Matt C. Abbott
Why comprehensive sex-ed isn't the answer
By Matt C. Abbott
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is an advocate of Planned Parenthood-style "comprehensive" sex education.
According to a story in the Dec. 2, 2004 edition of the Washington Post (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html), a congressional investigation, led by Bush-critic Waxman, has found that students taking abstinence-only classes" frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists."
The story, which points out some questionable aspects of abstinence-only curricula, says that "President Bush has enthusiastically backed the [abstinence-only] movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years."
The obvious implication of the story: Abstinence-only education is deficient. And, in a sense, that's true. Sex education should be taught by parents, not the schools. But, that said, I submit that abstinence-only education is better than so-called comprehensive sex education.
Consider: Brian Clowes, PhD, author and researcher for Human Life International (www.hli.org), found that between 1960 and 1991, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases increased 245%; abortions increased 800%; and the illegitimate birthrate increased 457%.
Much of these trends, says Clowes, "must be laid at the doorsteps of the [secular] sex educators." Indeed.
Abstinence-only education is far from perfect — and perhaps some of the curricula currently being used should be revised — but at least it's telling teens to do what is right, namely, don't have sex until you're married. Planned Parenthood-style comprehensive sex education doesn't do that; it tells teens, "If you choose to engage in sexual activity, use protection."
And, if that fails, well, there's always the local abortion mill.
Here's what I don't get: It's fine to tell teens to "Just say no" to, say, smoking and drug use, but when it comes to sex, abstinence-only education isn't "realistic." Instead, we must instruct teens on how to engage in "safe sex."
Alfred Kinsey must be so proud.
© Matt C. Abbott
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) is an advocate of Planned Parenthood-style "comprehensive" sex education.
According to a story in the Dec. 2, 2004 edition of the Washington Post (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html), a congressional investigation, led by Bush-critic Waxman, has found that students taking abstinence-only classes" frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists."
The story, which points out some questionable aspects of abstinence-only curricula, says that "President Bush has enthusiastically backed the [abstinence-only] movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years."
The obvious implication of the story: Abstinence-only education is deficient. And, in a sense, that's true. Sex education should be taught by parents, not the schools. But, that said, I submit that abstinence-only education is better than so-called comprehensive sex education.
Consider: Brian Clowes, PhD, author and researcher for Human Life International (www.hli.org), found that between 1960 and 1991, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases increased 245%; abortions increased 800%; and the illegitimate birthrate increased 457%.
Much of these trends, says Clowes, "must be laid at the doorsteps of the [secular] sex educators." Indeed.
Abstinence-only education is far from perfect — and perhaps some of the curricula currently being used should be revised — but at least it's telling teens to do what is right, namely, don't have sex until you're married. Planned Parenthood-style comprehensive sex education doesn't do that; it tells teens, "If you choose to engage in sexual activity, use protection."
And, if that fails, well, there's always the local abortion mill.
Here's what I don't get: It's fine to tell teens to "Just say no" to, say, smoking and drug use, but when it comes to sex, abstinence-only education isn't "realistic." Instead, we must instruct teens on how to engage in "safe sex."
Alfred Kinsey must be so proud.
© Matt C. Abbott
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
