by Julia Kaye, Health Policy Associate
National Women’s Law Center
On Wednesday, the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform put on their Sherlock Holmes hats and unleashed the hound-dogs—well, they called a hearing, at least—in search of the truth about federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. In his introductory statement, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) proclaimed, “Abstinence-only curricula contain lots of statistics on the failure rates of condoms. It’s time we faced the facts of the failure rates of abstinence-only education.”
The vast majority of the witnesses, including Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.) and four experts from the IOM, APHA, AAP and Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, did exactly that. Additionally, an HIV positive “alumni” of abstinence-only education and a virginity pledger-turned-advocate-for-comprehensive-sex-ed offered moving testimony on the harm done by abstinence-only programs.
Each year, 750,000 adolescent females in the U.S. become pregnant—82 percent of the time it’s unintended—and 15-24 year olds report more than 9 million cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Yet federally funded abstinence-only programs are specifically required to exclude from their curricula information about contraceptives—a critical part of any public health effort to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs—save for their failure rates. Furthermore, over 80 percent of abstinence-only curricula provide information about contraception and other reproductive health services that is medically inaccurate, exaggerated, and misleading, such as grossly exaggerated failure rates for condoms, false information about the risks of abortion, and subjective, moral judgments treated as scientific fact. The ab-only curriculum, Me, My World, My Future (1998), used by eight federal grantees, refers to a 43 day-old fetus as a “thinking person.” Why kNOw (2002), a curriculum used by seven grantees, asks rhetorically “could condoms be just another stupid idea?”
Some federally funded abstinence-only programs also promote stereotypes about gender and relationships. WAIT Training, a curriculum used by nine grantees, lists “Financial Support” as one of the “5 Major Needs of Women,” and “Domestic Support” as one of the “5 Major Needs of Men.” Moreover, all abstinence-only programs discriminate against GLBTQ teens, and all programs stigmatize adolescents without two, heterosexual, married parents, and youths who do not foresee themselves one day living in a traditional family structure.
Committee-members who support ab-only programs were not shy about voicing their opinions, however, and three of the witnesses were sympathetic to their cause. Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) argued that "it is inaccurate and unfair to claim all abstinence education programs are the same or that all such programs fail, therefore none should be funded." Abstinence-only programs were additionally defended by Sen. Sam Brownback (KS), who stated that, as a parent, he believes that we should set high standards for teens by teaching only abstinence. Dr. Stan Weed of the Institute for Research and Evaluation testified that some ab-only programs do work—though some do not—and that comprehensive sex ed programs should be subject to comparable scrutiny. Mr. Charles Keckler, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Administration for Children and Families—which runs one of the key federal funding streams for ab-only programs—argued that ab-only programs were only one of several methods through which the federal government is trying to address the sexual health crisis among adolescents […though there is no federal funding for comprehensive sex education, per se…], and that ab-only programs and comprehensive sex ed have never been directly compared.
Yet study after study…after studies… demonstrate the inefficacy of abstinence-only programs. If you’re still unconvinced—though I doubt it, since 76 percent of voters want to see U.S. public schools teaching comprehensive sex education, including 83 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents, 78 percent of Catholics and 60 percent of evangelical Christians —this juicy tidbit might change your mind:
In 2001, a study on the sexual behaviors of youths who had taken “virginity pledges,” a key component of many abstinence-only programs, found that while some of the pledgers did delay sexual initiation by an average of 18 months, they were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than peers who had not taken the pledge. Further research found that, among virgins, male and female pledgers were six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers were four times more likely to have had anal sex than their peers who had not pledged.
Did I mention that the federal government has channeled over $1.5 billion to these programs since 1996?
At the hearing, several of the abstinence-only proponents seemed to feel that it was abstinence itself that was under attack and, in defense, stressed the fact that abstinence is the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing unintended pregnancies and STIs. Time and again, witnesses and committee-members who support comprehensive sex ed tried to explain that abstinence should absolutely be a centerpiece of any sex education program — but that accurate, unbiased information about contraception is crucial information that must also be included. Rep. Shays (R-Ct.) was particularly impassioned on this topic, at one point challenging Dr. Weed of IRE, “Abstinence, I understand. But why only!? Why only!?!? Frankly, Rep. Shays — we don’t get it either.
ETA: Check out the National Women's Law Center's testimony to the committee.
Comments