to science now. They may as well put altars up in all of their labs and tell the scientists to don priests' and nuns' garb and instead of studying disease, pray about germs and Jeebus.
This thoroughly disgusts me, because I have seen the proof: ABSTINENCE EDUCATION DOES NOT WORK.
Abstinence: Uganda HIV Rates Suggest Failed Approach
Read an article on how the Bush administrations support of abstinence to combat HIV may be responsible for an alarming increase in HIV infection rates in Uganda...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
I saw some statistics
..that showed the most unwanted pregnancies, the most violence, the most divorces all occur in red states. In other words they talk the talk and don't walk the walk, so they think that by shouting lourder and louder, what they wish to be true will become true.
But this is not propaganda, or some right-wing diatribe on National Hate Radio.
Reality will not be swayed by Bible-thumping Republican congressmen, and hormones will not disappear just because of some idiotic crowd-pleasing legislation.
As kids' hormones kick in when they reach puberty, they'll want to have sex. If they didn't or could be talked out of it, there would be no next generation. What's the big deal? These right-wing loonies apparently think they can legislate a change in Mother Nature, and as we all know, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
And she isn't fooled. They are only fooling themselves.
We are tackling this on a local level here in Independence, Missouri
I am a registered nurse and I am knowledgeable about all the statistics for these Abstinence Only programs, a lot of which has just come out the last three years. Our local school district has been having public BOE 'arguments' about an Abstinence Only Until Marriage curriculum they tried to implement without board approval. Now I am on a Human Sexuality Task Force to study the issue and present our findings to the BOE. I think part of the problem is that there is confusion about AO and Abstinence BASED. Of course, when we talk to adolescents about sex we present abstinence as the only 100% protection from pregnancy and STD's, BUT we also have to be realistic that even if some kids choose to wait, when they do become sexually active, whenever that may be, we want them to know how to protect themselves. Also, half of those kids are probably already sexually active, and we totally dismiss their needs by not teaching them about contraception and protection from STD's, including life-threatening ones! Then there is also the 'until marriage' part of the curriculum that does NOT address the needs of lesbian/gay students. Here in the great state of Misery (Missouri), an amendment passed in 2004 stating that marriage is only between a man and a women. So the message from this curriculum for L/G teens is that you should never have sex (since you will never be able to be married in this state). These radical right-wing fundamentalists have also infiltrated our state legislature and we BARELY kept a bill from passing this session that would prevent health educators from even DISCUSSING or referring to contraception. If this bill would have passed, any educator who was asked by a student how to protect themselves from STD's or pregnancy if they were sexually active, would have to say, 'you need to make an appointment with your family practitioner to discuss that'. Yea, right. The sponsor of the bill, also added an amendment (that passed) to the Dept. of Health appropriations bill that prevented any of the state funds to be used for Family Planning, which not only includes contraception services, but also mammograms, gynecological exams, etc. She publicly stated that, as a state, we should not "promote promiscuity" by providing these services. I repeat, this amendment was PASSED! I have come to understand, now, that these fanatics are not REALLY trying to prevent ABORTIONS, they are trying to prevent SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE, which is a RELIGIOUS belief, and they are managing to do it with this insane legislature!! I am a Christian (the kind that follow the compassionate teachings of Jesus-yeah, remember Him?). These people thoroughly DISGUST me. They are not only CAUSING abortions, STD's, and unplanned pregnancies, but they truly believe that these things are a 'punishment' for what they call immoral behavior. They are self-righteous HYPOCRITES! The book should have been, "What's Wrong with Missouri?"
Right wing kooks are OBSESSED with the thought of
other people having sex. Probably because they're not getting any.
Seriously, though, they are simply consumed with sex. They see it everywhere. They think about it constantly. And they are simply outraged that anybody else is having sex! I don't know where they get the idea that their obsession matters to anybody else, but I think it's high time somebody called them on it.
I think they know these abstinence only programs don't work
I just don't think they have the courage to admit it. So they keep disregarding the facts and try to silence those who will give them.
It's nothing less than a travesty that Souder's religious beliefs can dictate how a government health agency conducts its business. I worry because there are teens who still think that they won't get pregnant as long as a boy pulls out in time.
It is a fact that teens have difficulty with impulse control. They have yet to mature enough mentally and emotionally and science proves this. With that knowledge, the only responsible thing to do is to make sure they have all of the correct information to be safe in a moment of weakness. I think another thing to consider is that it is wrong to lie to a child just because you may consider the end result is worth it. Teens especially hate to be lied to and they lose faith in those they should be trusting. They rebel, and end up getting themselves into unsafe situations, like having unprotected sex.
ight-Wing Ideologues And Empirical Evidence
Right-wing ideologues REFUSE to let their moralistic visions be clouded by unpleasant facts in general and the low success rate of "abstinence-only" curricula and virginity pledges.
It would be almost comical, were it not for the effects on tens or hundreds of thousands of young lives derailed by unplanned pregnancy, AIDS, and other venereal diseases.
I am coming to believe Republican Party meeting places ought to have large "bio-hazard" signs posted where passers-by can see them.
Abstinence is swell for those people who know themselves well enough to be able to make--and keep--such committments. Otherwise, abstinence-only cirriculae and virginity pledges are just more of the Radical Right's Voodoo Medicine.
What President Bush has done for us
Now, before everyone speculates that I've gone crazy and decided to join the dark side of the Force, bear with me. I'm still of sound mind and body. I still have both feet planted firmly on the ground. I'm still remembering the past while thinking about the future. But I'd like to talk about what the president has done for us.
No, I'm not going to write about how President Bush has sent some of us to Iraq on a war based on lies. Nor will I write about how he left some of us along the Gulf Coast to die while he played the guitar. And I won't spend this space writing about how he has spied on all of us. I'd rather write about the good things the president has done for us.
Believe it or not, there actually have been good things that have happened because Bush took office. Well, more likely, despite the fact he took office. But good things nonetheless, like progressives' increased oversight of the media, or our renewed interest in activism and our more active participation in democracy. Things that will help us turn back all of the hurt this president has caused.
If I learned anything in journalism school, it was the overwhelming importance of becoming an active consumer of media. Not only consuming it - reading, listening, watching - but fighting for its core principles: Honesty, integrity, acting as a check on power. To do so meant writing letters to the editor, contacting reporters directly and leveraging whatever tools are at your disposal to hold bad journalists to account for bad journalism. To do so also meant upholding those principles in your own work, never taking the easy way out, never lying, never forgetting to give voice to the voiceless.
Though it could have come under better circumstances, I feel we've all become active consumers of media living under the Bush administration. We've recognized the problem, that the media have largely traded access for integrity. We've put pressure on the poor practitioners while rewarding the good ones. We've seen the blowback from the Beltway insiders that has affirmed that our actions are warranted.
But, best yet, many of us have become active producers of media, too. We've recognized the revolutionary potential for the Internet and have started our own blogs. We've broken stories and have caught the ones that had fallen through the cracks. We've realized that it's not enough to watch the old-guard journalists struggle at their jobs, that it's vital for us to help show them how to do it. In doing so, we've become experts. We've build communities. We've changed things for the better.
Since Bush took office and systematically chipped away at everything that made America the once-great country it was, we've also renewed our activist streak. Recognizing that powerlessness can corrupt even more corrosively than power, we've started taking it back. We knew it all along: We are the ones we've been waiting for. We went to the trainings. We went to the community meetings. We went to the vigils and protests.
We've refused to give in to the hopelessness and fear. Instead, we've inspired among ourselves a renewed optimism for the future. All politics is local, they say, but we've come to realize that all politics is personal, too. We've fought to make our towns a better place. We've held our community leaders to account. We've pushed for ballot initiatives and beat back others. Outside of Washington, you'll find optimistic people working to achieve ambitious goals. Outside of Washington, you'll see that governing and helping others aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
Like many of us have become active producers of media, an equal number of progressives have become active producers of governance. When I look around, I see countless Americans who have decided that to fight for change means seeking elected office. From school boards to city halls to state houses to the halls of Congress, motivated Americans have fought to personally replace the obstacles to democracy previously holding office. There, they'll fight for the values that make us progressives. The values that built America.
You could argue that much of this would have happened regardless of which party occupied the White House. You could also argue that much of this could have happened without the trauma our nation has sustained. Your arguments would have merits on both accounts, but it's important to recognize what President Bush and his party have done for us. They've given us a common adversary, goals to reach and the desire to reach them. They've even given us hope. Republicans seized power, yes, but they've helped motivate us to take it back. And God help them when we do.
The Marriage Protection Amendment: R.I.P., 6-6-6
The Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is scheduled for a vote in the Senate on June 6, 2006. That’s 6-6-6, an appropriate date indeed.
Forget the disaster in Iraq. Forget the enormous – and still growing – deficit. Forget that the federal government is spying on private citizens. Forget the Abramoff scandal (that involved prominent figures in the Christian Right). Forget that public schools are failing and sex education is governed by political ideology. Forget that 43 million Americans have no health insurance. Forget the homeless. Forget the poor. Forget working Americans. Forget that every program of the “values voters’” president has failed miserably.
when you think about it, what else does BushCo have to run on? . . .
their entire agenda consists of gay marriage, abortion, immigration, and flag burning . . .
(most of which (immigration possibly excepted) Americans disagree with them on, btw) . . .
Look for this to not get a majority, much less the supermajority
needed for passage. But this wedge issue is getting stale, it hardly helped the Republicans in 2004 (only 48 votes for it; the goal was to force Kerry and Edwards to vote for gay marriage but Kerry and Edwards had other things to do than vote that day). I think voters will have other pressing issues on their minds this fall than gay marriage, which opinion polls show is becoming less and less of an issue with the public. (In Massachusetts, opposition to gay marriage has pretty much collapsed.)
Sometimes politics is just nakedly dumb.
The so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" doesn't do a thing to "protect marriage", it just excludes some people from it. A real effort as protecting marriage and helping families might involve real "hot-button" issues like, uh, health care, living wage bills, er, um, things that could help people economically hold their households together. But the cynical stupidity of it is to get people in office to publically vote up or down on the issue, so they can point to that come election time. And damnit, there's a small group of small-minded people who will fall for it. But I'd like to think that pool is shrinking. Maybe if we could just popularize the words "wedge issue" until people recognize stuff like this, and "flag-burning amendments" and whatnot, as the waste-of-time junk they are.
Post a Comment
<< Home