Anti-sex teens vs. reality teens

The Star Tribune has a look at the abstinence-only until marriage versus comprehensive sex education from the point of view of Minnesota teens. One interview they did involved a gay 16 year old, who explains that part of the problem with abstinence-only is it's focus on marriage, and the lack of options for GLBT people to get married to the ones they love.

"The way Sam Ackerberg sees it, telling kids to just say no to sex until they're married doesn't work. Not for everyone and certainly not for him. He's gay.

"For GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered] high school students, that doesn't apply to them, because right now they can't get married," he said. "You need a program that's going to reach out to everybody."

Last school year, Ackerberg, who is 16 and a student at Edina High School, became an outspoken supporter of comprehensive sex education in schools. He's met with legislators at the State Capitol to push for that approach in all public schools. He's also written letters to high schools across the Twin Cities metro area, asking them what kind of sex-ed program they have in place and arguing that comprehensive sex education is more effective at reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy than abstinence-only programs.

He's even traveled to Washington, D.C., to participate in a training workshop run by Advocates for Youth, a group of activists promoting safe-sex education in schools.

In a quiet but confident voice, he rattles off statistics on the growing rate of HIV infection among young people. He talks faster as he stresses the urgency he feels is necessary to reach teens before it's too late.

He says being a teenager gives him insight on what teens are doing and what they need to know. For example, he believes schools need to teach sex education sooner than the 10th grade.

"I know just because I'm in high school, I know when kids start having sex. And some kids start before 10th grade," Ackerberg said. "They don't have an education and they don't know how to protect themselves, and a lot of them aren't going out to get condoms."

While he agrees with abstinence proponents that it is best to teach kids that not having sex is the best way to be safe, he said that should not be the only thing that is taught. "There are some kids who will have sex anyway, so say, 'If you are going to have sex, here's how to protect yourself.' "

Sex is an intregal part of life, and something that most people will experience at some point in their life. If we're not teaching teens the entire story of sexuality, how would we expect them as adults to make informed decisions? And what about GLBT youth? We continue to conveniently ignore the fact that a portion of our population cannot get married to the one they love. Without that ability, abstinence-only until marriage is like a slap in the face.

The schools are saying: "Hi. We're not even going to acknowledge your existence as a gay or lesbian people. But you should trust us when we say that the best thing is to wait until your wedding night, which you aren't allowed to have, to engage in sexual intercourse, although we're not going to tell you how that works either."

$270 million for Abstinence-only education

Those abstinence-only sex education programs that were proven ineffective recently are being rewarded for failure with twice as much funding. The Presidents budget plan is proposing $270 million, more than twice the $130 million that they currently receive.

"Responsible Choices. The consequences of teenage sexual activity and non-marital childbearing are many and serious for teens, their families, their communities, and society. Over three-fifths of teen mothers live in poverty at the time of their child's birth, and over four-fifths eventually live below poverty. There are substantial disparities in the educational attainment of teen mothers compared to young women who delay sexual activity. Equally important are the physical consequences. Each year, there are 15 million new sexually transmitted disease cases in the United States and one-quarter of them are teenagers.

Abstinence Education grants provide support to communities and States to develop, implement, and evaluate programs for 12 to 18 year olds that promote abstinence and encourage youth to make responsible and healthy choices. In addition, grants financed through these activities also advance parent education and outreach, media campaigns, and research related to abstinence education.

To further the commitment to these activities, to ensure teens have a forum where they can be supported in their decision to abstain, and to provide parents with the tools they need to talk to their children about responsible choices, the Budget doubles the President's financial commitment to $270 million."

Responsible Choices? The President has made the irresponsible choice to fund a program that could lead to more abortions.

Absolute Waste with Abstinence-Only Ed.

Texas Teens are having more sex after abstinence-only sex education, while Bush plans to spend $130 million more of YOUR tax dollars to pay for it.

"The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education."

Pam's House Blend has more.

And see Minnesota's study which showed the same.

And then think about how many ABORTIONS could have been prevented had these teens (and teens around the country) known the basics of contraception devices. And then think about how abortions have increased during the Bush administration.

And finally, let's ponder the anti-choice movement and their support of abstinence-only education which undoubtedly leads to more abortions. It's not pro-life, it's not anti-abortion, it's anti-choice.

Abstinence works unless your a fucker

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation have some interesting things to say about abstinence-only education in an op-ed piece in the Star-Tribune.

Repeated evaluations show that abstinence education programs substantially reduce teen sexual activity.

But how are these programs evaluated?

Here are the government criteria for evaluating abstinence-only programs with my comments added:

· Proportion of program participants who successfully complete or remain enrolled in an abstinence-only education program. Basically, if kids show up to class, then it must be successful
· Proportion of adolescents who understand that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. So, let's make sure kids know that if they don't have sex, they can't get pregnant or get an STD. Duh.
· Proportion of adolescents who indicate understanding of the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from premarital sexual activity.
· Proportion of participants who report they have refusal or assertiveness skills necessary to resist sexual urges and advances. Jane can demonstrate to the class that she can say 'no' to Dick.
· Proportion of youth who commit to abstain from sexual activity until marriage. As long as they promise to never do it, it's working. Because kids never lie to their teachers.
· Proportion of participants who intend to avoid situations and risk, such as drug use and alcohol consumption, which make them more vulnerable to sexual advances and urges. Well, I intend to quit smoking tomarrow. That doesn't mean I will be successful.

So how does this criteria, "show that abstinence education programs substantially reduce teen sexual activity"?

Wouldn't this be a better evaluation?

Proportion of participants who abstain from sexual activity until marriage.

It seems to me that would be the reasonable and scientific way to evaluate the programs.

There's no need to go that far, the research right here in Minnesota disputes that "Repeated evaluations show that abstinence education programs substantially reduce teen sexual activity." And the research nation-wide shows no difference in STD rates among students who participate in abstinence-only education and students who participate in comprehensive sex-ed. The kids who say they won't have sex are actually having sex. Even Kentucky found possible problems with abstinence-only programs.

The only positive reports about abstinance-only sex-ed were from the Heritage Foundation and filtered out to other religious based organizations.

FDA: Fullfilling the Doctrine of Abstinence aka Food and Drug Administration

The FDA is considering adding information to condoms warning that they do not protect against HPV.

The pressure to do so comes from groups with an obvious agenda: abstinence-only until marriage proponents.

The fact that organizations such as Focus on the Family are at the lead in pressuring the FDA for the warning is, at best, very strange. Focus on the Family and a host of other abstinence-only until marriage proponents have constantly denounced teaching about condoms. They are using the ease with which HPV is transmitted as a scare tactic to discredit condoms as an effective tool in STD prevention and the teaching of comprehensive sex education.

On the other hand, it is important to educate the public about HPV. Maybe during sex ed class when people would get more information about it than a 1-2 sentence warning on a wrapper. Hmm, but we don't talk about this in abstinence class.

The warning is unnecessary if only for the reason that the urgency of such a warning is unfounded. It is an extremely common STD. According to the CDC Report to Congress: Prevention of Genital Human Papilloma Virus Infection:

Overall, in the United States, an estimated 20 million people (15% of the population) are currently infected with HPV, 50–75% of which is with high-risk types, and about 5.5 million people are infected every year (1). It has been estimated that at least 50% of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives; a recent estimate suggests that 80% of women will have acquired genital HPV by age 50 (15;16). An estimated 9.2 million sexually active adolescents and young adults 15 to 24 years of age are currently infected with HPV (17).

Couple that with the reality that while HPV is annoying, the seriousness of HPV is low when compared with other STDs, such as HIV, and leaves me wondering why the FDA is considering this in the first place. Of course HPV can be serious when it causes cervical cancer in women, but advances in medicine have dropped the number of cervical cancer deaths to very small numbers. Again according to the CDC (PDF file):

If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90%. In 2003, an estimated 12,200 women in the U.S. will develop cervical cancer and an estimated 4100 women will die from the disease (66).

So, we take the conservative estimate of 50% of sexually active women according to the CDC, and assume a very conservative 90% of all American women have been sexually active at some point in their lives. A rough estimate of women of reproductive age (15 years and older) is 112,189,899. 90% of that is 100,970,909. 50% of that is 50,485,454.

My estimate is that 50,485,454 women in the US have HPV. That means the death rate for cervical cancer in sexually active women with HPV is about .008% per year.

Additionally, proponents of this warning are using only half the story of HPV prevention (from CDC):

...even consistent and correct use of condoms would not be expected to offer complete protection from HPV infection because infections also may occur on sites not covered or protected by a condom.

Wow. Maybe condoms don't work! Maybe abstinence proponents are right? Nope, keep reading (CDC):

Studies of HPV infection in men demonstrate that most HPV infections (both HPV DNA and HPV-associated lesions) are located on parts of the penis that would be covered by a condom.

So, condoms aren't perfect protection. We know that already. Neither is sunblock. Or seatbelts. Or an 'apple a day'. But this isn't about health or STDs. It's about an agenda that wants to deprive teenagers of information about sex and their health.