The government-supported program of abstinence-only sex education has surfaced in the news recently, and its effectiveness has come under fire. According to Advocates for Youth, a group concerned with the sexual health of young people, pregnancy rates among teens in the United States have been declining since the early 1990's, but our country still has one of the highest teen birth rates and rates of sexually transmitted infections in the industrialized world.
Their investigation of abstinence-only education programs in the U.S. over the last five years came to the conclusion that there are "few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact," and in comparison to comprehensive sex education programs, they found that "regardless of which program was implemented in the seventh and eighth grades, sexual attitudes, intentions, and behaviors were similar by the end of the 10th grade." Additionally, researchers found abstinence-only sex education was associated with a resistance to using any form of contraception, putting them at risk for sexually transmitted infections making pregnancy when they decide to become sexually active a real possibility.
Importantly, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy also evaluated abstinence-only sex education programs and found that "the vast majority of the public does not see abstinence and contraception as an either/or proposition—they want teens to be informed of both." According to an April 2007 report about abstinence education programs, $87.5 million is put into them annually, a mix of federal and state funding.
So, I've thrown some facts, opinions and studies at you. But what does this all mean? If we could have a discussion about this, I would point it in the direction of asking these specific questions:
- If these studies are true and abstinence education programs aren't making a difference, why are we still using them?
- What does it say about the culture of the United States surrounding sexuality (and specifically teen sexuality) that in some states abstinence is the only formal education students receive?
- What is it about teen sexuality that scares people? Can we boil it down to an aversion to teen pregnancy or is something else going on here?
--Brittany Hanstad
2 comments:
I just wanted to point out something that's been in and out of the news lately. US abstinence programs are not just taught in schools--they're in practice in Africa. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is a program desgined to deal with the prevention, treatment, and care of HIV/AIDS. And the reason it's been in the news is that the program expires this year (October 2008).
Of course, PEPFAR receives quite a lot of criticism for is abstinence-until marrige demands. It mandates that 1/3 of all funds spent on prevention must be geared towards abstinence. Activists have warned that this will undermine community efforts to reduce HIV prevalence and HIV transmission. It also limits condom distribution to narrowly-defined "high risk" groups as well as condemning sex workers.
Since the program expires this year, Bush hopes that congress will renew it. His plans entail a total of $30 billion for the next 5 years. To date, the program has already received $18 billion.
Bush claims that the program is working. In Associated Press (Yahoo!News), the president is reported stating, "PEPFAR is working. It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program--abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It is a program that's been proven effective." [I'm not sure what he means by effective--I haven't found any policy analysis on PEPFAR.]
Now I bring this information to light in relation to Brittany's post. The reports and figures she provided show us that abstinence-only education has virtually no lasting, positive impact. In the end, teens who have undergone the program have the same attitudes towards sex as those who did not. Further, teens who have undergone the program have less knowledge to protect themselves against STDs and HIV/AIDS.
Africa has a different cultural outlook towards sex than the US. But does a program that advocates certain ideologies meet the needs for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS? Granted, most (70%)of the $18 billion has been spent on the treatment of HIV/AIDS, leaving 20% for prevention (1/3 abstinence-only) and 10% for helping orphans and vulnerable children. But what is to happen to Afica--a continent that has been struggling with the AIDS epidemic for several decades now? What will be the long-term consequences of PEPFAR?
By the way, the previous comment was provided by Ada Van Roekel-Hughes.
Post a Comment