It’s not that kids in abstinence-only-education communities don’t know how sex works, or how to prevent pregnancy. It’s that they don’t have access to resources to help them prevent pregnancy. They don’t have access to free condoms, and don’t want to buy them at the local supermarket, where they’re vulnerable to the ever-watching eyes of small-town gossips. They don’t know how to obtain things like hormonal birth control without parental consent.</p>
<p>I’ve been there and done that (so to speak ;)). Not a great situation.</p>
<p>Even if abstinence programs don’t reduce HIV risks, there are certainly other benefits. </p>
<p>"The Other Side of the Debate
But a proponent of abstinence-based programs rejects the idea that there is little evidence showing they work. She calls the newly published review highly flawed.</p>
<p>National Abstinence Education Association Executive Director Valerie Huber says the review failed to include peer-reviewed studies showing that the programs effectively delay the onset of initial sexual activity, convince many sexually active teens to stop having sex, and lead to fewer sex partners among those who remain sexually active.</p>
<p>She points out that only one of the 13 studies included in the review involved older teens who were most likely to be sexually active. The rest evaluated programs targeting 10- to 14-year-olds.</p>
<p>She tells WebMD that the money spent on abstinence-based programs represents just one of every 10 dollars spent on sex education in the U.S.</p>
<p>KK: Unfortunately, Ms. Hubers fails to say what these mysterious peer-reviewed studies are that contradict all the other research or even to cite any statistics from them. That really doesn’t pass the smell test. I think if such studies existed, mini’s state would have found them when they looked.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, there’s a lot of evidence to show that the billion dollar abstinence-only industry deliberately misinforms people.</p>
<p>Among the misconceptions: HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears. Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse. </p>
<p>Neither of these is true, of course. Properly used condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and HIV about 3% of the time–less than 10 times the rate the abstinence-publishing industry wants people to believe. </p>
<p>One of the other whoppers: half of all gay teenagers in the US are HIV+. (Needless to say, there’s no statistics to back that up).</p>
<p>And that’s just the tip of the iceberg as far as the kind of garbage these programs are dishing out to the tune of almost a billion dollars:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More than $978 million dollars on this just since the Bush administration took over. </p>
<p>And don’t let Huber fool you into thinking the feds are paying for any other sex education. By law, if states want federal money for sex ed, they can’t teach facts about condoms, even with other money.</p>
<p>"“We do have evidence that these programs work,” she says. “We know that the longer someone delays sexual initiation the fewer lifetime partners they have. And the fewer lifetime sexual partners someone has, the fewer STDs they are likely to get.”</p>
<p>This would all be true. But the meta-analysis indicates that abstinence only programs not only did not delay sexual initiation, and did not result in fewer lifetime partners, but in fact did (slightly) worse than no sex education at all.</p>
<p>The bigger point, though, is not to look at what doesn’t work, but at what does. My state found several hundred such programs, for use with all age kids.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand the rationale behind abstinence-only sex ed. To me, it’s kind of the equivalent of not having any fire-extinguishers in a designated non-smoking building. Even if people don’t light up, there are other ways to set things on fire. Same with sex. Vaginal sex is not the only way to pass on STDs. And once you’ve contracted one, how would you know where to go for help?</p>
<p>I’ve done some research on HIV/AIDS transmission in China, and one of the key things that comes up is that women, in particular, do not have the self-confidence and negotiation skills to either say ‘no’ or ‘wear a condom’. Comprehensive sex ed needs to include classes on this, as well as ‘what to do when the **** hits the fan’.</p>
<p>Does “abstinence-only” reproductive education actually exist? Anyone have have actual facts that local public school districts are doing this? It certainly isn’t the case around here. (Just asking – not arguing.) Just because some feds favor a certain educational approach doesn’t mean that local and state school boards can’t follow other programs.</p>
<p>This is another great reason to get the feds out of the educational policy business, by the way. But that’s another discussion.</p>
<p>It does, but virtually none of it in Washington State any more. And by next year, there will be none. By law, school districts won’t be able to offer it. And it means that Washington State will forego any federal aid attached to abstinence-only approaches. (It was interesting last legislative session watching Republicans - actually just a few - defending federal government handouts, and Democrats arguing to forego them.)</p>
<p>Certainly not around here. In this area they begin teaching about STDs in 6th grade (HIV/AIDS in 4th grade). Kids can’t grow up fast enough in these parts. Sorry to say, however, the high school is not yet dispensing free birth control. Kids still have to save their pennies and risk the embarrassment of going to a drug or grocery store for condoms, poor things.</p>
<p>WashDad, this is the issue: the feds provide money for sex ed if the school agrees to teach only the abstinence only. And much of the money is tied to grants for organizations in good with the Bush administration to put on their programs. In other words, it’s a make work thing for the crony contractors, sort of a WPA for the politically connected.</p>
<p>If schools accept the federal money, they can’t teach fact-based, effectiveness tested programs even with their own money. </p>
<p>Some states are saying that the health of the children comes first and are turning down the federal money.</p>
<p>Maine for example turned the money down because they would have had to give up a program that’s been very successful. Maine’s teen pregnancy rate is third best in the nation, and has fallen more than 50% in 20 years. They didn’t want to give that up in favor of a program that’s been shown to have no effect on teen pregnancy, so they had to turn down the federal money.</p>
<p>The rules for accepting the federal money have gotten much more stringent too. Before 2004, states could use a variety of strategies to promote abstinence only, such as encouraging kids to talk about issues with their parents. No more. K</p>
<p>By the way, Pennsylvania, the state where HH lives, began refusing the federal money for abstinence-only in 2004, hence children getting the information she is critical of. </p>
<p>But Pennsylvania had good reason for going back to the pre-Bush curriculum: before 2000, teen pregnancy rates had fallen 30% in ten years! The 10th largest decline in the country. </p>
<p>The abortion rate went down too: From 18.3% to 13.2%.</p>
<p>With the advent of abstinence-only sex education, the teen pregnancy rate started going back up, from 70.8 per thousand in 2000 to 71.7 in 2004. Not a huge increase, but considering the previous dramatic progress, disturbing.</p>
<p>The abortion rate also rose. It was back up to 13.7% by 2004.</p>
<p>This link is to the 2000 data pregnancy data, and if you look around on the page, you’ll find the 2004 data, and the abortion data. </p>
<p>WashDad, it certainly exists. So do health teachers who refute the argument for medical Marijuana access with the sentiment that, “It doesn’t cure AIDS”. And guest speakers to health classes who are permitted to spend thirty of their forty-five minutes sharing their born-again Christian experience with the class, rather than sharing relevant, factual information or anecdotes pertaining to health.</p>
<p>I’m in agreement that health education ought to be health education, but it’s pretty clear that the Bush administration’s wrong-headed policy has not affected long-term teenage birth rate trends.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.teenwire.com%5B/url%5D”>www.teenwire.com</a>, the site put out by Planned Parenthood to ensure fulfilling, safe sex lives for teens, could replace the millions spent on whatever sex ed programs are in the schools, as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>On their front page today:</p>
<p>-foreplay 411: everything you ever wanted to know about not doing it
-transgender health 101
-inside a crisis pregnancy center
-how long do I have to take to get the morning after pill?
-what do you think of Paris Hilton?
-am I normal? behind the fig leaf
-how to use a condom
-masturbation 101
-herpes 101
-puberty 101
-chlamydia 101
-sexually transmitted diseases 101
-what can cause pregnancy</p>
<p>-Don’t forget to check out the “Ask the Experts” section, which addresses such burning questions as–“is it safe to have sex in a hot tub?”–as well as anything else you might need to know in order to have a safe, fulfilling teenage sex life.</p>
