Well, abstinence-only education was a complete waste of time and money. We might as well teach the little darlings to use protection:

Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs

By Laura Sessions Stepp
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A02

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

Authorized by Congress in 1997, the study followed 2000 children from elementary or middle school into high school. The children lived in four communities -- two urban, two rural. All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education.

By the end of the study, when the average child was just shy of 17, half of both groups had remained abstinent. The sexually active teenagers had sex the first time at about age 15. Less than a quarter of them, in both groups, reported using a condom every time they had sex. More than a third of both groups had two or more partners.

"There's not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education," said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. "This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat."

The report's release comes as questions are being raised in several quarters about abstinence programs. A bill introduced in Congress, sponsored by both Republican and Democratic members, would allocate money for sex education that teaches abstinence and contraception. In addition, eight states that used to receive funding for abstinence programs have decided to stop doing so, two of them very recently. Federal abstinence funds come up for congressional renewal this summer under the Title V grant.

The federal government spends $176 million a year on abstinence-only education, and millions more are spent every year in state and local matching grants. Harry Wilson, a top official in the Department of Health and Human Services, said yesterday that the administration has no intention of changing funding priorities in light of the results.

"This study isn't rigorous enough to show whether or not [abstinence-only] education works," Wilson said.

Some federal money, in addition to state and local dollars, supports comprehensive sex education, he said. What is spent on abstinence "is not that much money when it comes to offering an alternative to the other message." He said modifications in the program are already being considered, including a focus on low-income neighborhoods and extending instruction into high school.

The study did not address the impact of a student's family income on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs.

The results came as a bit of surprise even to Christopher Trenholm, who supervised the project at Mathematica Policy Research Inc. An early analysis by his organization showed some attitude shifts toward delaying sex among students in the abstinence programs, but those differences disappeared as students got older. One thing they also learned, Trenholm said, was that kids receiving abstinence instruction did not use condoms less often than other kids, a possibility that critics occasionally raise. They also showed slightly better knowledge about the prevention of sexually transmitted disease.

Kids in both groups were knowledgeable about the risks of having sex without using a condom or other form of protection. Knowing that did not mean they put on a condom every time, however. Condom use was not high in either group; of those who had sex, almost half said they used condoms only "sometimes" or "never."

Brown said Mathematica's results underscore what other, smaller studies have shown: "The most effective programs are those that say abstinence is the best choice but birth control and protection are also worth knowing about."

An official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States agreed.

"Comprehensive education means teaching about abstinence and a myriad of other topics," said spokeswoman Martha Kempner. Among them, she said: "contraception, critical thinking, one's own values and the values of your family and your religious community.

"Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed."

" All of the children received the family life services available in their community, in addition, slightly more than half of them also received abstinence-only education."

This article doesn't define the "family life services" that all students received. It seems to imply it is some type of sex ed that is not abstinence only, but it is not clear.

They make the point that one group also got abstinence only, but don't clearly define what the other group got which makes the comparison necessarily difficult to understand.

If in fact the "family life services" is comprehensive sex ed, then I guess the point is that the abstinence program they were using is not very effective. That doesn't necessarily mean another abstinence program wouldn't be effective.

Also, if the "family life services" includes info about contraception, and STDs, it is not that effective either.

Overall, a vague article.

Laura -

To site The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy is contradictory. They link to Planned Parenthood, they use Planned Parenthood so called sex ed material, and one of their advisers is Rev. Thomas Davis Chair Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board. They are all against abstinence-only education. So it's not surprising that The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy would conclude that. Not a reliable source.

The only way to be 100% sure of not getting pregnant or an STD is by NOT ENGAGING in sexual activity. Condoms are not 100% effective in prevention of pregnancy. And they don't 100% protect from STDs. Birth Control may prevent pregnancy, but it does nothing to prevent STD's.
So ABSTINENCE is the only way to protect truly protect yourself. Not to mention that teens that do not engage in risky behavior are better off psychologically, emotionally, and physically.

"In CA, 96% of schools teach comprehensive sex education, and according to a recent report in the CA Journal of Health Promotion, there has been 1.1 million new STD cases reported in Californians ages 15 to 24.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Wow. 1.1 million is staggering.

The total population of California is about 36,500,000 according to the US census. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

About 13% are aged 15-24. Which is around 4.6 million.

So that means 1 in 4 has an STD.

Is that right? Is that for one year?

Those poor kids.

Who cares if they know what abstinence is? It's not like they're going to be abstinent once they know what it is, anyway.

California has made great progress in reducing teen pregnancy rates, compared to the rest of the country. From 1991-2004, California's teen pregnancy rate dropped 39.6% (#1 in the nation). Whatever they're doing, it's clearly working.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/STBYST06.pdf

So that means 1 in 4 has an STD.

And how many of those are curable STDs like gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, BV, etc.?

tp,

thanx so much for the great link.

I looked at it and found that although California has seen a drop in the teen pregnancy rate, it still has one of the very highest rates.

Only 6 states and DC have a higher rate. Calilifornia still has room to improve.

It does indeed have one of the highest rates, along with Texas, Florida, and a lot of other Southern states with large poor, minority populations. But at least they're doing something about it, unlike Texas, for example (more teen pregnancies than CA, abstinence-only education required in all public schools for the past decade, and a dismal #44 in reducing teen pregnancy since '91).

Abstinance-only education is a scam.

I see what you are saying.

Texas dropped 17% to 101 and California dropped 39% to 96.

Kind of the same ballpark as far as the current number.

An interesting difference in the birth rate though.

62 births out of 101 pregnancies in Texas vs. 39 births out of 96 pregnancies in California.

There may be some cultural differences at work there. Especially since the data include people as old as 18 and 19.

I don't think we are really worried about people who are simply getting married and starting their families. I think the public health concern is for women with unintended pregnancies.

9 out of 10 pro-abortion leftists agree: Abstinence education doesn't work!

Abstinence only education is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand and hoping everything turns out for the best.

so, does the pregnancy rate in CA show those that end in an abortion?

Okay,

I looked up marriage for Texas

"Females under age 20 made up 8.1% of marriages in 2004, "
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/vstat/latest/nnuptil.shtm

At 62 births per thousand aged 15-19, a good chunk are married women.

Yep, I'm not from Texas but I would have been included in those statistics. I had a baby at 19, 1 year and 9 months after being married. Doesn't show those stats.

so, does the pregnancy rate in CA show those that end in an abortion?

Posted by: weluv5kids at November 1, 2007 10:08 PM

They give both pregnancy rate and birth rate so if you have a calculator you can figure an estimate of the change.

For example CA pregnacy rate was down 39% and births were down 46%.

Teaching kids to use condoms is the equivalent of teaching them to play Russian Roulette and hoping nobody dies. But if somebody does get HIV... WHOOPSIE! No biggie, I mean, condoms break sometimes. Sorry, kid.

"9 out of 10 pro-abortion leftists agree: Abstinence education doesn't work!"

Good point John..... that means that it is does work and is a good-plan.

All of this artifcial contraception and we're still killing 1.3 million babies per year.

Jasper, according to the pro-aborts, that just means we don't have ENOUGH condoms yet!! In Boy and Girl Scout groups we need to hand out condoms instead of merit badges. At the barber ship and the doctor's office we need to hand out condoms instead of lollipops. In the Catholic Church we need to hand out condoms instead of Holy Communion. Plus maybe we can fly blimps over America which will unleash "condom rain" to cover the countryside with the things... as long as they don't accidentally kill any plants or contribute to global warming.

Then, once we've done all that, abortion will be rare! Yes... because people won't be able to drive to the abortion mills because the streets will be full of condoms.

Sorry, everyone for interrupting this post with my babble, but I have a very important message for Jacqueline:

JACQUELINE: I left a response to your most recent post in the BBQ baby thread. I think it's very important that you read it. :D :D :D

Again, apologies to everyone else.

Just to let everyone know, according to the Surgeon General's 2001 report on Sex Ed programs, comprehensive sex ed programs, "which combine teaching about the importance of abstinence and providing information about condoms and other methods of contraception, have proven to be most effective," based on the results of a two-year study (source: Those Who Can, Teach published by Houghton Mifflin Company; 11th edition, page 99).

Just thought I'd let you know.

I don't know what to say really except who cares? Who cares if one person think performing oral sex is abstaining from sex... who cares if another person thinks its not? I was a person that grew up being taught about condoms and birth control. I wasn't taught abstinence only. I am also one that believes oral sex and anal sex is not abstaining. Some people might consider hand holding "not abstaining" some people might consider kissing "not abstaining" Its all very subjective.

Moral issues aside, somebody should get every teen in California a good dictionary. Even if they don't plan on abstaining, they really should know what it means!

Maybe it's the hormones, but I started crying when someone wrote this comment on my Amnesty pictures. Sometimes what people say about issues like that make me really want to cry, because they are so saddening.

Today has been full of bad news...I mean look at TCR tonight. Just sad all around. I was gonna base a paper on his run.

UGH.

Hey, when did pro life have to equal abstinence only education? Must have missed that part of my handbook.

It's late and I'm waiting for my sleep meds to kick in so I'll qualify my last statement.

It's a Catch-22 in my opinion on this whole issue.

Abortion is wrong, period. (Good so far).
We need to end unwanted pregnancies AND the apparent "need" or pressure for women to end their pregnancies when it happens.
Well, if a woman is in the abortion clinic for the 3rd time, she should have just used a condom, or something.
However, you also shouldn't use birth control since it's immoral (???--never understood why it's relevant).
Therefore, let's teach our kids to just abandon the whole ship altogether and just hope that society turns your way (not for a while, sorry).

When you tell pregnant women its her fault she didn't use birth control, but then try to deny access or education on how to properly use it, how can you place all the blame on her? I just don't get it. I know that you guys think that "marriage only, and no birth control." But real life is different--life is "coulda, woulda, shoulda." Hoping and wishing and praying alone will not make the problem of unwanted pregnancies go away. Just tell a sexually active 18-year old: "I have no sympathy. Your problems will magically disappear if only you stop having sex, so stop it"... I honestly don't think it's helpful. Sorry. Very nice in theory, but not so nice in terms of progress. We need to be realistic.

I"m really tired now, sorry if there is any typos or if anthing I typed is confusing. Night. I'll fall asleep moping that people actually feel that Americans are superior to Middle Easterners.

I think you are right Pip.

The problem in the US is the constant mixed messages.
Like sex is okay but pregnancy isn't.
Dating is promoted for teens but not marriage.
So what happens when you fall in love with the person you are dating? Some just dismiss your feelings out of hand. Are you just supposed to supress your feelings till you graduate from college so you can live up to society's expectation that you can't get married until society thinks you are ready?

In the middle east unmarried teens don't go to school with the opposite gender, don't date, socialize etc. That is real pressure to abstain.

Hippie,

agreed.

"In June, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report saying comprehensive sex education spends little time promoting the value of abstinence, but does teach children as young as 13 that "showering together" and "cuddling naked" are appropriate "abstinence" activities."

Good to know. What does showering together or cuddling naked lead to????

Pleeeeeeaaaaassseeee.
Who makes this stuff up???

Yes Sandy, I'd like to know human 13 or older, married or unmarried, would shower naked or cuddle naked without it leading to sex! duh!

I agree that abstinence should be promoted in sex ed--it seems obvious to me. The abstinence only sex ed is where I have a problem.

The ideal sex ed would be as the Surgeon General said was the most effective: comprehensive education while promoting the importance of abstinence. Not educating young people about birth control, however, is irresponsible.

weluv5kids: I'm sorry you don't think that you have the self-control to do those things without having sex, but other people may--I do. Sometimes it's just about intimacy.

"In the middle east unmarried teens don't go to school with the opposite gender, don't date, socialize etc. That is real pressure to abstain."

That really sucks. Glad I don't live in the middle east. If I were stuck around only girls for any extended period of time, I would go crazy from all the estrogen concentrated in one area.

"What does showering together or cuddling naked lead to????"
"Yes Sandy, I'd like to know human 13 or older, married or unmarried, would shower naked or cuddle naked without it leading to sex! duh!"

You must know a lot of weak-willed people...

I agree with JM. Abstinence is really a subjective thing. Some people think it's abstinence as long as they don't have vaginal sex (you know, to protect that hymen that some people seem to think is oh-so-important), and some (like me) think that being abstinent includes vaginal, oral, and anal.

I would think that by now people would realize that abstinence only doesnt work, and that comprehensive sex ed is the way to go.

Uganda encouraged abstienence, faithfulness, and condom use, and their HIV/AIDS infection rate went down rapidly (but, you know, since the U.S. wont supply condoms it seems as if its beginning to go up again)

Leah L.M.N.O.P-ya,

That was a very important announcement.

Kilts should be mandatory male uniforms.

Per Stephanie:
"What does showering together or cuddling naked lead to????"
"Yes Sandy, I'd like to know human 13 or older, married or unmarried, would shower naked or cuddle naked without it leading to sex! duh!"

You must know a lot of weak-willed people..."

I am confused by your statment.
So you would be perfectly content knowing that your 13 year old daughter hops in and out showers with a 13 year old "boyfriend" or you are ok if you found them cuddling under the sheets naked in her bedroom? Am I understanding you correctly??

Kilts should be mandatory male uniforms.

Jacqueline, truer words have never been spoken. Kilts are just so incredibly sexy there is no way to put it into words. I think we should make this into a Bill and send it to Congress.

"In Boy and Girl Scout groups we need to hand out condoms instead of merit badges. At the barber ship and the doctor's office we need to hand out condoms instead of lollipops. In the Catholic Church we need to hand out condoms instead of Holy Communion. Plus maybe we can fly blimps over America which will unleash "condom rain" to cover the countryside with the things... as long as they don't accidentally kill any plants or contribute to global warming.

Then, once we've done all that, abortion will be rare! Yes... because people won't be able to drive to the abortion mills because the streets will be full of condoms."

LOL! John

yeeeeeeeee-haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....condoms, condoms, condoms!!!!!!!!!!! for everybody.......it will save us all!!!!!!!!1

Stephanie, I agree with Sandy. Your response was weird.

Yes, it is irresponsible not to educate young people about birth control, isn't it, especially since we all know, don't we, how very expensive IGNORANCE can be?!

So here is a little elucidation on the subject:

Generally speaking, trying to fight abortion with artificial birth control is like trying to fight forest fires with gasoline. The failure rate of these substances and devices would put any other business (think restaurants, airlines, bungee cords, automobiles, any line that takes human life into its hands) under faster than you can say class action lawsuit. The distribution of these things, esp. among unmarried people, is intended to ensure that they are sexually active, and that any children they procreate (the failure rate of these things should make anyone think twice about using them) will be unprepared for, and therefore unwelcome, as unwanted by their parents as they are by the population control freak abortion profiteers, and so become more grist for the deathmills. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Anyone genuinely concerned for the well-being of young adults will tell them that the best system for all concerned is chastity, meaning sexual abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within it. Anyone who wishes to build a truly just, civilized, healthy and free society will fight the legalized slaughter of unborn children, and that will include opposing artificial birth control.

Such substances/devices, even when not abortifacient in themselves, are foreplay for abortion, not an antidote to it.

It’s also interesting that Planned Parenthood, committed as they are to reducing the world population by any pernicious, destructive means they can get by with, seem to favor non-barrier birth control substances which offer no protection against STDs, and greatly overrate the effectiveness of barrier methods at preventing both STDs and pregnancies (they aren’t the same thing in reality, though they are much the same thing in the warped, anti-humanity minds of the population control freaks.)

The foundress of the American Birth Control League (the precursor to Planned Parenthood), Margaret Sanger, stated that the main point of birth control was “more children from the fit, less from the unfit”. She promoted birth control for the deliberate destruction of certain categories of people she considered “dysgenic”. These included most racial categories (non-Aryan), socioeconomic groups (the poor), and those who disagreed with her views (conveniently pathologized as “feeble-minded”). But the point to be noted here is that birth control was promoted for deliberately destructive, malicious purposes, not humane, compassionate, benevolent ones. She just wanted to wipe out some people she didn’t like (the vast majority of humanity) from the face of the earth.

Planned Parenthood is still carrying out her agenda, though of course, for PR purposes, they try to distance themselves from some of her overtly racist, eugenist statements.

Sexual pleasure always has a price. For legitimate pleasure, you pay before hand; for illegitimate pleasures, you pay afterwards…and with interest compounded daily.

More information on specific artificial birth control substances and devices is available at all.org. Read it and learn.

jt, how true it is!

I agree. We shouldn't give out birth control to anyone, or tell them how to use it, but then when they get pregnant, just say "well, it's tough luck for them, they just should have abstained."

I'd like to see how this plan pays off.

"So you would be perfectly content knowing that your 13 year old daughter hops in and out showers with a 13 year old "boyfriend" or you are ok if you found them cuddling under the sheets naked in her bedroom? Am I understanding you correctly??"

WHOA, that was a GINORMOUS leap, Sandy.

I was making a general comment that naked cuddling and showering together doesn't always lead to sex because not all people are that weak-willed or has sex in mind. Not to mention I was thinking of high school age and older.

As for 13-year old daughter comment...of course I don't like the idea of my daughter naked cuddling or showering. I don't think I'd like it even if they were 30 and married. Being a parent does that, I think.

A middle schooler has no business having sex anyway - what they think is love is actually infatuation, and a kid I'm mentoring at the local middle school is proof of that. Hard to believe that middle schoolers could be so...well, horny.

Stephanie, I know married couples who would find the idea of showering together obscene. And they aren't exactly fuddy-duddies, either.

*shrug*

Don't see how. If they're married, they probably would have seen each other naked before. Unless they just don't like sex.

Maybe it's just the idea of being drenched in the other's dirty water? Or maybe they're more traditional and to keep sexy things in the bedroom. Just depends on your cup of tea.

Maybe they just need to get some of those plastic balls from a Chuck E. Cheese place, and kick a few back and forth in the shower.

John,

Really? Obscene?

I know married couples who would find the idea of showering together obscene. And they aren't exactly fuddy-duddies, either.

John, maybe not fuddy-duddies, but sounds like they have some issues.

Doug, yes, they have issues, unlike the guy who justifies the killing of babies and then claims to be pro-woman.

Moderators, this is out of line! Those kind of comments aren't allowed here, John.

Ahhhhh PIP, I can't be everywhere! But that line is gone forever. Sorry I didn't catch it. If anything like that happens again, you can always email me.

It's cool MK I was just trying to attract you all's attention.

John L: Doug, yes, they have issues, unlike the guy who justifies the killing of babies and then claims to be pro-woman.

The guy could have the same issue - who knows?

There doesn't need to be any "justification" for having an abortion. It depends on what the woman wants. Being pro-woman can certainly include wanting women to keep the freedom they have in the matter.

Doug

But that line is gone forever.

Aw gosh gee whillikers - what'd I miss?

If you know, e-mail me at porkloin@aol.com

Thank you,

Doug