Abstinence-Until-Marriage Still Doesn't Work

By Liza Doubossarskaia, NOW Communications Volunteer

March 22, 2010

"Abstinence-Only Education Works According to New Study"

That is the typical headline found recently in newspapers and on websites across the country. The only problem is that this new finding is drawn from a study of programs that are worlds away from the misleading and fear-mongering abstinence-only programs that have come under fire from advocates like NOW. However, conservative groups that promoted abstinence-only-until-marriage federally-funded programs were quick to claim success in the hopes that funding would be restored.

Last year, the Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs in response to a series of studies which found these programs to be ineffective. Instead, $114 million -- and maybe as much as $183 million -- will be directed toward a pregnancy prevention effort that will be based only on programs that have been shown scientifically to work. Additionally, for the first time ever, grants will be made available to fund comprehensive, factual and science-based sex education programs.

Effective, Factual Programs Needed - For years, NOW and other groups have urged that federal funds be spent only on proven programs. Our concern relates to a recent increase in teen pregnancy, births and sexually-transmitted infection (STIs) rates -- after a decade of decline. Some observers attribute these unwelcome increases to the biased and incomplete information presented in abstinence-only programs.

As an example of the misinformation contained in many conservative-backed abstinence-only programs, in 2004 an investigation by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) found that a majority of the teaching materials used inaccurate information, such as: HIV can be spread via sweat or tears; condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse; and a 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."

Then, along came the new research that seemed to contradict previous conclusions. According to findings published earlier this year in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 662 sixth and seventh graders who underwent abstinence-only "intervention" were more likely to delay having sex than their peers who were assigned to only general health information classes or classes teaching only safer sex. Out of the different intervention programs tested, only 33 percent of the students from the abstinence intervention started having sex within two years after the program's completion. Comprehensive, safe-sex-only and health-promotion programs registered higher rates of students engaging in sexual intercourse (42 percent, 52 percent and 47 percent respectively).

Proponents of abstinence-only curricula were quick to laud the new findings as a long-awaited justification for conservative-endorsed funding, which totaled $1.5 billion over the past 25 years.

We say, not so fast.

Intervention Works for a Particular Teen Group - Reviewers of the University of Pennsylvania study say that the intervention may work well for young, urban African-American students, but not so well with other adolescent groups and cautioned against using the findings to support continued funding for abstinence-only programs that reach out to different groups.

The methodology employed in the classes designed by the University of Pennsylvania differs significantly from the methodology used by most abstinence-only curricula. Specifically, the abstinence-only intervention did not take a moralistic view toward sex, as do many other abstinence curricula. The research description expressly states that, "the intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected." In other words, these programs avoided the narrow approach that has been used in many federally-funded abstinence-only programs, nor did they rely on non-factual information.

While federal law does not require that an abstinence-only curriculum be taught in schools, over the years Congress created three programs that provided federal funding for abstinence-only education. These programs include the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) grant program, and funding through the 1996 welfare "reform" legislation.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines, in order to be eligible for CBAE funds the curriculum "must not promote contraception and/or condom use (as opposed to risk elimination)," "must not promote or encourage sexual activity outside of marriage," must teach "the harmful psychological effects of sexual activity outside of context of marriage," and must "define 'marriage' as 'a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.'" AFLA and welfare reform legislation have similarly stringent requirements.

All of these narrow educational approaches can lead to risky sexual behavior because the abstinence-until-marriage model only fits a small group of individuals. For instance, a 2003 evaluation by the Pennsylvania Department of Health (which like the University of Pennsylvania study targeted sixth and seventh graders) and a 2003 evaluation of Arizona's abstinence-only program found that abstinence-only education works on young people who have never had sex.

Lack of Comprehensive Sex-Ed Puts Young People at Risk - Obviously, not all young people fit the same mold. We see that once adolescents become sexually active, abstinence-only education considerably diminishes in its ability to adequately address their health needs. Furthermore, withholding comprehensive sexual education puts sexually active youth, sexually abused youth, and LGBT youth at higher risk of unwanted pregnancies, HIV infection and STIs. According to the report published by the AIDS Research Institute at University of California, San Francisco, "[adolescents' elevated risk] will not be served by programming which claims that sexual experiences should occur exclusively in the context of traditional marriage or which shames other kinds of sexual experience." Ignoring the needs of young people is an irresponsible practice that roots itself in ideological fear-mongering and not in the welfare of our nation's youth.

As noted, the intervention in the University of Pennsylvania study did not contain unsubstantiated and scientifically erroneous claims found in the abstinence-until-marriage programs. The program also did not present premarital sex as an inherently damaging activity that must be avoided. Finally, while bypassing direct information regarding condom use, the program clearly proscribed disparaging presentation of contraception. It turns out that the word "abstinence" is the only thing the University of Pennsylvania program and abstinence-only curricula currently being taught in our schools have in common.

No More Money for Misleading Programs - Using the study's findings to revive the conservative, moralistic and misleading abstinence-only programs would be a mistake and counterproductive to the core purpose behind the research, which is to find methods that effectively reduce risks associated with premature sexual activity.