Just say no!

By P.J. Huffstutter
The Los Angeles Times

Sunday 08 April 2007

More are refusing grants to teach chastity, objecting to restrictions.

In an emerging revolt against abstinence-only sex education, states are turning down millions of dollars in federal grants, unwilling to accept White House dictates that the money be used for classes focused almost exclusively on teaching chastity.

In Ohio, Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland said that regardless of the state's sluggish economic picture, he didn't see the point in taking part in the controversial State Abstinence Education Program anymore.

Five other states - Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Montana and New Jersey - have dropped out of that grant program or plan to do so by the end of this year. California has refused all along to participate in the program, which is managed by a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Strickland, like most of the other governors who are pulling the plug on the funding, said the program had too many rules to be practical. Among other things, the money cannot be used to promote condom or contraceptive use. Students are to be taught that bearing children outside wedlock is likely to harm society and that sexual activity outside marriage is "likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."

...

States have used the money to help public and private schools with educational programs, to develop classroom instruction for nonprofits, and to pay for advertising and other media campaigns.

"There are kids who don't want to know how to put on a condom, because they don't want to have sex," said Leslee J. Unruh, founder and president of the South Dakota-based Abstinence Clearinghouse, the nation's largest network of abstinence educators. "So why can't kids who want to abstain have equal time, funding and education in the classroom as kids who are having sex?"

...

In an Oct. 3 report that surveyed abstinence programs in 10 states, the Government Accountability Office concluded that such programs were not proved to work, and at times contained inaccuracies about condoms and AIDS.

In the report, one state official described an instance in which educational materials "incorrectly suggested that HIV can pass through condoms because the latex used in condoms is porous." The official also showed that the state had "had to correct a statement indicating that when a person is infected with the human papillomavirus, the virus is 'present for life' because, in almost all cases, this is untrue," the report said.

...

From 1995 to 2002, teen pregnancy rates dropped 24%, according to a study by Columbia University and the Guttmacher Institute. The report, published in the American Journal of Public Health in January, attributed 14% of the decline to teens waiting longer to have sex, and the rest to contraception. [*But let's all not forget the study we looked at recently saying that in 2006 it's started on the rise again! See below.*]

...

William Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, called the memo "an utterly desperate and disingenuous response to a crumbling program. The language is clear: If you get this money from the government, you teach only one thing: abstinence."

Though most states publicly say they will continue to apply for the grants, a growing number are said to be privately considering giving up the aid - or trying to find ways to fund a broader curriculum.

In Colorado, state senators last week passed a measure that would force school districts to incorporate science-based material in their sex education courses. Districts could still teach abstinence, but they would also have to include information on such topics as the benefits and possible medical effects of different types of contraception.

...

Initially, there was a public and political uproar when Congress set aside $50 million a year for states to build abstinence education programs. But when the money became available in fiscal 1998, most states had their hands out.

Not in California. State lawmakers determined that the state's abstinence-only program had not been effective.

...

Among the points that unsettled some state officials: Applicants "must not" promote contraceptive or condom use, nor even "refer to abstinence as a form of contraception."

In the months that followed, states started to turn away from the program. In October, New Jersey said it would do without the $800,000 it had been receiving. Wisconsin followed in March, when Democratic Gov. James Doyle said the state would no longer accept nearly $600,000.

"There are kids who don't want to know how to put on a condom, because they don't want to have sex," said Leslee J. Unruh, founder and president of the South Dakota-based Abstinence Clearinghouse, the nation's largest network of abstinence educators. "So why can't kids who want to abstain have equal time, funding and education in the classroom as kids who are having sex?"

Well gee whiz Leslee! There are kids who don't want to know how drinking will impair their ability to drive because they don't want to drink too! And I'm sure there's lots of kids who don't want to know math because they don't want to do math! Yet, WE TEACH THEM BECAUSE THEY SHOULD KNOW JUST IN CASE THEY NEED IT!!

And I love the second part too. Let's give EQUAL TIME to the kids who are abstaining. Because you need equal time to explain what abstinence is, versus the myriad of other issues involved in comprehensive sex ed. Clearly. Not to mention how ENTIRELY misleading that is, suggesting that an abstinence only program (which is the only thing this money can be spent on) gives abstaining kids EQUAL time. It gives them ALL the time, not bloody EQUAL time!

I can't seem to find a list of all fourteen states who have opted out of the money, but it should be noted as well that Washington state, along with Ohio, has agreed to take the money, but said they will be using it for Comprehensive sex ed, which makes them ineligible. I would personally like to congratulate them all.

I also loved this quote, from the Washington Post article on the same topic:

"Our critics would have governors believe that these programs are just somebody standing in front of the class wagging a finger and saying, 'No. No. No. Don't have sex.' That's not what these classes entail," Huber said. "They are holistic. They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception."

First, hate that he co-opted the word "holistic," there is nothing holistic about these programs. Second, I've had one of these presentations, and there was not medically accurate anything, or relationship building anything. It was people coming in and talking about their disastrous consequences from having sex, and so you should wait to have sex otherwise you'll end up like them.

Also from that article:

But Koutstaal, the federal official, took issue with critics who blame abstinence programs for the increase in teen births, noting that rates have continued to decline for 10-to-14-year-olds -- the ages typically targeted by the programs.

"I think it's awfully hard to blame abstinence education for the increase in birth rates," he said.

Well gee, y'all were perfectly happy taking the credit for their continued decline.


I'm really hoping this will send a message to Congress to stop funding these programs and funnel that money into Comprehensive sex ed again.