Abstinence Only Is Not The Best Method

EDUCATION

Abstinence-Only Puts Ideology Over Science
American Progress Report
Oct 1, 2004

The White House has consistently advocated and lavishly funded "abstinence only" sex education, gutting funding for programs which included information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. To support this position, the administration has distorted the scientific evidence about what works in sex education. Two new studies by Advocates for Youth (AFY) on the long-term impact of federally funded abstinence-only programs on teen sexual behavior confirm recent literature on the subject: the programs have no long-term effect on teens' intentions to have sex, but sour them on contraception, making it less likely they will take responsible measures to protect themselves if they do engage in intercourse.

ABSTINENCE-ONLY DOESN'T INCREASE ABSTINENCE: AFY's evaluation of eleven state abstinence-only programs, ten of which were funded federally, found there were "few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact." Overall, programs were moderately successful at improving participants' short-term attitudes towards abstinence but highly unlikely to positively affect participants' sexual behaviors. Five programs measured long-term impact on sexual behavior: "No evaluation demonstrated any impact on reducing teens' sexual behavior at follow-up, three to 17 months after the program ended."

ABSTINENCE-ONLY DISCOURAGES SAFE SEX: In at least two states, AFY Evaluators noted that abstinence-only programs' emphasis on the failure rates of contraception, including condoms, "left youth ambivalent, at best, about using them." The results are consistent with a Columbia University study by sociology chair Peter Bearman. Bearman's study, which tracked the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents between 12 and 18 years old over a five-year period, "found unsafe sex much greater among youth who'd signed pledges to abstain from sex" until marriage. The "virginity pledge" is a key component of many abstinence-only education programs.

ABSTINENCE-ONLY TEACHES BAD SCIENCE, MISINFORMS TEENS: In place of effective, disease-preventing safe-sex education, the administration wants to fund programs that denounce condom use, and mislead teens about the risks and effects of sexual intercourse. Much of the money proposed for the abstinence programs, Salon reports, "would be given in grants to Christian organizations such as Youth for Christ and to…school programs that teach kids that premarital sex leads to psychological maladies and that sex with condoms is a kind of viral Russian roulette." In Texas, where Bush pushed for an abstinence-based sexual education curriculum as governor, one textbook under review "advises that a good way a teen-ager can prevent a sexually transmitted disease is to get plenty of rest so he or she can have a clear head about sex and choose abstinence."

ABSTINENCE-ONLY HAS HAD NO IMPACT ON NATIONAL BEHAVIOR: There is no national data to suggest abstinence-only has had any positive effect on sexual attitudes or behaviors. From 1991 to 1997, sexual experience (the proportion of 9th through 12th graders reporting that they have ever had sexual intercourse) decreased significantly by 11 percent. But from 1999 to 2003, the period coinciding with the triumph of the abstinence-only agenda, changes in sexual experience leveled off.

BUSH PUTS ABSTINENCE-ONLY AHEAD OF DOMESTIC NEEDS: Despite its ineffectiveness, when it comes to abstinence education, "money seems to be no object. The administration's 2005 budget recommends $270 million for programs that try to dissuade teenagers from having sex," double the amount spent last year. Even as it guts proven HIV-prevention programs, the administration continues funneling money into abstinence-only programs proven to be, at best, grossly ineffective. Read this new American Progress column to see how HIV-prevention funding cuts have affected Washington, D.C.