Against Abstinence-only Education

Abstinence-only education programs have driven various debates; the methods' effectiveness dictates whether to continue or to abolish them. Christian Nationalists have taken the role to “regain” secularized America back to the Christian nation it “once” was and to “reestablished” the Christian morals and conducts of the American people through various programs like these. The movement has been bombarded with problems because time and time again has shown that these certain strict and specific programs do not necessarily work.
From 2001 to 2009, the programs have “received almost $1.3 billion in federal funding, according to the Office of Management and Budget” (Beil). It would seem that with the financial capacity that these various programs would be effective, but opponents of abstinence-only education methods, which emphasize sex-after-marriage, claim that even with federal funding, there were no desired effects. One program called The Virginity Rules, sponsored by the East Texas Abstinence Program, lost federal funding for it failed to bring about the sought after results of lowering teen births; Texas, which drew the biggest share of abstinence funds in 2000, recorded 62 teen births per 1,000 population compared to the national rate of 40 per 1,000. An 8-million study regarding the efficiency of abstinence-only education showed that there was no difference in age of first sexual intercourse. Another claimed that only 3 abstinence-only programs produced effects, which were weak (Beil). Of course, when students are asked about their opinions on the program‘s success, they would claim that these programs do not work. Bristol Palin claims that, and she should know.
The programs' limitations and strict curriculum do not necessarily reach out to the students. I have suspected that these programs do not even acknowledge students’ inputs, and I have observed that both sex-education classes and abstinence-only classes emphasize greatly on scare tactics; these classes should also emphasize “negotiation skills in sexual relationships and communication … Interventions to help adolescents learn about healthy sexual relationships need to be designed” (DiCenso).
Given that abstinence-only education exclude the importance of condoms and other contraceptives, young people are not able to learn critical, life-saving information. Another reason for the opposition whould be the programs’ violation of human rights and ethical principles. Teachers and health educators, then, are withholding scientific knowledge. Access to accurate health information as a basic human right has been addressed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and in the program at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (Kantor). Even critics would claim that the program is not helping AIDS treatment programs, which are targeting “populations at greatest risk” (Church and State, para 7). Clearly, denying students vital health information clearly has unfavorable effects.



Sources:
Beil, Laura. "Just Saying No To Abstinence Ed." BMJ. 324.1426 (2002)." Newsweek. 152.17 (2008): Academic Search Premier

Kantor, Leslie. "Abstinence-only Education Violating Students' Rights to Health Information." Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities. 35.3 (2008): Academic Search Premier

"'Abstinence-only' Rule Hurts Fight Against AIDS, Research Report Asserts." Church & State May 2007: 114-115.

DiCenso, Alba. "Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials ." BMJ. 324.1426 (2002): Academic Search Premier