Iowa recently became the 17th state to turn down federal funding for abstinence-only education, so that it can more universally provide comprehensive sex education to its youth. (Other states that have opted out: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin. A list of states that have opted out is hard to find, my googling shows that Pennsylvania might belong on that list, which means I could be wrong about one of the states listed above.)
Even better, yesterday 76 Congresspersons sent a letter requesting that House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey cut funding for abstinence-only education in the coming fiscal year (2009) because study after study shows that the programming is ineffective. After ten year of federal funding for abstinence-only programming, costing tax payers $1.5 billion, they stated
numerous reports have found that the “abstinence-only” approach simply does not work. For example, in April 2007, the independent research firm Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. [Abstract or full PDF] – commissioned by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – concluding that students in “abstinence-only” programs are no more likely to abstain from sex, delay initiation of sex, or have fewer sexual partners than students who did not participate. Moreover, 13 states have evaluated their federally funded “abstinence-only” programs and not a single one found positive, long-term impact. In fact, in some cases young people who participated in the programs actually increased their sexual activity. (letter)
With the Bush administration’s ideology (not science) based governing winding down, it looks as though the science behind education youth is gaining traction. A recent University of Washington study supports the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education.
When differences in race, age, gender and family makeup were taken into account, students who’d had comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report a pregnancy than those without any sex education and 50 percent less likely than the abstinence-only group. (Seattle Times, 3/20/08)
After last week’s announcement that 1 in 4 teen girls has a sexually transmitted disease, the study disappoints a bit by finding that
Neither comprehensive nor abstinence-only education appeared to affect the odds that a teen would contract a sexually transmitted disease. (Seattle Times, 3/20/08)
Public health officials have their work cut out for them over the next decade. Now that there’s hope that comprehensive sex education is back on track, researchers need to figure out what the missing element is in preventing widespread STD infection rates in youth.
Recent Comments