Government role in abstinence education funding

Government Role in Abstinence Education

By the time they graduate from high school, unfortunately, 65% of our students have already engaged in intercourse," stated Lloyd J. Kolbe, director of the Division of Adolescent and School Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Despite this realty the government continues to fund ill-fated abstinence only programs. However, Claude Allen Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services a proponent of abstinence only programs concedes "We have not made a clear, concise message to them about the benefits of abstinence." Supporters such as Mr. Allen of such programs conveniently ignore the fact that there has been an inherent break down in our institutions, which are supposed to shield the innocent from growing up too fast. The church is having problems controlling the twisted desires of its own priests, young single mothers, head many families and sex remains a closed topic of discourse in many households. The result is a generation of misguided children that are seeking to emulate what they believe to be appropriate behavior. Sadly, the only advice that our government can give is "don't do it." Either President Bush is as disconnected as the comedians on Saturday Night Live make him seem or he needs a new set of advisors. The proposed abstinence until marriage initiative will prove as successful as efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. Instead of preaching abstinence, President Bush should refocus efforts and funds to tackle the problem more realistically by enacting programs that will teach comprehensive sex education to today's youth.

One must seriously question the morality and ethics of the tactics used by abstinence only programs. According to the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act abstinence education teaches "abstinence from sexual activity outside of the context of marriage as the expected standard for all school -- age children" it further concedes, "A mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human activity." These statements reveal prejudice against homosexuals and a disregard for those who choose to wait later in life to get married and those who choose not to marry at all. In almost all states marriage between individuals of the same sex is illegal. Since homosexuals are forbidden to get married, according to this act, they should not engage in sexual activity. Further, those who choose not to marry at all should abstain from sex for the rest of their lives. Abstinence only education unjustly imposes a set a values and beliefs on others, which not only unethical it is unconstitutional. The Republican National Coalition for Life disagrees, citing that comprehensive sexual education "teaches youngsters how to engage in sexual activity, equipping them with condoms and contraceptives, which do not protect them against STD's." Furthermore, the Republican National Coalition for life concludes that if a youngster develops a disease or becomes pregnant such education "treats them or provides counsel for abortion, after which they go back to the revolving door of sexual promiscuity, disease, eventual sterility or death from cervical cancer." While the rate of teenage pregnancy and number of teenagers contracting sexually transmitted diseases is troubling, there is no evidence to support that abstinence only education will help to remedy the problem. A recent article by the American Medical Association revealed that in the Southern part of the U.S., half of the school districts have abstinence only policies, yet, youth have extremely high rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In essence, abstinence education does nothing more than alienates teens whose life plans do not include marriage and those who are not heterosexual. Additionally, such education misinforms youth by conveying the notion that safe sex does not exist. The teaching approach used by abstinence only programs is unethical and discriminatory.

Proponents of abstinence only education naively believe that teaching abstinence will prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby saving taxpayers millions of dollars. However, the contrary is true, as 35 million dollars of America's hard-earned funds will be allocated for abstinence only education programs that have been proven ineffective time and time again. The Institute of Medicine published a report declaring that abstinence only programs have proven to be "poor fiscal policy." James Greenwood, in a letter to President Bush stated "there is no evidence that abstinence only until marriage programmes work." U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher argued that the best way reduce teen pregnancy and STD rates is to combine both abstinence only ideals with safe sex programs. However, even programs that couple the teaching of abstinence as well as safe sex are not eligible for government funds. Deborah Roffman, author of "Sex and Sensibility" stated: "The abstinence-only approach is not realistic. Fifty per cent of kids have already had intercourse." The money that is spent on abstinence only programs could be more efficiently and effectively used in a program that teaches both abstinence and safe sex. We can reduce the expenditure on welfare programs for young parents and health care expenditures used for treating the numerous cases of STD's among our youth by providing them with the tools to make safe, responsible choices. Abstinence only programs expect children to behave as if this were an "ideal" world, free of influence and temptation. We all know that this utopia does not exist, if we continue to fund such programs, their ineffectiveness will render our tax dollars non-existent as well.

Not only are abstinence only education programs unethical and a waste of taxpayers money, they censor potentially life saving health information. It is inevitable that some children will have sex; this is by no means an ideal world. By withholding the information necessary to protect them from disease and prevent pregnancy, abstinence only education risks the lives of America's children. By teaching that condoms, birth control and other devices are ineffective, children will be inclined not use them. Quantitatively, 90% of Americans have sex outside of marriage, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. It is irresponsible not to equip children with the tools that have the potential to save their lives.