"Abstinence-only Sex Education": Who needs facts when you've got faith (and a lot of public money)?

Buffalo Report posted a link to an editorial, “Truth in Education” from the Washington Post on December 4^th. This story highlighted a study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) which found that 11out of the 13 most frequently used abstinence-only sex education programs to present false or misleading information. Pointing out that the effectiveness of such programs has not been determined, the author wrote, “As the federal government devotes increasing funds to abstinence-only programs, it ought to insist on rigorous studies to determine whether they work.”

Two days earlier the Post ran the story, “Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says”. A congressional staff analysis found such assertions as “abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals ‘can result in pregnancy.’" The details of the misinformation being disseminated to teens are so outrageous that you just have to read it.

It is also worth taking a look at what this means to us locally.

In 2001 Catholic Charities was awarded $2.4 million (an amount renewed in 2004) to design and implement over three years “a comprehensive abstinence-only education program” in Western New York through the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS) program. Funded through the federal government's Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Federal Set-Aside Program, the purpose of SPRANS is to support to public and private development of abstinence-only sex education projects. Read: Public Funding for Faith Based Initiative. This isn't funding a soup kitchen; this is using public money to directly fund a faith-based message in place of a medically sound curriculum.

Among Catholic Charities’ goals were the reduction of sexual activity among teens and fewer births to teens. Which raises the question: if “reduction” is an admission that teen sex can’t be eradicated, how will we eliminate teen births by neglecting to teach contraception? What is the message to the 10% of girls who report that their first sexual encounters were non-voluntary? Isn’t “comprehensive abstinence-only” an oxymoron?

The result is ProjecTruth, administered through the Monsignor Carr Institute, which uses the curriculum, “Game Plan”, developed with the cooperation of basketball player A.C. Green, who made a public commitment to remain abstinent until marriage, a decision based on his Christian faith. According to Waxman’s Report, Game Plan is one of the top 11 curricula that contain errors, and it is used by 23% of SPRANS recipients. SPRANS funded programs “are allowed to mention contraceptives only to describe their failure rates.”

Waxman also found that these programs exaggerate the risks of contraceptive failure, directly contradicting CDC findings about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancy as well as preventing sexually transmitted diseases. They also invent “facts” about abortion causing sterility, or mental retardation in subsequent pregnancies.

But this wasn’t really new information, just the first time a politician took notice and publicized it. In 2001 the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, (SIECUS) published a study by Martha E. Kempner, M.A. titled Toward a Sexually Healthy America: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs that Try to Keep Our Youth “Scared Chaste”. Kempner’s findings were similar to Waxman’s and described the infusion of religious values into such curricula. Which means that the year Catholic Charities initially got the grant the knowledge was out there that these programs are not just advocating abstinence, which seems advisable in a truly comprehensive sex education curriculum, but are doing a major disservice by spreading inaccurate information about sex and leaving out the most important tools to reducing teen births and STDs. Not to mention using public dollars to spread Christian values. 2001 was also the year Columbia University researched the effectiveness of such programs and determined that they are counterproductive. More on that later.

In a 2003 profile of sex education issues in New York State, SIECUS stated that the Game Plan curriculum “…does not provide resources for teens that are sexually active nor does it discuss contraceptives. SIECUS’ review of this curriculum found that it is “fear-based and shame-based, presents inaccurate information about sexually transmitted diseases and condoms, and assumes that all students in the class are heterosexual”.

In the same document, SIECUS describes New York State Education Law as requiring that sex education include information about HIV/AIDS including means of transmission and methods for prevention. Boards of education are responsible for evaluating AIDS curricula, parents are allowed to opt out, but fully 77% of likely voters throughout the State and across party lines support comprehensive sexuality education that includes contraception and STD prevention.

Yet, in July 2004 Business First reported Catholic Charities received another 2.4 million to continue this censored, inaccurate, religion-based, homophobic and life-threatening program, and that the 15,000 adolescents it has “served” include public school students. It does not meet state requirements. Has any school board whose district is using this program actually evaluated it for accuracy? Evidently not.

To add further insult to injury, it is partially funded with Title V money, and New York must match these funds, creating an end-run around the voters who elect their boards of education (not to mention the state and federal legislators allocating our tax money) to create education policy reflective of a community’s wishes. This also diverts money away from the kinds of comprehensive programs the voters want. We are throwing state money after federal money to spread ignorance.

According to the Waxman report, funding of abstinence only programs is slated to increase by 30% for 2005. Section 510 of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act provided $250 million for over five years for programs with the “exclusive purpose” of promoting abstinence, and requires that states match of $3 for every $4 from the federal government. Correct me if I am wrong here: If the Federal government is kicking in $2.4 million, the state has to kick in 1.8 million, divided among 15,000 students…could we be spending $280 per kid to prevent them from having the tools to be responsible when they engage in sex, the tools to prevent HIV infection? How much are we spending to shame gay students at this most difficult time of their lives? The Christian right insists on correlating sexual activity with suicide; have they considered the effect they might be having on the gay teen suicide rate?

Waxman referred to the Columbia university study, which concluded that abstinence only programs might actually increase risk among participants of such programs because 88% of them still had premarital sex, and were less likely to use contraception when they did.

They were also less likely to seek STD testing despite comparable infection rates. It would follow that this same 88% are at increased risk for HIV/AIDS, as condoms and testing are critical to preventing transmission. In contrast, sex education that both encourages abstinence and teaches about effective contraceptive use results in delayed sex, reduced frequency of sex, and increased use of condoms and other contraceptives.

“In 2000, at the end of the Clinton administration, HHS developed performance measures for abstinence programs that included the birth rate of female participants and percentage of participants who have intercourse before marriage. The Bush administration dropped those in favor of attitudinal measures such as "the proportion of youth who commit (emphasis mine) to abstain from sexual activity until marriage." Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas

It seems appropriate to end this by repeating this statement from the Washington Post editorial: “As the federal government devotes increasing funds to abstinence-only programs, it ought to insist on rigorous studies to determine whether they work.” The same Bush administration that has been demanding increased standards with scientifically measurable outcomes in public education is increasing public funding for a sex education approach that sacrifices scientific accuracy and measurable outcomes for religious ideals that put lives at risk, and has changed the evaluation criteria to make it appear successful.