I wrote a draft post a couple months ago, but thought it became outdated before I could finish. However, a front page Daily Kos article inspired me to finish the job.
I found an article in the Huffington Post indicating that "Abstinence education can delay sex." It sounded suspicious, but I cannot completely blame them because the link is to an article in the Washington Post titled "Abstinence-only programs might work, study says." Of course the title is a bit misleading, but you have to read past the headline to figure that out, just like you will have to follow me to the jump for a further explanation. My point, however, is that headlines and articles easily gets worked into talking points that can influence national policy and our lives. I found these headlines, and the content of the articles, misleading and I expect more responsibility from the above mentioned institutions when they report on politically charged news stories.
The obvious criticism to the study is brought up in the 13th paragraph of the Washington Post article.
"Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms."
To editorialize here, I think efficacy issues, like rates of unwanted pregnancy, STD contraction and forming healthy relationships, drive the need to fund sex education programs just as much as, if not more than, preventing under age sex. While the article mentioned "the abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use," I saw no indication that the program had positive effects on contraception use or other health issues. As well, it was a two year, delay sex program, NOT an "abstinence-only" program. At best, it falls victim to the old criticism that abstinence programs work until they do not.
Irresponsibly, the Washington Post headline recognizes the study as "Abstinence Only." The article leads with the assertion that the study
"...could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases."
Back in 2008 the Washington Post published an article detailing the failure of
Premarital Abstinence Pledges. If they would have reviewed their prior article then perhaps they would have been more responsible with their more recent one. Even better, if the Washington Post, or other media sources, had conducted proper research prior to publication then they might have emphasized, as Angry Mouse did, that abstinence only education causes
more harm than good. Instead, the Washington Post empowered the
pseudo-science that supports abstinence only programs and may have influenced the decision to fund those harmful, wasteful programs.
Emboldened by the study, the Heritage Foundation is quoted in the Washington Post article as saying "This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education." While the Heritage Foundation may not be interested in studies that contradict their position, they are interested in money, like the $250 million that abstinence programs won in the healthcare bill. To help abstinence only programs get this money the Heritage Foundation giving them theappearance of legitimacy, and they are very effective ininfluencing policy. Of course, it makes their job a little easier when the Washington Post backs up their ridiculous claims.
I cannot tell you that the Washington Post, or even the Heritage Foundation, is solely responsible for the funding of abstinence only programs. What I can tell you is the Washington Post article stated that the Obama administration had previously eliminated over $170 million for abstinence programs. Now, after the article and whatever lobbying, it appears that the administration has refunded those programs with $250 million in the healthcare bill. I can also tell you that I wish I had finished this post earlier. Regardless, I am off to watch NCAA Finals.
UPDATE:
Taking note of a very useful comment below, I wanted to point out that there are many, vital achievements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One achievement is funding for comprehensive sex education with $375 million over five years under SEC. 2953 "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION." However, separate funding, in the amount of $250 million over five years, is provided in SEC. 2954 "RESTORATION OF FUNDING FOR ABSTINENCE EDUCATION."
Under the strict language of Sec. 510. [42 U.S.C. 710] of the 1996 Social Security Act, "abstinence education," that is eligible for funding under Sec. 2954, means
"an educational or motivational program which—
(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children."
Nevertheless, the Washington Post continues to mischaracterize the strict abstinence only program eligible for section 2954 funds as sex avoidance programs, which are not eligible.
"The bill restores $250 million over five years for states to sponsor programs aimed at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by focusing exclusively on encouraging children and adolescents to avoid sex."
The National Abstinence Education Association, who were quoted in the article, seems to be doing a good job of meeting their
strategic objective of "Rebranding the abstinence message to provide positive representation in the public square."