Abstain from lying? Misinformed students of gov't funded abstinence programs

[shereads]

Oh good. Federally-funded abstinence-only programs are lying to kids about abortion and birth control, paving the way for science classes that teach Creationism. And the religious right wonder why the rest of the country is afraid of them.

Are there any sane people left in positions of authority?

-------------------

The Other Side of the Birds and Bees
Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

"I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), left, who led the congressional staff analysis.

In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.

• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.

Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.

McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.

Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.

President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.

Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.

Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.

Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.

Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.

Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

-------------

Loathsome. Inexcusably loathsome. The princess pays taxes, you morons, and you use them to teach this crap in public schools. Does anyone really think these people shouldn't be put on an ice flo and cut loose?

 

[shereads]

Why does this response seem so familiar?

Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.

 

[cantdog]

It's off-putting and very wearying to find these people lying, not casually as a gentleman would do, but programmatically.

What two sides are there to physiological facts?

Another very familiar response is the one from the snippy Alma Golden.

The charge is, quoted:"Youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report."

Golden's response? Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."

Which was not the subject of the charges in any way. Answer a different question and sneer at the same time.

When actually, so what? If you touch no one you aren't pregnant, nor do you have STDs. Big fuckin deal; only a neurotic is going to follow through on that-- Monk, or somebody. The fact is indisputable, but the suggestion is just silly. Pointless. And proven to be pointless. If the rest of the program consists of lies, other inaccuracies, and smarmy fables, you have a harmful program.

Tell you what. Fund me, I can lie. I have every credential needed to just lie; you don't need to be a doctor or have any degree at all to just spread manure. And I could do some good with the hundred million dollars.

 

[Guest]

that seriously makes me ill.
so very sad and very telling all in one fell swoop.
we have one very corrupt society.

 

[Couture]

I tend to think these people are doing good work. In fact, I encourage them to continue.

Catholic girls are taught a lot of this stuff already, and from my experience, Catholic girls with all the guilt and sexual repression that has been heaped on them are some of the best fucks.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't know whether to shit or wind my watch after reading that.

Another reason I never became a teacher. I can see some school board telling me I have to teach horseshit like this with a straight face. My reaction of course would be "Bite me!" End of my teaching career.

You can pregnant by touching after masturbation?

Jesus, people. Just because you're not getting any, are miserable about the fact and don't enjoy it even when you do doesn't mean you have to infect the rest of us with your madness.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Noble goal, really bad execution.

 

[rgraham666]

The worst villains in history had the best intentions.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Some of the greatest heroes also failed once or twice to do things right.

 

[rgraham666]

Of course, we're only human after all. Just because we believe in God doesn't mean we are Her.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

...but, on occasion, He helps us along.

 

[TheEarl]

You can pregnant by touching after masturbation?

That one at least is true. Very, very unlikely, but true. There are some documented cases of a virgin (medically verified rather than just taking her word for it!) being pregnant after mutual masturbation. It only takes one....

Ridiculously low chance though.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

Maybe so, rg. I don't insist on taking just the record-breakers into account, though. I think there's a lot of garden variety villains who have completely venal motivations.

Pat Robertson views AIDS as a scourge from God to punish sinners. Meaning, I suppose, gays, the sodomites he blamed for the World Trade Center hijack-bombing. Perhaps he sees some virtue in helping God's scourge to spread among our children, so long as they do in fact sin.

I don't count that as particularly noble. But it is speculation. I agree with Joe, essentially. This malarkey benefits no one, except of course the ones who are receiving the hundreds of millions of dollars to spread it. I don't see it as, largely, a corruption issue, but a misguided attempt to arrest the natural turning of the world with an upraised finger of opprobrium. And a hundred million dollars.

 

[shereads]

Maybe so, rg. I don't insist on taking just the record-breakers into account, though. I think there's a lot of garden variety villains who have completely venal motivations.

Pat Robertson views AIDS as a scourge from God to punish sinners. Meaning, I suppose, gays, the sodomites he blamed for the World Trade Center hijack-bombing. Perhaps he sees some virtue in helping God's scourge to spread among our children, so long as they do in fact sin.

I don't count that as particularly noble. But it is speculation. I agree with Joe, essentially. This malarkey benefits no one, except of course the ones who are receiving the hundreds of millions of dollars to spread it. I don't see it as, largely, a corruption issue, but a misguided attempt to arrest the natural turning of the world with an upraised finger of opprobrium. And a hundred million dollars.

Neocons and religious extremists believe, like amicus, in "absolutes" that cannot be disputed by evidence. We deprive kids of access to birth control for the same reasons we make the sale of disposable hypodermic needles illegal. In both cases, the one outcome that's certain is the increased likelihood of tragic consequences for the ones who lose control.

We're more willing to put their lives at risk than to dirty our hands with too much reality. In Switzerland, where drug addicts are given clean needles for free, HIV and hepititis are down. In this country, the rate of disease transmission has been up and up, ever since over-the-counter needle sales were prohibited.

The assumption was, "if drug addicts don't have clean needles, they won't do drugs." It was a wrong assumption, with fatal consequences, but rather than blame the policy we blame the weakness of those who succumb. And good riddance! They were weak, and only drug addicts after all. Of course, any public figure who whispers about changing our failed drug policies is "weak on drugs" and committing political suicide.

The same logic that made clean needles a rare commodity and did nothing to stem the tide of drug addiction, is now being applied to kids and condoms.

(How many people here, who had sex at an early age, did so because they felt "invited" to do so by their parents and school authorities?)

Poor execution, but at least their intentions are noble! So are mine. I intend to teach my dog to dance the tarantella, and then donate the proceeds from her stage career to charity. If I fail, at least there won't be blood on my hands.

 

[shereads]

deleted double post

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Why not lie if it will turn your unpalatable ambition into the TRUTH?

It worked so well to squelch that little problem we were having with marijuana back in the sixties. Now nice kids no longer use drugs, and the criminals that do we can sling into jail for a year or two.

It’s working to prove that our founding fathers were a bunch of tight-assed bigots and exclusionist who believed it right to have the government pay churches to take care of any deserving poor they could find.

It worked to elect one of the most miserable fumble-bums ever to surface in politics for a second chance at trying to fucking up as much of the world as he possibly can.

And it is working to stop any misdirected liberal minister from suggesting that when Jesus suggested we must “Love one another ” the next verse continued “except for muff-divers and poofs!”

Don’t say lying doesn’t work.

I KNOW that is a lie!

 

[sweetnpetite]

scary stuff- straight from the horsed mouth:

What Do Parents Want Taught in Sex Education Programs?
by Robert E. Rector, Melissa G. Pardue, and Shannan Martin
Backgrounder #1722


January 28, 2004 | Executive Summary | |



Debates about sex education have focused on two different approaches: "safe sex" courses, which encourage teens to use contraceptives, especially condoms, when having sex, and abstinence education, which encourages teens to delay sexual activity.

In recent years, advocacy groups such as SIECUS (the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States) and Advocates for Youth have promoted another apparent alternative, entitled "comprehensive sexuality education" or "abstinence plus." These curricula allegedly take a middle position, providing a strong abstinence message while also teaching about contraception. In reality, this claim is misleading. Comprehensive sexuality education curricula contain little or no meaningful abstinence material; they are simply safe-sex programs repackaged under a new, deceptive label.

Abstinence programs teach that:

Human sexuality is primarily emotional and psychological, not physical, in nature;
In proper circumstances, sexual activity leads to long term emotional bonding between two individuals; and
Sexual happiness is inherently linked to intimacy, love, and commitment--qualities found primarily within marriage.
Abstinence programs strongly encourage abstinence during the teen years, and preferably until marriage. They teach that casual sex at an early age not only poses serious threats of pregnancy and infection by sexually transmitted diseases, but also can undermine an individual's capacity to build loving, intimate relationships as an adult. These programs therefore encourage teen abstinence as a preparation and pathway to healthy adult marriage.

By contrast, comprehensive sex-ed curricula focus almost exclusively on teaching about contraception and encouraging teens to use it. These curricula neither discourage nor criticize teen sexual activity as long as "protection" is used. In general, they exhibit an acceptance of casual teen sex and do not encourage teens to wait until they are older to initiate sexual activity. For example, the curricula do not encourage teens to abstain until they have finished high school. "Protected" sex at an early age and sex with many different partners are not treated as problems. Sexuality is treated primarily as a physical phenomenon; the main message is to use condoms to prevent the physical problems of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Comprehensive sex-ed curricula ignore the vital linkages between sexuality, love, intimacy, and commitment. There is no discussion of the idea that sex is best within marriage.

Determining Parental Attitudes Toward Sex-ed Curricula
This paper presents the results of a recent poll on basic issues concerning sex education. The poll questions seek to measure parental support for the themes and values contained in abstinence curricula as well as support for the values embodied in comprehensive sex education.

The data presented are drawn from a survey of parents conducted by Zogby International in December 2003. Zogby conducted telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,004 parents with children under age 18. Parents were asked 14 questions concerning messages and priorities in sex education; the questions used were designed by Focus on the Family. The margin of error on each question is plus or minus 3.2 percent points. The responses to the questions showed only modest variation based on region, gender of the parent, or race.1 The poll questions were designed to reflect the major themes of abstinence education. The descriptions of the messages contained in abstinence and comprehensive sex-ed curricula in the following text are based on a forthcoming content analysis of major sex-ed curricula conducted by The Heritage Foundation.

The exact wording of and responses to each of the 14 poll questions are presented in Charts 1 through 14. Overall, the poll shows that parents are extremely supportive of the values and messages contained in abstinence programs. By contrast, very few parents support the basic themes of comprehensive sex-ed courses. Responses to the individual questions are discussed below.

"Sex Should be Linked to Marriage; Delaying Sex until Marriage is Best"
Abstinence education curricula stress a strong linkage between sex, love, and marriage. The Zogby poll shows strong parental support for this message.

Parents want teens to be taught that sexual activity should be linked to marriage.

Parents want teens to be taught to delay sexual activity until they are married or close to marriage.

Some 47 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual activity until they are married." Another 32 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "young people should not engage in sexual intercourse until they have, at least, finished high school and are in a relationship with someone they feel they would like to marry."

When these two categories are combined, we see that 79 percent of parents want young people taught that sex should be reserved for marriage or for an adult relationship leading to marriage. Another 12 percent of parents believe that teens should be taught to delay sexual activity until "they have, at least, finished high school." Only 7 percent of parents want teens to be taught that sexual activity in high school is okay as long as teens use contraception. (See Chart 1.)

These parental values are strongly reinforced by abstinence education programs, which teach that sex should be linked to marriage and that it is best to delay sexual activity until marriage. By contrast, comprehensive sex-ed programs send the message that teen sex is okay as long as contraception is used; the underlying permissive values of these programs have virtually no support among parents.

Parents want teens to be taught that sex should be linked to love, intimacy, and commitment and that these qualities are most likely to occur in marriage .

Some 91 percent of parents want teens to be taught this message about sexuality. (See Chart 2.)

This is a predominant theme of all abstinence curricula. By contrast, comprehensive sex-ed programs do not discuss love, intimacy, or commitment and seldom mention marriage. Casual sex is not criticized; sex is presented largely as a physical process; and the main lesson is to avoid the physical threats of pregnancy and disease through proper use of contraception. Comprehensive sex-ed programs do not present sexuality in a way that is acceptable to most parents.

Parents want teens to be taught that it is best to delay sex until marriage.

Some 68 percent of parents want schools to teach teens that "individuals who are not sexually active until marriage have the best chances of marital stability and happiness." (See Chart 3.)

This theme is strongly supported by abstinence programs, all of which urge teens to delay sexual activity until marriage. It is ignored completely by comprehensive sex-ed courses, which do not criticize casual sex and seldom mention marriage.

General Support for Abstinence
The poll shows overwhelming parental support for other abstinence themes as well.

Parents want teens to be taught to abstain from sexual activity during high school years.

Some 91 percent of parents support this message. (See Chart 4). However, for most parents, this is a minimum standard; 79 percent want a higher standard taught: abstinence until you are married or near marriage. (See Chart 1.)

All abstinence curricula strongly encourage abstinence at least through high school, and preferably until marriage. By contrast, comprehensive sex-ed curricula do not encourage teens to delay sex until they have finished high school; most do not even encourage young people to wait until they are older.

Parents want teens to be taught that abstinence is best.

Some 96 percent of parents support this message. (See Chart 5.)

Abstinence curricula obviously support this theme. Comprehensive sex-ed programs may claim to support this message, but in reality they do not. They teach mainly that abstinence is the "safest" choice, but that teen sex with protection is safe. Their overall message is that abstinence is marginally safer than safe sex. Beyond this, they have little positive to say about abstinence.

"Sex at an Early Age, Sex with Many Partners, and Casual Sex Have Harmful Consequences"
Parents believe that sex at an early age, casual sex, and sex with many partners are likely to have harmful consequences. They want teens to be taught to avoid these behaviors.

Parents want teens to be taught that the younger the age an individual begins sexual activity, the greater the probability of harm.

Some 93 percent of parents want teens taught that "the younger the age an individual begins sexual activity, the more likely he or she is to be infected by sexually transmitted diseases, to have an abortion, and to give birth out-of-wedlock." (See Chart 6.)

Abstinence programs strongly support this message; they teach teens to delay sex until they are older, preferably until they are married. Comprehensive sex-ed programs teach about the threat of unprotected sex, not about the harm caused by sex at an early age. They do not urge young people to delay sex until they are older; voluntary sex at any age is depicted as okay as long as "protection" is used.

Parents want teens taught that teen sexual activity is likely to have psychological and physical effects.

Some 79 percent of parents want teens to be taught this message. (See Chart 7.)

Abstinence curricula clearly teach this message; comprehensive sex-ed curricula do not. Comprehensive sex-ed curricula focus on encouraging condom use; they do not criticize or discourage teen sex as long as "protection" is used.

Parents want schools to teach that teens who are sexually active are more likely to be depressed.

Some 67 percent of teens who have had sexual intercourse regret it and say they wish that they had waited until they were older. (The figure for teen girls is 77 percent).2 Sexually active teens are far more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide than are teens who are not sexually active.3 Nearly two-thirds of parents support the message that sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed; a quarter of parents oppose it. (See Chart 8.)

Abstinence curricula inform teens about the basic facts of regret and depression; comprehensive sex-ed curricula ignore this topic.

Parents want sex education to teach that the more sexual partners a teen has, the greater the likelihood of physical and psychological harm.

Some 90 percent of parents want this message taught to teens. (See Chart 9.)

Abstinence curricula emphasize the harmful effects of casual teen sex; comprehensive sex-ed curricula do not.

Parents want teens taught that having many sexual partners at an early age may undermine one's ability to develop and sustain loving and committed relationships as an adult.

Some 85 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "having many sexual partners at an early age may undermine an individual's ability to develop love, intimacy and commitment." (See Chart 10.) Another 78 percent of parents want teens to be taught that "having many different sexual partners at an early age may undermine an individual's ability to form a healthy marriage as adult." (See Chart 11.)

These are major themes of abstinence programs. They teach that teen sexual relationships are inherently short-term and unstable and that repeated fractured relationships can lead to difficulties in bonding and commitment in later years. This perspective is accurate; women who begin sexual activity at an early age will have far more sexual partners and are less likely to have stable marriages as adults.4 Comprehensive sex-ed curricula ignore this topic completely.

"What's More Important, Abstinence or Contraception?"
Parents believe that abstinence should be given emphasis that is more than, or equal to, that given to contraception. Some 44 percent of parents believe that teaching about abstinence is more important than teaching about contraception; another large group (41 percent) believe that abstinence and contraception should be given equal emphasis. Only 8 percent believe that teaching about contraception is more important than teaching about abstinence. (See Chart 12.)

Regrettably, government spending priorities directly contradict parental priorities. Currently, the government spends at least $4.50 promoting teen contraceptive use for every $1.00 spent to promote teen abstinence.5

Parents Overwhelmingly Reject Main Values and Messages of Comprehensive Sex Education
Despite the claims of advocacy groups such as SIECUS and Advocates for Youth, comprehensive sex education curricula contain weak to non-existent messages about abstinence. These programs focus almost exclusively on (1) explaining the threat of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and (2) encouraging young people to use contraception, especially condoms, to combat these threats. Many of these curricula appear to be written from a limited health perspective. Sexuality is treated as a physical process (like nutrition), and the goal is to reduce immediate health risks.

While comprehensive sex-ed curricula do not explicitly and directly encourage teen sexual activity, they do not discourage it either. As long as "protection" is used, teen sexual activity is represented as being rewarding, normal, healthy, and nearly ubiquitous. While "unprotected" sex is strongly criticized and discouraged, "protected" teen sex is presented as being fully acceptable. There is little or no effort to encourage young people to wait until they are older before becoming sexually active. By presenting "protected" teen sex activity as commonplace, fulfilling, healthy, and unproblematic, comprehensive sex-ed courses send a strong implicit anti-abstinence message to teens.

The new poll of parental attitudes shows that less than 10 percent of parents support the main values and messages of comprehensive sex education programs. Specifically:

Parents oppose teaching that teen sex is okay if condoms are used.

In comprehensive sex-ed curricula, "protected" teen sex is neither criticized nor discouraged. These courses explicitly or implicitly send the strong message that "it's okay for teens in school to engage in sexual intercourse as long as they use condoms." Only 7 percent of parents support this message; 91 percent reject it. (See Chart 1.)

At a minimum, parents want teens to be taught to abstain from sexual activity until they have finished high school.

Some 91 percent of parents want teens to be taught this minimum standard; most want a far higher standard. But comprehensive sex-ed curricula do not teach that teens should abstain until they have finished high school; in fact, these courses do not provide any clear standards concerning when sexual activity should begin. For the most part, they do not even encourage young people to wait until they are vaguely "older;" they are simply silent on the issue.

Comprehensive sex-ed courses are silent on vital issues such as casual sex, intimacy, commitment, love, and marriage.

As Charts 1 through 11 show, parents overwhelmingly support the main themes of abstinence education and want these topics to be taught to their children. These themes are conspicuously absent from comprehensive sex-ed. These courses therefore fail to meet the needs and desires of most parents.

Should Abstinence Programs Teach About "Safe Sex" or Contraception?
The poll shows an apparent divergence between abstinence education and parental attitudes on only one issue: Some 75 percent of parents want teens to be taught about both abstinence and contraception. Except for describing the likely failure rates of various types of birth control, abstinence curricula do not teach about contraception.

However, the fact that abstinence programs, per se, do not include contraceptive information does not mean that teens will not be taught this material. Abstinence and sex education are seldom taught as stand-alone subjects in school; they are usually offered as a brief part of a larger course, most typically a health course.6

In addition, sex education is usually taught not once, but in multiple doses at different grade levels as the student matures. When students are taught about abstinence, in most cases, they will also receive biological information about reproduction and contraception in another part of their course work. By 11th or 12th grade, some 91 percent of students have been taught about birth control in school.7

There is no logical reason why contraceptive information should be presented as part of an abstinence curriculum. Not only would this reduce the limited time allocated to the abstinence message, but nearly all abstinence educators assert that it would substantially undermine the effectiveness of the abstinence message.

In general, parents tend to agree that abstinence and contraceptive instruction should not be directly mixed. As Chart 14 shows, some 56 percent of parents believe either that contraception should not be taught at all or that, if both abstinence and contraception are taught, they should be taught separately. (Some 22 percent believe that contraception should not be taught, while 35 percent want the two subjects taught separately.)

Although most parents want teens to be taught about both abstinence and contraception, there is no strong sentiment that these topics must be combined into one curriculum. The stronger a parent's support for abstinence, the less likely he or she is to want abstinence and contraception merged into a single curriculum.

The fact that 75 percent of parents want both abstinence and contraception taught to teens should not, in any way, be interpreted to mean support for comprehensive sex-education. Comprehensive sex-ed curricula are focused almost exclusively on promoting contraceptive use and contain little or no mention of abstinence, yet only 8 percent of parents believe that schools should give greater emphasis to contraception than to abstinence. (See Chart 12.)

Moreover, parents have reservations concerning the type of contraceptive education these curricula contain. While 52 percent of parents want schools to provide "basic biological and health information about contraception," only 23 percent want schools "to encourage teens to use condoms when having sex, teach teens where to obtain condoms, and have teens practice how to put on condoms." (See Chart 13.) The latter aggressive type of contraceptive promotion is typical of comprehensive sex-ed curricula, though it lacks wide support among parents.

In general, parents want teens to be taught a strong abstinence message as well as being given basic biological information about contraception. The polls suggest that most parents would be satisfied if young people were given a vigorous abstinence course and were taught about the basics of contraception separately. This is probably the typical situation in most schools where authentic abstinence is taught.[me- probably hu?] On the other hand, extremely few parents (7 percent to 8 percent) would be happy if abstinence education were to be replaced by comprehensive sex-ed.

Conclusion
The newly released poll shows strong (in many cases, nearly unanimous) support for the major themes of abstinence education. Abstinence programs provide young people with the strong, uplifting moral messages desired by nearly all parents.

Multiple evaluations show that abstinence programs are effective in encouraging young people to delay sexual activity.8 The effectiveness of these programs is quite remarkable, given that they typically provide no more than a few hours of instruction per year. In those few hours, abstinence instructors seek to counteract thousands of hours of annual exposure to sex-saturated teen media, which strongly push teens in the opposite direction.

Most parents not only want vigorous instruction in abstinence, but also want teens to be taught basic biological information about contraception. Such information is not contained in abstinence curricula themselves but is frequently provided in a separate setting such as a health class. Overall, the values and objectives of the overwhelming majority of parents can be met by providing teens with a strong abstinence program while teaching basic biological information about contraception in a separate health or biology class. This arrangement appears common in schools where abstinence is taught.

In recent years, groups such as Advocates for Youth and SIECUS have sought to eliminate funding for abstinence or to replace abstinence education with comprehensive sex-ed. This is always done under the pretext that comprehensive sex-ed contains a strong abstinence message and, thereby, renders traditional abstinence superfluous. In reality, comprehensive sex-ed curricula have weak to nonexistent abstinence content. Replacing abstinence education with these programs would mean eliminating the abstinence message in most U.S. schools; nearly all parents would object to this change.

Only a tiny minority (less than 10 percent) of parents support the values and messages taught in comprehensive sex education curricula. Since the themes of these courses (such as "It's okay for teens to have sex as long as they use condoms") contradict and undermine the basic values parents want their children to be taught, these courses would be unacceptable even if combined with other materials.

The popular culture bombards teens with messages encouraging casual sexual activity at an early age. To counteract this, parents want teens to be taught a strong abstinence message. Parents overwhelmingly support abstinence curricula that link sexuality to love, intimacy, and commitment and that urge teens to delay sexual activity until maturity and marriage.

Regrettably, this sort of clear abstinence education is not taught in most schools. As a result, the sexual messages that parents deem to be most important are not getting through to today's teens.

Robert E. Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy, Melissa G. Pardue is Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Fellow in Social Welfare Policy, and Shannan Martin is Research Assistant in Welfare Policy at The Heritage Foundation.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1722.cfm

Notice how they highlight 'parental support'- but also notice that it's not the types of programs that they are talking about *at all* that parents 'overwealminly support'

 

[Evil Alpaca]

In regards to Sweet's post, I would LOVE to see the surveys used for these "reports" as well as a detailed description of the sample of the population used, because everything listed in that report postively reeks of experimenter and materials biases. It also flies in the face of all other evidence I've ever seen.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well, if you look at what's marked in bold you'll see how they manipulated at least one area of the results that *didn't* agree with what they are pushing.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think the article also contains a lot of lies like "kids will be taught about birth control elsewere in there health classes"

Yes, there are usually more than 1 sex ed class throughout the school 'career' *but* the article clearly states that they want to replace comprehensive sex ed (and I think they tell lies and exagerations about that as well) with there abstinance only programs. No where in school do I ever remember learning about contraceptives outsiside of a class specific to sex ed. (and we didn't learn much about contraceptives anyway) The plain fact is, if teen take 'sex ed' it's the *only* time the issues of contraception or VD are going to come up. (With a possiblity of some very rare exceptions)

***edited to add: Just this past summer, I heard some teen girls talking about how 'they' were talking on the radio (I don't know who they were) about how condoms *don't work anyway!* The one girl said that she was going to school to learn and not to have sex/babies so she was going to focus on her schoolwork and not think about sex. Well, that's fine, but what happens if she changes her mind someday? She's not going to use birth control because she's been told 'it doesn't work anyway!' How stupid!

Maybe teens *shouldn't* have sex (I'm not saying they should or shouldn't for purposes of this specific point) but most people are going to eventually have sex- even if they wait until finishing HS or until marriage. We teach kids lots of things in school that they won't use until much later. We don't teach them that 'hard hats don't work anyway' or other lies to keep them away from construction sites until they are 18. I don't know why no one ever seems to realize that *eventually* teens grow into adults and they don't get retaught the things they were tought wrong the first time!

 

[shereads]

If I had a kid in a school where teachers were promoting a right-wing religious agenda, I'd be a walking lawsuit. My child would have to wear nose-glasses in public, poor thing. Nothing makes a child less popular in school than parents who speak out against the status quo.

How many families, I wonder, are allowing their children to be dumbed-down and made unfit for careers in the sciences, because they're hesitant to fight school boards over Creationism and Reaganesque musings about the proper roles of men and women in relationships?

This is why I remain an admirer of the much-maligned dad who took his objection to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance all the way to the Supreme Court, despite hectoring and worse from all over the U.S. If someone had stood up and objected when the phrase was added (it was not part of the original Pledge) or when "In God We Trust" was printed on our money for the first time during the McCarthy era, we wouldn't be facing these larger, more dangerous issues now. Your child's science teacher wouldn't be making room for Bible stories beside Darwin on a classroom book shelf. The public schools would still be underfunded and under threat, but you at least wouldn't have to worry that they were deliberately making your children more ignorant.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I have a very strong oppinion about this. Here is the truth as I see it that the religious right will never admit to parents.


They know that there programs do not prevent pregnancy and STD's. This is not there goal. They do not want to prevent pregnancy and STD's. They want teens who have sex to get pregnant- they want them to get STD's- they even want them to get AIDS.

Sex is wrong (save it for someone you love)- so those engaging in it (outside of marriage) should not escape punishment throught the help of contraception or anything else. They should pay the price. AIDS, STD's, and pregnancy are God's pushishment for immoral behavior- you think you can escape the wrath of God by man made inventions?

Yes, they want your slutty teen daughter to get pregnant so they can point and say "See- that's what happens when you sin!"

They certainly don't want her out there sinning and getting away with it.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

What they will wind up with is Abstinence from Contraception resulting in unwanted pregnancies which must be carried to term, but then not taken good care of by the state, as well as an increase in the HIV/AIDS epidemic which will ring in a record bottom line for all the pharmaceuticals.

I sometimes wonder if that is the goal of whoever is driving this Campaign of Imbeciles.

 

[sweetnpetite]

What they will wind up with is Abstinence from Contraception resulting in unwanted pregnancies which must be carried to term, but then not taken good care of by the state, as well as an increase in the HIV/AIDS epidemic which will ring in a record bottom line for all the pharmaceuticals.

I sometimes wonder if that is the goal of whoever is driving this Campaign of Imbeciles.

Yeah- I think it is. (Did you see my last post?)

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Sex is wrong (save it for someone you love)- so those engaging in it (outside of marriage) should not escape punishment throught the help of contraception or anything else.

I have to disagree slightly. Most of these religous right could care less if you love the one you have sex with, you only have to be married to them. Love and happiness have a very small part in their reasoning.

Yes, they want your slutty teen daughter to get pregnant so they can point and say "See- that's what happens when you sin!"

They certainly don't want her out there sinning and getting away with it.

I don't know if this is what they really want. Their goal is to make everyone believe exactly what they do, so they really don't want any slutty girls out there turning good boys bad and making other good girls into lesbians.

But I think that you're right that they are happy to have someone to point a finger at for their example.