I was shocked to read a headline this week, that the rate of teen births is on the rise.
The rate had been steadily declining since 1991, after an intense educational campaign, that included contraception, condom use, and the risk of Aids and sexually transmitted disease. But now, for the first time in 14 years, statistics show a 3% increase in teens having babies.
How could that be? Could it be that sex education programs aren't working very well? Actually, the sex-ed programs were working just fine, until the Bush administration began diverting funds from them to abstinence only programs.
It doesn't take a sexologist to explain why abstinence only isn't an effective means of sex education. But just in case, here is Logan Levkoff of Third Base Ain't What It Used To Be...
Hmmm...looks like abstinence only programs don't work. Oh, have I said that before? Sounds familiar, but now there is a new study that is saying the same thing. Last week, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released a study confirming that ab-only programs don't delay sex. Even more exciting, the review of teenage sexual behavior also concluded that comprehensive sexuality education does delay the initiation of sex, reduces a teen's number of sex partners, and increases condom and contraceptive usage. Hurray!
Needless to say, this is terrific news. So I ask you all this: Why have we spent over $1.5 billion in the last ten years on abstinence only? And why is Congress even considering a bill to spend another $141 million on it?
It seems to me that with teen pregnancy on the rise, this would prove that abstinence-only programs are not working. However, instead of recognizing the failure of these programs, the Bush administration is increasing funding.
Ideology, not science, has been driving America’s response to the twin epidemics of teen pregnancy and STD/HIV infections. Funding for abstinence-only censorship programs is dramatically increasing. All told, abstinence-only programs have received over half a billion dollars in federal funds since 1997, and the Bush administration requested yet another sharp increase to $204 million for fiscal year 2007. By 2009, President Bush proposes that funding for abstinence-only programs reach $270 million.
This huge investment of taxpayer funds in abstinence-only programs conflicts with scientific and medical research: abstinence-only programs are not proven effective and may in fact result in riskier behavior by teenagers. Responsible sex education programs, on the other hand, have demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex, reduced frequency of sex, and increased contraceptive use. — read full article here
Parents really shouldn't be relying totally on schools to teach their children about sex anyway. It's not any easy subject to talk about with our children, but it is very important that we do (especially given this latest information on teen pregnancy). Here is a site that seems to include all aspects of sex education...Teensource, and here is one on talking to you kids about sex.
This is from a post by Susan (a parent coach)...
Don’t wait too long to have these conversations. Kids are experimenting with sex and drugs earlier and earlier. The younger you start the easier it will be to continue bringing it up. A great conversation starter might be after you and your child have seen a movie with sex or drugs being part of the content. “What did you think about that movie? What did you think about the choices that Josie made? What would you have done? Do you have any questions about anything that you saw?”
If your child ignores you or doesn’t want to talk about it don’t give up. Keep looking for opportunities to bring up those uncomfortable issues. Soon you will notice that it isn’t so awkward after all!
From Moms Speak Up...
In May, according to NPR, “Democratic Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made it clear that Democrats do not intend to re-fund a $50 million grant program for abstinence-only sex education. Dingell says he considers the funded programs ‘a colossal failure.’”
“Democrats would still include money for abstinence teachings in schools, but would combine it with comprehensive sex-ed program* that would teach about birth control and other safe sex methods.” (Click here to read the full USA Today article.)
The abstinence-only grant was set to expire on June 30, 2007.
However, despite Democrat statements and the factual studies that revealed the fallibility and lack of efficacy of abstinence-only education, in June, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations voted to increase federal funding for community based abstinence-only education programs (CBAE) in this country by $27.8 million.
In November, the increase amount was officially set at $28 million for a grand total of $141 million. President Bush would like that amount increased to $204 million for 2008.
Could this be what Bush has in mind?
An easy solution to the problem of teen pregnancy.
If we just had a couple more million to add some critical "family values" classes along with the "abstinence only" program, it wouldn't matter that the teen birth rate is increasing. It would go something like this...High school counselors could stop pushing college on everyone (it's getting awfully expensive anyway), and instead they could encourage parenting classes. Picture this...The "advanced placement" pregnant teens could take classes in wedding planning. This could even help solve the divorce problem in our country...With no education and just their husband to count on, these women would be
virtuallytrapped in their marriages, with no possibility of getting a divorce or making it on their own.
Seriously, we are really taking major steps backward these days...even our life expectancy is going down.
What do you think about these new statistics? How do you feel about our government spending millions of tax dollars for abstinence only programs? Do you think the schools should be teaching sex educations? Do you talk openly with your kids about sex?
An open question to the candidates: How will you address the problem of teen pregnancy if you are elected president?
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women
Comments
You know...
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Abstinence-only programs don't work. And by their very nature do not prevent pregnancy and STIs while they are not working.
Here's my very condensed view (because I could rant about this for a very, very long time...). I think that the moral discussions about teens and sex should take place in the home. I think that schools should teach the fact-based health and science behind sex. No student should leave high school without knowing about pregnancy, STIs and how to prevent them, as well as just a good general knowledge of sexual health. I'm not saying that schools should be telling kids to have sex but I think they should tell kids what can happen if they do have sex and how some of those things might be prevented.
Sassymonkey and Sassymonkey Reads.
I totally agree.
I totally agree with you. Thanks for commenting.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women
Coming from a 30-something who once was a
teen mom...
..I have a vested interest in the subject. I think abstinence education should be a facet of sex ed, not the whole crux of it. I now have a teenaged son and two young daughters and you bet your booty that they will be educated not only on why they should wait, but how to be safe if they don't, because while you always hope that your children will choose to wait, preparing them for the reality IS your responsibility as a parent.
Not that it is exactly the same issue, but this brings to mind the controversy over Gardasil. You don't just tell your one year old to stay away from the stairs and hope for the best......you take precautions to protect them-even from themselves. Why do our teens deserve any less?
Parents need to take responsibility.
"while you always hope that your children will choose to wait, preparing them for the reality IS your responsibility as a parent."
I agree that parents really need to take responsibility when it comes to making sure their children have all the information they need when it comes to an issue as important as sex.
Talking to your kids about sex also gives you the opportunity to talk to them about your personal feelings/beliefs on sex, abstinence, pregnancy, and STDs. It's also a good time to remind them that you are there for them no matter what, even if they make mistakes or stray from your expectations of them.
Thanks for commenting.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women
The "parrot" programs just don't work
The reason why responsible education programs work so much better than abstience-only programs is because our kids are actually pretty damn smart - when we give them the chance to be. If you give these kids the information, facts and resources to make informed, intelligent decisions, they'll do so.
And, yes, that is going to include things like waiting longer to have sex and being more responsible about it when they do.
Much like the "just say no to drugs" programs, if all you do is expect them to parrot the information back to you, that's not going to help them. Escpecially with teens who, by nature, question everything. If you don't have the balls to give them real information about what might happen if they make the choice to have sex, how to be as safe as possible, and how to decide when it's time, then they're just going to take your "just say no" speech and shove it. They're going to take it as just another controlling, adult crock of you-know-what and decide that they know better than you do and so they're going to do what they want.
Fortunately, I was going through school before all this abstinence-only nonssense, so I got "real" information in my sex-ed programs. However, my mom took an active role in preparing me for the eventuality of having sex. She made sure I had tons of information about "safe sex", and what works and what doesn't, and what the consequences could be if you didn't use it. She also quized me randomly which kept life at home *exciting*.
I also want to point out that one of the things we were taught about in our sex ed programs, was how to make choices about whether or not to have sex. One of the things we were taught was that we should decide, before we are in the situation, what we want to do and when we want to do it, based on our beliefs and moral values. That way, in the "heat of the moment", it would be easier to stand by whatever decision it was, because it had already been made.
See? Information not only on how to stay safe, but how to make choices.
Verbose means I ramble
Teach kids about making good choices.
I agree that an important aspect of sex-ed is teaching children how to make responsible choices, and understand the consequences of those choices.
Thanks for commenting.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women
Teens *are* smart
I got sex ed in the 80s, and I also learned all about keeping myself safe and making the best decisions for me. It is appalling and shocking to me that teens aren't getting real sex education today.
And I agree about the parroting concept being a problem. I remember our "say no to drugs" programs contained misinformation, and because we all knew that, we just disregarded pretty much the whole thing.
Liz Rizzo
I blog at Everyday Goddess.
I think you're right.
I think you're right about these abstinence only programs being similar to "say no to drugs"...neither are very effective.
Thanks for commenting Liz.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women
Really?
I am always amazed at how adults forget what it was like to be14, 15, 16, 17, 18 years old. The reality is that young people have sex. Now you can get on a moral high horse if you want too...go ahead take a ride up that high. But the reality is, kids are having sex. And they are having lots of sex---unprotected and without concern about their souls. So if you want to preach abstinance then don't be bent out of shape when AIDS and teen pregnancy is on the rise. We say we don't wan't kids having sex, but everything in our culture from the selling of cars to jeans is about kids having sex. Adults have to get honest about the mixed messages. We have to change the messages about kids having sex. I am the mother of 4 and I do not want them having sex before hell freezes over, and that's where the problem lies. Me as a parent not seeing my kids on the cusp of sexual exploration is more about my ignorance than it is about them. Now my kids are little--but I have neices and nephews who are that target age. We need to say and believe we want kids to be safe and act accordingly.
Love,
Babz
www.lovebabz.blogspot.com
Changing the message.
I agree that kids are definitely being sent mixed messages when it comes to sex, and I imagine that's part of the problem.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women
States are Saying "No"
What interests me is that many states realize how ridiculously bad abstinence-only "education" programs are, and as Bush increases (and Congress pathetically rubber stamps) spending on this failure, many states are quietly refusing the money. New York state, where I live, is just the latest to turn away the federal funds because they want to teach comprehensive sex ed that actually reduces teen pregnancy and incidents of STIs. Some may think that it is stupid to refuse any money, but turning down a small amount of funding for bad sex ed programs actually saves states enormous amounts of money in the long run. Would a state rather pay for quality sex ed or for the consequences of teen pregnancy and STIs? Easy decision, although it is sad that it has to be made.
What kills me about the abstinence education movement is that they say things like, "We don't teach kids how to use drugs safely because that would encourage drug use, so why should we condone sex by teaching them about it?" Forget the specious assumption in the statement that the second kids learn about sex, they'll run off and have it. The real point is that not all people use drugs, but pretty much everyone will have some type of sex at some point in their lives. Teaching kids to be smart about sex prepares them for living healthy lives, today and tomorrow. Who wouldn't want that?
Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants
Views from Third Base
Suzanne, you are right. States are quietly refusing the ab-only funding. I will quietly out them, because I think that they deserve recognition: Virginia (the most recent state to refuse), Ohio, Maine, Maryland, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Arizona, Missouri, Connecticut, Rohde Island, and Minnesota. I commend them for recognizing that placing ideology over science (and the lives of our youth) is dangerous and irresponsible. Recent stats show that school districts that teach abstinence only education affect 14 million teens. Can you imagine what happens to those kids?
We must remember that comprehensive sexuality education isn't anti-abstinence. We are very much for it. But we also know that education should provide a holistic picture of sexuality, including choices, tools and accurate information so that teens can make good decisions about sex (now and in the future). And parents can (and should be) doing the bulk of this education at home, too!
As a parent and sexuality educator (of comprehensive sex ed), the state of America's sexual health is poor. But we have a tremendous opportunity to make a difference in the lives of our youth.
Logan Levkoff, M.S.
Author, Third Base Ain't What it Used to Be: What Your Kids are Learning About Sex Today - and How to Teach Them to Become Sexually Healthy Adults
I had no idea.
Thanks for sharing that Suzanne. I had no idea that some states were actually being smart enough to refuse federal money for these programs. I think that's great.
Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
also at CatherineBlogs.com and The Political Voices of Women