If someone was attending a class about firearms, would they be satisfied with only being taught that guns are bad and shouldn't be used? They would probably expect to learn about the pros and cons of owning and using guns, and ways to use one properly and safely. In the same ways, many teenagers who come to a sexual education class at their school expect to learn about ways to have safe sex, if they choose to have it. However, instead of getting information about contraceptives such as condoms and birth control, their teachers preach the benefits of being abstinent while citing glaringly false statistics as motivation.
Twelve years ago, Congress approved funding for "abstinence-only" sexual education programs, as an alternative to more comprehensive curricula (Goldberg). Five years later, when George W. Bush became President, almost all federal funding for any non-"abstinence-only" programs was cut (Ibid.). This was a repeat of Bush's tenure as governor of Texas, when he "promoted and lobbied for and pushed abstinence-only education." (Ibid.). A large part of his strategies as both governor and President has been to support, and even appoint to positions of power, doctors who have had a track record of misrepresenting scientific facts and furthering the "abstinence-only" agenda (Ibid.).
One of these doctors is Dr. Joe McIlhaney, who is "known for his published disdain for the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and his continued advocacy of abstinence-only programs[...]" (Goldberg). Four years ago, Bush named McIlhaney to his Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, as well as to the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director's advisory committee (Ibid.). This was nine years after the Texas Department of Health tried to stop his practice of spreading fake facts about condom prevention of STDs (Ibid.). McIlhaney has also been criticized for only showing his "data" at presentations where there was no opportunity for other doctors or scientists to question him (Ibid.). Another doctor, part of McIlhaney's organization, "refused to prescribe contraception to unmarried women." (Ibid.).
The Bush administration has not only used others to spread misleading information, but has released its own reports and censored other government organizations which have countered with sound scientific evidence. Before 2002, the CDC website had a page featuring five sexual education "Programs that Work", none of which were "abstinence-only" (Oversight). That year, the page was replaced with a message stating that PTW was discontinued to use a new process which is "more responsive to changing needs and concerns[...]" (Ibid.). Now, the link simply redirects to the CDC main youth health page. The standards by which sex-ed programs are rated for effectiveness have also been changed by the Bush administration. Before 2001, the Department of Health & Human Services rated programs on the birth and intercourse rates of those who participated in them (Ibid.). Now, programs are rated on attendance and whether participants "commit to abstain from sexual activity until marriage." (Ibid.). This is not a true measure of effectiveness: "a 2001 review of scientific evidence concluded that 'adolescents' sexual beliefs, attitudes, and even intentions are . . . weak proxies for actual behaviors.' That is, even if teens pledge to remain abstinent, they may not actually do so." (Ibid.).
Programs are apparently not rated on accuracy of information. Many programs that have been approved for grants include inaccurate or blatantly false data, and only include real facts if they further the "abstinence-only" agenda. Some of the "facts" in these programs are that sterility is caused by abortion, half of gay teens have AIDS, and touching of genitals causes pregnancy (Connolly). Out of 13 programs studied in 2004, "two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproven claims ['a 43-day-old fetus is a thinking person'], subjective conclusions ['Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.'] or outright falsehoods ['HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.'] regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins" (Ibid.).
The age range that the government considers as needing "abstinence-only" education is surprising. In 2006, program funding was expanded to cover every unmarried person from 12 to 29 years of age (Jayson). The government says that the expansion was only "[...]to remind states they could use these funds not only to target adolescents." (Ibid.). This "reminder" is viewed by many as the government trying to control the sex lives of adults. James Wagner, President of a non-profit organization that supports sex-ed, says "They've stepped over the line of common sense. To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health." (Ibid.). Rather curbing just teen pregnancy rates, this campaign is a step toward considerably cutting the total birth rate. The 20-29 age range accounted for about 85% of births in the US in 2005, which translates to about 3.5 million births (BabyCenter). Unmarried women made up 37% of the total 4.1 million births (Ibid.). It has been proposed that instead of trying to teach abstinence, programs for unmarried adults should focus on effective use of contraception for those who don't want to have children (Jayson). This is the same thing that proposed comprehensive sex-ed programs would do for teenagers.
