Vanessa Herrera
2/22/12
Period 2
AP Language
Mrs. Hampton
An
End to Ignorance
In the past, Congress has funded abstinence-only programs
over sex education.
The $102 million (0) currently being spent on abstinence-only programs seems
to be intended to serve social and political goals, instead of producing
positive health results for youth. The government appears to be concerned with how
others portray our citizens, as immoral beings, when sex is an inevitable occurrence.
Abstinence-plus
education emphasizes the benefits of
abstinence while also teaching about contraception and disease-prevention
methods. Abstinence-only programs education
includes discussions of values, character building, and refusal skills. They promote
abstinence from sex for unmarried people and do not teach about contraception. They
do not reduce pre-marital sex, but they do cause young people to avoid
contraception. Because of the
ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs, abstinence-plus education should
be taught instead.
The United States has the highest rates of sexually
transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy of any developed country. Each year, unprotected
sex results in almost four million teenagers contracting an STD. The HIV/AIDS
epidemic is also a serious health concern for young people. Of the 40,000 new
HIV infections in the US every year, about 20,000 occur in people under the age
of 25, unprotected sex being to blame. (1) The National
Abortion Rights Advocacy League says, “By
denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality,
abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information
they need to protect their health and well-being.” (2) Surveys done by the Kaiser Family Foundation found
that “students who have sex education know more and feel better prepared to
handle different situations and decisions than those who have not.” (3) If the
abstinence-only approach continues, it is expected have serious consequences by
denying young people access to the information they need to protect themselves.
These programs also distance young people of negative health outcomes by endorsing
a vision of adolescents that they are all the same by promoting one set of
behaviors and values.
An assessment of the published research reveals no
evidence that abstinence-only programs delay sexual initiation or reduce STIs
or pregnancy. For example, a study of an abstinence-only program reviewed in Emerging
Answers studied the end product of the Postponing Sexual Involvement
curriculum, a program that was put into action in California. The study found
that students enrolled in PSI who received instruction from peers were more likely to report becoming
pregnant, even though the PSI program was unlikely the cause. This program had
no positive impact on the initiation of sex, the occurrence of sex, or the
number of sexual partners. (4) In another study by the Centers for
Disease Control, researchers found that although teenagers who take
"virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, they
are more likely to enjoy oral and anal sex, and they are just as likely as
other students to be infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Eventually,
88% have premarital sex. (5) Therefore,
when abstinence-only programs have young people promise not to have premarital
sex, they are being insincere because they have anal and oral sex instead,
which does not protect them from diseases. Many are not even aware of this,
something they would know if abstinence-only education taught about
contraceptives. A vast majority ends up having sexual intercourse, proving this
approach is not effective.
The
Medical Institute for Sexual Health booklet
claims that “when parent views differ from those of their children, ‘safer sex’
proponents generally support student interests over parental wishes." The
author is implying that advocates for abstinence-plus programming drown out parents'
voice . However,
they are mistaken because surveys show that the public, parentes included, want
schools to convey strong abstinence messages along with information about
protection for young people. According to a survey of students, parents,
teachers and principals made by the Kaiser Family Foundation, “Parents want a
wider range of topics taught than is often included in sex education today.” 98%
percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes,
85% want “how to use condoms” discussed, and 84% think sex education should
cover “how to use and where to get other birth control.” (3) Another public opinion survey by Hickman-Brown
Research, Inc. of 1,050 adults from all over the country was commissioned by
SIECUS and Advocates for Youth. It found that 84% of adults support sex
education for junior high students and 93% support this education for high
school students. (6) According to a national survey of teens, 51% say they
need more information about how to get tested for HIV/AIDS and other STIs and
50% want more information on STIs other than HIV/AIDS, 39% want more
information about abortion, and 30% want more information on how to use condoms. (3) Another survey commissioned by the National Campaign
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and released in 2001 found that 95% of adults and 93%
of teens said “it is important that teens be given a strong abstinence message
from society,” and 70% of adults and 74% of teens said that advising abstinence
while also giving young people information about contraception is not a mixed
message. (7) In actuality, young people and parents agree on the
need for more information about sexual health and self protection. Both want it
to be taught in school because they realize the importance of abstinence-plus education.
They believe it to be helpful in dealing with sexual issues.
Many abstinence-only advocates are deeply concerned that
information about sex, contraception and HIV can encourage early sexual
activity among young people. (8) However, research
says otherwise. According to Emerging Answers, “A large body of
evaluation research clearly shows that sex and HIV education programs included
in this review do not increase sexual activity – they do not hasten the onset
of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and do not increase the number of sexual
partners. To the contrary, some sex and HIV education programs delay the onset
of sex, reduce the frequency of sex, or reduce the number of sexual partners.” (9)
One intervention, Reducing
the Risk, was proven to be effective. Kirby and colleagues studied this program
in California in 9th to 12th grade health education classes. The
intervention emphasized avoidance of unprotected sex through abstinence or
using protection. 18 months after the intervention, the program was found to
have delayed the initiation of intercourse, increase frequency of contraceptive
use, and reduce the frequency of unprotected intercourse among more sexually
inexperienced youth. (18) St. Lawrence and colleagues studied a different
intervention, Becoming A Responsible Teen. This program used small group
discussions and sessions with HIV positive young people. AIDS information,
sexual decision making, and use of condoms were all covered in the discussions.
The researchers found that young people in the intervention group showed
delayed initiation of sexual intercourse decreased number of sexual partners,
and increased rates of condom use. (10) In 2001, Surgeon General David Satcher released a Call
to Action on promoting sexual health. Examining the evidence on
comprehensive approaches to sex education, he found that the “evidence gives
strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception
does not increase adolescent sexual activity…[and that] some of these evaluated
programs increased condom use or contraceptive use more generally for
adolescents who were sexually active.” The report also states that there are a
limited number of studies on abstinence-only programs and that it is “too early
to draw definite conclusions about this approach.” (11)
Other studies have confirmed long lasting positive
effects from comprehensive sex education programs. Coyle and colleagues studied an
intervention called Safer Choices. Ninth graders in California and Texas
were taught the importance of abstinence, but were also taught that condom use
makes sex safer. Students received
training on skills to avoid sex or use condoms if they did choose to have sex.
Researchers found that those people showed increased condom usage rates and
reduced frequency of sex without condoms, which held up more than 31 months
after the intervention. (12) Another researcher, Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus, studied
an intervention with homeless and runaway youth that included HIV intervention
sessions addressing general HIV information, coping skills, access to health
care, and steps to safer sex. The program successfully increased consistent
condom use for those receiving the intervention. (13)
Abstinence-only proponents cite that studies show a
decline of adolescent sexual activity and related negative health outcomes over
the past ten years. One study reports that “…abstinence and decreased sexual
activity among sexually active adolescents are primarily responsible for the
decline during the 1990s in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates.” “Sexually
active adolescent females in 1995 were less protected against pregnancy than in
1988.” (14) The birthrate for sexually active single females,
15–19, increased from 1988 to 1995 – despite an increased use of condoms. They
believe that the declines in pregnancy are due mostly to abstinence-only
teachings. While the decline in teenage pregnancy is true, most of it is lower pregnancy rates among sexually
experienced young women. 68% of the decline in teen pregnancy in the 1990s
published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that approximately 75% of the
decrease can be attributed to lowered pregnancy rates among those young women
who were already sexually experienced. (15)
Proponents of abstinence-only education argue that sex
before marriage is inappropriate and immoral. They believe abstinence is the
only method which is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and STIs. (16) Many emphasize that condoms are not fool-proof in
preventing pregnancy or STIs, and that sexual activity outside marriage can
result in “serious, debilitating, and sometimes, deadly consequences.” (8) I agree, but as my
opponents fail to realize, abstinence-plus education promotes abstinence from sex, but also acknowledge that
teenagers will become sexually active. Half of high school students report
having had intercourse. (19) This considerable part of the population needs
information in order to protect themselves. These programs teach about condom
use and have discussions about contraception, abortion, sexually transmitted
diseases and HIV. According to a Consensus Statement of the National Commission
on Adolescent Sexual Health, “Society should encourage adolescents to delay
sexual behaviors until they are ready physically, cognitively, and emotionally
for mature sexual relationships and their consequences. … Society must also
recognize that a majority of adolescents will become involved in sexual
relationships during their teenage years.” (17)Whether we like it or
not, sexual activity is a reality for teenagers in America, and abstinence-only
programs will not wondrously rid teenagers from the media pressures and natural
hormonal urges that they experience. Accepting this reality means implementing
responsible programming: abstinence-plus education.
Sexuality education in schools is a sensitive issue partly
because it deals with what society and parents believe to be right and wrong, as
well as with people’s feelings about religion and values. Nevertheless, sex
education is made for a public health purpose –to reduce STIs, HIV/AIDS, and
unintended pregnancy among the country’s young people. This is the target of
sex education that practically everyone agrees on. There is no credible
evidence that the millions of dollars previously mentioned spent on abstinence-only
education have had any positive effect. Young people who learn from
abstinence-only programs in school will not have the tools necessary to protect
themselves when it comes to sex. The public needs to be adamant that policy
makers base funding and laws on the health needs of young people. If the aim of
school-based sex education is to increase positive health outcomes for youth,
abstinence-plus sex education is the proven effective choice. Knowledge is
power.
Works Cited
(0)US Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). President's Budget Increases Abstinence
Program Funding, Abstinence Request in line with Teen Family Planning Money.
January 31, 2002. Available at: www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020131a.html.
(1)Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation. What Teens Know and Don't (But Should) About Sexually
Transmitted Diseases March 9, 1999. Available at: www.kff.org/content/archive/1465/stds_t.pdf.
(2) National Abortion
Rights Advocacy League (NARAL). Fact Sheet: The Need for Comprehensive
Sexuality Education. February 24, 1999. Available at: www.naral.org/mediaresources/fact/sexed.html.
(3)Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation. Sex Education in America: A Series of National Surveys of Students,
Parents, Teachers and Principals (Summary of Findings) September 2000.
Available at: www.kff.org/content/2000/3048/SexED.pdf.
(4) Kirby D, Korpi
M, Barth RP, Cagampang HH. The Impact of the Postponing Sexual Involvement
Curriculum Among Youths in California. Family
Planning Perspectives. 1997.
(5) Alterman Eric,
Zornick George. The Abstinence-Only Sex Education Curriculum Is Biased and
Dangerous. Are Text Books Biased? Berlatsky Noah, Ed. At Issue Series.
Greenhaven Press, 2012. "Think Again: The Costs of Enforced Sexual
Ignorance," Center for American Progress, Web.
(6)Sexuality Information
and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Public Support for
Sexuality Education Reaches Highest Level (Hickman-Brown Public Opinion
Research Survey). March 1999. Available at: www.siecus.org/parent/pare0003.html.
(7)National Campaign to
Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Fact Sheet: Recent trends in teen pregnancy, sexual
activity, and contraceptive use. August, 2001. Available at:
www.teenpregnancy.org/rectrend.htm.
(8) Concerned Women for
America. Abstinence: Why Sex is Worth the Wait. July 1998. Available at:
www.cwfa.org/library/family/1998-07_pp_abstinence.shtml.
(9) Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research Findings on
Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy: National Campaign to Prevent Teen
Pregnancy; May 2001.
(10) St. Lawrence JS,
Jefferson KW, Alleyne E, et al. Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention to Reduce
African American Adolescents' Risk for HIV Infection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 1995.
(11) United States.
Public Health Service. Office of the Surgeon General. The Surgeon General's call to action to promote sexual health and
responsible sexual behavior. Rockville, MD: Office of the Surgeon General; 2001.
(12) Coyle KK, et
al. Safer Choices: Long-term impact of a multi-component school-based HIV, STI,
and pregnancy prevention program. Public
Health Reports. 2001.
(13) Rotheram-Borus
MJ, Koopman C, Haignere C, Davies M. Reducing HIV sexual risk behaviors among
runaway adolescents. Jama. Sep
4 1991
(14) Jones JM, Toffler W,
Mohn JK, et al. The declines in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates
in the 1990s: What factors are responsible? A special report commissioned by The Consortium of State Physicians Resource Councils. January
7, 1999. Available at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=224.
(15)Darroch JE, Singh S. Why is Teenage Pregnancy Declining? The
Roles of Abstinence, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use, Occasional Report. New
York, NY: Alan Guttmacher Institute;
1999.
(16)Abstinence
Clearinghouse. Choosing Abstinence-only Way to Protect America's Youth. Available
at: www.abstinence.net/ArticleDetail.cfm?ArticleID=202.
(17)Sexuality Information
and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Consensus Statement on
Adolescent Sexual Health. Available at: www.siecus.org/policy/poli0002.html.
(18) Kirby D, Barth RP,
Leland N, Fetro JV. Reducing the risk: impact of a new curriculum on sexual
risk-taking. Fam Plann Perspect. Nov-Dec 1991
(19) Blum RW, Rinehart
PM. Reducing the risk: Connections that make a difference in the lives of
youth. Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Health, University of
Minnesota.
