(Photo of Tony Perkins, FRC Wingnut)Back in February, the Family Research Council (an ultra-right bunch of Christian wingnuts) "helped to host Abstinence Day on the Hill, where students and teachers came to D.C. to educate members and their staff about the benefits of abstinence programs."
But there is a fly in the ointment! All those people "out there" pushing for teenagers to have as much unprotected sex as possible are "mustering their forces--led by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)--to gut abstinence programs."
The FRC is up in arms and wails that "some of those testifying against abstinence education support 'comprehensive sex education' programs, which often teach young teens to engage in highly risky sexual behaviors and fail to provide information on condom failure." But that's not all! Some of the witnesses to be called by Waxman "support children's sexual and reproductive health services without parental consent, the use of emergency contraceptives over-the-counter, and the radical view that abstinence violates human rights."
Waxman's "target is the Community Based Astinence Program and the Title V abstinence state grant program."
It isn't difficult to pick out the obvious lies and the mischaracterizations in the nonsense above put out by the Family Research Council. It's fascinating to me, though, that not only do they lie with ease, but that they insist on continuing to promote programs that have been clearly shown not to work!
The Christian Right is never concerned about evidence, of course, unless that evidence supports their viewpoint. And in this case, they don't even mention the fact that every study thus far shows abstinence programs are simply ineffective and a waste of time and money.
One year ago, a national study authorized by Congress in 1997, "concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom."
Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, said about the report, "There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education. ... On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat."
Or, as Martha Kemper, a spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said: "Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."
Get this: "The federal government spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants." Did that stop the Bushites? Nah. Harry Wilson, a poohbah in the Department of Health and Human Services said the administration is gonna change nuttin, honey! "This study isn't rigorous enough to show whether or not [abstinence-only] education works."
Of course not.
Once again, the Bushites wouldn't want reality and truth to impact their misguided programs to impose their views on the American public!
But, Henry Waxman and Committee may change the way the Bushites do abstinence-only business! That's what's got the wingnuts in a tizzy. It's hard to defend a program that spends all that money with nothing to show for it. Unless you start thumping your Bible.
Actually, I think we ought to follow the money. Some of the states have pulled out of the program realizing it is a failure and taking the progressive view there's no point in throwing good money after bad....but...where else does the money go? How many Christian right wing groups are out there using government funds to promote abstinence-only education?
The answer, I believe, would tell us why the FRC and the Bush administration is fighting to keep a worthless, proven failure of a program in operation.
(Go to Advocates for Youth for comprehensive info on abstinence-only education)
4 comments:
I suspect that parents of girls, particularly attractive ones, always pushed for abstinence. The parents of boys paid little attention as it related to boys. rhe Church apparently took the boys into private consultation, which did tend to reduce pregnancies but increased sexual abuse. You can't win them all, can you. I suspect that sex might be here to stay. It does make sense to teach the consequences and try to prevent the ills. It was different when I was a teen. Too bad. I might have started earlier in my learning curve. I didn't need glasses until I was in my late forties.
Bob Poris
You mention that every study has shown that abstinence only fails, but how about all the studies that show that STD's are going up? Or the fact that depression and suicide is higher in teens who are sexually active? I don't think there is a condom which will effectively protect the heart, or the part of the body it was made for from this nightmare called "HPV".
Joey,
Thanks for writing.
Please note I said that studies have shown that "abstinence-only" education has not worked if the goal was to promote abstinence as a behavior.
I'm not sure as to whether your comments re: STD's and suicide are true, but certainly there are very real risks in promiscuous behavior, or unprotected sex.
What bothers me is that abstinence-only has been co-opted by the Religious Right as theologically "true," even when abstinence-only education has been shown not to work.
Why throw all those millions of dollars into a program we know is ineffective?
I'm all for reality-based sex education - which means first of all the recognition that teens are going to have sex, no matter what. Therefore, we need to provide methods and opportunities for them to evaluate properly the sexual situations that arise in their lives and if they choose to have sex, ensure they have the knowledge to do so responsibly - i.e. not get pregnant, avoid sexually-transmitted diseases, etc.
Jacob
Sex was invented recently but in my youth, it wasn’t readily available, being so new. For those of us trying to learn more, so perhaps we could get some, we looked to our peers for information. Our parents know nothing about sex, as it hadn’t been invented yet. Our peers told us to find a partner that had some experience so we would have some idea as to what to do. Luckily the fear of pregnancy was high so we took steps to prevent it. Disease was not invented yet as far as we knew, so we didn’t worry about it until years later. As more people indulged, we learned more and got better at it. That also led to more conversation about it. More information leads to safer sex. Actually it was safer because a single “bad” girl in the neighborhood could infect a huge number of boys. Once it became popular, the risk decreased as it was diluted by many. Learning more did not make more partners available. You still had to catch a partner somehow. Part of the price of selectivity was safe practices. By not addressing the problems we encourage ignorance and increase disease. Knowledge is always preferable to lack of knowledge. Now that I know so much about sex, I find I indulge less often and only with the same partner. My knowledge has led to a safer life.
Bob Poris
Post a Comment