"Sexually active teens cannot protect themselves from disease and pregnancy without full and accurate information about the transmission of [sexually transmitted infections], their treatment, and the effectiveness of contraception."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues in the following viewpoint that abstinence-only sex education programs in high schools are ineffective. The ACLU states that these programs do not help teens delay having sex until marriage, nor do they reduce teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only education fails because it deters teens from using condoms and other contraceptives when having sex, according to the ACLU. The ACLU is a civil rights and individual liberties advocacy group.
As you read, consider the following questions:
Do comprehensive sex education programs that promote safer sex increase the number of teens having sex, according to the ACLU?
How do abstinence-only programs, in the view of the ACLU, affect gay and lesbian teens?
In the ACLU's opinion, an overwhelming majority of parents want sex education programs to include coverage of what topics?
Despite statistics that demonstrate a high level of sexual activity and risk-taking behavior among U.S. teens, Congress has allocated well over half a billion dollars since 1997 for educational programs that focus exclusively on abstinence and censor other information that can help young people make responsible, healthy, and safe decisions about sexual activity. There is no conclusive evidence to date that these programs reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and there is some evidence that shows that they deter sexually active teens from using condoms and other contraceptives. Moreover, research indicates that many of these programs do not help teens delay having sex. Nevertheless, in recent years federal lawmakers have steadily increased federal funding to more than $165 million annually. In contrast, no federal funds are dedicated to supporting programs that teach both abstinence and contraception (sometimes called comprehensive sexuality education or abstinence-plus). While the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] believes that abstinence is an important component of any educational program about human sexuality, abstinence-only programs raise serious civil liberties and health concerns.
Currently, there are three federal programs dedicated to funding abstinence-only education. Each requires eligible programs to censor critical information that teens—who are or become sexually active—need to protect themselves from STIs and pregnancy.
To receive funds under any of the federal programs, grantees must offer curricula that have as their "exclusive purpose" teaching the benefits of abstinence. In addition, recipients of federal funds may not provide a participating adolescent with any information that is inconsistent with these and similar messages in the same setting as the abstinence program. Consequently, recipients of abstinence-only dollars may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.
Thus, recipients of federal abstinence-only funds operate under a gag order that censors the transmission of vitally needed information. Grantees are forced either to omit any mention of topics such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and AIDS or to present these subjects in an incomplete and thus inaccurate fashion.
An independent, federally funded evaluation of the abstinence only education programs authorized under the 1996 welfare reform law concludes that there is "no definitive research [linking] the abstinence education legislation with" the downward trend in "the percentage of teens reporting that they have had sex." Likewise, another ... study found that while in limited circumstances virginity-pledge programs—which encourage students to make a pledge to abstain from sex until marriage—may delay first intercourse, it also found that virginity pledgers are less likely than non-pledgers to use contraception at first intercourse.
There is ample evidence, however, that programs that include information about both abstinence and contraception reduce sexual risk-taking and pregnancy among teens. Many of these programs have been shown to "delay the onset of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, reduce the number of sexual partners among teens, or increase the use of condoms and other forms of contraception" among sexually active teens. In addition, contrary to claims by proponents of abstinence-only education, sex education curricula that discuss contraception—by presenting accurate information about contraceptive options, effectiveness, and use—do not increase sexual activity. Overall, comprehensive sex education programs have been shown to decrease substantially the risk of STIs and pregnancy among young people.
Abstinence-Only Programs Jeopardize Teen Health
Abstinence-only education is increasingly replacing other forms of sex education in high schools. In 1999, 23 percent of secondary sexuality education teachers taught abstinence as the only way of avoiding STIs and pregnancy, up from 2 percent in 1988. When abstinence-only programs do present information about pregnancy prevention and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, they do so incompletely and/or inaccurately. For example, one popular program, Sex Respect, exaggerates condom failure rates, thereby minimizing their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and STIs.
Sexually active teens cannot protect themselves from disease and pregnancy without full and accurate information about the transmission of STIs, their treatment, and the effectiveness of contraception. Abstinence-only educational programs jeopardize the health of sexually active teens and leave those who become sexually active at risk for STIs and pregnancy.
Gay and Lesbian Students
Many abstinence-only programs use curricula that dangerously marginalize gay and lesbian students and stigmatize homosexuality. The federal guidelines governing these programs state that they should teach that a "mutually faithful monogamous relationship in [the] context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity." In a society that generally prohibits gays and lesbians from marrying, such a message rejects the idea of sexual intimacy for lesbians and gays and ignores their need for critical information about protecting themselves from STIs in same-sex relationships.
A recent review of the leading abstinence-only curricula found that most address same-sex sexual behavior only within the context of promiscuity and disease, and several are overtly hostile to lesbians and gay men. For example, in its parent-teacher guide, Facing Reality instructs educators to teach students that homosexuals with AIDS are now suffering for the "choices" they made regarding their sexual orientation.
By talking only about sex within marriage and teaching about STIs as a form of moral punishment for homosexuality, abstinence-only programs not only undermine efforts to educate students about protecting their health, but create a hostile learning environment for lesbian and gay students.
Many abstinence-only curricula use religious doctrines as guidelines for determining appropriate sexual behavior and values. These curricula violate the First Amendments guarantee of the separation between church and state by using taxpayer money to endorse religious beliefs. A popular abstinence-only curriculum called Sex Respect, for example, was originally designed for parochial school use. While it now uses the term "nature" in place of "God," it still has strong religious undertones and references religious publications.
Although federal funding guidelines do not permit abstinence-only grantees to convey overt religious messages or to impose religious viewpoints, in practice, many of these programs do precisely that. In 2002, the ACLU challenged the use of taxpayer dollars to support religious activities in the Louisiana Governor's Program (GPA) on Abstinence, a program run on federal and state funds. Over the course of several years, the GPA had funded programs that, among other things, presented "Christ-centered" theater skits, held a religious youth revival, and produced radio shows that "share abstinence as part of the gospel message." A federal district court found that GPA funds were being used to convey religious messages and advance religion, in violation of the Constitution's requirement of separation of church and state. The court ordered Louisiana officials to stop this misuse of taxpayer dollars. The case was on appeal when the parties settled. The GPA agreed to closely monitor the activities of the programs it funds and to stop using GPA dollars to "convey religious messages or otherwise advance religion in any way." Nonetheless, in 2004 the ACLU discovered that the GPA was violating the agreement and directed the state to correct ongoing problems in the program.
Public Opinion
The vast majority of U.S. parents, teachers, and leading medical groups believe that students should receive comprehensive sexuality education.
In a nationwide poll conducted in 2004 for the Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio, and the Kennedy School of Government, researchers found that an overwhelming majority of parents want sex education curricula to cover topics such as how to use and where to get contraceptives, including codoms; abortion; and sexual orientation.
A 1999 nationally representative survey of 7th-12th grade teachers in the five specialties most often responsible for sex education found that a strong majority believed that sexuality education courses should cover birth control methods (93.4%), factual information about abortion (89%), where to go for birth control (88.8%), the correct way to use a condom (82%), and sexual orientation (77.8%), among other topics.
Similarly, major medical organizations have advocated for and/or endorsed comprehensive sexuality education, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine.
FURTHER READINGSBooks
Carolyn E. Cocca Jailbait: The Politics of Statutory Rape Laws in the United States. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.
Vicki Courtney Teenvirtue: Real Issues, Real Life ... a Teen Girl's Survival Guide. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2005.
Deborah Davis, ed. You Look Too Young to Be a Mom: Teen Mothers Speak Out on Love, Learning, and Success. New York: Perigee Books, 2004.
Annie Fox and Elizabeth Verdick, ed. The Teen Survival Guide to Dating and Relating: Real-World Advice on Guys, Girls, Growing Up, and Getting Along. Minneapolis: Free Spirit, 2005.
Deborah Hatchell What Smart Teenagers Know ... About Dating, Relationships, and Sex. Boston: Piper Books, 2003.
Kelly Huegel GLBTQ: The Survival Guide for Queer and Questioning Teens. Minneapolis: Free Spirit, 2003.
Miranda Hunter and William Hunter Staying Safe: A Teen's Guide to Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Brookshire, TX: Mason Crest, 2004.
Janice M. Irvine Talk About Sex: The Battles over Sex Education in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Roger J.R. Levesque, ed. Sexuality Education: What Adolescents' Rights Require. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, 2003.
Judith Levine Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003.
David Levithan Boy Meets Boy. New York: Knopf, 2003.
Hal Marcovitz Teens and Sex. Brookshire, TX: Mason Crest, 2004.
Meg Meeker Epidemic: How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids. Washington, DC: Lifeline Press, 2002.
Sylvia Olsen The Girl with a Baby. Winlaw, British Columbia, Canada: Sono NIS Press, 2004.
Jim Pollard and Chloe Kent Sex. Chicago: Raintree, 2005.
Lynn Ponton The Sex Lives of Teenagers: Revealing the Secret World of Adolescent Boys and Girls. New York: Plume, 2001.
Mary Louise Rasmussen, Eric Rofes, and Susan Talburt, eds. Youth and Sexualities: Pleasure, Subversion, and Insubordination in and out of Schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
Jason Rich Growing Up Gay in America. Portland, OR: Franklin Street Books, 2002.
Patricia Roles Facing Teen Pregnancy: A Handbook for the Pregnant Teen. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Press, 2004.
Ritch C. Savin-Williams The New Gay Teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Deborah A. Stanley Sexual Health Information for Teens: Health Tips About Sexual Development, Human Reproduction, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Detroit: Omnigraphics, 2003.
Pam Stenzel Sex Has a Price Tag. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.
Deborah L. Tolman Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk About Sexuality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Sabrina Weill The Real Truth About Teens and Sex: From Hooking Up to Friends with Benefits—What Teens Are Thinking, Doing, and Talking About, and How to Help Them Make Smart Choices. New York: Perigee Trade, 2005.
William L. Yarber STDs and HIV: A Guide for Today's Teens. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 2003.
Franklin E. Zimring An American Travesty: Legal Responses to Adolescent Sexual Offending. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.Periodicals
Chris Brown "Should Schools Permit Condom Machines?" Liverpool Daily Post, May 14, 2004.
Hannah Brücker and Peter Bearman "After the Promise: The STD Consequences of Adolescent Virginity Pledges," Journal of Adolescent Health, April 2005.
Margery Eagan "Old Adult Taboo No Match for Teen Cynicism," Boston Herald, February 22, 2005.
Michael Foust "Are Public Schools the Next Battleground over Homosexuality?" Baptist Press News, June 7, 2005.
Alison George "Teenagers Special: Going All the Way," New Scientist, March 5, 2005.
Bonnie L. Halpern-Felsher "Adolescents' Self-Efficacy to Communicate About Sex: It's Role in Condom Attitudes, Commitment, and Use," Adolescence, Fall 2004.
Stephen Hanson "Heads I Win; Tails Don't Count: The Actual Value of Abstinence," Free Inquiry, February/March 2004.
Joy Lanzendorfer "It's 10 p.m., Do You Know? Kids Aren't Having Casual Sex, They're Having Oral Sex," North Bay Bohemian, October 17, 2002.
Todd Melby "Making Radical Changes in Sexuality Education," Contemporary Sexuality, November 2004.
Karen Kay Perrin "Abstinence-Only Education: How We Got Here and Where We're Going," Journal of Public Health Policy, 2003.
Elizabeth Querna "Teaching Teens About Sex: Virginity Pledges May Not Protect Adolescents from STDs," U.S. News & World Report, March 21, 2005.
Kandra Strauss "The Birds, the Bees, Oh My!" NEA Today, April 2003.
James Wagoner "New CDC Data on Teens and Oral Sex," September 15, 2005. www.advocatesforyouth.org.
Source Citation:
Union, American Civil Liberties. "Abstinence-Only Programs Do Not Work." Teenage Sexuality. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. Opposing Viewpoints®. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Nova Southeastern University. 6 Feb. 2009
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment