Abstinence-only sex education was something I heard about long ago. Then I really began to pay attention to the issue while I was a Public Policy Fellow at Gay Men's Health Crsis in 2009. Abstinence-only sex education places a great emphasis on waiting to have sex until after marriage. Such education often minimizes the biological aspects of sex, and often speaks very little about the use of condoms and birth control, if at all. Such education has been linked to increased rates of teen pregnancy and contraction of sexually transmitted infections. One 2011 study at the University of Georgia examined the correlation between abstinence-only sex education and teen pregnancies, births and abortions.
For every state, the investigators examined education laws and other policies regarding sex and/or HIV/AIDS education. Actual education laws were retrieved from the Education Commission on the States, while other related policies were retrieved from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS). All but two states (Wyoming and North Dakota) had education laws and/or policies on record. Each state's laws and policies were assigned a number from 0-3 indicating the level of importance each state placed on abstinence from sex; level 0 laws indicated no specific mention of abstinence, while level 3 indicated that abstinence from sex until marriage was the fundamental teaching standard. The policy level for each state was correlated with data on teen pregnancy, and birth and abortion rates. The investigators also accounted for population factors like socioeconomic status, education level, ethnicity and access to Medicare waivers for family planning.
The results? States that were described as Level 3 (abstinence was their fundamental teaching standard) had the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births among teen moms. The investigators also found that richer states tended to have a higher proportion of white teens in their teen populations, and emphasized abstinence less. These richer states also tended to have lower teen pregnancy and birth rates than poorer states. These results support the notion that abstinence-only sex education is ineffective.
Politics often involves compromise between the concerned parties. In June 2009, when I was a Public Policy Fellow, the major source of funding for abstinence-only education expired. A new bill was signed in December 2009 that provided $114 million to more comprehensive and evidence-based sex education (hooray)! Therefore, I was surprised to learn that the ACA provided funding for abstinence-only education which yields questionable outcomes. But like I said-- compromise.
The debate about whether or not abstinence-only sex education works is important; however, it is the unwanted outcomes with which we should be very concerned. The University of Georgia study found that teenage pregnancy was strongly correlated with ethnicity and socioeconomic background. Public health campaigns that target high-risk populations to educate them about teen-pregnancy and provide better access to preventative services will be invaluable moving forward.
For every state, the investigators examined education laws and other policies regarding sex and/or HIV/AIDS education. Actual education laws were retrieved from the Education Commission on the States, while other related policies were retrieved from the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS). All but two states (Wyoming and North Dakota) had education laws and/or policies on record. Each state's laws and policies were assigned a number from 0-3 indicating the level of importance each state placed on abstinence from sex; level 0 laws indicated no specific mention of abstinence, while level 3 indicated that abstinence from sex until marriage was the fundamental teaching standard. The policy level for each state was correlated with data on teen pregnancy, and birth and abortion rates. The investigators also accounted for population factors like socioeconomic status, education level, ethnicity and access to Medicare waivers for family planning.
The results? States that were described as Level 3 (abstinence was their fundamental teaching standard) had the highest rates of teen pregnancy and births among teen moms. The investigators also found that richer states tended to have a higher proportion of white teens in their teen populations, and emphasized abstinence less. These richer states also tended to have lower teen pregnancy and birth rates than poorer states. These results support the notion that abstinence-only sex education is ineffective.
Politics often involves compromise between the concerned parties. In June 2009, when I was a Public Policy Fellow, the major source of funding for abstinence-only education expired. A new bill was signed in December 2009 that provided $114 million to more comprehensive and evidence-based sex education (hooray)! Therefore, I was surprised to learn that the ACA provided funding for abstinence-only education which yields questionable outcomes. But like I said-- compromise.
The debate about whether or not abstinence-only sex education works is important; however, it is the unwanted outcomes with which we should be very concerned. The University of Georgia study found that teenage pregnancy was strongly correlated with ethnicity and socioeconomic background. Public health campaigns that target high-risk populations to educate them about teen-pregnancy and provide better access to preventative services will be invaluable moving forward.
