Lengthy follow up
Aaron, doing the research like a good journalist does, has some additional information about the whole abstinence programs thing. I'm reading the whole report, but just so we're clear on what Waxman (and myself as well) would like to see instead (emphasis mine):
In contrast, comprehensive sex education that both encourages abstinence and
teaches about effective contraceptive use has been shown in many studies to delay
sex, reduce the frequency of sex, and increase the use of condoms and other
contraceptives.
My problem with the program isn't that it says abstinence as a kid is a good idea - my problem is that it present abstinence as the only idea.
Edit: Actually, I'll keep adding to this until I've gotten through the whole report. Next up:
The federal government does not review or approve the accuracy of the information presented in abstinence-only programs. SPRANS [the biggest government fund for these programs] applicants, for example, are required to submit only the table of contents or a brief summary of the curricula they plan to use.
It doesn't matter whether they're abstinence programs or safe-sex programs or what, this is insane. Please tell me there's no similar lack of oversight up here.
Let's just hit some highlights (I'm omitting footnotes with attribution for statistics and so on, but they're all there in the report itself):
Under the SPRANS requirements, abstinence-only education programs are not allowed to teach their participants any methods to reduce the risk of pregnancy other than abstaining until marriage. They are allowed to mention contraceptives only to describe their failure rates...
Several curricula cite an erroneous 1993 study of condom effectiveness that has been discredited by federal health officials. The 1993 study, by Dr. Susan Weller, looked at a variety of condom effectiveness studies and concluded that condoms reduce HIV transmission by 69%. Dr. Weller’s conclusions were rejected by the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued a statement in 1997 informing the public that "FDA and CDC believe this analysis was flawed." The Department cited numerous methodological problems, including the mixing of data on consistent condom use with data on inconsistent condom use, and found that Dr. Weller’s calculation of a 69% effectiveness rate was based on "serious error."
I won't post more examples of this sort of thing (there's always the report if you want more), but you get the idea: These programs tend to use old, inaccurate information that is officially refuted by the government's own findings to support their claims.
As to the point about abortions and suicide:
In fact, an expert panel of the American Psychiatric Association found that "[f]or
the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings." A longitudinal study of young women aged 14 to 21 found that "[a]lthough women may experience some distress immediately after having an abortion, the experience has no independent effect on their psychological well-being over time."
The blurred material on abortion is a mess; I'm fully willing to have when exactly life begins and when exactly a collection of cells becomes a "baby" be open to debate, but that's not what's going on here:
"Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins."
"Fertilization (or conception) occurs when one of the father’s sperm unites with
the mother’s ovum (egg). At this instant a new human life is formed."
If the actual purpose of these programs is education and not indoctrination, why not admit that the truth of these kinds of statements is heavily debated?
Most damning of all, though:
Many abstinence-only curricula begin with a detailed discussion of differences between boys and girls. Some of the differences presented are simply biological. Several of the curricula, however, present stereotypes as scientific fact...
[A] curriculum lists "Financial Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Women," and "Domestic Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Men"...
One curriculum teaches that men are sexually aggressive and lack deep emotions. In a chart of the top five women’s and men’s basic needs, the curriculum lists "sexual fulfillment" and "physical attractiveness" as two of the top five "needs" in the men’s section. "Affection," "Conversation," "Honesty and Openness," and "Family Commitment" are listed only as women’s needs.
Surely I don't need to explain why that's a fucked up thing to teach your kids.
I apologize for the lengthy post, but you should have seen it before I went back and took out half of the quotations. I'm unfortunately sure the report will change nothing, but it should.
In contrast, comprehensive sex education that both encourages abstinence and
teaches about effective contraceptive use has been shown in many studies to delay
sex, reduce the frequency of sex, and increase the use of condoms and other
contraceptives.
My problem with the program isn't that it says abstinence as a kid is a good idea - my problem is that it present abstinence as the only idea.
Edit: Actually, I'll keep adding to this until I've gotten through the whole report. Next up:
The federal government does not review or approve the accuracy of the information presented in abstinence-only programs. SPRANS [the biggest government fund for these programs] applicants, for example, are required to submit only the table of contents or a brief summary of the curricula they plan to use.
It doesn't matter whether they're abstinence programs or safe-sex programs or what, this is insane. Please tell me there's no similar lack of oversight up here.
Let's just hit some highlights (I'm omitting footnotes with attribution for statistics and so on, but they're all there in the report itself):
Under the SPRANS requirements, abstinence-only education programs are not allowed to teach their participants any methods to reduce the risk of pregnancy other than abstaining until marriage. They are allowed to mention contraceptives only to describe their failure rates...
Several curricula cite an erroneous 1993 study of condom effectiveness that has been discredited by federal health officials. The 1993 study, by Dr. Susan Weller, looked at a variety of condom effectiveness studies and concluded that condoms reduce HIV transmission by 69%. Dr. Weller’s conclusions were rejected by the Department of Health and Human Services, which issued a statement in 1997 informing the public that "FDA and CDC believe this analysis was flawed." The Department cited numerous methodological problems, including the mixing of data on consistent condom use with data on inconsistent condom use, and found that Dr. Weller’s calculation of a 69% effectiveness rate was based on "serious error."
I won't post more examples of this sort of thing (there's always the report if you want more), but you get the idea: These programs tend to use old, inaccurate information that is officially refuted by the government's own findings to support their claims.
As to the point about abortions and suicide:
In fact, an expert panel of the American Psychiatric Association found that "[f]or
the vast majority of women, an abortion will be followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive feelings." A longitudinal study of young women aged 14 to 21 found that "[a]lthough women may experience some distress immediately after having an abortion, the experience has no independent effect on their psychological well-being over time."
The blurred material on abortion is a mess; I'm fully willing to have when exactly life begins and when exactly a collection of cells becomes a "baby" be open to debate, but that's not what's going on here:
"Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins."
"Fertilization (or conception) occurs when one of the father’s sperm unites with
the mother’s ovum (egg). At this instant a new human life is formed."
If the actual purpose of these programs is education and not indoctrination, why not admit that the truth of these kinds of statements is heavily debated?
Most damning of all, though:
Many abstinence-only curricula begin with a detailed discussion of differences between boys and girls. Some of the differences presented are simply biological. Several of the curricula, however, present stereotypes as scientific fact...
[A] curriculum lists "Financial Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Women," and "Domestic Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Men"...
One curriculum teaches that men are sexually aggressive and lack deep emotions. In a chart of the top five women’s and men’s basic needs, the curriculum lists "sexual fulfillment" and "physical attractiveness" as two of the top five "needs" in the men’s section. "Affection," "Conversation," "Honesty and Openness," and "Family Commitment" are listed only as women’s needs.
Surely I don't need to explain why that's a fucked up thing to teach your kids.
I apologize for the lengthy post, but you should have seen it before I went back and took out half of the quotations. I'm unfortunately sure the report will change nothing, but it should.
