President George W. Bush doesn’t do sex. Before marriages, that is. In its most recent budget proposal, the administration has tried to increase spending on abstinence-only sexual education programs by $73 million, to $135 million per year. Nominally, these programs are supposed to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and help teens avoid unwanted pregnancies. In reality, the only things that will benefit from these programs are conservative action groups and the sexually transmitted diseases themselves.
Organizations that are funded through the abstinence-only program usually focus on classroom teaching and are forced to adhere to very strict federal guidelines. They are not allowed to talk about contraception, except to point out that condoms are not 100 percent effective in controlling pregnancy and do little to stop the transmission of some STDs, such as genital warts. The proposal would force organizations that receive government funds to teach that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects,” and that “a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.”
Yet there is no evidence that abstinence-only programs encourage chastity until marriage or even delay sexual activity. Although few studies have been done—many abstinence-only organizations argue that merely asking questions encourages teens to have sex—it seems that abstinence education simply gives men a good excuse not to wear condoms.
Human Rights Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group, has claimed that several federally-funded organizations have sponsored media campaigns that exaggerated the limitations of condoms, and the Washington Post has reported that teens who participate in “virginity pledge” programs are less likely to use contraception when they finally do have intercourse. Almost every mainstream medical or public health organization, including the American Medical Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, and even Bush’s first surgeon general, a holdover from the Clinton administration who was summarily downsized after making these comments, has criticized abstinence-only programs and favors more traditional, secular sexual education programs. However, this skepticism about the abstinence crusade extends beyond the medical community. A survey conducted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council shows that over 80 percent of low income parents want their children to learn how to use birth control and how to protect against HIV/AIDS and other STDs.
So why have the spend-thrift Republicans dumped over $250 million into unproven abstinence-only programs over the past five years? Because they wanted to reward the religious and right-wing groups that brought them to power. Nearly every group that receives abstinence funding is either faith-based or staunchly conservative, and has campaigned for the Republican party during the past few elections. In addition, many pro-life groups have begun to market themselves as providers of abstinence education to start receiving taxpayers’ money. Abstinence funding is simply another way to channel federal funds to reactionary groups.
Top Republican lawmakers argue that their goal is merely to fund abstinence education and secular sexual education equally. However, the funding that the administration says goes to “programs that teach about contraception use” is in fact dispersed over groups as varied as teen contraception clinics and HIV/AIDS hotlines, while abstinence funding is geared specifically towards classroom instruction. In addition, Bush has been slowly siphoning funds away from HIV/AIDS prevention programs and into abstinence education.
There is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence as part of a wide-ranging sexual education course. But if abstinence education comes at the expense of programs that teach people about the benefits of contraception, it is harmful and serves only to aggravate the very problems that it is trying to solve.
