Editorial: Just say no to abstinence-only

Congress should cut restrictive sex ed funding from budget.

Last update: December 10, 2007 - 2:11 PM

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

EXPERTS SAY

"By design, abstinence programs restrict information about condoms and contraception -- information that may be critical to protecting the health of young people and to preventing unplanned pregnancy ...''

Dr. John Santelli, Columbia University, and nine other adolescent health scientists in a recent letter urging Congress to end federal support for abstinence-only education.

More from Editorials

Abstinence-only sex education is ineffective, unrealistic and can actually do more harm than good. Studies show that the "just say no'' approach to informing teens about sex just doesn't work.

That's why it's time to stop wasting millions of federal dollars on such programs. Congress now has a chance to end that funding as members go back to the drawing board to craft a revised national spending package.

For nearly a decade, Congress has spent upwards of $50 million each year on abstinence-focused programs to exclusively teach youth that sex should be put off until marriage. It's a pet project of President Bush, who proposed increasing that funding by $24 million for the next budget year. However, for other reasons, Bush vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress. That gives federal lawmakers another opportunity to pull back on abstinence-only support.

Scientific evidence, surveys and public opinion call for a new course. Last April, a congressionally mandated evaluation found that younger students who received abstinence instruction were just as likely to have sex later as students who did not get such instruction. Other studies have shown that teens who learn nothing about protecting themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are more likely to get pregnant or catch an STD.

By comparison, adolescents in Europe are as sexually active as American teens. But the birth rate among European teen birth rate is about half what it is in the United States, in part because of comprehensive sex education programs.

It's unrealistic to withhold important health information from teens in a society where more than 90 percent of all people have sex before marriage and more than half of all teens report having sex before they leave high school.

Abstinence can be included in a curriculum as one of several options. Teaching youth about the value of putting off intercourse and dealing with social pressures should be part of all sex education programs. But it should not be taught in isolation. Young people need to learn how to keep themselves safe whether or not they are sexually active.

Another good reason to put the breaks on the federal funding is that states are beginning to opt out. Early this year, the Minnesota Health Department turned down about $500,000 in abstinence-only federal funding, joining 13 other states that have wisely said "no thanks" to the federal grants.

The president has based this aspect of his health care policy on ideology and theology rather than what is best for teens. Congress can do better by devoting federal dollars to inclusive, comprehensive sex education.

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS