Chicago Tribune - December 13, 2004

There is, though, a policy debate in this country on whether the government ought to fund abstinence-only curriculums in schools, to the exclusion or diminishment of education about condoms, birth control or other methods of avoiding unwanted outcomes from sexual relations.

The Bush administration has aggressively promoted abstinence-only sex education by increasing funding for it. In the current fiscal year, Washington is spending $167 million for abstinence-only programs, or twice the federal funding in 2001.

Some groups promoting abstinence-only are animated by religious convictions. They are entitled to promote their beliefs, among their members or congregations, without meddling from the government. But when the feds spend $167 million on the abstinence-only paradigm, taxpayers need to ask: Do these programs work? Is the information dispensed accurate and balanced? Are these programs worth the cost?

The questions aren't as easy to answer as they should be. The Washington Post recently reported a continuing drop in U.S. teen pregnancy, with births to girls 14 and younger at the lowest level in 60 years. The Post said "a major part of the decline appears due to delaying sexual activity." But the newspaper said it's too soon to know whether abstinence-only programs are more effective than more comprehensive sex education programs: While advocates pro and con cite research backing their position, much of that work has been too loosely designed to provide conclusive answers.

A Democratic congressional staff study released this month by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) questions the accuracy, scientific validity and balance of 11 of 13 popular abstinence-only programs funded by Washington.

The study says some information is misleading, tendentious or inaccurate. That includes a claim that condoms' effectiveness in helping prevent sexually transmitted disease, including AIDS, is not supported by scientific data, and an assertion that in heterosexual intercourse, condoms fail 31 percent of the time. Yet the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says condoms, "when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the transmission of AIDS."

Abstinence-only promoters, such as Atlanta-based Choosing the Best, call Waxman's study a politically motivated smear. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)--a medical doctor--agrees that abstinence-only programs must be vetted for accuracy and effectiveness. "That is part of our responsibility to make sure that all of these programs are reviewed," he says.

Government-funded programs that deal with human sexuality--and especially its life-and-death aspects--need to be accurate and thorough. The policy debate over sex education has reverberated for years. Unfortunately, through much of that debate, knowing the political beliefs of each participant too often makes it a snap to predict how he or she will judge abstinence-only education, both in theory and as taught in classrooms.

Frist has the right answer. This nation has no shortage of public health researchers capable of setting aside personal agendas--as they do on a regular basis--to evaluate the accuracy, appeal and effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. If some are worthless, they don't deserve government support and ought to be exposed so school districts can jettison them. If others are worthwhile, they should be identified and acclaimed.

What this debate needs is the sort of investigation--apart from politics--that Frist's words suggest. Education about sexuality will always be a topic on which Americans of differing opinions want to see their views expressed in classrooms. The question of what strategies work best should have been resolved by now. That they haven't is its own failure, but one that can be remedied for the benefit of students across the U.S.

041213
CT041209

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2004. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2004. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .