Editorial: Just say no to abstinence-only

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.