Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
We Can't Do It Without You!  
Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives
   Featured Views  

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Just Say No To Just-Say-No Sex Education
Published on Tuesday, June 5, 2001 in the San Francisco Chronicle
Just Say No To Just-Say-No Sex Education
by Stephanie Salter
BY THE TIME funding for five years of abstinence-only sex education is up for congressional reconsideration next year, U.S. taxpayers will have handed over about a half-billion dollars for it in federal and state money.

Too bad we're just now studying whether such a narrow approach actually works to lower the teen pregnancy rate or inspire kids to postpone having sexual intercourse.

Then again, when House and Senate Republicans tacked on an abstinence-only sex-ed package to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, their primary objective had little to do with proven methods or even what the majority of American parents want.

According to a congressional staff report discovered and quoted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the goal was to ignore reality and bankroll a one-size-fits-all dream of the religious right:

Just say no to sex, kids.

"Regardless of how one feels about the standard of no sex outside marriage . . . the intent of Congress was clear," said the staff report. "This standard was intended to put Congress on the side of social tradition -- never mind that some observers now think the tradition outdated -- that sex should be confined to married couples."

Never mind either that more than half of teenagers engage in sex by the time they are in high school. Never mind that, while the teen birth rate has dropped to a 20-year low, we still lead the developed world in unplanned teen pregancy, abortion and in teen sexually transmitted diseases (STD).

Never mind that 1 of 4 sexually active adolescents has an STD. Never mind that almost half of new HIV cases occur in people under age 25. Never mind that the National Institutes for Health calls abstinence-only sex education an "obstacle to reducing the risky behaviors among teens" or that the National Academy of Science says that mega-funding for such a program is "poor fiscal and public health policy."

At least next year, when welfare reform and abstinence-only sex education must win reapproval from Congress, differing voices will be raised. Along with findings from a federally funded study that finally is in progress, a host of experts on the subject of teenage sexuality will weigh in.

Among them is research scientist Douglas Kirby of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy ( In a new report that was four years in the making, Kirby shares the positive news of his review of 250 teenage sex education programs in the United States.

The best news: Eight existing programs significantly reduce teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs, even for at-risk kids. Five are strictly comprehensive sex education (including abstinence as an option), two are community service programs with group discussions, and one is a combination of sex ed, health care and supportive activities.

Equally helpful: Kirby's analysis revealed that giving kids information about condoms or other birth control -- indeed telling them where to get contraception -- did not cause them to have sex earlier or increase the frequency.

As for the efficacy of abstience-only programs, only three programs met the scientific research criteria necessary for review. So far, says Kirby's report, "the jury is still out" but the early evidence "is not encouraging."

©2001 San Francisco Chronicle


Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community.
Independent, non-profit newscenter since 1997.

Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives

To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.