Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: GRT roundup *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Obamarama - Trib breaks little new ground
Posted in:
First, the setup…
Calling abstinence-only education a failed experiment, a spokesman for family planning and health groups urged the adoption of more comprehensive sex education programs in Illinois.
“Public spending for education is at a premium, and it is important that we spend every dollar wisely,” said Jonathan Stacks, campaign manager of the Illinois Campaign for Responsible Sex Education, which is backed by Planned Parenthood of Illinois and the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health. “Abstinence-only programs have no impact on student’s age at first intercourse, number of sexual partners and condom usage.”
And…
Planned Parenthood is trying to strike from Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s proposed budget a $1.2 million grant that would go to an organization that produces sex education programs for Illinois schools — programs critics allege are ineffective because they teach abstinence-only.
And…
A recent study found that students who participated in abstinence lessons were just as likely to have sex as those who did not. Mathematica Policy Research Inc. did the study. The same report said both groups started having intercourse around the same time and ended up having around the same number of sexual partners.
Each year, the federal government spends about $176 million on abstinence education. Illinois accepts some of this money and has no intention of discontinuing the state-sponsored abstinence programs, said Tom Green, spokesman for the Illinois Department of Human Services.
However…
Supporters of abstinence-only programs argue that alternatives fill students with falsehoods that won’t stand up against sexually transmitted diseases or unplanned parenthood.
“The whole idea behind safer sex is a lie. You’re teaching children that it’s OK to — wink, wink — engage in dangerous behavior,†said David Smith, director of the Illinois Family Institute. “It doesn’t make sense to remove funding for something that has shown to be promising, hopeful and works. Abstinence is 100 percent foolproof.â€
You can find the study at this link.
Question: How do you feel about taxpayer funding of abstinence-only education programs?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:00 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: GRT roundup *** Updated x1 ***
Next Post: Obamarama - Trib breaks little new ground
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well, I would hate for Planned Parenthood to lose money. If it doesn’t work (confirmed by an independent study) revamp it. When the goverment intruees in every aspect of our lives, this is bound to happen. Kids are so knowledgeable and bombarded by sex in the media and everywhere else they go, parents are not involved, they are bound to have issues. A little classroom lesson cannot counteract the effects of hours of media and lack of hours of parental involvement.
I barely want some of these teachers teaching history and English, let alone about sex.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:28 am
does illinois suddently have tax-payer money to throw around (waste)? results matter…
Comment by bored now Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:29 am
Bored, the problem is non of these abstinace opponent’s studies measure the result that matters: the incidence of std’s among kids with one kind of class vs another…. that’s never discussed… just sweeping generalizations about what works.
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:32 am
I think there’s a broad consensus on what we want health/sex ed classes to teach. I don’t think anyone wants a sex ed program that encourages promiscuity or doesn’t mention abstinence. But I think most people also want kids to know about safe sex. So, sex eds programs should basically be “Abstinence First; and Here’s What Safer Sex Is.” My guess is that most sex ed classes fit within this model.
The abstinence only people simply don’t want any form of sex ed. But it’s somewhat silly to think that if we don’t talk about sex, kids will never engage in sex. The problem is that kids will talk about sex, and it’s better if they have the right facts.
On a side note, I’ve seen some of the abstinence-only materials. It’s absolutely astounding that a curriculum says, among other things, that condoms do not prevent STIs. It’s ironic that the abstinence-only people are claiming that other programs “spread falsehoods.”
Comment by the Other Anonymous Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:32 am
Try it this way… should a sex ed teacher be held liable for malpractice by telling a kid there is safe sex and they contract an STD inspite of it? Can the lawyer come back and say you said this type of sex was safe, but it wasn’t safe enough?
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:35 am
As a former health educator, Abstanance Only programs do not work. When are people going to wake up and understand that kids are having sex earlier and earlier. I also learned that kids were most likely learning things (sometimes wrong) from other kids on the street, NOT their parents.
I think it is necessary for there to be sex education in the schools at an early age. They do it in Florida, have for over 20 years.
If you are going to fund something, fund something that works and Abstanance does not work.
Comment by Emil makes George Ryan look like a saint Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:38 am
Why is the government teaching sex anyways? Doesn’t anybody recognize that the scope of government has gone way out of bounds? Is there anything us citizens can do by ourselves any more, or must we all rely on government for everything?
Comment by C$ Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:42 am
fund something, fund something that work
And, of course, the steadily rising pregnancy rates tha we had BEFORE such programs were funded is proof that PP’s idea is better??
important that we spend every dollar wisely
Which is why we should spend $400 on vaccine that are not effective after 5 years, when girls would be more likely to have sex and get HPV?
Program groups identified STDs at a higher rate than non program members. This difference is statistically significant.
Guess no one actually READ the report.
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:52 am
A statistically sign. higher percentage of the program group knew that the pill didn’t prevent STD, or HIV.
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 9:56 am
Since parents are no longer willing to raise their children and we rely on the public education system to teach facts, morals, logic, and sports, we might as well do it the best we can.
As a young person I would have loved to actually get correct information about sex, std’s, pregnancy, condoms, etc… when I was in school. Parents generally don’t care anymore though mine was better than most.
Most kids aren’t going to get anything out of sex ed no matter the scope. But for the ones that care, we might as well equip them with as much knowledge as we can.
Comment by Robbie Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:05 am
A statistically sign
Or kids who could respond with their odds of contracting an STD with each safe sex act.
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:06 am
This report provides no data on how the programs might work if implemented earlier, OR if continued into high school
In other words, we need to spend more, not less.
Also, some aspects on site differences were in the favor of the programs, but the samples were too small. If they have the raw data that I can find, I’ll do a sensitivity analysis on it.
And last, the fact that PP wants the money for its programs is surely not a motivating factor…..
I am still searching for a similar study on the PP type of programs……..
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:16 am
The easiest way to consider this is to understand reality: Kids have sex. Perhaps not all kids, but many will well before they’re done with high school.
Abstinence education tells kids that having sex is wrong before marriage — talk about stepping over the line! Does anyone here remember their teenage years? Think about what you were thinking about.
Give these kids accurate information instead of having them rely on their best friend’s older brother who probably knows just as much about safer sex as they do.
If kids don’t want to have sex, great. But if they do, they should know how to do it in the most responsible, safe way possible.
Comment by Guy Montag Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:18 am
It’s amazing to me tha the religous right wants to turn back the clock. LIke it or not adolescenta and young adults ate are going to have premarital sex one way or another. Most are going to have multiple sex partenrs before they get married. Sex has no ideology it’s biology. American popular culture is sex-obsessed.
I have absolutely no problem encouraging abstinence a part of sex education curriculum. But abstinence-only is a complete waste of time and money. Churches and parents can and should promote abstinence.
We need to educate teenagers about safe sex practices to prevent unwanted pregancies and minimize disease tranwsmission. It’s just common sense, not politics.
Comment by Captain America Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:19 am
We need to educate teenagers about safe sex practices to prevent unwanted pregancies and minimize disease tranwsmission
And kids in the Abs Only program did better at identifying STDs and their risks. Glad to have you on board, Steve.
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:24 am
C$ hit it on the head. The answer is to stop teaching sex ed in schools. Have parents decide what they want to teach.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:58 am
It’s amazing to me that the religious right wants to turn back the clock.
AID’s is a disease. Leave God out of it. It’s sexually transmitted disease. Abstain from sex, you don’t get it.
You tell people there is a safe way sex, a risk less way, you’re twisting facts; not teaching them.
It’s the people who think providence is giving them a free-pass on the science of statistics who are getting tangled with theology.
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 11:18 am
The legal sex industry in Nevada has never had a reported case of HIV acquired during her time as a sex worker. Why? Because the women know how to use a condom and use a fresh one for every, single sex act. Condoms aren’t magic. It takes practice to use one correctly and the more a person uses condoms, the better they get at doing it which increases the efficacy. Also the more consistent one is at using condoms the better the stats are as far as exposure to STDs.
My problem with abstinence education is it is teaching morals, especially given that it frequently focuses on before MARRIAGE. Given the rate of pre-marital co-habitation today, thoose morals are no longer accepted as the norm.
My other problem with it is that sex ed is not just for the years when the student is in high school, it is supposed to be for when the student is in those 10+ years (statistically) between graduation from high school and first marriage. The vast bulk of people will have sex sometime in high school or during that decade.
If it’s going to become such a stress point though between the religious right and the non-religious, why not just eliminate sex ed all together and give the students a list of web sites, that have a variety of view points (abstinence only, planned parenthood, pro-gay, anti-gay, sex is positive, sex is nasty…) and let them do their own research.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 11:48 am
Dave Smith is half-right of course, abstinence is 100% fool-proof, but safer sex is not a lie. Some protection is more safe than none. And no one except Dave Smith (and other dogmatic partisan conservatives like him) is saying it’s OK to — “wink, wink” — engage in dangerous behavior.
The problem with abstinence-only indoctrination classes is two-fold. First, they do not actually stop young people from sexual activity as the Mathematica Policy Research study found and as an earlier study by the Texas health department also found (in fact, another study by Profs. Bearman and Bruckner found that “virginity pledge” participants actually engaged in behavior even riskier than “traditional” sex).
Second, abstinence classes don’t teach those students who do forego the abstience-only indoctrination anything about protecting themselves from the STDs and pregnancies that abstinence-only promoters say “shouldn’t happen” because all the students will remain abstinent. In fact, they often promote only the relatively minute percentages of failure rates, giving a sense that if students are going to have sex it’s not worth to even bother with a condom or somesuch.
The best solution is comprehensive education — teach about the pain and suffering of STDs, the responsibility of pregnancy and parenthood, the “fool-proof” nature of abstinence and the consequences of not using protection properly… Students need to learn the best behavior (abstinence) alongside what to do if they choose not to remain a virgin.
And for heaven’s sake, tell parents when kids are in these classes so the parents can take an active role in teaching their children the consequences and responsibilities of the birds and the bees.
Cross-posted at Illinois Reason.
–
Bill, no one says that “safe sex” is 100% “riskless” but it is far less risky than using no protection at all. Why don’t you get that?
–
Pat responded earlier: “important that we spend every dollar wisely
“Which is why we should spend $400 on vaccine that are not effective after 5 years, when girls would be more likely to have sex and get HPV?
”
…Pat, the HPV vaccine does not lose efficacy after 5 years. Like most vaccines, a booster is needed after a certain period of time to ensure the vaccine works.
Talk about twisting facts.
Doctors recommend two flu shots per winter for those at risk. One is good, but two provides the best defense against the flu. Why don’t you complain about the fact a booster is needed for flu shots?
Comment by Rob_N Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 12:19 pm
[…] Cross-posted at Capitol Fax “Question of the Day”. Blogroll […]
Pingback by Quote of the Day « Illinois Reason Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 12:24 pm
[…] Cross-posted at Capitol Fax “Question of the Day”. Blogroll […]
Pingback by Quote of the Day « Illinois Reason Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 12:24 pm
Cermak_Rd… who says those opposed to abstinence-only indoctrination classes are “non-religious”?
Some of us are against misinforming students.
Some of us are against wasting government resources.
Some of us are against quasi-religious teachings in public schools.
None of that means those opposed to it are necessarily “non” religious.
Comment by Rob_N Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 12:30 pm
takes practice to use one correctly and the more a person uses condoms
And we expect teenagers to be able to do so the first few times?
given the rate of pre-marital co-habitation today, thoose morals are no longer accepted as the norm
One might say that there is a difference between an engaged couple of 24 sleeping together and a 14 and a 17 year old doing so.
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 12:31 pm
To parents, By age 12 both sexes should know the basics of reproduction and by age 14 children better know everything that we can think of to tell them to keep them safe. If you cannot tell them yourself, at least let their doctor tell them. I do not believe it schools doing the educating. I cannot think of one teacher past or present that I would want teaching my children about sex education. This is not what teachers are educated to do and it is not their responsibility. Since the nineties, children don’t consider oral sex as “having sex” and they commonly indulge in this behavior as early as 14 and 15. Wake up folks, this is 2007 and no one lives in Mayberry any more.
Comment by i d Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 3:08 pm
he HPV vaccine does not lose efficacy after 5 years. Like most vaccines, a booster is needed after a certain period of time to ensure the vaccine works.
Actually, we dont KNOW that or not. Only that it’s good for 5 years. At least that is what the CDC says.
complain about the flu
No one is wanting to force all girls in the state age 10 and above to take a flu shot. Want to vaccinate YOUR girls? Fine.
Leave mine the hell alone.
And, BTW, please dont ask me to pay the 400/shot for something that is NOT a public health threat.
We vaccinate in schools things that can be passed by common, random, casual contact.
HPV isnt’ that.
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 3:10 pm
We also dont know if the HPV vaccine works past 26. So, for the large majority of women who lose their virginity in college (or that age span), you want to target college age girls.
But of course, that assumes you want to actually affect public health, not put money into the mfg pocket, and push an agenda.
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 3:13 pm
Pat,
The HPV vaccine is only affective if it is given when the girl is a virgin. With the average age of “first time” being 16 (though the Mathematica study found it was even younger than that), the HPV vaccine would need to be given younger than 16.
Does no good to put gloves on after your fingers are frostbitten.
As for “paying for it” the reason we were even having a debate over whether or not to make the vaccine mandatory is because insurance cos cover vaccines that are mandatory. Would your rates go up? Probably, but they are already climbing exponentially without the HPV vaccine factored in — and you wouldn’t be asked to pay $400 a pop for this vaccine if your insurance plan covered it.
You want your girls left the hell alone? Fine. As a parent you have the right to make sure your children receive no vaccines at all. It’s called an exemption and every citizen can do it.
And we vaccinate children against deadly and debilitating diseases. Forms of transmission are coincidental to that.
Now if you want to argue that saving the relatively few percent (relatively being the key word) of women who will die from HPV-initiated cervical cancer is not worth a mandatory vaccination effort … then say so (you all but do say that in fact by saying that deaths by cervical cancer are “NOT a public health threat”).
I don’t share that cynical opinion. I think even one life saved would be worth it (just as partisan conservatives claim even one terrorist act prevented is worth the high costs of a never-ending Iraq War, though they fail to see the many ways in which a never-ending Iraq War is unsustainable and more dangerous than an end to that war).
…As for the rest of your arguments, people didn’t know if the polio vaccine worked past 26 (or 5pm for that matter). But we do know that now. Besides, it’s not like a virus knows whether you’re blowing out 26 candles or 36. That argument holds neither scientific nor logical value.
And the flu shot was an example of a vaccine which requires a booster, not an example of a mandatory vaccine. There are plenty of other vaccines which are mandatory and which also require booster shots.
Comment by Rob_N Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 4:03 pm
The one fact that isn’t taught:
Humans differ from animals in that humans can control their sexual urges.
We knew this back in the 1950s, but they stopped teaching it, so we all forgot.
Now kids *have* to go at it, or they will explode or something.
Comment by Horton Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 4:33 pm
There’s no such thing as “safe driving”, but we still teach kids what to do when they are behind the wheel in every high school in Illinois.
I’m not aware of any curricula that teach kids not to drive, either because there is no such thing as 100% safe driving, or because the Bible mentions nothing about cars.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 6:18 pm
“Abstinence is 100 percent foolproof.”
Actually, it’s not. Just as condoms do occasionally fail (especially when used incorrectly) vows of abstinence also fail. The anti-sex crowd just never mentions the failure rates.
From Rob_N:
“The HPV vaccine is only affective if it is given when the girl is a virgin.”
That’s not true. Whether or not a girl is a virgin has nothing to do with the efficacy of the vaccine. The vaccine just won’t protect against a strain of HPV if the girl has already contracted it. Since that usually happens through sex, it’s best to vaccinate before the onset of sexual activity.
Comment by Narc Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 6:18 pm
public $ for this is like funding free needles for junkies, smoking sessation programs while subsidizing tobacco growers. Gov’t acts stupidly when they try to legislate morality, or act like parents are supposed to act, or when they pander to the least common denominator.
Gov’t is not our parent.
So this expenditure is a waste!
Comment by amos garcia Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 6:36 pm
I belong to a liberal church. We ordain gay clergy. We bless same sex unions. We’d marry the partners if Illinois allowed. Yet the guy who taught my kids sex ed class in Sunday School was angry with the public school system for suggesting such a thing as safe sex. He treated people with STDs. He knew way too many people who thought they were immune practicing safe sex. All of this safe sex was grossly irresponsible… at least to teach to our children.
I’ve known too many who’ve died from this disease. It has nothing to do with God, or ethics, or religion for me. It’s watching friends and workmates die that’s turned me to a defender of these programs.
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 8:08 pm
I find it ironic that my earlier post seems to have been held for moderation without posting because apparently it used a clinical term or two that would definitely be taught to the kids in these classes. So our kids can hear it but we can’t write it.
I could go back and change the words to “thingamabob” and “whahoosis”, if that will make the filters come down off the ledge. Or we can use puppets…
The fact such over-reaction is so prevalent today, and not just here, speaks to the crying need for a change in how we approach and broach this subject, and how we teach about it.
Comment by Doctor Roothie Thursday, May 3, 07 @ 10:31 pm
Abstinence only programs are a complete waste of money.
Comment by Way Northsider Friday, May 4, 07 @ 1:48 am