Abstinence:
Abstinence Education - The Jury Is in:

view the .pdf

June 2003

By Bernadette Vissani, New Jersey Family Policy Council

In his May 1 Asbury Park Press column, “The Harm of Abstinence-Only Sex Education,” retired NJ Supreme Court Judge Martin L. Haines writes that comprehensive sex education information is “being drowned out by right-wing politicians who believe ignorance is bliss.” How sad that even a judge, called to deliver rulings based on fact-finding, can’t get the core arguments of the abstinence education debate right.

Judge Haines claims that the “principal reasons for the high rate of nonmarital births in the U.S. are inadequate, misleading education about sex and shameful political support of ignorance.” When in the history of the world has more detailed information about sexual activity been more widely available to anyone who can read or look at pictures? As for “shameful support of ignorance,” whose heads are in the sand when it comes to incredibly risky teenage sexual activity? Certainly not abstinence educators! We’re all about disclosing the whole truth. But of course, Haines calls that “scare tactics.” You can’t have it both ways.

Haines affixes that dreaded label “puritan” to anything but so-called “comprehensive” sex education. Yet, in the latest survey conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, over 90 percent of the 1,000 teens surveyed agreed that they should be given a strong message from society to delay sexual activity until at least high school graduation.

The same survey revealed that 84 percent of teens agree that youth should be taught that marriage should come before childbearing. Is the judge aware that so-called “comprehensive” sex education enables behaviors that have brought about epidemic rates of sexually transmitted diseases in increasingly younger people? Is there no harm in this? Such “education” regularly lures teens into a false sense of security, leading them to think they can safely push sexual limits if they just “protect” themselves.

Haines bemoans the fact that taxpayer dollars support abstinence education “despite the absence of any reliable evidence of positive results.” In reality, federal support for abstinence is only about one-quarter of the funding given “comprehensive” sex education. As for evidence, an article in the latest issue of Adolescent & Family Health, 2003 3(1) documents the impact of abstinence: Between 1991 and 1995 the pregnancy rate of 15–19-year-old single teens declined by nine pregnancies per 1,000 females. The new analysis shows that two-thirds of this decline was because more teens abstained from sex.

It is false to report that federal grants supporting abstinence education prohibit teaching other material. They simply require that, to ensure its integrity, the abstinence message not be mixed with contraceptive information in the same setting. Schools are free to teach whatever they want with other funding.

Haines assumes that abstinence education is what keeps teens ignorant and that there is real danger there. No, what’s really dangerous is a person of the judge’s stature using tired old arguments and not caring enough to help keep kids from harm. The jury is no longer out. Abstinence education is more than a “just say no” approach -- it develops character, goal-setting and communication skills. And unlike “comprehensive” sex ed, it offers a way out to those who have been sexually active and desire to change. There’s no harm in that.

 

back...