Government Role in Abstinence Education
By the time they graduate from high school, unfortunately, 65% of our students have already engaged in intercourse," stated Lloyd J. Kolbe, director of the Division of Adolescent and School Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Despite this realty the government continues to fund ill-fated abstinence only programs. However, Claude Allen Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services a proponent of abstinence only programs concedes "We have not made a clear, concise message to them about the benefits of abstinence." Supporters such as Mr. Allen of such programs conveniently ignore the fact that there has been an inherent break down in our institutions, which are supposed to shield the innocent from growing up too fast. The church is having problems controlling the twisted desires of its own priests, young single mothers, head many families and sex remains a closed topic of discourse in many households. The result is a generation of misguided children that are seeking to emulate what they believe to be appropriate behavior. Sadly, the only advice that our government can give is "don't do it." Either President Bush is as disconnected as the comedians on Saturday Night Live make him seem or he needs a new set of advisors. The proposed abstinence until marriage initiative will prove as successful as efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. Instead of preaching abstinence, President Bush should refocus efforts and funds to tackle the problem more realistically by enacting programs that will teach comprehensive sex education to today's youth.
One must seriously question the morality and ethics of the tactics used by abstinence only programs. According to the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act abstinence education teaches "abstinence from sexual activity outside of the context of marriage as the expected standard for all school -- age children" it further...
In almost all states marriage between individuals of the same sex is illegal. Since homosexuals are forbidden to get married, according to this act, they should not engage in sexual activity. Further, those who choose not to marry at all should abstain from sex for the rest of their lives. Abstinence only education unjustly imposes a set a values and beliefs on others, which not only unethical it is unconstitutional. The Republican National Coalition for Life disagrees, citing that comprehensive sexual education "teaches youngsters how to engage in sexual activity, equipping them with
condoms and contraceptives, which do not protect them against STD's." Furthermore, the Republican National Coalition for life concludes that if a youngster develops a disease or becomes pregnant such education "treats them or provides counsel for
abortion, after which they go back to the revolving door of sexual promiscuity, disease, eventual sterility or
death from
cervical cancer." While the rate of
teenage pregnancy and number of teenagers contracting
sexually transmitted diseases is troubling, there is no evidence to support that abstinence only education will help to remedy the problem. A recent article by the American Medical Association revealed that in the Southern part of the U.S., half of the school districts have abstinence only policies, yet,
youth have extremely high rates of
teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. In essence, abstinence education does nothing more than alienates teens whose life plans do not include marriage and those who are not heterosexual. Additionally, such education misinforms youth by conveying the notion that
safe sex does not exist. The
teaching approach used by abstinence only programs is unethical and discriminatory.
Proponents of abstinence only education naively believe that teaching abstinence will prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby saving taxpayers millions of dollars. However, the contrary is true, as 35 million dollars of America's hard-earned funds will be allocated for abstinence only
education programs that…
