|
EDITORIAL: Abstinence-only sex ed a failure
Monday, April 13, 2009
By: Editorial Board
Chattanooga Times Free Press (Tennessee, U.S.)
The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. Public health officials expect about 750,000 teen pregnancies this year. About one of every four teen girls has at least one common sexually transmitted disease. Nearly 50 percent of black girls from 14-19 have an STD at some time. Those numbers and the societal crisis they represent are, in large part, the legacy of eight years of abstinence-only sex education.
Over that time, the Bush administration shelled out big bucks for programs designed to convince youngsters to wait until marriage to engage in sex. That was supposed to reduce the incidence of pregnancies and STDs among teens. It didn't. Reports from public health officials decisively show that approach doesn't work. There's ample research to support that finding -- and to suggest a more comprehensive approach to sex education is needed.
One thoroughly vetted survey indicates abstinence-only programs played no role in reducing the rate of teen sexual activity or in delaying teens from having sex for the first time. Another indicates that about half of all high school students have had sex. Another indicates that more than 3 million teen girls are among those with STD infections. All that strongly suggests that abstinence-only sex education fails to meet its stated goals.
There is, though, an effective alternative to such a narrow approach to the issue.
Numerous researchers have found that programs that combine comprehensive sex ed instruction with abstinence-only programs do reduce pregnancy and STD transmission rates. There's no research extant that indicates the same success for abstinence-only programs.
A bill -- sponsored by Frank Lautenberg in the Senate and Barbara Lee in the House -- currently moving through Congress would positively change the federal funding formula for state-run sex-education programs. It would end current restrictions on comprehensive sex-ed classes and reduce money tied to the abstinence-only programs supported by the Bush administration to curry favor with many conservative groups. The bill should be adopted.
Abstinence-only advocates, of course, oppose any change, but their arguments are weak. They say that teen pregnancy is lower now that it was a decade ago, but the reason is not abstinence-only programs. Rather, public health officials report, it is the fear of STDs. In other words, youngsters taught about HIV, AIDS and STDs might still engage in sex, but are less likely to do so in a way that might carry the risk of pregnancy or disease. Given the high physical and fiscal cost of the alternative, that approach should be encouraged.
Fortunately, the bill in Congress, officially entitled the Responsible Education About Life Act, does so. It encourages courses that provide grade-appropriate and scientifically precise information -- including discussion of abstinence -- to students. That's wise. Young women and men should be taught about the perils of sex even as they learn useful information about how to protect themselves if they choose -- as many inevitably do -- to engage in it.
|
