Abstinence-only makes the taxpayer's wallet grow thinner

It is clearly true that those who abstain in sexual intercourse are not at risk of becoming pregnant (with apologies to the Virgin Mary). There is less of a protection against sexually transmitted diseases because there are other ways to have sex besides having intercourse with a partner of the opposite sex while in the Missionary Position (maybe you hadn't heard that. Yes, it's true. I heard it on good authority from a junior high school student). But even for pregnancy, abstinence-only education programs don't work. At all. This has been shown repeatedly. But it doesn't affect Bush administration policy or their henchmen in Congress who support these programs for purely ideological reasons (as opposed to genuine public health reasons).

A new review of the evidence just published in the British Medical Journal confirms that abstinence only programs do not prevent HIV infection, a sexually transmitted disease:

At present, thirty-three per cent of HIV prevention funds from the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) are used for abstinence only programmes. This limits the funding available for other safer sex strategies. Domestic US programs also receive substantial federal and state funding.

A pre-existing review has already examined programme effectiveness in low income countries, so researchers at the University of Oxford reviewed 13 trials involving over 15,000 US youths to assess the effects of abstinence only programmes in high income countries.

Programmes aimed to prevent HIV infection or HIV and pregnancy. They measured self reported biological and behavioural outcomes such as sexually transmitted infection, pregnancy, frequency of unprotected sex, number of partners, and sexual initiation.

Compared with various controls, no programme had a beneficial effect on incidence of unprotected vaginal sex, number of partners, condom use, sexual initiation, incidence of pregnancy, or incidence of sexually transmitted infection.

The results also suggest that abstinence only programmes did not increase primary abstinence (prevention) or secondary abstinence (decreased incidence and frequency of recent sex). (ScienceDaily)

There is nothing new or surprising about this. The same result has been show again and again: programs that teach sexual abstinence as the only means to avoid pregnancy or STDs don't work. Programs that encourage and teach condom use do work.

So why did the US Senate extend funding for community based abstinence education to the tune of $141 million dollars? Sometimes just to ask the question is to answer it.

Categories

More like this

The US government spends millions domestically and billions internationally on abstinence-only education with the intent of lowering the transmission of STIs such as HIV and limiting unwanted pregnancies. Yet abstinence-only education is demonstrably ineffective. The alternative called abstinence…
Yet another study confirms what we've known for a long time, abstinence education doesn't work: The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the…
In response to a report put out by Rep. Henry Waxman that detailed a wide range of innacuracies and falsehoods in many of the abstinence-only curricula being used in states around the country, and being heavily funded by the Bush administration, the so-cons are furiously trying to defend such…
Two new studies are showing the dangers of abstinence-only sex education. Both are reported here. Because abstinence-only programs are forbidden to even mention that condoms can help prevent pregnancy and STDs - it is literally illegal for them to mention anything about condoms other than failure…

I often ponder as a dad how I got my first kid into college without having to worry about the above Revere. Sex education taught by parents is a fools errand, but respectability and responsibility fall in there somewhere. I am pretty open minded and told my daughter who is the eldest that there is no damned way that I can be there when the big question is asked. Its what the answer is that is the problem. If the answer was and is going to be yes then come to dad and he will go out and buy baby girl condoms because boys are too stupid at that age to think about the consequences of having to raise a child, or getting an STD or both.

How can a kid in todays world with todays pressures not ? EVERYONE else is doing it and talking about it is a lot better than 141 million bucks. Crapload of condoms could be bought with that and with the things that are out there waiting (is AIDS/HIV a retrovirus from polio research, or is it Gods wrath upon the indulgent?) to get them. But the pendulum is swinging and kids are abstaining a bit more. But not enough. I give it to them long and loud about STD's and the neighborhood kids.... I am Randy and not Mr. Kruger to them. They ask my advice and bring their motorcycles and go-karts to fix and soup up and like STD info, I train them on both.

My party stays out of touch with this issue and thinks that abstinence is the only answer. WELL YEAH, if you dont do it, you dont get it with it being babies or bugs or both. But I didnt wait until I got married and I can say I quit counting how many women in my 20's and thank be-gosh that I never got anything. But there were those that did that I knew post of the 80's.

Morality cannot be legislated, only the law. Rather than making sex illegal my party comes up with this and people get dead from it. They can read the literature while they sit in the clinics waiting for their Daptomycin that WE have to pay for...for the lack of a condom. I wonder what costs more and does morality have a dollar bill sign on it? Either way, the answer isnt going to be abstinence. Education for starts, then prophylactic protection until marriage and then sometimes thats not enough either.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 08 Aug 2007 #permalink

The thing I find strange is the people who insist on these programs being implimented are the same people who lived through the "sexual revolution" in the 70's. It also seems to be the "turn on, tune out" generation that is comfortable with ridiculous "three strikes" drug laws that don't work either. Whatever happened to the liberals of that generation? Did they even exist? Was the whole anti-establishment 60's-70's revolution a myth? Or did they just stop caring. (Sorry, I digress)

It doesnt work in Saudi Arabia either. They kill you for drugs or having unmarried sex....think our problems are that bad? Three strike rules work here in TN. They go to jail and the earliest they can get out after three drug jail times is 50 years. 80% with good behavior.

By M. Randolph Kruger (not verified) on 08 Aug 2007 #permalink

Randy my friend:
What a pleasure to read one of your posts with which I wholehartedly agree!

Amen. I wholeheartedly support free condoms for all and eduation to go with, but for some reason this just doesn't fly with the Republican majority. They cling to this silly-ass religious abstinence BS instead of just being practical about it. Same thing on abortion, if people would just PREVENT pregnancy abortions would cease being a topic.