Finishing a three-part [part 1, part 2] narrative about "abstinence-only" sex education, we have seen
- a new study that suggests it can work;
- a Federal definition of what abstinence-only sex eduction is;
- a critique of what that Federal definition and its subsequent policies really intend; and now
- a word from the Other Side(tm) about how great this new study really is, and what it really proves.
I don't usually go to much trouble to find out what the Other Side(tm) thinks about a particular issue: I've been observing this stuff since the mid '50's, really, and there's not a whole lot that's really new or surprising.
I mean, the details change, but not the overall world-view, if you know what I mean.
That said, I was curious to see how easily/quickly I could find the religious right's spin on a study that, remember:
"...would not have qualified for abstinence-only Federal funding because it did not rely on moral principles, nor did it criticize condom usage."
Two points that directly contradict the Federal definition of, and the common practices found within, "abstinence-only-until-marriage" sex education.
(And at this point let me state that from here on out (except that it's a PITA to keep typing) I'm calling the Federally-defined sex education "abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education" to differentiate it from sex education curricula that merely references abstinence from sexual activity but does not mandate any of the elements found in the Federal definition).
OK.
So I've been keeping an eye on news.google.com, which is where I first saw mention of the study, to see if I could find any word from the religious right that acknowledged the study's existence but ignored what it really says that would easily be available to the general public.
:-/
And here we have it, from The Christian Post: "Study: Abstinence Education Reduces Sexual Activity" -- a title which is quite accurate, in-and-of itself, but let's see how the body of the article does.
One-third of students who completed the abstinence program had sexual intercourse within two years of the class. By comparison, more than half of those who participated in safe sex and condom use programs said they had sexual intercourse.
mkay...
But right away, in the fourth paragraph, we get:
"Finally, a study that proves what those of us who have been teaching abstinence have known for years," said Leslee Unruh, president and founder of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. "These programs help develop self control and self esteem, teaching kids they do not need to fall prey to the game of Russian Roulette with condoms."
uh.. wait a minute: this new study says nothing about Russian Roulette with Condoms(tm).
In fact, those kids who participated in the abstinence-only curriculum received
Eight hours of abstinence-only education addressing risks of HIV and other STDs as well as pregnancy, seeking to promote waiting to engage in oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse "until later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex"
But you won't find any mention of the kids in the study being spoken-to about "..oral, anal, and vaginal sex.." at The Christian Post, believe-you-me.
Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association, responded to the study by commenting that "science has finally caught up with logic and what parents have known for centuries," that abstinence is an effective way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.
Science, huh? Not fuzzy science, at least in this case, I'm sure.
"It turns out that when it comes to educating their children on matters of sex, Mom and Dad really do know best," Stevens concluded.
[snark alert!]
mmm... yeah, let's Focus on the Family hahaha!
Like Sarah Palin knows best?
How'd that "abstinence-only-until-marriage" thing work out for Bristol?
[/snark alert!]
The report comes after the Guttmacher Institute released its own study, showing that teen pregnancy and abortion rates rose in 2006, ending a 15-year decline. The institute insisted that the increase was a result of steep declines and a subsequent plateau in contraceptive use in the early 2000s and the widespread abstinence-only sex education programs that were promoted under the Bush administration.
Pro-life group American Life League, however, rejected the Guttmacher Institute's argument, citing declines in teen pregnancy rates in the early 1990s when "it became popular to teach the abstinence message" and increases when Planned Parenthood began lobbying various states to refuse abstinence money and reduce abstinence programs.
Oh, I see. It's all Planned Parenthood's fault, because as any sane person knows, Planned Parenthood wants teens to become pregnant so they can coerce pregnant teenagers into getting abortions.
Here BTW, in the interests of full disclosure, is the Guttmacher Institute's take on this new study [PDF]:
The abstinence-only program in this study does not meet the restrictive federal criteria (known as the A-H definition) for programs that, until this year, were eligible for federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding.
"It was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs." 1
Unlike federal programs of the past, the abstinence program in this study did not promote abstinence-only-until-marriage.
"[T]he target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex.” 1(p. 153)
The program was not infused with morality, was medically accurate and did not disparage contraception.
“The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected.” 1(p. 153)
The evaluation does not contradict the strong body of evidence that rigid abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective.
"The results of this trial should not be taken to mean that all abstinence-only interventions are efficacious." 1(p. 158)
And finally, from the Guttmacher Institute:
Adolescence is a time of rapid change. While sexual activity is relatively rare among very young adolescents, it is common at later ages. The mean age of sexual initiation among all U.S. youth is about 17. By age 19, 70% of young women and 65% of young men have had sex. It is therefore critical that sex education interventions be age-appropriate and adapt to the needs of young people as they change.
"Theory-based abstinence-only interventions might be effective with young
adolescents but ineffective with older youth or people in committed relations. For the latter, other approaches that emphasize limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms, including the comprehensive interventions used in this trial, might be more effective." 1(p. 158)
So kids are having sex out-of-wedlock at a pretty early age. The Christian right wants them to wait until they're married.
Does the Christian right want kids to get married at 17?
No, they don't want kids (or by extension single parents, since they're not married) to have any sex at all.
Pretty grounded in reality, aren't they?
The Christian Post reads this study and comes away with messages about "the game of Russian Roulette with condoms" and "science has finally caught up with logic and what parents have known for centuries" and "when it comes to educating their children on matters of sex, Mom and Dad really do know best".
I think they were looking at a different study.
Or they live in an alternate universe.
Your call.
- bp