[GOTFIVEONIT]

Experts say sex abstinence program doesn't work

By Will Dunham
Wed Apr 23, 4:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Programs teaching U.S. schoolchildren to abstain from sex have not cut teen pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases or delayed the age at which sex begins, health groups told Congress on Wednesday.

The Bush administration, however, voiced continuing support for such programs during a hearing before a House of Representatives panel even as many Democrats called for cutting off federal money for so-called abstinence-only instruction.

"Vast sums of federal monies continue to be directed toward these programs. And, in fact, there is evidence to suggest that some of these programs are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active," Dr. Margaret Blythe of the American Academy of Pediatrics told the committee.

These programs, backed by many social conservatives who oppose the teaching of contraception methods to teenagers in schools, have received about $1.3 billion in federal funds since the late 1990s. Currently, 17 of the 50 U.S. states refuse to accept federal funds for such programs.

Experts from the American Public Health Association and U.S. Institute of Medicine testified that scientific studies have not found that abstinence-only teaching works to cut pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or the age when sexual activity begins.

The American Psychological Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also issued statements to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform criticizing the abstinence-only programs.

Comprehensive sex education programs should emphasize abstinence as the best way for a teenager to avoid pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease (STD), Blythe said.

"Those adolescents who choose to abstain from sexual intercourse should obviously be encouraged and supported in their decisions by their families, peers and communities. But abstinence should not be the only strategy that is discussed," Blythe said.

HIGH STD RATES

Lawmakers cited government statistics showing that one in four U.S. teenage girls has a sexually transmitted disease and 30 percent of U.S. girls become pregnant before the age of 20.

Republicans said even if some abstinence-only programs do not work, others do, and it would be wrong to end the funding.

Rep. John Duncan, a Tennessee Republican, said that it seems "rather elitist" that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate. "I don't think it's something we should abandon," he said of abstinence-only funding.

Charles Keckler of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the Bush administration believes abstinence education programs send the healthiest message.

Stan Weed, director of the Institute for Research and Evaluation, a Utah-based group that researches abstinence programs, disagreed with the other health experts, saying research cast doubt on the effectiveness of broader, comprehensive sex education programs.

Panel chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, said, "We are showering funds on abstinence-only programs that don't appear to work, while ignoring proven comprehensive sex education programs that can delay sex, protect teens from disease, and result in fewer teen pregnancies."

"Meanwhile, we have no dedicated source of federal funding specifically for comprehensive classroom sex education," Waxman added.

(Editing by Maggie Fox and Todd Eastham)

[ShotgunMessiah]

Well, duh.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by ShotgunMessiah

Well, duh.

And to think, people are getting PAID to do these studies!!!

[Salika]

What does this abstinence program entail? I mean abstinence is a lifestyle, not just saying no to sex. It's pretty hard to be abstinent when anyone get a condom, it's easy for teens to get birth control pills through the school system, there's ads everywhere that are sex-related and sex is just everywhere like in your face all the time.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by ShotgunMessiah

Well, duh.

Originally Posted by ChotooMotoo

And to think, people are getting PAID to do these studies!!!

I don't think this can necessarily be used to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of an abstinence program. It probably has a lot to do with the media/popular entertainment/culture of the environment the program is taking place in. It's like trying to put out a forest fire with a thimble.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

I don't think this can necessarily be used to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of an abstinence program.

Well I didnt read the article but i've seen several studies about this and they've all showed that adolescents assigned to abstinence-only interventions have a higher incidence of STDs compared to adolescents assigned to interventions in which a variety of safe sex options are offered (including abstinence). I dont see how this cannot be used to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of abstinence-only. Clearly from the risk-reduction perspective, those programs are worse.

[Salika]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Well I didnt read the article but i've seen several studies about this and they've all showed that adolescents assigned to abstinence-only interventions have a higher incidence of STDs compared to adolescents assigned to interventions in which a variety of safe sex options are offered (including abstinence). I dont see how this cannot be used to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of abstinence-only. Clearly from the risk-reduction perspective, those programs are worse.

Is that it? So the program simply a "say no" approach? That is very unrealistic when these teens go clubbing, drink, the stuff is all over television, social pressures, etc

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by Salika

Is that it? So the program simply a "say no" approach? That is very unrealistic when these teens go clubbing, drink, the stuff is all over television, social pressures, etc

Yup. That's what abstinence only education is "just say no." They aren't taught that, should they say yes there are ways to prevent pregnancy and STD's. They also don't get into the psychological issues related to teen sex. They just get told "don't do it."

And yes, it's really hard for hormonal teenagers to abstain when everyone around them is doing it. They really need to take a different approach. If they don't discuss the psychological problems, and parents don't scare their kids to death about teen sex, an abstinence only approach isn't going to work.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Well I didnt read the article but i've seen several studies about this and they've all showed that adolescents assigned to abstinence-only interventions have a higher incidence of STDs compared to adolescents assigned to interventions in which a variety of safe sex options are offered (including abstinence). I dont see how this cannot be used to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of abstinence-only. Clearly from the risk-reduction perspective, those programs are worse.

Yeah, I was evaluating effectiveness based on whether or not they engaged in sex, not whether or not they got STDs. Guess it depends on what the goals of the abstinence program are. If it's simply to get young kids to stop having premarital sex for the sake of it, that's one thing, and if it's to reduce STD risk, that's obviously another. In this society you can effectively do the latter, but probably not the former.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Yeah, I was evaluating effectiveness based on whether or not they engaged in sex, not whether or not they got STDs. Guess it depends on what the goals of the abstinence program are. If it's simply to get young kids to stop having premarital sex for the sake of it, that's one thing, and if it's to reduce STD risk, that's obviously another. In this society you can effectively do the latter, but probably not the former.

Your post is confusing. They judged the rate of teen sex by the STD rate, since the only way to get an STD is by... well... having sex. I went to public High School, and I can tell you that if you just ask teens about their sexual activity, they will lie and tell you they aren't doing anything (well, they lie to adults, not to their peers).

The goal of abstinence programs (since most of them are pretty religiously based) is to stop kids from having sex. The consequence, naturally, is that if they aren't having sex, STD rates will drop, as will the teen pregnancy rate. The programs that focus more on STD and pregnancy prevention are heavily criticized by the abstinence only camp because they supposedly encourage teens to have sex.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Yeah, I was evaluating effectiveness based on whether or not they engaged in sex, not whether or not they got STDs. Guess it depends on what the goals of the abstinence program are. If it's simply to get young kids to stop having premarital sex for the sake of it, that's one thing, and if it's to reduce STD risk, that's obviously another. In this society you can effectively do the latter, but probably not the former.

The outcomes of the interventions that were studied were teenage pregnancy and incidence of STDs (i've read studies that didnt include the teen pregnancy portion).

Whether or not kids engaged in sex would be very hard to study in a scientific manner because it would be based on self-report rather than an easily documented outcome like pregnancy or new infection with chlamydia.

As an effective public health program, abstinence-only sex ed is inferior. The problem is that politics gets injected into it. For example, take the idiotic comment by the republican politician who suggests that it is elitist for scientists to consider the results of multiple randomized controlled studies as definitive factors in evaluating public health interventions. Issues like this can never be approached in a truly scientific way

ws

[Variable]

This is why I'm pro- making condoms available for sexually active teens. (like one of those big condom bowls)

[MuslimZ]

given the fact that the educational videos we had to watch in high school were made in the Victorian Era; this comes as little surprise.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Salika

Is that it? So the program simply a "say no" approach? That is very unrealistic when these teens go clubbing, drink, the stuff is all over television, social pressures, etc

They arent "Just say no" like Nancy Reagan's drug campaign, but thats the general message. They use alot of creative ways to reach kids with the abstinence-only sex ed message. But ultimately, when it comes to preventing diseases and teenage pregnancy these interventions arent that great. I dont really agree with reduction of teen pregnancy as a goal... but whatever

ws

[ShotgunMessiah]

Originally Posted by Variable

This is why I'm pro- making condoms available for sexually active teens. (like one of those big condom bowls)

This reminds me of that Dangerous Minds spoof where the lady was stapling a pamphlet to a condom and handing it out, but she stapled every one right through the condom.