Abstinence-Only Proposal Essay

Even though Amy Schwarz is not an expert in adolescent development or sexual studies, she is an expert in the legislative system. I learned that politics play an important role in sex education programs from her article. A big reason as to why abstinence only programs are still the preferred sex education curriculum among schools is because of Title X, Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Security Act (TANF). It all started with Richard Nixon and the ever increasing teen pregnancy rates. The amount of pressure that was placed upon him to control the numbers of teen moms lead to Title X. I had no clue what Title X was before this article and how it was supposed to “reduce unintended pregnancies by providing

The issue of the paper Misinformed and Unprotected is that Abstinence-only programs lack to inform teens about sexual contact because the system is current set up as only teaching teens to not have sexual contact till marriage, leaving out important information for teens who what to learn how to be safe with sexual contact. The writer’s position on the paper is that the education system should be changed to inform teens more than just wait till marriage to have sex. The evidence list is that Abstinence-only education advocates claim that abstinence-only programs prevent premarital sex, but that the programs need to stop being publicly funded because these programs may make those who have suffered from sexual abuse feel ashamed and unwilling

Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.

In 2005, nearly half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse. Plainly stating that abstinence programs do not work (USA Today). Abstinence programs were beneficial many years ago, but since they are ineffective in delaying teen pregnancy, then teen pregnancy rate has increased. Abstinence programs teach the “no sex until marriage” clause, but they don’t teach teens about birth control and the consequences of having sex at before they’ve matured. Although many studies argue that abstinence programs are educational and beneficial, other studies will show that they don’t delay teen sex, they don’t prevent the spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), and are a waste of taxpayers’

People such as President George W. Bush has made no secret of his view that sex education should teach teenagers "abstinence only" rather than including information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Unfortunately, despite spending more than $10 million on abstinence-only programs in Texas alone, this strategy has not been shown to be effective at curbing teen pregnancies or halting the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. (2010 Union of Concerned Scientists) In addition, the Bush administration distorted science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants. In place of such established measures, the Bush administration required the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to track only participants' program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs. (Federal Register 65:69562-65, November 17, 2000). This

Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased

Supporters of both programs argue that the other is ineffective and has reverse effects on society. Each side also argues their program is the correct way to further society. What should be funded federally and supported is also up for debate amongst both sides of the argument. However, federal programs have supported abstinence education in the past; but the viewpoint by in office presidents has shifted in recent history (Lee.) As the world becomes more accepting of difference, education on topics grows, and science discovers additional information relating to sex education the programs each the discussion will become more complicated. Programs have evolved over the years to tell the same message in a new way, keeping the debate of abstinence based sex education

Morris’s statement, echoed by her fellow abstinence-only proponents, would make it seem as if the United States government has not funded or promoted abstinence-only education. However, funding for abstinence-only programs has been increasing since the 1980’s, when it first began; “The Adolescent Family Act…was signed into law in 1981…to provide support to teen parents and ‘to promote chastity and self-discipline’ through a ‘family centered approach” (Schwarz, 2007). Even recently, in 2007, President Bush proposed an increase in spending for abstinence –only education, going from $176 million to $204 million (Boonstra, 2007). Percentage wise, “In 2006-2008 most teens aged 15-19 had received formal instruction about…or abstinence (84%)” (Guttmatcher Institute, 2012). A review conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that “youth who were assigned to the Title V abstinence “program group” were no more likely than youth assigned to the “services as usual” control group to have abstained from sex” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). The amount of funding for abstinence-only education is astonishingly high,

Federal funding has played a large role in this increase, as monetary incentives have been the driving force behind much of the change. To put it in numbers, the amount of federal dollars going to schools that adopted abstinence only programs almost tripled in the seven years between 1998 and 2005, increasing from 60 to 168 million dollars a year (Santelli, 75). And among United States school districts that changed their policies, twice as many chose to adopt a curriculum that more heavily focused on abstinence only until marriage as moved towards a more comprehensive program (Landry). This disturbing statistic shows how effective the religious right has been in pushing abstinence only programs in face of a dearth of evidence as to their effectiveness. This effectiveness is mainly due to intense lobbying funded by individuals and organizations on the far right. One man, Raymond Ruddy, has personally put 1.5 million dollars towards advocacy and lobbying for abstinence only programs (Eaton). While lobbying like this commonly happens on both sides of the aisle, in this case public opinion goes against what people like Raymond Ruddy say is necessary. According to a recent study, "Ninety-eight percent of parents say they want HIV/AIDS discussed in sex education classes; 85% want 'how to use condoms' discussed; 84% think sex education should cover 'how to use and where to get other birth control,' and 76% want

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have

Many people do not understand the meaning of abstinence. Some believe that abstinence is not having vaginal intercourse but they can enjoy other kinds of sex play that don't lead to pregnancy mostly known as outercourse. Some people believe that abstinence is not having vaginal intercourse when a woman might get pregnant. This form of sexual activity as Periodical abstinence, this type of abstinence is based on the fertility awareness methods of birth control. Abstinence is defined as practicing restraint oneself from indulging in something. Using this definition in sexual activity we can describe abstinence as practicing restraint from indulging or having any type of sexual activity. Practicing abstinence is refraining from oral, anal and

The author of "Abstinence-Only Education: Politics, Science, and Ethics,” John Santelli, had to quit his job at the Centers for Disease Control because he was forced to censor factual evidence about declining pregnancies due to proper sex education, which conflicted with the beliefs on AOE. Representative Henry Waxman stated, “In effect, it appears that presentations at a public health conference were censored because they criticized abstinence-only education. This attempt at thought control should have no place in our government” (Santelli). The government is clearly in support of abstinence-only education and has been doing so since 1981. Starting in 1996 there has been overwhelming changes, such as forcing abstinence-only education and banning the teaching of information about contraception. Federal funding has increased from 60 million dollars in 1998 to 270 million dollars in 2006, to support AOE

Sex education has historically been a controversial topic in the United States. Questions like: Is sex education bad for adolescents? How much should young adults know about sex? And will sex education lead to increased sexual activity? Have been argued about passionately for decades. Parents, politicians, academics, religious conservatives and feminists alike have debated the topic. There is a pervasive fear that sex education leads to higher sexual activity that contradicts the popular belief that individuals should only engage in sex after marriage. Many religious conservatives support abstinence-only programs. Organizations such as the American Family Association and the Abstinence Clearinghouse put forth funding to ensure that abstinence-only programs are taught. (“National Opponent’s…” 2008) Yet, research shows that abstinence only programs are not actually helpful for young adults. Advocates for Youth, an organization committed to rights for young people argues that abstinence-only programs “ignore youth’s basic human rights and fundamental public health principle of accurate, balanced sex education” (Advocates for Youth 2016) They emphasis the fact that sex education is a “right” and not something for people to debate the legitimacy of. Furthermore, according to a 2004 report by Government Reform Committee, much of the curricula used in abstinence-only programs “distort information about the effectiveness of contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, blur

Throughout the United States, many people debate whether young adults should receive sex education in their school curriculum. Statistics show that one-third of girls become pregnant before the age of 20. An increase in teen pregnancy could be due to the age of which females reach puberty. Today, there has been an enormous increase in young girls reaching puberty before the age of seven. Could encouraging sex education in schools decrease the amount of pregnant teens? The purpose of sex education is to educate adolescents of the consequences of engaging in sexual behaviors and making them aware of techniques to protect themselves if they choose to become sexually active. Many people argue about the impacts of abstinence-only sex education programs versus abstinence-plus sex education programs. Millner, Mulekar, and Turrens (2015) define abstinence-only programs as curricula that encourages strictly abstinence as a means of prevention whereas abstinence-plus programs emphasize abstinence as the safest technique but also promotes the use of contraceptives. I will argue that abstinence-plus sex education should be mandatory in school curriculum because it teaches young adults to practice abstinence as well as methods to protect themselves if they decide to engage in sexual activity.

As the United States becomes increasingly progressive, the age in which adolescents perform sexual activity is becoming younger. Education in the United States encourages abstinence to students in middle school and high school, but the resistance against adolescent sexual intercourse is futile because adolescents are historically rebellious at nature. Abstinence courses do not trigger any emotional response in adolescents nor do they personalize the situation for students, making them essentially futile. Students are not going to care about the dangers of sexual intercourse unless it directly affects them as an individual. In order for the resistance against adolescent sexual intercourse to be effective, abstinence