Skip to Content
Categories:

Abstinence-Only Education Leads to Buried Heads, Pregnant Teens

Unrealistic, unscientific and medically unethical.

No, we’re not talking about sterilizing proven idiots, or other such happy fantasies. According to a paper released by the Society for Adolescent Medicine, that description applies to an issue close to the hearts of the conservative party: federally funded abstinence-only sex education.

The group has no problem with abstinence in general; in fact, they are vocal in their support of it. It’s the “only” part that troubles the group.

“Our concern is with abstinence-only [education] eliminating essential health information for teenagers,” the society announced in a report. The society claims that such programs provide inaccurate information, especially regarding the effectiveness of contraception. But worse, it doesn’t help those teenagers who are already sexually active.

And when studies show that 50 percent of American teenagers are having sex by age 17, we run the risk of failing to address the needs of a large portion of the adolescent population.

Some — two former U.S. surgeon generals among them — say that efforts to promote abstinence actually fail to lower levels of sexually transmitted diseases. Joycelyn Elders and David Satcher both announced at a shared news conference in San Francisco that it would be an “injustice” if sexual education did not go beyond encouraging abstinence.

“The vows of abstinence break far more easily than latex condoms,” Elders said.

What about on the other side of the coin? In the last decade the teen birthrate in California has dropped by more than 46 percent, the steepest decline of any state. California Senate Districts 9 (Alameda and Contra Costa counties) and 10 (Alameda and Santa Clara counties) were particularly singled out for praise by the state. This decline is attributed, according to Gary Yates, president and chief executive officer of the California Wellness Foundation, to state and private funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs, including comprehensive sex education and the state’s refusal to accept federal “abstinence-only” education funds. Such funds may only be used for programs that do not include “promotion or instruction” of contraceptives.

Apart from the ethical benefits of preventing STDs and teen pregnancies, such programs (which cost about $120 million in state and private funds) save an estimated $968 million in net costs, including “welfare and medical assistance, costs for foster placement and lost tax revenue based on teen parents’ lower incomes and consumption levels,” Yates said.

When faced with evidence that abstinence-only education doesn’t prevent teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases — while more comprehensive sex-ed does — it’s a bit worrisome that federally funded abstinence-only programs even exist. And the fact that in 2005 the federal government spent over $170 million (more than twice what it spent in 2001 when Bush first took office) on such programs is even more interesting.

For me though, it’s the idea behind these programs that is particularly frightening. It’s the idea that teenagers are so impressionable, so clueless, that even talking about sex is enough to make them go out and try it. It’s the idea that talking about sex or providing contraception education gives them “permission” to experiment. It’s the patriarchal idea that everyone outside of power needs to be protected from ideas that may lead them astray, because they are too weak to make their own decisions.

Let’s face it, teens will, and do, have sex. Teenage sexuality is a bit outside the control of the legislature. Teaching abstinence as the end-all of sexual education only promotes ignorant mistakes: the boyfriend who tells his girl that there’s no point in wearing a condom since they don’t work; the couples who don’t know that herpes and gonorrhea have oral forms; the girls who take one birth-control pill before sex and think that they’re safe.

It’s far better to give teenagers the knowledge necessary to protect themselves, and provide a safety net of information to catch them if they fall. After all, knowledge is power.

Donate to The UCSD Guardian
$2515
$5000
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists at University of California, San Diego. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment, keep printing our papers, and cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The UCSD Guardian
$2515
$5000
Contributed
Our Goal