Employing Young People as Fodder
Justin Katz
The title of this post comes from Providence Journal writer Jennifer Levitz's paraphrase of a sentiment expressed by URI professor James Miller:
James A. Miller, a University of Rhode Island professor and a certified sex-education instructor, handed out data saying the state's teenage pregnancy rate is among the worst in the nation, 47th out of 50. He also tossed condoms and pennies on the table and asked legislators if they'd rather spend pennies to teach facts about sex or -- and then he started tossing dollar bills -- big bucks on teenage moms and welfare.
He said the debate wasn't over sex, it was over ideology, and a cultural war that was employing young people as fodder.
The context of Miller's performance — which proves his point, albeit with the opposite implication from his intention — is the third annual introduction of a bill by Rep. Elizabeth Dennigan (D-East Prov.) that would broaden and centralize regulation of mandatory sex ed. for all Rhode Island public schools. Well, not only public schools. Although homeschooler outcry prompted Dennigan to promise an exempting amendment, the bill as currently worded would include them.
The reason the sex talk of homeschool families would be regulated is the same as the reason that a type of schools that Levitz's article does not mention — private schools, including those founded on religious principles — would probably be forced to adhere to state guidelines. The education section of Rhode Island General Laws is Title 16, with Chapter 19 thereof bearing the name "Compulsory Attendance." The following text is from Section 1 of that chapter:
Every person having under his or her control a child as described in this section shall cause the child to attend school as required by this section, and for every neglect of this duty the person having control of the child shall be fined not exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00) for each day or part of a day that the child fails to attend school, and if the total of these days is more than thirty (30) school days during any school year, then the person shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned not exceeding six (6) months or shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or both; provided, that if the person so charged shall prove that the child has attended for the required period of time a private day school approved by the commissioner of elementary and secondary education pursuant to § 16-60-6(10), or a course of at-home instruction approved by the school committee of the town where the child resides, or that the physical or mental condition of the child was such as to render his or her attendance at school inexpedient or impracticable, or that the child was excluded from school by virtue of some general law or regulation, then attendance shall not be obligatory nor shall the penalty be incurred.
To translate the outside concern: parents who fail to send their children to an approved school — public, private, or home — for about a month could go to jail for six months and be fined $500. One specific requirement for a school's being certified to keep parents out of jail is to provide "instruction in health and physical education similar to that required in public schools." As far as I can tell, this requirement has heretofore been broad and localized. However, placed against its civic background, the problem with Dennigan's proposed language (PDF) ought to be obvious:
For purposes of this section, "health education" means education of students in grades kindergarten through twelve (12) regarding human development and sexuality, including education on family planning and sexually transmitted diseases, that: (a) is age-appropriate, medically accurate, culturally sensitive and respects community values; (b) does not teach or promote religion; (c) teaches that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases; (d) stresses the value of abstinence while not ignoring those young people who have had or are having sexual intercourse; (e) provides information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means to prevent pregnancy; (f) provides information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptive methods as a means to reduce the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS; (g) encourages family communication about sexuality between parent and child; (h) teaches young people the skills to make responsible decisions about sexuality, including how to avoid unwanted verbal, physical, and sexual advances and how not to make unwanted verbal, physical, and sexual advances; and (i) teaches young people how alcohol and drug use can effect responsible decision making.
Unless I'm misconstruing the text (or missing some exemption somewhere else in the law), included within the legal definition of "health education" for all schools, public and private, would be instruction on the benefits and drawbacks of "all contraceptives and barrier methods" for both pregnancy and AIDS... and one of the explained drawbacks cannot be harm to the child's eternal soul. Burning due to allergy, yes; burning due to condemnation, no.
As I've admitted, I could be missing something in my legal analysis. It's also possible that introduction of this bill will become a relatively benign annual tradition. But it's out there, and those who back it are persistent. Moreover, they believe, in Levitz's paraphrase of Rep. Dennigan, that it stands as a problem that teaching of moral issues "varies from district to district."
The precedent set by this law's serious proposal and its presumption of moral dictation will become ever more insidious, tangling our children in the escalating culture war (and further corrupting their innocence), as more and more questions of morality are answered as if they are Constitutional issues.
11:00 PM
I testified at this hearing as a proponent of the bill. What threw me off when I got to the hearing, was the opposition...the homeschoolers. I find myself in the precarious position of being both a homeschooler, and a parent of a publicly schooled freshman. (My son was homeschooled until Jr. High)I can relate entirely to the belief system of homeschoolers opposing the government inteference of telling us HOW to teach what we teach. That cannot be. But for our public schools, what cannot be is the law as it stands; without the clarifications that this bill provides, and the present reality of variations from district to district, our schools, intentionally or unintentionally, allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise. Explore the text of abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and what you will find is pure and simple. You will find intolerance to its' greatest extent - intolerance of single-parent households, intolerance of those single parents having a sexual relationship, intolerance of homosexuality, intolerance of sexuality at all, until married of course, intolerance of prevention of conception (married or not). You will find skewed statistics and facts that are scientifically UNfounded. You will find sexual stereotypes, and your children will be asked to sign pledges - and join "clubs" . When you research the sources of the information compiled in the text, you will find RELIGIOUSLY, POLITICALLY motivated organizations. Dr. Miller was 100% accurate in his statement that our children are used as "fodder in an idealogical debate".
P.S. I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Miller after the hearing, and my son was the recipient of the condoms used in his efforts to support Comprehensive Sex Ed. As this method has already been taught in our home, my hopes are that IF my son does not choose abstinence, he will choose SAFETY. He knows the decision is his to make, and has been given the information to make educated decisions.
...the present reality of variations from district to district, our schools, intentionally or unintentionally, allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise...
But Tracey, what's wrong with variation from town to town? Is there a reason sex ed must be the same in downtown Providence as in Barrington or Portsmouth? Are we so confident in standardized sex ed that parents (who can affect a school district much more than they can the state government) must be removed from the equation?
I'm also not sure about your fears that we might "allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise." Doing so is inevitable. Handing out condoms is based on the premise that Catholic teachings about sexuality (for example) are incorrect. There are balances to be struck, of course (which is one reason that the district-by-district decision making is important), but let's not pretend that the balance is between objectivity and bias.
Such organizations as Planned Parenthood contribute to the secular sex ed curriculum, and they stand to gain both ideologically and financially from an increase of a particular approach to life and sexuality.
"Handing out condoms is based on the premise that Catholic teachings about sexuality (for example) are incorrect. There are balances to be struck, of course (which is one reason that the district-by-district decision making is important), but let's not pretend that the balance is between objectivity and bias."
Catholic teachings belong in the Catholic church. Christian teachings belong in the Christian schools, Judaism belongs in the Hebrew schools. I do not want my children being taught theologically, which is why they are in the public schools. (Cost is another factor.) Our family life, whatever it may be, is ours, not to be imposed upon with someone else's value system. If sex ed is to be taught, as the STATE law says is must, then it should be standardized with accurate, science based information, so as to assure nonbiased teachings, district by district. Such as it is with Math, and English, etc. As difficult as the subject may be to teach,Barrington does not differ from Providence in presenting kids with the facts. Facts will not differentiate from one district to the next, one state to the next. They all deserve the same facts. Values are best left to the home! As they used to say on Dragnet "Just the facts, ma'am."
I do not propose handing out condoms in the schools...However, if that is what it takes to keep a sexually active adolescent safe because of a choice they make, than that safety must be the focus. I propose giving them the facts, (based on science)with the focus being on abstinence, and the lessons based on reality,(and science) and how to stay safe in a world full of dangers. Dangers come in all shapes and sizes, and some folks believe they can "save" the world by imposing their methods based on their religion. How does that repect another human being? I propose what Rep. Dennigan proposed - NO RELIGION IN THE SCHOOLS! (The exception being private school,homeschool, or parochial school for the obvious reasons - their education is private.)I propose teaching TOLERANCE and respect with truth, not intolerance and disrespect with lies.
I have seen firsthand the misleading methods these religious organizations use to get themselves in the door of the public schools. I have seen firsthand the misleading information they try to impose upon the children. It is nothing less than an attempt to indoctrinate to their way of life. I do not choose to have my children, or myself, imposed upon in this way. This religious, political war doesn't belong in the public schools, and it seems that only state laws will enforce that code. Sad, but true.
Again, our country's founding in based on the SEPARATION of Church and State. We are NOT a Christian nation, but a nation created on diversity.
P.S. If you believe that the Catholic teachings are "safe" in some way, from the Evangelical teachings...you may want to take a closer look. The Catholics are also viewed as Pagans, for honoring The Virgin Mary and the Saints, and they, in addition to countless others, need to be "saved" but for the errors of their ways.
Don't you see a contradiction, Tracey, between this:
I propose teaching TOLERANCE and respect with truth, not intolerance and disrespect with lies.
And this:
NO RELIGION IN THE SCHOOLS!
It seems to me implicit in your statements that religion is tantamount to lies — or, at the most mild, is irrelevant to children's lives and well-being. That's fine for you to believe, and I do agree that such views ought to be respected, but nonetheless, they are ultimately religious views. For example, from my perspective, your statement about folks who "believe they can 'save' the world by imposing their methods" sounds an awful lot like those who wish to standardize secular sex ed at the state level in order to save children from a dangerous world.
I agree that public school education ought to focus on facts, but there is nothing in science that indicates one way or another whether it is morally right to use condoms. Once a teacher tells students "if you're going to have sex, you should use a condom," he or she is advocating a particular worldview to the exclusion of others. Somehow I suspect that you'd object to the schools' standards requiring teachers to inform the students that some people believe condom use presents problems for their immortal souls.
I never perceived my thoughts, or my religion to be imposed on another, by trying to be accepting and tolerant of people and their differences, nor do I happen to see these as religious characteristics. I do not see truth and tolerance to be unimportant or irrelevant to anyone. I do not even begin to suggest that religion, ANYONE'S, is based on lies, but I do not want values and religious beliefs presented to my children as if they are the facts. What I stated was that if you were to look at an abstinence-only-until-married curriculum, you will find nothing there that can be scientifically validated. The information being presented is not fact, but opinion. It stinks of intolerance to human beings who do not believe the same things, and is presented by politically, religiously motivated people. If they are so firmly rooted in their beliefs, what would be the harm in the truth - scientifically researched information. It is based on religious views, and that can't be scientifically researched, can it? There is nothing wrong with telling an adolescent the CORRECT information about condom failure rates, as well as the protective factors. There is something wrong in proposing ONE RIGHT WAY to be a decent human being. This is ideaology, and theology, and it has no place in the public schools. As for a teacher informing kids that some people see something wrong with condom usage, that is presenting a religious view - IT BELONGS IN THE HOME, NOT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The Bible doesn't say love your neighbor, as long as he sees things the same as you. It says love your neighbor. Teaching kids factual information shows respect for them, which in turn allows them to become respectful of themselves.
I do not wish to judge someone else as "in need of being saved" or that my beliefs can do that for them. Nor do I wish to have someone judge me, or mine, as being "in need of being saved", and that their ideas are what will "save". Aren't your religious views your own private affair? Mine are. I don't see a place for religion in the public schools. "Just the facts ma'am."
In addition, Justin, you're right about not finding any scientific info that tells us whether it is morally right or wrong to use a condom. Science and morals are two different things. Public schools are left to teach facts based on science, not values based on religion. This applies whether the subject be secular Math, secular English, or secular Sex Ed.
...if you were to look at an abstinence-only-until-married curriculum, you will find nothing there that can be scientifically validated.
I've actually done a little research on this question, and the truth of the matter is that some curricula state things that might be debatable, and a couple do present data that is spun so much as to be wrong. But your assertion is vastly (vastly) overstated. At any rate, the central claim of abstinence-only education is absolutely scientifically validated: no sex, no pregancy and no sexual disease.
Aren't your religious views your own private affair?
Goodness, no! (I'm trying to be a writer, after all.) I've said similar things already, but at the risk of repeating myself: your statement itself contains religious underpinnings. It presumes that religion is little more than style; obviously, if the question of God's nature is important and interwoven with the question of the nature of reality, it would be a tremendous gap to deprive public school students of any sort of background thinking about Him, much more profound a gap, I'd suggest, than missing out on Calculus.
But that's an expanded topic. The point of sex ed, as supporters such as yourself see it, is to tell children what they should do under given circumstances. That's imposition of morality. I'm not saying it's improper, but again, let's get off the ferris wheel of false assertions of "just the facts."
"and the truth of the matter is that some curricula state things that might be debatable, and a couple do present data that is spun so much as to be wrong. But your assertion is vastly (vastly) overstated. At any rate, the central claim of abstinence-only education is absolutely scientifically validated: no sex, no pregancy and no sexual disease."
MOST (if not all) abstinence-only-until-marriage educators present data that is spun. Information that is not just debatable, but blatantly false. Why should our children be misled with "spin" and false information anyway?? I do not believe I am overstating the matter at all! Don't just do research on the issue, get your hands on the curriculum. Even our most ignorant can make the connection between abstinence and no disease or pregnancy! And, by God, if that was all that they stated, I'd be happy! There would be the scientific truth! It's the rest of the nonsense, and the lies that are being presented as facts that is the problem. But they do seem incapable of sticking to that "central claim", and they wouldn't need curriculum filled with "spin" to make such simple assertions. That is why the goal needs to be abstinence plus, better known as Comprehensive Sex Ed. We need programs that teach, not "preach." That's best left in the churches or in the homes. In a public school, they should be learning tolerance of ALL, no matter the differences, not condemnation and isolation because of differences. This is what creates hatred, hostility, and anger.
" The point of sex ed, as supporters such as yourself see it, is to tell children what they should do under given circumstances. That's imposition of morality."
No, that's knowledge of safety, knowledge of consequence of actions, and responsibility. If those who have been told to be abstinent, stay abstinent, Halleluyah! But, if some should falter from the "instructions" they've been given, as human beings have been known to do, let them be safe. There is NO evidence that people who are taught about contraception, or disease prevention are more likely to initiate sex at an earlier age than those who have "vowed" abstinence. But there is question of those who break their "pledges" having a higher pregnancy rate. Now why would that be? Let's do the Math...from a standardized viewpoint!
There is NO evidence that people who are taught about contraception, or disease prevention are more likely to initiate sex at an earlier age than those who have "vowed" abstinence. But there is question of those who break their "pledges" having a higher pregnancy rate.
Not true (see particularly here. Look at Britain, with its condoms and morning-after pills for teens without parental notification; they're having huge problems.
If you've got contrary evidence, I'd be happy to look at it.
Forgive me, Justin, "pledges" do appear to delay the onset of initiation of activity, but it does appear that your figures are "spin". 60% of pledgers break their vow with only 12% being married. As for those who break the pledge, MOST are ill prepared in preventive measures for both pregnancy and disease transmission.
There also appears to be a lot of confusion in the kids about what abstinence really means. Many, who call themselves virgins, have participated in oral or anal sex. Yet, they're still virgins??!! Of course, we could blame the misunderstanding between intercourse and other acts on Bill Clinton, or we could blame it on the fact that we haven't fully informed the kids.
Following abstract with link, footnotes reputable research organizations such as Guttmacher, Kaiser Foundation, NIH to name a few. Research adbstinence only, and one of the FEW evaluators: Heritage Foundation.
1. Young people who make virginity pledges are more likely than others to be religious suggesting that they may already be committed to delaying sexual activity.
Religious adherence is much stronger in the US than in the United Kingdom. 53% of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives compared to 16% of Britons suggesting that abstinence pledging is unlikely to be well received by most young people in Britain.
http://www.brook.org.uk/contentplain/M6_1_5_abstinence.asp
And yet we have higher pregnancy rates here in the USA!
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
I testified at this hearing as a proponent of the bill. What threw me off when I got to the hearing, was the opposition...the homeschoolers. I find myself in the precarious position of being both a homeschooler, and a parent of a publicly schooled freshman. (My son was homeschooled until Jr. High)I can relate entirely to the belief system of homeschoolers opposing the government inteference of telling us HOW to teach what we teach. That cannot be. But for our public schools, what cannot be is the law as it stands; without the clarifications that this bill provides, and the present reality of variations from district to district, our schools, intentionally or unintentionally, allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise. Explore the text of abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and what you will find is pure and simple. You will find intolerance to its' greatest extent - intolerance of single-parent households, intolerance of those single parents having a sexual relationship, intolerance of homosexuality, intolerance of sexuality at all, until married of course, intolerance of prevention of conception (married or not). You will find skewed statistics and facts that are scientifically UNfounded. You will find sexual stereotypes, and your children will be asked to sign pledges - and join "clubs" . When you research the sources of the information compiled in the text, you will find RELIGIOUSLY, POLITICALLY motivated organizations. Dr. Miller was 100% accurate in his statement that our children are used as "fodder in an idealogical debate".
Posted by: Tracey Ross at March 28, 2005 4:45 PMP.S. I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Miller after the hearing, and my son was the recipient of the condoms used in his efforts to support Comprehensive Sex Ed. As this method has already been taught in our home, my hopes are that IF my son does not choose abstinence, he will choose SAFETY. He knows the decision is his to make, and has been given the information to make educated decisions.
But Tracey, what's wrong with variation from town to town? Is there a reason sex ed must be the same in downtown Providence as in Barrington or Portsmouth? Are we so confident in standardized sex ed that parents (who can affect a school district much more than they can the state government) must be removed from the equation?
I'm also not sure about your fears that we might "allow programs into our schools that have religion as their premise." Doing so is inevitable. Handing out condoms is based on the premise that Catholic teachings about sexuality (for example) are incorrect. There are balances to be struck, of course (which is one reason that the district-by-district decision making is important), but let's not pretend that the balance is between objectivity and bias.
Such organizations as Planned Parenthood contribute to the secular sex ed curriculum, and they stand to gain both ideologically and financially from an increase of a particular approach to life and sexuality.
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 28, 2005 4:56 PM"Handing out condoms is based on the premise that Catholic teachings about sexuality (for example) are incorrect. There are balances to be struck, of course (which is one reason that the district-by-district decision making is important), but let's not pretend that the balance is between objectivity and bias."
Catholic teachings belong in the Catholic church. Christian teachings belong in the Christian schools, Judaism belongs in the Hebrew schools. I do not want my children being taught theologically, which is why they are in the public schools. (Cost is another factor.) Our family life, whatever it may be, is ours, not to be imposed upon with someone else's value system. If sex ed is to be taught, as the STATE law says is must, then it should be standardized with accurate, science based information, so as to assure nonbiased teachings, district by district. Such as it is with Math, and English, etc. As difficult as the subject may be to teach,Barrington does not differ from Providence in presenting kids with the facts. Facts will not differentiate from one district to the next, one state to the next. They all deserve the same facts. Values are best left to the home! As they used to say on Dragnet "Just the facts, ma'am."
I do not propose handing out condoms in the schools...However, if that is what it takes to keep a sexually active adolescent safe because of a choice they make, than that safety must be the focus. I propose giving them the facts, (based on science)with the focus being on abstinence, and the lessons based on reality,(and science) and how to stay safe in a world full of dangers. Dangers come in all shapes and sizes, and some folks believe they can "save" the world by imposing their methods based on their religion. How does that repect another human being? I propose what Rep. Dennigan proposed - NO RELIGION IN THE SCHOOLS! (The exception being private school,homeschool, or parochial school for the obvious reasons - their education is private.)I propose teaching TOLERANCE and respect with truth, not intolerance and disrespect with lies.
I have seen firsthand the misleading methods these religious organizations use to get themselves in the door of the public schools. I have seen firsthand the misleading information they try to impose upon the children. It is nothing less than an attempt to indoctrinate to their way of life. I do not choose to have my children, or myself, imposed upon in this way. This religious, political war doesn't belong in the public schools, and it seems that only state laws will enforce that code. Sad, but true.
Again, our country's founding in based on the SEPARATION of Church and State. We are NOT a Christian nation, but a nation created on diversity.
P.S. If you believe that the Catholic teachings are "safe" in some way, from the Evangelical teachings...you may want to take a closer look. The Catholics are also viewed as Pagans, for honoring The Virgin Mary and the Saints, and they, in addition to countless others, need to be "saved" but for the errors of their ways.
Posted by: Tracey at March 28, 2005 8:05 PMDon't you see a contradiction, Tracey, between this:
And this:
It seems to me implicit in your statements that religion is tantamount to lies — or, at the most mild, is irrelevant to children's lives and well-being. That's fine for you to believe, and I do agree that such views ought to be respected, but nonetheless, they are ultimately religious views. For example, from my perspective, your statement about folks who "believe they can 'save' the world by imposing their methods" sounds an awful lot like those who wish to standardize secular sex ed at the state level in order to save children from a dangerous world.
I agree that public school education ought to focus on facts, but there is nothing in science that indicates one way or another whether it is morally right to use condoms. Once a teacher tells students "if you're going to have sex, you should use a condom," he or she is advocating a particular worldview to the exclusion of others. Somehow I suspect that you'd object to the schools' standards requiring teachers to inform the students that some people believe condom use presents problems for their immortal souls.
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 28, 2005 8:30 PMI never perceived my thoughts, or my religion to be imposed on another, by trying to be accepting and tolerant of people and their differences, nor do I happen to see these as religious characteristics. I do not see truth and tolerance to be unimportant or irrelevant to anyone. I do not even begin to suggest that religion, ANYONE'S, is based on lies, but I do not want values and religious beliefs presented to my children as if they are the facts. What I stated was that if you were to look at an abstinence-only-until-married curriculum, you will find nothing there that can be scientifically validated. The information being presented is not fact, but opinion. It stinks of intolerance to human beings who do not believe the same things, and is presented by politically, religiously motivated people. If they are so firmly rooted in their beliefs, what would be the harm in the truth - scientifically researched information. It is based on religious views, and that can't be scientifically researched, can it? There is nothing wrong with telling an adolescent the CORRECT information about condom failure rates, as well as the protective factors. There is something wrong in proposing ONE RIGHT WAY to be a decent human being. This is ideaology, and theology, and it has no place in the public schools. As for a teacher informing kids that some people see something wrong with condom usage, that is presenting a religious view - IT BELONGS IN THE HOME, NOT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The Bible doesn't say love your neighbor, as long as he sees things the same as you. It says love your neighbor. Teaching kids factual information shows respect for them, which in turn allows them to become respectful of themselves.
Posted by: Tracey at March 29, 2005 2:52 PMI do not wish to judge someone else as "in need of being saved" or that my beliefs can do that for them. Nor do I wish to have someone judge me, or mine, as being "in need of being saved", and that their ideas are what will "save". Aren't your religious views your own private affair? Mine are. I don't see a place for religion in the public schools. "Just the facts ma'am."
In addition, Justin, you're right about not finding any scientific info that tells us whether it is morally right or wrong to use a condom. Science and morals are two different things. Public schools are left to teach facts based on science, not values based on religion. This applies whether the subject be secular Math, secular English, or secular Sex Ed.
Posted by: Tracey at March 29, 2005 3:08 PMI've actually done a little research on this question, and the truth of the matter is that some curricula state things that might be debatable, and a couple do present data that is spun so much as to be wrong. But your assertion is vastly (vastly) overstated. At any rate, the central claim of abstinence-only education is absolutely scientifically validated: no sex, no pregancy and no sexual disease.
Goodness, no! (I'm trying to be a writer, after all.) I've said similar things already, but at the risk of repeating myself: your statement itself contains religious underpinnings. It presumes that religion is little more than style; obviously, if the question of God's nature is important and interwoven with the question of the nature of reality, it would be a tremendous gap to deprive public school students of any sort of background thinking about Him, much more profound a gap, I'd suggest, than missing out on Calculus.
But that's an expanded topic. The point of sex ed, as supporters such as yourself see it, is to tell children what they should do under given circumstances. That's imposition of morality. I'm not saying it's improper, but again, let's get off the ferris wheel of false assertions of "just the facts."
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 29, 2005 5:38 PM"and the truth of the matter is that some curricula state things that might be debatable, and a couple do present data that is spun so much as to be wrong. But your assertion is vastly (vastly) overstated. At any rate, the central claim of abstinence-only education is absolutely scientifically validated: no sex, no pregancy and no sexual disease."
MOST (if not all) abstinence-only-until-marriage educators present data that is spun. Information that is not just debatable, but blatantly false. Why should our children be misled with "spin" and false information anyway?? I do not believe I am overstating the matter at all! Don't just do research on the issue, get your hands on the curriculum. Even our most ignorant can make the connection between abstinence and no disease or pregnancy! And, by God, if that was all that they stated, I'd be happy! There would be the scientific truth! It's the rest of the nonsense, and the lies that are being presented as facts that is the problem. But they do seem incapable of sticking to that "central claim", and they wouldn't need curriculum filled with "spin" to make such simple assertions. That is why the goal needs to be abstinence plus, better known as Comprehensive Sex Ed. We need programs that teach, not "preach." That's best left in the churches or in the homes. In a public school, they should be learning tolerance of ALL, no matter the differences, not condemnation and isolation because of differences. This is what creates hatred, hostility, and anger.
Posted by: Tracey at March 29, 2005 11:24 PM" The point of sex ed, as supporters such as yourself see it, is to tell children what they should do under given circumstances. That's imposition of morality."
No, that's knowledge of safety, knowledge of consequence of actions, and responsibility. If those who have been told to be abstinent, stay abstinent, Halleluyah! But, if some should falter from the "instructions" they've been given, as human beings have been known to do, let them be safe. There is NO evidence that people who are taught about contraception, or disease prevention are more likely to initiate sex at an earlier age than those who have "vowed" abstinence. But there is question of those who break their "pledges" having a higher pregnancy rate. Now why would that be? Let's do the Math...from a standardized viewpoint!
Not true (see particularly here. Look at Britain, with its condoms and morning-after pills for teens without parental notification; they're having huge problems.
If you've got contrary evidence, I'd be happy to look at it.
Posted by: Justin Katz at March 30, 2005 5:54 AMForgive me, Justin, "pledges" do appear to delay the onset of initiation of activity, but it does appear that your figures are "spin". 60% of pledgers break their vow with only 12% being married. As for those who break the pledge, MOST are ill prepared in preventive measures for both pregnancy and disease transmission.
There also appears to be a lot of confusion in the kids about what abstinence really means. Many, who call themselves virgins, have participated in oral or anal sex. Yet, they're still virgins??!! Of course, we could blame the misunderstanding between intercourse and other acts on Bill Clinton, or we could blame it on the fact that we haven't fully informed the kids.
Following abstract with link, footnotes reputable research organizations such as Guttmacher, Kaiser Foundation, NIH to name a few. Research adbstinence only, and one of the FEW evaluators: Heritage Foundation.
1. Young people who make virginity pledges are more likely than others to be religious suggesting that they may already be committed to delaying sexual activity.
Religious adherence is much stronger in the US than in the United Kingdom. 53% of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives compared to 16% of Britons suggesting that abstinence pledging is unlikely to be well received by most young people in Britain.
http://www.brook.org.uk/contentplain/M6_1_5_abstinence.asp
And yet we have higher pregnancy rates here in the USA!
Posted by: Tracey at March 30, 2005 1:23 PM