The Lies of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education
Other than the fact that they are abyssmal failures and detrimental to teenage pregnancy/sex rates.
More reasons to talk to your children about sex. The research continues to show that regardless of how the religious-conservative right believes any discussion about sex and contraceptives encourages sex, there is contraindicative research that shows that a healthy understanding of sexuality and the consequences of sexuality is by far the best curriculum.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/pub...teevaluations/
Short-Term Impacts of State Abstinence-Only Programs
In 10 programs, evaluation measured the short-term impact of the program on at least one indicator, including attitudes favoring abstinence, intentions to abstain, and/or sexual behavior. Overall, programs were most successful at improving participants’ attitudes towards abstinence and were least likely to positively affect participants’ sexual behaviors.
Attitudes endorsing abstinence—10 evaluations tested for short-term changes in attitudes.
Three of 10 programs had no significant impact on attitudes (Maryland, Missouri, and Nebraska);
Four of 10 showed increases in attitudes favorable to abstinence (Arizona, Florida, Oregon, and Washington);
Three of 10 showed mixed results (California, Iowa, and Pennsylvania).**
Intentions to Abstain—Nine evaluations measured short-term changes in intentions.
Four of nine programs showed no significant impact on participants’ intentions to abstain (California, Maryland, Nebraska, and Oregon);
Three of nine programs showed a favorable impact on intentions to abstain (Arizona, Florida, and Washington);
Two of nine programs showed mixed results (Iowa and Pennsylvania).**
Sexual Behaviors—Six evaluations measured short-term changes in sexual behavior.
Three of six programs had no impact on sexual behavior (California, Maryland, and Missouri).
Two of six programs reported increases in sexual behavior from pre- to posttest (Florida and Iowa). It was unclear whether the increases were due to youth’s maturation or to a program’s effect, as none of these evaluations included a comparison group.
One of the six programs showed mixed results (Pennsylvania).**
Last edited by esskreemr; 12-06-2004 at 12:42 PM.
"Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
---
I saw a special on television the other night on this. The current swing is moving away from straight informative education coupled with restricting access to birth control and other health services for young people.
Unbelievable how they want to set the clocks back.
As if that were not bad enough several states now have laws on the books requireing doctors to talk to patients about the link to birth control and breast cancer (even though there is none) and for the patients to sign a waiver saying they have been advised of the risk! There is even talk of trying to pass a federal law requiring this nonsense! Of course they do not care about the proven risks of viagra and related meds! Blatant junk science scare tactics by the repulicraps and religious right nut jobs trying to scare off the less educated people who are arguably the ones that need birth control the most, and an attempt to unempower women in the rights of their own health care! (Takes a deep breath and walks away from another rant...)
Just another lost soul saved by the (hit) First Church of EPEE!
I know the red state/blue state thing is a little silly, but at the same time, here's an informative little graphic.
Y'all can keep your "morals", but if this is the result, please don't foist them on us Yankees (and Yankee Haters!). And I have little sisters in Indiana, so ... can you just really just keep it below the Mason-Dixon line?
As if that were not bad enough several states now have laws on the books requireing doctors to talk to patients about the link to birth control and breast cancer (even though there is none) and for the patients to sign a waiver saying they have been advised of the risk!
Prolonged usage of oral-contraceptives ( greater than 5 years) in women who have never been pregnant (nulliparous) is controversial in its association with breast cancer. However, high levels of estrogen over long periods increase the risk of developing breast and uterine cancers. Estrogen stimulates the cells of the breast and the uterine lining to grow and divide. Breast cells that are actively dividing are believed to have a greater chance of DNA damage as well as a higher number of cells that already have DNA damage. A higher number of cells with DNA damage elevate the risk of cancer development.
Women who have an early onset of their menstrual period (or menses) and late menopause are more likely to contract breast cancer than women with late menses onset and early menopause. This difference is believed to be attributable to the longer period of estrogen exposure in the first group.
Often times, we will order a hormone receptors assay, a test to see if the cancer is sensitive to estrogen and progesterone. If a tumor is estrogen-receptor positive (ER-positive), it is more likely to grow in a high-estrogen environment. ER-negative tumors are usually not affected by the levels of estrogen and progesterone in your body. This is one time when hearing the word "positive" may really mean something good (so often, a "positive" test result really means that something not so good was found).
It is these ER-positive cancers which are more likely to respond to anti-estrogen therapies, such as Tamoxifen that works by blocking the estrogen receptors on the breast tissue cells and slowing their estrogen-fuelled growth.
I hope that this information clarifies any misunderstanding any forumites may have about breast cancer and estrogen, as breast cancer is a serious women's health issue that we cannot afford to be unclear on.
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics are German, the lovers are French, and its all organized by the Swiss.
Hell is where the police are German, the chefs are British, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and it's all organized by the Italians.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered" George Best
The U.S. has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates of the industrialized nations. The rate for both teen pregnancy and abortions have been dropping steadily for the past 10 years.
I'm not supporting dropping abstinence from the discussion or removing it from sex education material. The statistics have shown over and over again that not only are abstinence only programs are informationally faulty and just about useless. They will become even more so as more and more young adults put marriage off to a later age. It is a natural progression in any society that values education. The higher the education of the region, the lower the rate of teenage pregnancies.
"Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
---
Abstinence education is a good thing, because there are perfectly valid reasons to practice abstinence, and kids should know their options.
But given:
- Teens are influenced by their peers more than their parents and teachers.
- The American media is obsessed with sex. The fact that it's an American taboo makes it far worse, since it's treated in a "wink wink, nudge nudge" fashion, rather than candidly.
- Sexual activity is taking place at an earlier and earlier age.
The horse has really left the barn now; the right wants to stick their heads in the sand and legislate the "s" word out of existence. What needs to happen is a frank, candid discussion which enables teens to be as educated as possible about the positive and negative consequences of their actions.
If there is any question about the horrible failure of abstinance only programs just look at the results of the last national abstinance day! This past November millions of Americans pledged no DICK and NO bush for four years and despite all the good intentions the nation still got ****ed! Sorry, could't resist...
Just another lost soul saved by the (hit) First Church of EPEE!
From the LA Times Online: Commentary Abstinence-Only: Breeding Ignorance
The Bush-backed sex education programs are filled with errors. By Mary-Jane Waglé, Mary-Jane Waglé is CEO of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles.
Imagine a driver's education course in which teachers show students grisly photos of traffic accidents but never tell them to stop at red lights or buckle their seat belts, and you've a pretty good idea of what abstinence-only sex education is like. Abstinence-only programs try to scare and shame teens, teaching only the negative consequences of sexuality without telling young people what they can do to stay safe and healthy.
Now a congressional staff analysis on the content of the federally funded sex education programs used in 25 states reveals they're just plain wrong. The report found that more than 80% of abstinence-only curricula contain false, misleading or distorted information about reproductive health.
The analysis, released by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), found that many of these curricula contain false information about the effectiveness of contraceptives and the risks of abortion. Several of the curricula contain basic scientific errors and present religious views as proven fact. Some curricula also treat gender stereotypes as scientific truth.
Here are some examples: In several abstinence-only programs, students are erroneously told that condoms fail to protect against HIV and that pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use a condom. One textbook states that touching another person's genitals "can result in pregnancy." Another suggests that 5% to 10% of women who have legal abortions will become sterile as a result.
One curriculum refers to a 43-day-old fetus as "a thinking person." Another incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears as risk factors for HIV transmission. And one textbook sanctimoniously instructs teenagers: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."
California has been wise enough to see through the hype of abstinence-only sex education, and it continues to be one of the few states that refuse to accept the federal funding for abstinence-only curricula.
Californians mandate HIV/AIDS education in our schools and require that all sexuality education is comprehensive and medically accurate. And our attention to the needs of our state's youth has paid off. Our teen pregnancy rate has fallen by 40% over the last 10 years — the largest decrease of any state except Alaska.
Abstinence-only curricula, such as those being pushed and funded by the Bush administration, aren't just riddled with errors — they clearly have no positive effect on the behavior of teens. Researchers at Columbia University found that while virginity "pledge" programs did help some of the participants delay sex, 88% still had premarital sex.
Additionally, the rates of sexually transmitted infections among pledgers showed no statistically significant difference from non-pledgers.
Despite these problems, the federal government will squander an astonishing $168 million for these programs in fiscal 2005. Although this falls short of the $270 million President Bush initially proposed, it more than doubles the amount spent in 2001. Meanwhile, programs that work go unfunded.
Proponents of abstinence-only sex education believe that knowledge can be dangerous. Ignorance, however, can be fatal. Last week, we marked World AIDS Day. When our young people are at risk of HIV infection as well as other sexually transmitted infections, it is unconscionable to deprive them of information that can save their lives.
We're no threat, people, we're not dirty, we're not mean
We love everybody but we do as we please
When the weather's fine,
We go fishin' or go swimmin' in the sea
We're always happy
Life's for livin', yeah, that's our philosophy
Seventy-two percent of all Americans agree that "preventing HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases are public health issues and should be left to scientists and experts, not to politicians." Moreover, seven out of 10 Americans oppose the provision of federal funds for education promoting abstinence-only-until-marriage that prohibits teaching about the use of condoms and contraception for the prevention of unintended pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and STDs. Congress passed such a program as part of welfare reform legislation in 1996.
The findings are based on a national poll conducted in February and March 1999 by Hickman-Brown Research, Inc. that surveyed 1,050 adults nationwide. The poll has a +/- three percent sampling error. Research also included four focus groups conducted in April 1999 with parents who reside with their school-aged children in Columbia, MD, and Charlotte, NC.
Other Key Findings:
+Ninety-three percent of Americans support the teaching of sexuality education in high schools, while 84 percent support sexuality education in middle/junior high schools.
+More than eight out of every 10 Americans believe young people should be given information about protecting themselves from unplanned pregnancies and STDs.
+Seven out of 10 Americans oppose the provision of federal funds for education promoting abstinence-only-until-marriage that prohibits teaching about the use of condoms and contraception for the prevention of unintended pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and STDs. Congress passed such a program as part of welfare reform legislation in 1996.
+More than eight out of every 10 Americans reject the idea that providing such sexuality education encourages sexual activity.
+Adults see a strong distinction between abstinence and abstinence-only-until-marriage education. More than 90 percent of adults support abstinence being included as a topic in sexuality education for high school students. However 70 percent oppose the provision of federal law that allocates over half a billion dollars for abstinence-only-until-marriage education but prohibits use of the funds for information on contraception for the prevention of unintended pregnancy and disease.
+With the average age of puberty at 12 and of marriage at 26, and since 70 percent of 18-year-olds have had sexual intercourse, at least 69 percent of Americans agree that teaching abstinence-only-until-marriage is just not realistic.
+All groups, including conservative Christians, support high school and junior high school sexuality education to prevent disease and unintended pregnancy.
+Eighty-nine percent of Americans believe that it is important for young people to have information about contraception and prevention of STDs and that sexuality education programs should focus on how to avoid unintended pregnancies and STDs, including HIV and AIDS.
+More than six out of every 10 Americans (63%) believe that sexual exploration among young people is a natural part of growing up and that the best approach is to provide information and services to help young people act responsibly. These Americans included 44 percent of conservatives who reject the ideas that young people exploring their sexuality is wrong and that the best approach is setting limits on behavior before marriage.
Source: Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Poll on America's Attitudes toward Sexuality Education. Conducted by Hickman-Brown Research for Advocates and the Council between February 23 and March 3, 1999. Washington, DC: Hickman-Brown, 1999.
"Since when does being a patriot in America mean shutting your mouth?"
---
I know the red state/blue state thing is a little silly, but at the same time, here's an informative little graphic.
Y'all can keep your "morals", but if this is the result, please don't foist them on us Yankees (and Yankee Haters!). And I have little sisters in Indiana, so ... can you just really just keep it below the Mason-Dixon line?
In THEORY, before REALITY takes hold, sure, abstinence is the only 100 percent-proof way to ... well, everything addressed here. So catch all the kiddies who haven't had sex yet and latch 'em down with chastity belts -- they'll be mostly safe.
Setting aside that nonsense, though... We're left with the question of what to do with young 'uns who have already done the deed. Have all the government abstinence-pushers forgotten what it's like to have sex?! How nearly impossible it is to stop once you've started? The way it feels, emotionally and physically? Sex happens, and then it happens again and again. It's the nature of sex.
I don't know what's up with these nincompoops. Sure, do what you can to keep the next generation from breeding the next generation before they're "ready," but that doesn't address those who are already sexually active or who will experiment regardless. Life is complicated; Abstinence Only is not a viable solution.
What's also scary is the fact that some states have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill perscriptions for drugs they have a moral objection to. There is a small but growing number of these pharmacists who refuse to fill perscriptions for birth control and morning after pills.
What's also scary is the fact that some states have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill perscriptions for drugs they have a moral objection to. There is a small but growing number of these pharmacists who refuse to fill perscriptions for birth control and morning after pills.
We're no threat, people, we're not dirty, we're not mean
We love everybody but we do as we please
When the weather's fine,
We go fishin' or go swimmin' in the sea
We're always happy
Life's for livin', yeah, that's our philosophy
No worries. Just funny, since the previous thread was so long.
Cheers.
We're no threat, people, we're not dirty, we're not mean
We love everybody but we do as we please
When the weather's fine,
We go fishin' or go swimmin' in the sea
We're always happy
Life's for livin', yeah, that's our philosophy
Originally Posted by CvilleFencer 
