Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Your Daily Chris Crocker »

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Congress: Abstain From Funding Abstinence Education

posted by on April 11 at 9:08 AM

This is going to break your heart: The right-wing quacks, religious abusive parents, and fundamentalist fuckwits willing to gamble with the health of young people—assholes that believe it’s better for teenagers to have unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and cervical cancer than to have access to accurate information about birth control, disease-prevention, and life-saving vaccines—are crying to the media about the possibility that those big meanies in the Democratically-controlled congress are going to cut their funding.

Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation promoting comprehensive sex education instead of abstinence-only curriculum. They want to send money to schools that stress abstinence while also instructing students about the health benefits and side effects of contraceptives.

Besides opening their own trade association, abstinence educators hired a public relations firm with a long list of Republican and conservative clients….

Currently, Congress uses three different programs to fund abstinence education. The largest of those programs has gone from $20 million to $113 million in seven years. President Bush is requesting $141 million next year.

The second largest pot of money, $50 million, goes through the states, which match that funding with $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government. The programs teach that sex outside of marriage is likely to be psychologically and physically harmful….

Wade Horn, who oversaw the two largest abstinence education programs until he resigned last week, predicted Congress will give states more flexibility in determining how Title V money is spent.

But he doesn’t believe Congress will make major funding cuts.

“I think it’s going to evolve, but I don’t think it’s going to go away,” he said. “I’ve seen some bills introduced by Democrats that suggest they want a separate fund dedicated to comprehensive sex education, but my sense is that it won’t be at the expense of abstinence education. I think it’s a matter of both, not one or the other.”

Hilarious. When Republicans were in control of Congress the abstinence-only crowd insisted that it had to one program—their program—never both. Never mind that their programs were backfiring everywhere. Teenagers subjected to abstinence-only education do not abstain from sex until marriage—and when they do become sexually active they were less likely to use birth control and condoms and, consequently, get themselves knocked up and infected with various STIs at higher rates than teenagers that receive comprehensive sex education.

Sorry, Wade, but there isn’t room for both—Congress should cut all funding for abstinence-only sex “education.” It was a grand experiment, a nice way for the corrupt Republicans to funnel money to the religious right, as well as a full-employment program for sexually stunted Jesus freaks terrified of their own desires. But guess what? Abstinence education hurts kids. Kill it, Nancy. Kill it, Harry.

RSS icon Comments

1

I don't have kids (I realize that invalidates anything I might have to say in the eyes of some people), but I would be pissed if I knew my kid's public school was pushing this abstinence ed. What pisses me off even more is how much cash these orgs get. Talk about looting the treasury...

Posted by Mike in MO | April 11, 2007 9:22 AM
2

Another gift of the Clinton Administration that keeps on giving...

Posted by patrick | April 11, 2007 9:22 AM
3

I don't have kids (I realize that invalidates anything I might have to say in the eyes of some people), but I think parents should teach their own children about sex ed. For those who are unwilling, then they should be given the facts. If parents at home want to discuss the facts, using it as an opportunity to reinforce a certain set of beliefs, more power to them.

Posted by infrequent | April 11, 2007 9:48 AM
4

one more thing: if parents don't want their kids to have a clue about sex, HOME SCHOOL!!!!

Posted by Mike in MO | April 11, 2007 9:50 AM
5

Abstinence-only sex ed broke my heart long ago. That there's any chance it might be killed now gives me a suggestion of a glimmer of hope, and the right-wing fuckwits lobbying for more STD's and unwanted pregnancies is only par for the course.

And I'm with Mike: if you don't want your kids to become functional adults, you have some leeway to keep them locked up at home, if you have the money. If you don't? Well, small-government Republican asswipe, that's your problem.

Posted by Noink | April 11, 2007 9:59 AM
6

When I was 13, my dad pulled me aside and gave me an in-depth talk about sex and drugs, and that kind of fun stuff. It was the most awkward hour of my life, but it helped (going to school in SC, my parents couldn't rely on the schools). Regardless of whether schools teach kids appropriately, parents need to educate their kids as well. Talking to your kids is the best thing you can do. I guess what we have to be concerned about are parents who refuse to believe that Reilly and Sarah would ever have sex or do drugs.

Posted by James Gonzales-Meisler | April 11, 2007 10:17 AM
7

uh, sarah and i are through. okay?

Posted by Reilly | April 11, 2007 10:57 AM
8

#4, if parents ever actually talked to their kids, there might not be Republicans in the first place. My entire view of the Christian Right are people who hate talking to their kids, so depend on church and school to do it for them, giving kids a thoroughly unrealistic idea of what the world should be like. Like that Louis CK bit where he shoots down the anti-gay marriage campaign because the loudest argument is "How am I supposed to explain that to my child? You want me to talk to him? Ew!"

Posted by Kat | April 11, 2007 11:14 AM
9

Abstinence-only sex education didn't exactly work for my (christian) mom. In 1959 she dropped out of school at the age of 17 to get married because she was pregnant.

They HATE when I bring that up.

Posted by monkey | April 11, 2007 11:20 AM
10

I was raised by EXTREMELY right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who told me the physical realities of sexual intercourse, told me about STI's and birth control, and told me that though they hoped I would wait until I was older to have sex, that they would love me no matter what, and that I could always talk to them. My mom also told me that if I wanted to be sexually active, she would help me get birth control.

I learned far more from my parents about sex ed than I did in school.

You know what? I waited. I waited till I was older and more mature, because I had the facts, and I didn't feel like it was some big taboo topic, and I wasn't afraid of my parents' response.

Ultimately, it comes down to what you teach your kids. Unfortunately, not as many parents out there are as smart as my parents were.

Abstinence education belongs in the church, because it is a moral stance. Sex ed belongs in the school, because it is fact-based, and therefore morally neutral.

My parents wanted me to abstain until I was emotionally ready to be sexually active--they didn't expect me to abstain forever. I will forever be grateful to them for their wisdom.

Posted by JunieGirl | April 11, 2007 11:29 AM
11

Yeah, my mom's sex education was a video of a sperm and an egg in a petrie dish, with no explanation of where they came from or how they got into the dish, and a book called "Prayers to Purity" that said on your wedding night, your husband will reveal to you a "wonderful secret".

Posted by Kat | April 11, 2007 11:30 AM
12

Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly is so costly about abstinence-only sex ed? Doesn't it consist of someone saying, "don't have sex."? That shouldn't cost millions.

Posted by t | April 11, 2007 11:32 AM
13

#12 Um, since this comes into the health forum, a lot of health teachers won't do it, or the schools don't trust them to do it without "accidentally" slipping some truth in. A lot of the abstinence-only education goes to materials and, as far as I can tell, "programs" where people come in and teach the classes for the teacher.

Posted by Kat | April 11, 2007 11:35 AM
14

Kat's story wins the prize!!!

Posted by Mike in MO | April 11, 2007 11:41 AM
15

I'm an advocate of the leaving-educational-books-laying-around school of sex education. I know my mom tried to talk to me about sex, but frankly, it was just weird. My old boyfriend's catholic little sister got an informative book set with a vibrator from the both of us because we thought she wasn't really getting enough information. It meant we could get her the knowledge without stepping over a bunch of boundaries.


Given how poor a job most schools are doing, I'd suggest finding any local UU church that's running the Our Whole Lives program as an alternative. My little sister went through that and it sounded just fantastic.

http://www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/ourwhole/

(and no, I'm not UU.)

Posted by wench | April 11, 2007 11:49 AM
16

"Currently, Congress uses three different programs to fund abstinence education. The largest of those programs has gone from $20 million to $113 million in seven years. President Bush is requesting $141 million next year."


And my Republican colleagues accuse me (CEO of Worldwide Liberal Monolith) of throwing money at broken-premised programs...

Posted by Darcy | April 11, 2007 11:54 AM
17

For all the people saying parent should teach their kids about sex ed even the best meaning parents don't have all the information needed to talk to their kids. I recently graduated from high school (3-4 years ago). And while me mom was pretty awesome about explaining that I should use birth control and wait until I was emotionally stable etc. I had to explain to her what the ring, depo and the patch all did and how they were different (based mostly on anecdotal stories from my friends).
Forget about good information about STDs; she grew up in the sixties before AIDs and a slew of other nasty diseases. Fortunately the Seattle Public Schools are pretty liberal so I know how often to get tested and that not all test can detect infection right away. I am sure by the time I have kids there will be new information about STDs and probably new birth control types and while parents can do their best most aren't doctors and don't keep up with the latest and greatest news on sex.

Posted by Rachel | April 11, 2007 12:10 PM
18

Rachel, I'm probably about the age of your parents and I have no trouble keeping up with all of that. Even if we grew up in the sixties and seventies before AIDS, it was kind of hard to miss all the information about it over the past 20 years (well, unless you were trying to miss it). Part of the job of parents is informing themselves of what they need to know to properly raise and care for you. You think they knew much about ear infections or vaccination schedules or even feeding and burping and potty-training an infant before they had you? If they didn't know about depo and the patch, or STDs, and weren't willing to learn or weren't comfortable talking to you about it, there are plenty of resources they could've directed you to without relying on you picking it up in garbled form 3rd-hand from friends (and it sounds like they were late getting around to that, too). Planned Parenthood, among others, has plenty of materials. There are lots of good books out there too.

I'm an advocate of the leaving-educational-books-laying-around school of sex education.
I am too. It worked for me. When I was 13 or so my mother quietly put "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask" on a shelf with several other books I was reading at the time. It was useful counterweight to the Penthouse Forum letters I was already reading in the magazines passed down to my friends from their older brothers.

Posted by Joe | April 11, 2007 12:39 PM
19

I think that any reasonable parent *wishes* that their child would abstain, at least until collage, but (again, being reasonable) they understand it doesn't work that way, and aren't adverse to some sex ed in the schools.

And I really think that the vast majority of parents are reasonable.

However, we are so weird in this country: All it takes is a crackpot parent to get riled up over the issue of sex ed, and the reasonable parents either clam up or go along with the crackpot, to avoid trouble. This is usually because the crackpot has gone around telling everyone that the school is going to require courses in fisting and provide booster abortions the first Monday of every month. People don't believe it, but they think there must be some truth in it somewhere.

The rare reasonable parent who stands up is lableled a liberal, which still carries a huge stigma in some areas of the country. (ironically enough, those are usually the areas that have been helped the most by liberal politics in previous decades.)

Until the reasonable parents can stand being callled liberal, pervert, Bible Hater, etc, etc, etc, we're still going to have these crackpots controlling the discussion.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | April 11, 2007 12:51 PM
20
...on your wedding night, your husband will reveal to you a "wonderful secret".

Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew. Just ew.

But seriously, how horrible would the wedding night be for some poor woman who doesn't even know what sex is?

Posted by keshmeshi | April 11, 2007 2:21 PM
21

To all the people saying that parents should educate their kids (and I agree):
A little girl I babysit for got in trouble, when she was 11, for knowing what a sperm donation bank was and expaining how it worked. Just because her mom hadn't been afraid to explain it to HER when she asked. How messed up is that?
And yes, her mom had to deal with other parents insinuating she was a horrible mother who taught her children perveted things.

Posted by M | April 11, 2007 2:24 PM
22

Come on up to my appartment, baby, and let me reveal to you my wonderful secret.

Posted by Eric from Boulder | April 11, 2007 2:48 PM
23

When I was 11, I realized, all by myself, that being a virgin on your wedding night was not a practical thing: a wedding is too much of an emotional event to be a nerve wreck because you'd be losing it that day. At 15, I realized life was too good to get pregnant. I lost my virginity at 19. I am 30, childless and living in sin with my boyfriend. Life's still too good to get pregnant

Posted by tinydoc | April 11, 2007 4:13 PM
24

When I was 11, I realized, all by myself, that being a virgin on your wedding night was not a practical thing: a wedding is too much of an emotional event to be a nerve wreck because you'd be losing it that day. At 15, I realized life was too good to get pregnant. I lost my virginity at 19. I am 30, childless and living in sin with my boyfriend. Life's still too good to get pregnant

Posted by tinydoc | April 11, 2007 4:13 PM
25

Argh... Well, Dan, thank you for at least not calling for the outright abolishment of any school sex ed at all. But, yes, abstinence-only sex ed belongs squarely in the hands of parents and churches. It is not the role of teachers to tell their students what they should do... It is the role of teachers to help their students learn to look at the facts and make their own decisions. That's what it means to produce an effective citizen, IM not-at-all-humble O. (Well, I feel that way about the role of parents, too, but I'm currently only a teacher and not yet a parent, so can't speak definitively to that belief.)

@5 If you don't want your kids to become functional adults, you have some leeway to keep them locked up at home

Word. Don't burden the teachers and the other students with your bullshit if you refuse to let your own children hear any other facts but the ones you and your cult leaders make up.

@8 if parents ever actually talked to their kids, there might not be Republicans in the first place

Religious homeschooling isn't about "actually talking to your kids"... It's about preventing anyone else from talking to your kids, and hiding everything that you don't agree with from them. (Even if "what you don't agree with" includes such radical ideas as, oh say, modern medicine. Fucking Christian Scientists...)

@12 Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly is so costly about abstinence-only sex ed? Doesn't it consist of someone saying, "don't have sex."? That shouldn't cost millions.

It's not just saying "don't do it"... It's presenting tons of utterly fabricated data about condom failure rates, links between premarital sex and depression, and other "Reefer Madness"-style bullshit. These curriculum are several weeks long and detailed... and utter mallarky.

Believe me, Dan et al, me and the other reasonable science and health teachers in the world are SIGNIFICANTLY more pissed-off about this than you are...

Posted by L | April 11, 2007 4:21 PM
26

@25 It's not just saying "don't do it"... It's presenting tons of utterly fabricated data about condom failure rates

You know, you've just reminded me of a public comm. class I had to take as an undergrad. The major term assignment was a persuasive speech, and a classmate of mine chose to give hers in favor of abstinence-only education. I'm pretty sure most of it filtered through my brain without much retention, but I do remember her quoting some "statistic" she'd gotten somewhere, which said that 47% of women who use the pill as their primary method of birth control get pregnant anyway.

I never did figure out if she'd just made it up, or if she'd actually found (and couldn't manage to properly interpret) a percentage of women who get pregnant in the case of user error.

Posted by Darcy | April 11, 2007 7:34 PM
27

The failure rate for women using the pill effectively is 1-2%, which means 1-2% of women using the pill get pregnant per year.

The only 47% I could find were here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3105699.html
(adolescent women who are not married but are cohabiting experience a failure rate of about 47% in the first year of contraceptive use) Presumably any contraceptive use, which includes half-assed condom use.

http://www.hoptechno.com/book49.htm
(Periodic abstinence has a failure rate of 14 to 47 percent.)

Sounds like she played pick-a-number and pick-a-stat and just combined them in whatever form she felt supported her opinion, accurate or not.

Posted by L | April 11, 2007 8:49 PM
28

Dear Dan --

I thought I'd just quote a little of your hero, Andrew Sullivan, at you.
From today's Dish:

"My own somewhat fuzzy view of the issue (developed at greater length here and here and here) is that except in areas where pervasive family breakdown requires educators to act in loco parentis more than one would like them to, public schools should take an, ah, stripped-down an approach to teaching sex, and mainly leave the whole "condoms or abstinence" issue to parents and kids to sort out on their own."

That's right. In the name of libertarian freedom, let's leave it to the kiddies on their own to learn about pregnancy, HPV, HIV, gonnoreah, herpes and all the other little goodies you can get.

But then good old HIV+ barebacking Sully would think that wouldn't he?

And you should be the *first* to wail on him for this shit.

Posted by Jonathan | April 17, 2007 11:05 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).