Christopher Cummings Blog

Reprinted from Chapter 3 of United We Stand:

To reduce abortions, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, especially among teens and young women. Most people agree that sex education is the key to reducing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, but there is a great ideological divide over what kind of sex education our kids should receive. Typically, the extremes take this shape:

Abstinence-only sex education condemns all sex outside of marriage — for people of any age — for religious reasons and because, biologically, abstinence is the only guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only organizations include Aim for Success and Worth the Wait.

Comprehensive sex education promotes a well-rounded view of sex education, including abstinence, pregnancy, and STD prevention. The programs promote abstinence as the only guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, but acknowledge methods for safe sex. Comprehensive sex education organizations include Planned Parenthood and National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

The comprehensive sex education groups say that comprehensive education reduces risky sex behavior by giving students the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about sex. The abstinence-only sex education groups say that comprehensive education confuses teens by talking up abstinence but then giving teens “permission” to have sex.

If you understand human biology, then you know that abstinence is the only surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Put more bluntly, if you have sex, you might get pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease; if you don’t have sex, then you won’t get pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease.

Ideologically, abstinence-only education makes sense and presents a clear moral vision. Starting in 1981, the federal government took a firm stand in the debate, by creating and signing into law the Adolescent Family Life Act which was designed to prevent teenage pregnancy by encouraging chastity and self-discipline (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). In the 1990s, federal investment in this area increased significantly when Congress created a federal-state program funded at $440 million over five years to support local sexuality education programs that condemn all sex outside of marriage and prohibit any positive discussion of contraception; recently, a third abstinence-only education program was created, funded at $50 million (Dailard, 2001).

Twenty years later, and $500,000 in taxpayer funds later, where are we?

In December 2004, Congressman Henry Waxman released an assessment of abstinence-only sex education curriculum in the United States. The report, titled “The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education,” evaluated thirteen of the most commonly used abstinence-only sex education programs and discovered that eleven of the programs contain incorrect information about pregnancy, abortion, and contraception.

Among the bad information:

• A woman can become pregnant if a man touches her genitals
• Women who have abortions have significant mental health consequences
• One in ten women who undergo abortion become sterile
• Fifty percent of gay male teenagers are HIV-positive
• HIV can be spread through sweat and tears, and
• Condoms fail to prevent sexually transmitted diseases 31 percent of the time when used during heterosexual intercourse.

Say what you want about abortions or condoms or gays — but no published, peer-reviewed scientific research or medical research supports any of the above claims. It’s one thing for a program to promote abstinence and not talk about condoms or contraception, but it’s another thing altogether for any program to deliberately mislead teens about condoms or anything else.

As taxpayers, every American should be very concerned that we’ve spent millions of tax dollars on abstinence-only education programs that commonly distort information about contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, and contain basic scientific errors-especially when there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that abstinence-only education is more effective than comprehensive sex education. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the experts, via Advocates for Youth:

• The American Medical Association, 1999: “Current research findings do not support the position that the abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is effective in delaying the onset of intercourse.”
• The Institute of Medicine, 2000: “Expert panels that have studied this issue, have concluded that comprehensive sex and HIV/AIDS education programs and condom availability programs can be effective in reducing high-risk sexual behaviors among adolescents. In addition, these reviews and expert panels conclude that school-based sex education and condom availability programs do not increase sexual activity among adolescents.”
• The National Institutes of Health, 1997: “Although sexual abstinence is a desirable objective, programs must include instruction in safer sex behavior, including condom use. The effectiveness of these programs is supported by strong scientific evidence.”
• American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001: “All adolescents should be counseled about the correct and consistent use of latex condoms to reduce risk of infection.”

Set aside the perceived morality of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education and just remember: We all want to reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Instead of judging programs on their moral stance or ideology, let’s judge sex education programs on their ability to actually reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

In 1997, a commission created by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) examined sixty-eight reports on sexuality education from France, Mexico, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and various Nordic countries. The review found that comprehensive sex education for children and young people did not increase sexual activity, but they did promote safer sexual behaviors (SEICUS, 2001).

The World Health Organization evaluated forty-seven different sex education programs in the United States and other countries, and in twenty-five of their studies, sex and HIV/AIDS education neither increased nor decreased sexual activity and rates of pregnancy and STD. However, in seventeen studies, HIV and/or sex education delayed the onset of sexual activity, reduced the number of sexual partners, and reduced unplanned pregnancy and STD rates (SEICUS, 2001). That is exactly the kind of behavior we want to encourage, and that is the exact goal we should be aiming for in sex education.

A recent study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health and reported by Medical News Today found that teens who take virginity pledges-that is, a vow to remain a virgin until marriage-are just as likely to get sexually transmitted diseases as those who do not. Among teen boys who had never had vaginal intercourse, the teens who took virginity pledges were four times more likely to have anal sex than those who did not pledge. Overall, among teens that have never had vaginal intercourse, pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex. Worse, the researchers found that condom use for anal sex was very low and almost nonexistent for oral sex. Perhaps most troubling of all, pledgers were less likely to seek testing and treatment for STDs than nonpledgers, increasing the risk of transmitting diseases to other teens who were also having sex. Obviously, taking a pledge to remain a virgin and actually living up to that pledge are two very different things, and that difference is ruining young people’s lives.

A recent study in the journal Pediatrics found that most teens surveyed did not consider oral sex to be “sex” (DeNoon, 2005). They also believed that oral sex posed fewer social, emotional, and health risks than vaginal intercourse, and they viewed it as common and acceptable for their age group. Of the ninth-grade teens surveyed, 20 percent reported having had oral sex, while 14 percent reported having had vaginal sex. Blame it on President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky or blame it on Internet pornography or popular culture or whatever you want to blame it on-but the fact remains that teens don’t consider oral sex to be real sex, and that is a real problem.

Another big problem: the casual disregard for condoms, despite the scientific evidence proving how effective they really are. A National Institutes of Health panel convened in 2000 confirms that condoms are very effective in affording protection against HIV and unwanted pregnancy. Studies show that scaring teens away from condoms by misrepresenting their efficacy does not stop teens from having sex; instead, it increases the chance that teens who have sex will do so without a condom, increasing the chances of pregnancy and the spreading of disease (Reinart, 2005). Obviously, this is exactly the kind of behavior we do not want to encourage.

As a father, I worry about the day my sons will be faced with — perhaps, literally — a life or death decision that may not appear on its surface to be life or death decision. As a society, I think parents need to get educated on sex education, and get over our personal hang-ups and moral quandaries so we can discuss sex with our kids openly and honestly. But sex education has to be about more than the mechanics of sex. Teaching teens about pregnancy and contraception is worthwhile and can reduce pregnancies and abortions and sexual transmitted disease, but that is only half the sex story.

If you’ve ever been in a romantic relationship with someone, then you know that sex involves more than just your genitals. It’s about love, commitment, family, and faith. When asked what factors most affect their decisions about whether to have sex, teens-by a wide margin-cite morals, values, and/or religious beliefs more than any other source. When asked who most influences their decisions about sex, teens again cite their parents, by a very wide margin (National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2001).

As parents, we have a moral obligation to our children to make sure they understand sex and all of its ethical, mental, and physical implications. Society at large bears that same responsibility to all children. If we can teach our children to understand and respect sex-rather than fill their heads with bad information or just teach them about the mechanics-then we can reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, reduce teen pregnancy, reduce abortions, and increase the chances of our kids growing up to be responsible adults who treat their bodies with respect.

When it comes to sex education, ignorance can kill — literally. Let’s vote to give our kids a fighting chance.

References

Advocates for Youth. (2001). Scientific & medical institutions support comprehensive sexuality education. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/transitions/transitions1203_4.htm

Aim for Success. (2005). Sexual abstinence education. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.aimforsuccess.org

Dailard, C. (2001). Sex education: politicians, parents, teachers and teens. Last viewed May 6, 2005, at http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/1/gr040109.html

DeNoon, D. (2005). 1 in 5 young teens report having tried oral sex. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/103/107210.htm

Medical News Today. (2005). Many teens who take ‘Virginity Pledges’ substitute other high-risk behavior for intercourse, study says. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21606

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. (2005). National campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.teenpregnancy.org/

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Workshop summary: scientific evidence on condom effectiveness for sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (2005). Who we are. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/aboutus/whoweare/

Reinart, S. (2005). Teen sex: Riskier than ever. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2005/06/18/news/news02.txt

SEICUS. (2001). What is the current research and information that supports sexuality education? Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://siecus.org/library/faqs/faqs0001.html

UNAIDS. (1997). Sexual health education does lead to safer sexual behavior. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.unaids.org/html/pub/publications/irc-pub01/jc010-impactyoungpeople_en_pdf.pdf

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Office of population affairs legislation. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/legislation.html

United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform _ Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division. (2004). The content of federally funded abstinence-only education programs. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

Worth the Wait. (2004). Teens. Last viewed May 20, 2005, at http://www.worththewait.org/

Comments? Post your thoughts.