Recently, there have been more and more efforts to persuade government officials to stop funding for "abstinence-only" sex education, or to approve federal funding for other programs. In November, a group of ten scientists and researchers from prestigious institutions across the nation submitted a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (Santelli). The letter cites statistics from at least ten recent studies, studies which were actually done in response to the promotion of "abstinence-only" sex-ed (Ibid.). These statistics show that abstinence-only programs have not been proven as effective in preventing pregnancy and STD infection (Ibid.). They also show that the amount of students who are learning about birth control, condoms, and other forms of contraception is rapidly decreasing (Ibid.).
According to the letter, programs which teach about contraceptives are actually more effective at preventing students from having intercourse than "abstinence-only" programs (Ibid). And while those who took the "abstinence-only" program "virginity pledge" seemed to start having intercourse later than they normally would, when they did start, they didn't use condoms (Ibid.). This can be explained by "one of the few measurable impacts" of "abstinence-only" programs: students believed that condom effectiveness in preventing STDs was negligible (Ibid.). This means that rates of STDs and pregnancy are relatively similar between those who start intercourse early and those who start later. And while there are no concrete statistics on when teens start experimenting with alternative forms of intercourse, such as anal or oral sex, more and more young teenagers are aware of and have even tried oral sex (MSNBC). In fact taking a "virginity pledge" can actually encourage teens to engage in oral or anal sex, which, while still carrying a risk of contracting STDs, can be thought of as technically keeping someone a virgin (Connolly).
Another study shows that true abstinence is extremely limited in the general population. "Almost all Americans initiate sexual intercourse before marriage." (Santelli). The study also found that only 3% of Americans who have had sex by the age of 44 (which is almost every American) waited until marriage to have it (Ibid.). Many professional health organizations have criticized "abstinence-only" programs based on these and other statistics (Ibid.). In fact, last year, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona delivered a report to Congress stating that, far from wanting to promote better health, the motivations of the Bush administration in pushing the programs are political, ideological, and theological (Ibid.).
Sex is an extremely polarizing topic in America, and the topic of adolescent sexuality is hotly discussed and debated. Far from having just a left and right side, there are many varying positions on this issue (Klein 103). On the most liberal front, the opinion is that the age of consent should be abolished, with extremely comprehensive sex education programs and easy access to free contraceptives (Ibid. 103). More moderately liberal positions on the subject favor keeping age of consent laws intact, while still providing comprehensive, non "abstinence-only" sex education (Ibid. 103-104). On the other hand, moderate conservatives propose making abstinence a large part of sex education curricula and limiting access to birth control, while the farthest conservative positions advocate removing all non "abstinence-only" sex education from schools, as well as not providing any form of contraception to teenagers (Ibid. 104). The current presidential administration represents the latter viewpoint.
A bill called the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act has been introduced into Congress by Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Barbara Lee (Responsible). The bill "would provide $206 million per year in grants to states for the purpose of conducting comprehensive sexuality education programs." (Ibid.). The programs would be "medically accurate", would not "teach or promote religion", and most importantly would stress "the value of abstinence without ignoring those young people who have had sexual intercourse" (Ibid.). "Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., introduced the REAL Act in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on March 22, 2007." (Ibid.). The bill is pending, having been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Subcommittee on Health in the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively (GovTrack.us).
Comparisons of teenage STD infection rates before and after "abstinence-only" education are not readily available, which seems to indicate that the programs have not produced any significant changes. It is true that abstinence is the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy. It is more effective than condoms and birth control, and the only way to get an STD without having sex is by sharing needles or sharing blood between open wounds. "Abstinence-only" programs and proponents of course tout these facts as reasons why the programs work and should continue. They also state that proponents of comprehensive sex education do not recognize or would not teach abstinence as a way of avoiding pregnancy and STDs. This is untrue, as most advocates for comprehensive sex education promote the teaching of abstinence as effective for those who don't plan on having sex, but recognize that contraceptives must still be taught as a way to protect teenagers who are sexually active from pregnancy and STDs. With a new presidential administration in 2009, there may come a breakthrough in the long battle to provide teenagers with sex education that truly teaches them about the risks of sex while giving them the knowledge and the tools to protect themselves if they choose to have sex.
