Abstinence-only education is not ignorant or naive, nor is it ineffective. Abstinence- only education gives parents the freedom to raise their children without the interference of state-imposed values. Sex education severely impedes a parent's freedom to raise children with values of their own choosing. Some parts of society try to propagate an image of abstinence-only education as irrational and uncivilized, when, on the contrary, abstinence-only education is an effective and intelligent means to lowering teenage pregnancy rates in the United States and securing parental rights.
In 2006, President-elect Obama voted in support of an amendment to "teen pregnancy" education which ultimately supports sex education that's "age appropriate," meaning even kindergartners would receive sex education in public schools. The idea that pro-contraception programs somehow lower teenage pregnancy rates, and abstinence only programs do not, is incorrect. A study was conducted in Monroe County, New York, regarding the "Not Me, Not Now" abstinence program. The study found that the pregnancy rate for girls ages 15 through 17 in the county, fell by a very significant amount. The rate fell from 63.4 pregnancies per 100 girls to 49.5 pregnancies per 1000 girls.
According to the Heritage Foundation, only 8 % of parents believe that promoting contraception is more important than abstinence. Parents are the ones who have been left out of the political discussion regarding sex education. Ironically, parents are the ones paying the taxes for this education, whether or not this education aligns with their true values. Parents should be the ones doing the parenting, not the state.
"Comprehensive sex-ed programs" and "safe sex" programs are only myths. There is always a serious amount of risk in sexual activity for women and men, and these programs do not emphasize that risk enough. Condoms and birth control are not 100% preventative, and they should not be portrayed that way. The message that it's okay to have sex, as long as "protection" is used, is simply misleading. Yet, it's portrayed constantly in sex-ed programs throughout the country. To take "comprehensive sex-ed programs" a step further, Barbara Whitehead also makes some good points in The Atlantic. She argues that these sex-ed programs fail because they assume that knowledge acquired at earlier ages will influence behavior. "However," she writes, "the empirical evidence suggests that younger teenagers, especially, are unlikely to act on what they know." A solution she suggests is that parents be more involved in their younger teenagers' lives.
The facts reveal that sex before marriage has harmful consequences- like it or not. According to the Heritage Foundation, sexually active young adults are more likely to be depressed and commit suicide. The earlier a teenage girl becomes involved in sexual activity, the more likely she will encounter sexually transmitted diseases, in fact, a CDC study released earlier this year, an estimated 1 in 4 girls between 14 and 19. She'll also be more likely to suffer increased rates of single parenthood. Why would we support education that prepares teenage girls for such morbid life circumstances?
From a fiscally conservative standpoint, abstinence only education also proves to be a better option. The Heritage Foundation reports that the government spends $12 to promote contraceptive education for every $1 spent on abstinence education. Abstinence-only education saves the government money, in addition to allowing parents the right to teach their children about contraception rather than the State.
In the future, President Barack Obama should start by encouraging parents to be more involved in their children's lives, rather than support legislation for new sex-ed programs that hamper on parental rights. The research shows that abstinence-only education continues to be effective in lowering depression and suicide rates in teenagers, as well as lowering teenage pregnancy rates.
1 comments