Much commotion has been kicked up over the report that, in contradiction to years of previous research and data, there has finally been an abstinence-only study that shows that it can work under some circumstances if it’s taught properly.
The major problem: What the study describes isn’t abstinence-only sex ed.
Here are the key paragraphs of the WaPo story on the study:
Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
"There is no data in this study to support the ‘abstain until marriage’ programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.
Wagoner is absolutely right here. Furthermore, if what the study calls "abstinence-only" sex ed were to actually be taught in schools, it wouldn’t be eligible for abstinence-only funding — because it would be considered to promote (because it doesn’t condemn) condom usage and/or birth control, as well as sex outside of marriage!
At first, program guidance issued by MCH allowed grant recipients some flexibility in how they spent the funds. For instance, MCH did not require states and their sub-grantees to emphasize all eight elements of the definition equally, even though grantees could not provide information that contradicted any of the eight points. Beginning in FY2005, however, when the Bush administration moved the funding to another division within the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), grant announcements eliminated this flexibility, asking states instead to “develop programs that place equal emphasis on each element of the abstinence education definition.”
By 2007, grant announcements stated that “each element of A through H should be meaningfully represented in all grantees’ federally funded abstinence education curricula.” The latest grant announcement also required states to provide assurance that funded programs and curricula “do not promote contraception and/or condom use.” In addition, in an effort to ensure that funds would not be spent on pre-adolescents, the targeted population was redefined as “adolescents and/or adults within the 12 through 29-year-old age range.” The newest age definition also included “other adults such as parents or professionals that desire training in how to support decisions to delay sexual activity until marriage.” “Focal populations” under this newer definition included: students at local universities, colleges, or technical schools; single adults involved in a local community or community-based organization; and single parents in their 20s.
This tightening of program requirements, including the new directive to target adults, has contributed to an emerging revolt against abstinence-only sex education. States have now turned down millions of dollars in federal grants. The number of states that refused Title V abstinence-only funding has grown from one (California) in the first year to eight in FY2007 (California, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin).
Abstinence-only funding to the states was first administered by MCH. However in 2004, the Bush administration transferred oversight of the program to the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (ACF), a more ideologically driven division within HHS. ACF has also assumed jurisdiction over Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), a more restrictive funding stream for abstinence-only education.
So, to sum up:
– It’s a scheme that only exists in the laboratory, not in the wild
– It isn’t really about abstinence programs as they’ve been designed by religious anti-sex groups, as it doesn’t depict condoms and birth control as evil and ineffective — yet it’s being used to sell the same old ineffective total-abstinence bullcrap that we’ve known for years doesn’t work.
– It is so unlike what’s actually being taught — and what will continue to be taught — as abstinence-based sex ed that it isn’t eligible for federal funding!
So what’s the point of it? It’s a cutout, a bait-and-switch, a shield to protect the millions of dollars in faith-based taxpayer-funded pork for the religious right-winger groups that back the GOP. (The timing — right after the unveiling of Obama’s new budget, which defunds abstinence-only programs — could not be more suggestive.)
The hundreds of millions of dollars that’s pumped through abstinence-only projects each year are, at best, subject only to very limited Congressional oversight over either the content of the curriculum (which is based on bogosities) or where the money actually goes. That means there’s nothing to keep it from being used to fund right-wing organizational infrastructure and serve as an indirect payoff for get-out-the-vote operations that just happen to benefit Republican candidates. Oh, and it looks like Bush was helping them get into the Federally-funded faith-based "drug treatment program" racket, too. Despite the fact that this doesn’t work, either, except as a way to funnel tax dollars to politically-conservative religious groups.



34 Comments







Who is pushing this story Congress, the Media which players are fighting for this?
More blank ammo for failures, all noise, no results. Wasted money that should be cut.
Obama actually does plan to cut it. That’s why the timing of this “study” is somewhat — interesting. (As are the facts that what the study studied is a) not ab-based sex ed as it’s actually taught in schools, and b) so much not ab-based sex ed that it wouldn’t be eligible for Federal funding!)
Very well done, PW.
Incidentally, tristero has more on this topic.
Thanks!
Oh, euh. Sex. Disgusting. Anyone indulging in it outside of Xtian constraints deserves the death penalty. Unless she is preggers, in which case she’ll be executed after the baby is born.
Teach kids the real facts as they are ready with age, then never stop talking to them about the implications of sex. After all that it IS up to them once they reach 18 so get them ready to make the right decision for themselves!! Then hope they do make the right decision.!!
18?!! Surely you jest.
Just what I was thinking. Kids are maturing so fast these days – I blame global warming.
I own a copy of the original Joy of Sex. It disappeared into my son’s room when he was 8 years old. I found it when I was making his bed. I shelved it and the next day, back it was. (Didn’t detect any you-know-what-stains, but who can tell for sure.) I gave up. He couldn’t have learned from any better book.
Thank goodness a lot of parents today actually talk to their children about sex. And the wingers don’t so they have a very high pregnancy rate – or so I have read.
Single, powerful mom. My son was so antipathetic to any kind of talk about realistic personal interactions, let alone mindless sex, that I could not figure out how to break thru. For better or worse (probably the latter), I decided the less I said the better.
I preferred National Lampoon’s “The Job of Sex”, a gift from a long ago from a significant other with an interesting sense of humor.
Link? Sounds like a good resource. *g*
You can still find it (used) on Amazon.com.
The back cover says
Is that the one that said young people shouldn’t have sex because they didn’t understand the hydraulics of it?
Now there’s a book a empiricist could luv!
Hormones in the water and environment and the age girls are starting was dropping a hundred years ago from 17 to 12 and younger these days I read in a recent article in the SJ Mercury News. They also mentioned obesity as a cause, maybe the American Diet ain’t so good..
Legal age eCHAN legal age not what they actually do sheesh give me a break I raised 6 of them. Oh and I might add if& when they do make a mistake you had better be there for them with love and understanding.
Kudos to you, seriously. Thanks for explaining.
Luckily, I am not yet a grandma and my son is 27. I didn’t need to stick by him. Guess I did one thing right.
I have 8 of them…. wanna borrow some?? (:>))
Oh, I’m probably the last person you want to lend them to. Everything I’ve tried has turned out exactly the opposite. (BTW, if that’s your plan, you should make sure that everything I type is the opposite to what you want your 8 to pick up.)
LOL eCHAN unfortunately for us the closest ones are still 130 miles away. We are having a hell of a time trying to get together this summer… the logistics, I am letting my middle daughter do all the planning and where we can all meet… probably near or at the Oregon/Calif border on the upper Sacramento river..
I’d be happy to host your family half way between NYC & Albany, she said knowing there was not a snowballs chance.
Logistics Logistics.. But half of did meetup for a wedding in August in Nahant!! Was truly lots of fun. We went up to one sister’s cabin in Liberty Maine on a nice 1200 acre lake was great!
oops!
Wingnut Cognitive dissonance: Sarah Palin and abstinence-only.
You forgot to consult the expert, PW. I don’t see any Bristol Palin references.
Heh!
Democrats need to keep a sharp eye on the budget as it takes shape in Congress to keep funding for this horrible program out of the bill. Things can be sneaked back into budget bills anonymously, and the bills are so monstrously huge that authorization for such small programs can be overlooked.
Also Progressive Democrats need to guard against an uprising from a Blue Dog/Republican offensive, ala the Stupak amendment, to force abstinence-only funding back into the bill.
I’m sure FDL will help us keep an eye on this so we can raise holy hell if either of these evetualities arises.
Yea it’s just like say no to drugs, and the drug war. There are more drugs available after all of that than there was before.
If telling kids not to have sex worked it would be wonderful, because we would not be supporting million of unwed mothers who keep becomming mothers again because they find out they get supported even better the more kids they have.
We are a sick nation if we think telling people not to do things works.
I let my kid watch “Talk Sex with Sue Johanson”, the granny..
It traumatized him, but hey, he’s 25 and has no kids
Someone’s making money from so-called “Abstinence Only” sex education. That’s the only reason I can think of why this persists. It is so dumb because it’s proven over & over that it doesn’t work. Even some fundies are starting admit that now. The cognitive dissonance of Bristol Palin being some “role model” for this is even more jarring, esp given what the baby-daddy, Levi, said (I don’t believe everything he said, but I suspect that Babble-On did know that Bristol & Levi were canoodeling).
I would love to see this go far, far, far away. It’s disgusting because these fundie types want to use this in places like Africa where AIDS is rife, which makes me feel that they just want the dirty Africans to get AIDS and die.
Someone’s making money from it; that’s all these sleazes care about.
“Despite the fact that this [addiction faith-healing] doesn’t work, either”
How can you say that? Given that this was the method that Shrub himself used to get clean and … oh. Never mind.
By the way, are the Purity Promise rings and creepy father/daughter dances on the abstinence-ed definitions list? Or are they just something local? As a father of daughters, I shudder at the implications. Gewwh.