Abstinence Only doesn't work; comprehensive does
This is one of those truths that I fear bears repeating, because it hasn't yets unken into the collective consciousness: Abstinence Only sex education doesn't work. Here is a quote from a recent study by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:
Of course, I suspect the people pushing abstinence only aren't concerned about actually reducing teen pregnancy, premarital sex, the spread of STDs, or the number of abortions. They are interesting in striking a certain moral pose. They think it's important to "send the right message" and "stand up for certain values", regardless of whether doing so actually helps reduce the behavior they abhor. I feel we get a lot of this "lawmaking for show, consequences be damned". I suspect our completely misguided and immoral drug prohibition regime is driven by this kind of thinking. I'm sick of it.
At present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners. In addition, there is strong evidence from multiple randomized trials demonstrating that some abstinence programs chosen for evaluation because they were believed to be promising actually had no impact on teen sexual behavior. That is, they did not delay the initiation of sex, increase the return to abstinence or decrease the number of sexual partners."1(p. 15)(via Sexuality and Religion) Now given this reality, which kind of sex education receives federal funding? Indeed, which is slated to get $28 million more than the $141 million it got last year? If so-called conservatives are concerned about wasteful government spending, wouldn't federally funded abstinence-only education be a no-brainer to ax?
In contrast, a substantial majority of the comprehensive sex education programs reviewed—which receive no comparable federal funding—are effective. The positive outcomes included delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.
Of course, I suspect the people pushing abstinence only aren't concerned about actually reducing teen pregnancy, premarital sex, the spread of STDs, or the number of abortions. They are interesting in striking a certain moral pose. They think it's important to "send the right message" and "stand up for certain values", regardless of whether doing so actually helps reduce the behavior they abhor. I feel we get a lot of this "lawmaking for show, consequences be damned". I suspect our completely misguided and immoral drug prohibition regime is driven by this kind of thinking. I'm sick of it.
Comments