Abstinence-Only Education
In 1981, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), which began a federal move towards abstinence-only education in schools across the country. In 1996, this movement was strengthened by a provision of the welfare reform law, which allowed the federal government to pledge $50 million a year for five years to states teaching abstinence-only curricula in their schools. In 2005, under the Bush Administration, Congress gave approximately $170 million to abstinence-only education. While most individuals agree that teens should abstain from sexual activity until they are emotionally and physically mature, critics of abstinence-only education argue that this approach distorts facts and put the health of teens in jeopardy by not providing adequate and necessary information.
Since 1996, nearly $1 billion in federal and state matched funds have been spent on abstinence-only education. However, there has not been a significant decrease in teen pregnancy or the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. The US Centers for Disease Control estimate that there are between 800,000 to 900,000 teen pregnancies in the United States each year. The Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that conducts reproductive health research, reports that roughly 4 million new STD infections occur in US teens each year. Many states struggled with the decision to apply for federal funds, finding the abstinence-only programs too restrictive, the overall tone too religious, and the information too inaccurate. Many under-funded school districts, however, remain in need of governmental assistance and adopt such programs out of economic necessity.
In states that have implemented abstinence-only education crucial health programs have been canceled, textbooks are censored, and students are misinformed and often given inaccurate information. Some falsehoods taught in these government-funded programs include: ‘condoms don’t help prevent the spread of STDs’, ‘nearly 1 in 3 (people) will contract AIDS from an infected partner with 100% condom use’, and ‘five to 10 percent of women who have legal abortions will become sterile’. Many abstinence- only programs rely solely on scare tactics, the goal being to shame or scare teens into remaining abstinent until marriage. Often these programs claim that teens are putting their lives at risk if the engage in premarital sex. Many schools hold chastity rallies, where students are encourage to pledge to God that they will remain abstinent until marriage. Contrary to these programs, researches at Columbia University determined that while these virginity pl e dges worked for some teens, those who broke their pledges were one-third less likely to practice safe sex when they did engage in sexual activity than teens who did not sign those pledges.
A more beneficial alternative to abstinence-only education is comprehensive sexuality education. In such a curriculum, students receive a variety of information on abstinence, contraception, STDs, sexual orientation, safer-sex practices, abortion, and the emotional aspects of sexual relationships. There is no evidence that students in these comprehensive sex education classes engage in sexual activity earlier than students in abstinence-only education classes. But, students with a more comprehensive sexuality education are more informed and prepared to practice safer sex once they become sexually active.
Abstinence-only programs fail to give teens necessary information about sex, pregnancy, birth control, STDs, and abortion.These programs do not take into account the reality that many teens are already sexually active and need information on how to practice safer sex. Teens cannot be responsible for themselves if they do not have all the information. Those exposed to abstinence-only programs are left dangerously misinformed and at high risk if they are to become sexually active. Statistics have consistently shown that more information about sexuality actually serves to encourage safer behavior, rather than leading to more promiscuity and risky behavior in young people. This all has lead to a battle between research, statistics, and facts versus moral, religious, and political beliefs in the fight to educate the nation’s children the “right” way.
