by
Michael Craven
April 24,
2007
LifeNews.com Note: Michael Craven is considered a leading “cultural apologist” offering a rational biblical perspective in response to the various cultural forces that seek to reshape the philosophical consensus in America. He is the founding director for the Center for Christ and Culture and serves as an adjunct professor at Western Seminary in Portland.
This
is what the mainstream media and opponents of abstinence-centered education
would like you to believe in the wake of the most recent study. Headlines
around the country read:
Abstinence programs fall short, study
says – Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14
Study: Sex abstinence classes failed
– Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/14
Study: Abstinence Classes Don't Stop
Sex – ABC News, 4/14
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only
Programs – Washington Post, 4/14
William Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information
and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), a leading proponent
of “safe-sex” education, said “This report should serve as the final
verdict on the failure of the abstinence-only industry in this country,
It shows, once again, that these programs fail miserably in actually
helping young people behave more responsibly when it comes to their
sexuality.”
The report, which was released by the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. appears,
on the surface, to live up to the headlines. The study sought to determine
the impact of abstinence education programs. Key findings include:
However, the report did go on to say that “Contrary to concerns raised
by some critics of the Title V, Section 510 abstinence funding, program
group youth were no more likely to have engaged in unprotected sex than
control group youth.” Another key finding was:
But again, the report reveals that students subjected to abstinence
education also did not have higher rates of unprotected sex – a charge
often leveled by “safe-sex” education advocates. Other key findings
include:
•Program and control group youth also did not differ in the number
of partners with whom they had sex.
This all sounds rather damning to abstinence education. However, here
are the problems with concluding that “abstinence education has failed.”
First, this study only examined four programs out of more than 900 currently
in place. Furthermore, of the four programs observed in the study; one
was voluntary and took place after school. Also, the Mathematica study
targeted children who were in abstinence programs from ages 9-11 and
those children were not evaluated until four to six years later.
The fact is, the targeted children were too young to absorb the abstinence
message, and there was no continuation of abstinence education into
the High School years when adolescents are most likely to engage in
sexual activity.
Lastly, the study authors themselves stated that “Some policymakers
and health educators have questioned whether the Title V, Section 510
program’s focus on abstinence elevates these STD risks. Findings from
this study suggest that this is not the case, as program group youth
are no more likely to engage in unprotected sex than their control group
counterparts.”
The bottom line: this study hardly serves to condemn abstinence education
and support a return to “comprehensive” sex education in the public
schools. In fact, a recent HHS-sponsored conference in Baltimore unveiled
evidence from more than two dozen other studies that abstinence programs
are producing positive outcomes for youth.
There are now 15 evaluations documenting the effectiveness of abstinence
education. (Of course, the media never reports on these.)
Even the authors of the Mathematica study acknowledge that “Nationally,
rates of teen sexual activity have declined over the past 15 years,”
since the advent of abstinence education beginning in the early 1990s.
Studies through the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show the rate
of teen pregnancy has dropped approximately 35% from 1990 to 2002 with
subsequent studies demonstrating the decline of teen pregnancy has only
accelerated since 2002.
The Journal of Adolescent and Family Health published a study that concluded
66% of the decrease in teen pregnancy was due to teens choosing abstinence.
The CDC commissioned a study which estimated 53% of the drop in teen
pregnancy was due to teens choosing abstinence.
A significant finding of the Mathematica study, which has been ignored,
is “that friends support for abstinence is a significant predictor of
future sexual abstinence.” Adding that, “promoting support for abstinence
among peer networks should be an important feature of future abstinence
programs. While friends support for abstinence may have protective benefits,
maintaining this support appears difficult for most youth as they move
through adolescence.
At the time when most Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs
are completed and youth enter their adolescent years, data from the
study find that support for abstinence among friends drops dramatically.”
In essence, the study’s authors confirm the positive impact of abstinence
education and argue for the expansion of abstinence education into the
High School years since it is only the “values” of abstinence education
that have any potential for strengthening this social support.
Let me conclude by showing you exactly what it is that "comprehensive"
sex education advocates oppose. The following are the federal government
guidelines for abstinence education under Title V, section 510 programs:
B Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected
standard for all school-age children
C Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way
to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases,
and other associated health problems
D Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context
of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
E Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely
to have harmful psychological and physical effects
F Teach that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful
consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
G Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol
and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances
H Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging
in sexual activity
Comprehensive sex education advocates oppose the teaching of any “values”
related to sexual activity since they regard sex as a “values-neutral”
act in which the government has no interest.
As I have stated before, given the procreative potential inherent to
sex, society has a compelling interest in the manner and place in which
children come into being, therefore the government plays a valid role
in securing this interest.
So, given the values espoused under abstinence education versus “no
values” education offered within a cultural context that only supports
the latter – which approach should we employ if the stated goal of both
sides is to “reduce adolescent sexual activity and its consequences?”
