Most Americans, regardless of their political leanings, favor comprehensive sex education in schools over abstinence-only programs, researchers reported Monday.
Currently the federal government champions the abstinence-only approach, giving around $170 million each year to states and community groups to teach just-say-no sex education. This funding precludes mention of birth control and condoms, unless it's to emphasize their failure rates.
However, critics point out that studies have failed to show that abstinence-only education delays sex or lowers rates of teen pregnancy.
This latest study, according to the authors, suggests that the federal government is out of step not only with research but also with public opinion. Of the nearly 1,110 U.S. adults they surveyed, 82% supported programs that discuss abstinence as well as other methods for preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Half were in outright opposition to abstinence-only education.
Even among self-described conservatives, 70% supported comprehensive sex education, while 40% opposed the abstinence-only strategy.
The findings "highlight a gap between policy, and science and public opinion," said Amy Bleakley of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, who is lead author of the new study. Whether this divide will influence policy makers is unknown, she told Reuters Health. "We just want to bring this to their attention," she said.
Bleakley and her colleagues report the findings in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
To receive federal funding, abstinence-only programs must meet eight criteria set in 1996. Among these is the stipulation that abstinence until marriage be taught as the "expected standard of human sexual activity."
Only a handful of studies have examined the effectiveness of such programs, and the results have been mixed, according to an editorial published with the study. Many more studies have looked at comprehensive sex education and found that some programs do increase condom and contraceptive use but may also help delay sex, writes Douglas Kirby of ETR Associates in Scotts Valley, Calif. ETR Associates is a nonprofit company that researches and develops health programs, including STD and pregnancy prevention programs for schools.
"Until we have strong evidence that particular abstinence-only programs are effective," Kirby argues, "we certainly should relax the funding restrictions and fund programs [including comprehensive programs] that effectively delay sex among young people."
Bleakley agreed with that conclusion. But beyond the issue of balance in funding, she said, is the fact that there is evidence showing comprehensive sex education can help prevent the potential consequences of teen sex—including HIV and other STDs. (Reuters)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.