States with highest rate of "abstinence only" sex ed have highest teen pregnancy rate

[Tempest Storm]

Summation (click on link for full story):

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200401/abstinence.asp

Over half a billion tax dollars have poured into abstinence-only sex education nationwide since House Republicans wrote it into the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. The legislation offers matching grants to districts that adopt its strict guidelines: promoting abstinence from sex until marriage, with contraception discussed only in terms of failure rates. Instructors agree not to tell youngsters how to reduce risk of disease and pregnancy if they are sexually active—a population that numbers half of high-school-age kids. In many if not most programs, the issue is presented in terms of God and morality.

Critics call abstinence-only sex education "fear-based" and dangerously incomplete. Traditional "comprehensive" sex education teaches that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and disease but includes information about birth control as well. While abstinence-only is growing rapidly, funding for comprehensive sex education has remained static, despite its proven ability to reduce teen birth rates.

Nationwide, the birth rate among 15- to 19-year-olds dropped 26 percent in the last decade. (If abstinence education played a part, no rigorous study has yet shown it. The drop is commonly attributed to concern about AIDS and better contraceptive use.) But 13 states, all in the South, still have teen birth rates that, as one report put it, "rival the rates of nations such as Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Mexico." Overall, the United States leads the industrialized world in teen pregnancy and birth rates; nearly half a million children are born to teen moms each year—11.5 percent of all U.S. births.

As a young person, I think it's completely asinine to tell young people "don't have sex," and then proceed to withhold information from them that could potentially save their lives or prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion (such as proper condom usage) if they do choose to have sex. Not everyone is religious, and we shouldn’t hold every young person in a public school to the same religious standard. We shouldn’t impose our religious beliefs on these people, and deny them knowledge. In fact I would go so far as to call “abstinence only†sex ed criminally negligent. Obviously abstinence is the best way to prevent STD and unwanted pregnancy, but make no mistake, the rate of abortion will go up and not down if our country’s teen and unwanted pregnancy rate(s) slows in it's decline or even reverses from the implementation of these idiotic policies.

Some kids live in poor areas and don’t have the resources such as the Internet or even proper libraries to read about contraception. I believe it’s immoral to deny a young person common lifesaving knowledge that they would learn in any other Western country that uses comprehensive sex ed, and I believe we should be following Canada, England, Sweden, France, and other countries’ examples that have less than 50% our teen pregnancy rate.

I was lucky to have gone to school in a school district with reasonable school officials, and to learn comprehensive sexual education.

“The Bush administration wants to spend millions more dollars on abstinence-only programs that put teenagers at higher risk for HIV. In Texas, these programs don't just censor information, they actively promote misinformation about condoms. And they deprive adolescents of one of the most important tools that they need to protect themselves from HIV.â€
Rebecca Schleifer

HIV/AIDS researcher at Human Rights Watch

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/us0918.htm

We're putting our children at risk by perpetuating ignorance, and with the scourge of AIDS, we're not just putting them at risk of altering their lives forever with unintended pregnancy, we're putting them at risk for an early death. As I've said before, I feel these policies that often go so far as to spread misinformation to young people seeking answers is tantamount to criminal negligence.

 

[dust601]

at our school we didn't even have much of sex ed talk, we talked about it for like 1 hour total all of high school, and during that they just showed us pictures of dumbshits who got diseases that we laughed at .
Its becomng more and more easy for young people to find information sources to learn about safer habits so it doesn't really matter what they hold back as much anymore, but like you said for some people its impossible to get any other sources then whats coming from your school whether is miss information or not which is wrong.

 

[PsYcHoSiD77]

Teaching kids not to have sex is never gonna work. If they think telling us not to have sex is gonna stop us, they are just being ignorant. Sex is the best. They need to teach safe sex, not "no sex".

 

[shutupandgoaway]

I think abstinence is the best way to keep from getting STD's and pregnancies, but if safe sex is not taught as well and condoms are not distributed, the teen pregnancy rate really won't be affected.

 

[amrtin77]

maybe mention abstinance..... but its no that important because once you start preaching save sex till marraige all the kids start ignoring you.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Just say, "Abstinence is the only sure way to keep from getting pregnant or getting stds. But, if you're going to have sex before marriage, here's how to minimize the risks."

Real simple.

 

[bamthedoc]

If I recall correctly, Bush likes the "abstainance-only" programs best, but "compromised" by saying that all "safe-sex only" programs must also include abstainance in studies. I, myself, participated in a "abstainance-only" program when I attended a private Christian school (1-year, 6th grade) in Florida.

His bill may have been worded...poorly, or something, because I recall him stating that he wants all sex-ed programs to include abstainance "education" in their ciriculum.

I don't believe that "safe-sex" is all that safe because there is still a lot of risk involved. There are a lot of things that could go wrong, and, even working perfectly, they only have a 99% effectiveness against pregnancy and a 95% effectiveness against STDs.

~~EDIT~~

FYI: I live in the Carolinas, and North Carolina has the highest teen pregnancy and STD rate in the US. I also live in the county with the highest of both in the state. I've also heard that my county has one of the best sex-ed courses in the state, though our state has the worst in the country.

Our sex-ed program does not teach about abstainance, at all. Ours, however, shows pictures of what STDs do and tells about how condoms makes sex "safe".

 

[~Canuck~]

Originally posted by Spike~
Just say, "Abstinence is the only sure way to keep from getting pregnant or getting stds. But, if you're going to have sex before marriage, here's how to minimize the risks."

Real simple.

That is exactly what is needed to be taught. To many people go throught such abstinence only sex ed programs, then wind up pregnant, or having some std because they just believed the various myths that exist. If these myths were taught to be false in school, how many teenage girls out there wouldn't have thought themselves unable to be impregnated the first time, because thats the rumor they heard.

Now thats just one example, but i have heard alot of people talk about stupid shit like that, which is obviously false, yep because not dwelled on specifically, is ignored.

Our people may be achieving great things in this day and age, but all in all we can be a very stupid society in how we behave, which is why people need to have the lines drawn for them, instead of being left to connect the dots.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
I don't believe that "safe-sex" is all that safe because there is still a lot of risk involved. There are a lot of things that could go wrong, and, even working perfectly, they only have a 99% effectiveness against pregnancy and a 95% effectiveness against STDs.

It's not safe-sex, it's safer-sex.

And I like how you say "only 99% and 95% effective". Those numbers are a helluva lot higher than zero %. They may not work all of the time, but they do work most of th time, which is the point. No one is saying you can have sex and be risk free, the point is to teach ppl how to minimize the risks.

 

[bamthedoc]

Actually, unprotected sex has something of a 70+% STD transfer rate and 60+% pregnancy rate. Safer? Yes. I'll go with that. You, however, never see a 0% or 100% transfer or pregnancy rate.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
Actually, unprotected sex has something of a 70+% STD transfer rate and 60+% pregnancy rate. Safer? Yes. I'll go with that. You, however, never see a 0% or 100% transfer or pregnancy rate.

I'll go with that. But still, protected sex is much, much safer.

 

[bamthedoc]

That's why I supported the part when Bush said to include abstainence-ed along with "safe" sex-ed I don't recall him ever saying, however, anything about only supporting "abstainance-only" programs. Even I don't wholey agree with those unless they're in a well funded Christian Private School. The one I went to handled it quite well.

 

[amrtin77]

the abstinacne only program in my health class last year sucked. i can almost garuntee not one person in that class listened to a word he said.

 

[Thistle]

I think they should give out free condoms, actually this might help....

 

[~Canuck~]

Originally posted by Faerie
I think they should give out free condoms, actually this might help....

Actually i bet it would, alot of guys/gals would just throw it in their wallet/purse/bag or w/e and forget about it, then when they go to ****, they would hopefully remember it, and then boom.

 

[dust601]

they do give out free condoms in lots of places.
and if you remember they taught us not to stick condems in our wallets

 

[~Canuck~]

Originally posted by dust601
they do give out free condoms in lots of places.
and if you remember they taught us not to stick condems in our wallets

never actually had anyone hand me out condoms so, never been told not to put it in my wallet.

 

[Tempest Storm]

Yea, I belive it's because the heat generated in the wallet can cause the condom to deteriorate, thus increasing the risk that it might break during use.

 

[Lights]

Well, abstinence is the only 100% way to keep from becoming pregnant and getting STD's (aside from drugs), so I see where they are coming from. Their arguements are valid and even needed, but as many have said, it need to go along with the "how to's".

Saying that abstinence only programs cause a higher risk of HIV isnt logical, as it is the only way to definantly stay away from it. The logic is this: "If we tell these kids that abstinence is the only way and they follow it, we dont have to worry about condoms because there would be no sex out of marriage." Its really quite a logical logic , but is just doesnt work in the real world. Kids will have sex, there is no stopping it. Thus, we must provide the information on condoms and other methods of "safe-sex".

 

[~Canuck~]

Originally posted by Lights
Well, abstinence is the only 100% way to keep from becoming pregnant and getting STD's (aside from drugs), so I see where they are coming from. Their arguements are valid and even needed, but as many have said, it need to go along with the "how to's".

Saying that abstinence only programs cause a higher risk of HIV isnt logical, as it is the only way to definantly stay away from it. The logic is this: "If we tell these kids that abstinence is the only way and they follow it, we dont have to worry about condoms because there would be no sex out of marriage." Its really quite a logical logic , but is just doesnt work in the real world. Kids will have sex, there is no stopping it. Thus, we must provide the information on condoms and other methods of "safe-sex".

Heh thats all fine and dandy while kids are 13-18, but once they become sexual active and their out of school, then they sorta would need that information, so it would sorta a waste of time.