SPEAKOUT: Abstinence education has been effective
By Carla Adams
Published March 19, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated March 19, 2008 at 9:46 a.m.
As the former state director of the federally funded Colorado Abstinence Education Program under Govs. Bill Owens and Bill Ritter, I am appalled at the scientifically flawed, medically inaccurate and politically skewed media coverage of recently released adolescent sexually transmitted disease data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
During its 2008 National STD Prevention Conference, CDC representative Dr. Sara Forhan released data from a 2004 study that suggests that one in four girls in the United States between the ages 14 to 19 has a sexually transmitted disease. These are not new findings. These data are consistent with more than a decade of findings.
Yet, Planned Parenthood, Yahoo News and other "national experts" have taken this opportunity to once again create a propaganda war, actually blaming abstinence education for the increase in STDs.
Abstinence education has been turned into a partisan debate, but it was actually initiated under the Clinton administration in 1996. Since its implementation there have been significant national declines in teen birth rates and sexual risk behaviors.
Colorado has either mirrored or exceeded national trends in reducing teen birth rates and adolescent sexual risk-taking behaviors since abstinence education began.
The teen birth rate per 1,000 adolescent girls who are 15 to 19 has fallen steadily from 55.5 in 1991 to 39.2 in 2006. In fact, teen birth-rate data demonstrate a faster rate of reduction since the initiation of abstinence education in late 1997. The percentage of high school students who have ever had sex has declined from 46.6 percent in 1995 to 39.3 percent in 2005, a 16 percent decrease. The percentage of high school students using condoms at last intercourse increased 34 percent from 53 percent in 1995 to 71 percent in 2005.
It shocks me that such biased media coverage and politicized comment was generated by a conference report that is not even a scientifically sound model. The CDC has not allowed Colorado to report its 1997 or 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey results as valid, weighted data because the state did not achieve a minimum of 1,000 randomly selected respondents. Yet, the reported CDC study used a sample size of 838 self-selecting participants and is being reported as a reflection of more than 3.2 million young women nationwide.
That sexually active teens should be regularly tested and treated for STDs is not the issue. Adolescents need accurate, current information about their risks and healthy ways to avoid risk. Many abstinence education organizations support a comprehensive suite of services to adolescents including STD education and testing.
Opponents of abstinence education promote condom use as an effective way to avoid STDs. Since condom use has continued to increase nationally, it would seem normal to assume that rates of STDs would reduce. This has not happened.
The National Institutes of Health meta-analysis of existing research around the protective factor of condoms found for all four prevalent diseases reported in the CDC-sponsored study (human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus, chlamydia and trichomoniasis), that there is no epidemiologically sound evidence to support the assertion that condoms reduce the risk of acquiring these STDs.
Perhaps it is time to stop throwing stones and begin looking at strategic ways to support adolescents in developing skills to delay onset of sexual activity, which includes abstaining from all oral, anal and vaginal sex. For those who are sexually active, it is imperative they receive proper care in testing, treatment and education to reduce and avoid risk now and in the future.
Carla Adams is the director of A Promising Future, a program providing adolescents and young adults with strategies for success.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
March 19, 2008
6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
LetsThink writes:
Amen for abstinance education.
But the Liberals want to encourage our teenagers to have sex, by handing out condoms.
And they also provide abortions (killing babies) using our tax dollars.
It's upsetting.
March 19, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
No, belltennis. "Liberals" want to encourage responsible behaviors, but also fully realize that "heat of the moment" issues sometimes arise, and people need to be educated enough to know how to handle these situations. It's not a simple "just say no!" approach. Abstinence is best, but reality needs to play a role here. If teens are going to be sexually active, they need appropriate education concerning pregnancy, STD's, condom usage (PROPER condom usage), among other things.
Stop making this a black or white situation, for it's truly NOT.
March 19, 2008
7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
Carla, abstinance as never worked and will never work. What works is good quality sex education that as be put on hold by different oraganization because of this thing called "abstinance" that doesn't work and is being forced on these organization, by who? Of course, the Christian Conservatives. People who allow fear to rule their lives and as such never get things right.
March 19, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
becca00 writes:
"Abstinence education has been effective" ... at what?
Are we talking about "abstinence education," or are we talking about "abstinence-only education"? There's a world of difference. Abstinence education started under Clinton. However, in recent years, abstinence education has been slowly replaced (in many instances) with "abstinence-only education" and that is a disaster waiting to happen.
I haven't seen what the current curriculum for sex education looks like, but from the sounds of it, the course teaches about STDs and just says "use condoms" when it comes to prophylactics. No correlation seems to be drawn to the types of prophylactics and the STD risk they are designed to mitigate, which is *almost* as bad as engaging in "abstinence-only" education.
If we're going to educate our kids, then let's fully educate them. Tell them: "Abstinence is the one sure-fire method to not get an STD or pregnant. HOWEVER, if you can't keep your hormones in check, here's all the other information you need to know about what you face and how to protect yourself." Of course, an above average education in human anatomy & physiology and biological sciences would also serve kids well in this, and a multitude of other situations (e.g., drugs, nutrition, physical fitness, etc.).
March 19, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
Carla, I have no objection to the idea of abstinence. What I object to is the "Abstinence Only" program promoted by the Bush Administration. Schools that teach abstinence only often do not teach about STD's or contraception, thereby leaving teens more vulnerable. The assertion that Planned Parenthood doesn't know what it's talking about is totally ludicrous, and just another indication of the administration's anti-scientific bias. The assertion that condoms don't protect against STD's is questionable indeed. There must be data available on whether the four infectious agents mentioned in the letter can pass through a condom. Could you please list some reliable test data the shows what does or doesn't pass through a condom.
March 19, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
I have an 11 year old daughter going into middle school next year. We have had many, many discussions about sex.She has asked many questions and I have answered them openly and honestly.
My advice to her is this. Not having any type of sex is the best way to not get pregnant and get STD's.I told her the consequences of having unprotected sex.We have discussed waiting until she is mature enough to handle all the feelings and emotions when she becomes sexually active. I have told her my hope for her is not to have sex until marriage,but that usually is unrealistic unless you dedicate youself to choosing that path. I have told her hormones and other things will tempt her and peer pressure will try to push her into having sex.If she feels like she can't resist the temptations,she can always come to her father and I to be put on birth control and we will make sure she has condoms to protect herself.No questions asked. We will never chastise her for wanting or thinking about having sex.We will always help her be protected and our hearts and minds are open to her when she decides if this is really what she wants. All we ask of her is to come to us so we can take her to the Dr's to get her protection with the birth control pill and supply her with condoms.We have told her the one thing we will not support is her having sex without her partner wearing a condom.If her partner does not want to wear a condom than he does not care about her enough to protect her.We have gone into great detail on diseases,sex and how to protect yourself with her.We first have asked her to abstain from sex and have said that is the best way to protect herself.We live in a real world and she needs all the information she can get to help her make the right choice no matter what that choice is.That is all we can do as parents.
March 19, 2008
11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
It's easy for you to be abstinent when you're ugly DoubleChucky. Teaching sex education and having available birth control will drastically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. See for yourself when we finally do these things. The Religious Right has shown themselves to be unaffective.
March 19, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Carla: How DARE you let your facts get in the way of my pre-conceived opinion!
I don't CARE that rates of intercourse have gone down.
I don't CARE that STDs have stayed the same or gone down.
I don't CARE that condom usage has increased.
I don't care that teen pregnancy rates have gone down.
My opinion, for which I have a Second Amendment right, is that abstinence causes pregnancy. The only way to keep our kids safe is to tell them to use drugs and have group sex. Responsibly, of course.
Why, I was a virgin until well after High School. I am shocked every day when I wonder HOW I did not get a girl pregnant! Abstinence causes babies and the sooner you realize that, the better!
March 19, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ayinde2853 writes:
Irisman,
I have provided abstinence education in classrooms in the state of CO and can tell you that every curriculum I've ever used includes information about STDs and contraception. I have worked for a program that has received federal abstinence "only" dollars, and we have in no way breached the government's standards, and yet share information openly about STDs and contraception. We don't give demonstrations, and we don't promote contraceptive options. We share with students about the limitations of contraceptive devices. We invite students to consider the benefits of abstinence. We NEVER tell students they shouldn't use contraception if sexually active. We advise them that contraception reduces risk, it does not eliminate it. See the CDC's site for more info...there is no definitive answer for how effective condoms (like a %) are for the prevention of STDs.
March 19, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
leftside writes:
GWM, I like the aspirin. My donation to sex ed with my children was limited to "boy's are scum stay away from them".
Read, if you haven't already done so, vudumoms post @9:34. That's the way every kid should be educated by parents regarding sex. It's the way may wife taught our children and we never had a problem. Neither will hers for the simple reason that she knows all the facts, knows the best way to protect herself is by putting off sex until she is mature enough to handle it, as well as the precautions to take if that is not possible. More importantly, she has developed a trust and confidence in her parents which may be the most important thing.
Great post vudumom I wish that every parent would get the opportunity to read it.
March 19, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevinjjones writes:
"Yet, the reported CDC study used a sample size of 838 self-selecting participants and is being reported as a reflection of more than 3.2 million young women nationwide."
Whoa, is this true?
Self-selected results are particularly skewed.
Were we blinded by CDC pseudoscience?
March 19, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"We Christian Conservatives only want a chance."
You have a chance. I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't teach abstinence in school. The irresponsibility of the far religious right arises when they insist that we ONLY teach abstinence in school...which as we know has been failed policy.
The real question is why would you want to NOT provide your children with the tools and education needed to make them safe?
March 19, 2008
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
You're a little confused about the funding handcuffs behind abstinence only sex ed. The bush administration catered to the wishes of the far religious right (for yes...that's what they are on this issue...extremists) and tied a portion of normal educational funding to its insistence that schools teach this dogma-driven, ignorant program. I want to be clear on that....schools wouldn't get some normal funding if they choose to be responsible and teach realistic sex ed AS WELL AS abstinence lessons.
There's a HUGE difference there. You make it sound as if schools still received all the available educational funding but were just declining the funding needed to teach abstinence only sex ed...when it fact it was educational blackmail in the name of the far religious right.
btw...i'm sorry you don't like the phrase far religious right....but when extremists can force their myopic, archaic positions on the country in the form of inequal rights for homosexuals, abortion, stem cell research, creationism, abstinence only sex ed, etc etc etc....they deserve to be labeled as nothing but.
March 19, 2008
5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
that is absolutely incorrect GWM. The bush administration has specifically stated that they only receive all of their federal education funding if they ONLY teach abstinence...thus the moniker.
jebus...ingorance is one thing...but willful ignorance is another altogether
March 19, 2008
7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
Just as I suspected, Carla is being deceptive when she says that condoms don't protect against all the STD infectious agents. The CDC says that condoms block all the infectious agents, but they must be used 100% of the time. They don't work if they are used only part of the time. Teenagers are probably inconsistent about protecting themselves.
March 20, 2008
7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
GWM,I probably didn't make it clear in my post that my husband and I have told my daughter we do have higher standards for her.She knows that.We absolutely want her to abstain from sex and have made that very clear that abstinence is the only way to protect herself from pergnancy,STD's and many other things that can harm her emotionally.That being said,we have also given her all the information she needs to help protect herself and have made it clear that sex is not a bad thing but something that should be cherished when the time is right and she is old enough to understand and hopefully wait for marriage,but she can always come to us for guidance if she feels tempted or finds herself in a serious relationship in college,hopefully not earlier.
Another part of sex education is teaching your daughters not to put themselves into situations that can lead to them being raped or forced into sex.One of the conversations were on drinking. I explained to her that if she does drink when she gets older ,getting very drunk can put her into a situation where she can't make wise decisions and often alcohol can make us do things that we regret the next day.
I want my daughter to wait.I want my daughter also to be safe. I also want my daughter to have all the information I can give so she can make choices that won't harm her.
Most of all I want her to trust her father and I,that we will not judge her and she can come to us and openly discuss anything with us and not be judged and treated with disrespect.
I've always been against spanking because I have always believed that there is nothing a child can do that is so horrible that you have to hit them.I also have raised my children to trust in us that there is nothing so horrible that they could do that they can't come to their parents and talk about it.We may not be able to fix it,we can discuss it and they will have to take responsibility for their actions.We will be the first people they can come to for guidance and understanding.
March 20, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
cjsmiles writes:
Many good points have been made in this conversation. One of the greatest risks we run in this discussion is to become puppets of propaganda.
First, no school has EVER had to stop teaching contraceptive education due to the use of abstinence education funding. Schools can do both. The ONLY LIMITATION is that schools cannot use their abstinence education funding to pay for expenses associated with contraceptive education.
Secondly, abstinence education and contraceptive education have two distinctly different goals. Contraceptive education focuses on reducing the physical risks of STDs and pregnancy by teaching teens how to access and use condoms and contraception. Abstinence education focuses on developing relationship skills and strategies to avoid the physical, mental, and emotional risks associated with adolescent sexual activity, indlucing but not limited to STDs and pregnancy.
In many schools, both contraceptive education providers and abstinence education providers are invited into the school for presentations. This is not a violation of any state or federal policy.
Regarding what one should teach to his/her own children, the most important factor is that you teach what you believe! If you don't believe it, neither will they. It is not a foregone conclusion that teens will have sex ... in fact, fewer teens are having sex now than for the past 15 years. BUT if you are concerned your teens will have sex, start talking to them about your beliefs and guidelines WELL BEFORE they become teens. And make sure they have ALL the facts, not just the propaganda-based messages that prevail. Know for yourself what the risks are, then let them know. Teens are amazing thinkers. They can reach their own conclusions when they've been given real facts and know what Mom & Dad think.
March 20, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The ONLY LIMITATION is that schools cannot use their abstinence education funding to pay for expenses associated with contraceptive education."
As established before, this is a right wing myth. It is ironic that you warn against becoming a propaganda puppet...and then blindly repeat propaganda from the religious right.
The funding withheld from schools who refuse to teach ONLY abstinence isn't JUST for teaching that subject.
Furthermore, with almost 9 out of 10 students having sex before they're married, to imply that abstinence only sex ed adequately prepares the vast majority of children for the situations they will face is still...laughable at best.
March 21, 2008
9:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
time4truth writes:
In 1960 our unwed mother rate was 5.3%. Today after teaching students in our schools how to use condoms and birth control pills, it is 37%. Not to mention the disease rate, that most of us have known about for at least a decade or more. NYC gave out free condoms in 2006, and their syphilis rate was twice as high in the first quarter of 2007. The International Agency for Cancer Research reported in 2005 that anyone taking the birth control pill was at high risk for cervical cancer, breast cancer and liver cancer. In 2006, Mayo Clinic research showed that anyone who took the "pill" prior to their first pregnancy had a 44% increased risk over baseline of pre-menopausal breast cancer. We are teaching our young women to be unpaid prostitutes, and our young men to be users rather than lovers. This is not emotionally or physically healthy.
March 22, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
And in 1960, the average age of marriage was 18 or 19. Maybe people simply had sex, got pregnant, and got married very young? Is that any better? Divorce was a huge taboo then, but I wonder if that stopped spousal abuse? Did it stop STD's, or were they just not reported in the same way as they are today?
Easy to spout off statistics without context, time4truth.
March 22, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
time4truth writes:
Before YOU spout off statistics, make sure they're accurate. In 1960, the median age for a first marriage was 22.8 years for men and 20.3 for women. In 2005 the median age for first marriage was 27 years for men and 26 years for women (Popenoe & Whitehead, 2004). You need to read, "Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children" from LifeSite News.com. It was written by Patrick Schneider II, M.D. Lust and fornication are not good preparation for marriage.
March 22, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
truthy, your stats are missing one important aspect in regards to their relationship with responsible, realistic sex ed not hindered by ignorant, archaic beliefs in fairy tales...causality.
without that...your point is completely invalid
March 30, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
time4truth, so women are marrying later or having children without a husband at a whopping rate of 37%. That says much about marriage for women, and little about sex education.
Since women can support themselves and their children without welfare, many are simply choosing to not marry. And fewer men are getting married and at an older age.
I think you are mixing apples and orangutans.