1. What is Abstinence Education? Abstinence education empowers teens to avoid risk by making good health decisions, regardless of their sexual history. Abstinence means to voluntarily refrain from at-risk sexual activity including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse. Abstinence education, as funded by Congress, is decidedly more inclusive than “just say no”. The term, “abstinence only” is often strategically attached to this funding by opponents to create the false perception that abstinence education is a narrow and unrealistic approach. Abstinence education is overwhelmingly more comprehensive and holistic than other approaches and focuses on the real-life struggles that teens face as they navigate through the difficult adolescent years. Abstinence education realizes that “having sex” can potentially affect a lot more than the sex organs of teens, but as research shows, can also have emotional, psychological, social, economic and educational consequences. That’s why topics frequently discussed in an abstinence education class include:
So, within an abstinence education program, teens receive all the information they need in order to make healthy choices. That’s a lot of information and skills packed into an abstinence curriculum! And all of these topics are taught within the context of why abstinence is the best choice. There’s nothing “only” about the abstinence approach! 2. What is Comprehensive Sex Education? There are vast differences between abstinence education and CSE. The major distinction is how each approach regards teens. Abstinence education believes teens can and increasingly do, avoid sex, so the discussion empowers them to make the healthiest sexual decision – which is to abstain. By contrast, CSE assumes that teens don’t have the ability to avoid sexual experimentation, so most of their time is spent talking about sex and the use of condoms and other forms of contraception. Comprehensive Sex Education assumes that teens will engage in high risk sexual behavior and are content to merely reduce the risk of that behavior. A review of CSE curricula show that, on average, about 5% of their time is devoted to the abstinence message, with the definition of abstinence usually subjectively defined by the student. One popular “abstinence plus” text promoted by comprehensive sex ed providers, asks students to brainstorm “what sexual behaviors a person could engage in and still be ‘abstinent’” and suggested activities such as “cuddling with no clothes on”, “masturbating with a partner”, “rubbing bodies together”. Students are sent nondirective and confusing definitions for abstinence that are filled with risk and predictably and the discussion quickly moves to “the endless possibilities of outercourse” and “making the transition from sexual abstinence.” Alarmingly, CSE curricula present abstinence and condom use as equally “safe” options, promoting dangerous and medically inaccurate information to teens. A 2007 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found that many highly recommended “comprehensive” curricula devote little time to teaching the merits of abstaining from sex but spend an overwhelming amount of teaching time topics such as condom demonstration and sexual game play as methods of "safe" sex. The study revealed startling components of the "comprehensive" curricula that taught teens as young as 13 lessons that include:
3. What about the Mathematica Study indicating abstinence education does not work? The Mathematica Study examined only four out of a pool of over 700 Title V abstinence education programs. These narrow findings represent less than 1% of all Title V projects across the nation. In addition the follow-up interval for measuring behavioral outcomes was much longer than what is typical in evaluations of non-abstinence sex education programs: 4 to 6 years after the program ended with any intervening program reinforcement. The study began when Title V abstinence education programs were still in their infancy. The field of abstinence has significantly grown and evolved since that time and the results demonstrated in the Mathematica study are not representative of the abstinence education community as a whole. The 2006 Conference on the Evaluation of Abstinence Education, sponsored by the US Department of Health and Human Services featured at least 30 significant evaluation studies that demonstrated positive trends in teen abstinent behavior. In addition there are a number of significant studies (See Research) that demonstrate that abstinence education programs are effective in delaying sexual debut, reducing partners once sexually active, and empowering sexually experienced students to embrace abstinent behavior. 4. Is it fair that abstinence education receives federal funding, but comprehensive sex education receives no federal funding? The fact is comprehensive sex education (CSE) receives at least twice as much federal funding as abstinence education.10 In addition, CSE has received funding since the 1970’s, while significant funding for abstinence education did not begin until 1998. So cumulative comparisons between the two approaches are overwhelmingly in favor of CSE funds.11 Despite this funding disparity, abstinence education fits soundly within the public health model for prevention and risk avoidance. And with a growing body of research showing its effectiveness, continued funding, with annual increases, is not only warranted but also highly advisable to impact teen health in America.
5. How much does abstinence education cost taxpayers? Current federal funding for Abstinence Education is about $170 million dollars, but the result is actually a cost savings to taxpayers! In terms of savings associated with reductions in teen births, abstinence education saves taxpayers $6 for every $1 spent.12 Abstinence education provides a beneficial return for the taxpayer and a brighter future for teens. 6. What percent of public schools teach abstinence education vs. comprehensive sex education? While there are increasing numbers of schools that teach abstinence education, the majority of schools still focus on reducing the risk of sex through birth control instruction,13 rather than the risk avoidance skill-building message of abstinence. In 1995, only 8% of schools taught abstinence education but 84% taught birth control instruction.14 In 2002, 22% taught abstinence education, and 68% taught birth control instruction. Information only up to the year 2002 is available, but this data indicates that fewer than 1 in 4 students across America are receiving abstinence education. At least partly due to the unequal federal funding between both initiatives, more than 2/3 of all teens receive so called comprehensive sex education, a message that assumes that teens will have sex. This is why the recent accusation that rises in teen birth and STD rates are due to abstinence education is absurdly false. 7. Does the abstinence message have relevance for teens who are sexually active? Absolutely! Sexually experienced teens receive the skills and positive empowerment to make healthier choices in the future as a result of abstinence education. A recent published study shows that sexually experienced teens enrolled in an abstinence program were much more likely to choose to abstain than their sexually experienced peers who did not receive abstinence education.15 Among teens that have had sex, 55 percent of boys and 72 percent of girls wish they had waited.16 The abstinence message provides the only practical approach away from high-risk behavior and toward a decision that removes all future risk for that teen. 8. With most people having sex before marriage, isn’t the “abstinence until marriage” message unrealistic? The fact that many individuals have sex before marriage and 1 in 3 births are outside of marriage does not diminish the benefits of waiting to have children until marriage, nor does it mean we should abandon the goal of changing the cultural norm for this behavior. In fact, historically, if a cultural behavior or norm is in conflict with the desired outcome, efforts are redoubled, not discarded. For example, a generation ago, smoking was a desired, normative behavior, but today smoking is almost universally viewed as undesirable and unhealthy - proof that cultural and social norms can and do change. Similarly, although growing numbers of Americans are overweight, efforts to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits have increasingly become public health priority messages. We do not capitulate our highest public health standards based on the unhealthy choices of a majority, but on standards that promote optimal health outcomes in the population. Overwhelming social science data reveals that children who are born within a committed married relationship fare better economically, socially, physically and psychologically.19 In terms of child outcomes, the facts are clear – waiting until after marriage to have children is indisputably in the child’s best interest. Further, most teens are not sexually active and more and more teens are choosing to be abstinent, proving that the message of abstinence increasingly resonates with youth.20 Amplified efforts to link the personal benefits of abstinence with the positive effects for children born from a marital union are warranted and necessary if positive changes in cultural norms are to be realized. 9. Is abstinence education religious in nature? No, the curricular content of abstinence education programs funded by the federal government is consistent with the public health prevention model for risk avoidance. In terms of general public health policy, the best health outcomes are made possible by the best positive health behavior messaging. Abstinence education follows this model, while all other approaches offer a message that still leave youth at risk for some of the consequences of sexual activity. Abstinence education provides all the information necessary for teens to make the best choice for their sexual health. The fact that the world’s major religions support abstinence until marriage does not disqualify abstinence as an important public health message. What needs to be recognized is that while the abstinence until marriage message often converges with religious belief, it does not promote religious belief, but stands alone as a crucial, primary health message. 10. Isn’t “abstinence only” really a “just say no” message? No – on both counts. Abstinence education, as funded by Congress, has nothing to do with “only” and the message is decidedly more inclusive than “just say no”. The term, “abstinence only” is strategically attached to this funding by opponents to create the false perception that abstinence education is a narrow and unrealistic approach. Abstinence education is overwhelmingly more comprehensive and holistic than other approaches and focuses on the real-life struggles that teens face as they navigate through the difficult adolescent years. Abstinence education realizes that “having sex” can potentially affect a lot more than the sex organs of teens, but as research shows, can also have emotional, psychological, social, economic and educational consequences. That’s why topics frequently discussed in an abstinence education class include how to identify a healthy relationship, how to avoid or get out of a dangerous, unhealthy, or abusive relationship, developing skills to make good decisions, setting goals for the future and taking realistic steps to reach them, understanding and avoiding STDs, information about contraceptives and their effectiveness against pregnancy and STDs, practical ways to avoid inappropriate sexual advances and why abstinence until marriage is optimal. So, within an abstinence education program, teens receive all the information they need in order to make healthy choices. That’s a lot of information and skills packed into an abstinence curriculum! And all of these topics are taught within the context of why abstinence is the best choice. There’s nothing “only” about the abstinence approach! 11. Does abstinence education support medical accuracy? Yes, the National Abstinence Education Association strongly believes all youth serving organizations should provide accurate information to teens, regardless of the funding stream. That means that organizations receiving federal funds for pregnancy prevention, HIV/AIDS prevention, and all other programs, including abstinence education, should be held to the same standards of accountability. Abstinence organizations share this commitment to accuracy. While ideologically motivated individuals and organizations have tried to assert that inaccurate statements characterize abstinence education, this is simply not true. For example, the 2004 report, The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman and compiled, primarily by special interest groups who are historical opponents to abstinence, relied upon misrepresentation, distortion, and error rather than an honest appraisal of abstinence education curricula. (Read Abstinence and its Critics by Rep. Mark Souder for more information). Most reports on “medical accuracy” fail to note that CSE curricula regularly overstate the effectiveness of condoms, underestimate the risk of certain sexual activities, and infer that sex can be made safe and without consequences as long as a condom is used.17 One widely used text even warns facilitators not to mention any limitations on condom effectiveness to students.18 Abstinence education continues its commitment to provide accurate information to teens so that they are fully equipped to make the best decisions for their sexual health. 12. Is it true that most parents want their children to receive “comprehensive sex education” rather than abstinence education? When parents understand the differences between CSE and abstinence curricula, they prefer abstinence education over so-called comprehensive sex education by a 2:1 margin.21 Only surveys that provide incomplete or erroneous information show a result different from these findings. Parents across all ideological, political, and demographic boundaries want what is best for their children and in terms of sexual health; the favored approach is abstinence education, as currently funded by Congress. Footnotes
|
