So What if Abstinece Education works, We Don't Like it

By: Keith Deltano Click author's name for more of his/her articles

A survey of mainstream media would lead you to believe that abstinence education is a useless construct of the Right. The Truth, should it ever get out, is shocking. There is overwhelming evidence that shows abstinence education decreases teen pregnancy and teen sexual activity. Just because the main stream media does not cover this favorable evidence does not mean it is not our there. Examining the evidence is critically important now that the Democratically controlled congress has cut funding for abstinence education.

In Georgia, since adopting abstinence education the teen pregnancy rate has dropped 46 percent. The steepest declines occurred when abstinence was at its highest funding stage. This pregnancy decline started in 1995 when the state of Georgia made abstinence its statewide policy. Consider, a 46 percent decline in teen pregnancy as a result of a statewide abstinence program. Shouldn't that have received at least a footnote in the anti abstinence campaign the mainstream media has been waging?

A randomized controlled trial conducted by jimmott it al. found that abstinence-only intervention significantly reduced sexual initiation among young African American adolescents after a 24-month follow-up period, and did not reduce condom use for those virgins who did become sexually active (p<.05).

An evaluation of "Reasons of the Heart" abstinence curriculum found that adolescent program participants were approximately one half as likely as the matched comparison group to initiate sexual activity after one year (p<.05) The program effect was as strong for the African American subgroup in the sample as it was overall(p<.05)

The "Sex Respect" and "Teen Aid" abstinence-only programs reduced the rate of initiation of sex by more than one third (p<.01) for the high-risk students in a Caucasian high school sample after 12 months.

These are just a few of the many peer reviewed studies available that show abstinence education is effective in reducing teen pregnancy and sexual activity rates. Have your heard of any of them? Why have none of these studies been featured in the national debate? And, if the evidence that abstinence education works is so prevalent, why has funding for Title V been discontinued?

There is one study however, that enjoyed wide exposure and acceptance. It was quoted and covered by all the major news outlets. Can a study become a media darling? The Mathmatica Study did. The Mathmatica study showed conclusively that abstinence education doesn't work...right? If you read the headlines that is what you would have come away with. Headline after headline: "Abstinence Education Proven Ineffective". The Mathmatica study was championed by all the mainstream media and quoted by politicians that wanted to do away with abstinence programming. So, let's take a look at Mathmatica

The Mathmatica studey examined four abstinence programs, that's right, four. Those four programs showed no positive outcomes for teen sexual behavior (of this there is no debate, the four programs were not effective in reducing teen sexual activity). let's go back to the number of programs looked at: four. That's it. Now the headlines and articles never mentioned that only four programs were looked at. Why? The headlines and articles that ran in the national newspapers and were story leads on ABC, CNN, NBC, and CBS were clear: "Abstinence Education Ineffective". Wouldn't a much more honest and accurate headline have been, "Mathmatica Study shows four abstinence education programs ineffective"? Why did the mainstream media withhold the information that Mathmatica only looked at four programs? Can you honestly evaluate a national movement with thousands of programs by looking at four of them?

All four of the programs Mathmatica evaluated used a non-representative study sample. The four programs served African American youth from poor single-parent households. Why didn't the mainstream media cover this?

The programs themselves were losers. I know that's an extreme judgment, but these program had no chance of changing teen sexual behavior, mainly because none of them intervened with student when they were...teens. The very structure of the programs guaranteed they would not be successful. The four programs that Mathmatica looked at had intervention ages that were young. Some students were involved with the program as young as 4th and 5th grade. And then never again. That's right, none of the programs had any contact with the students during the 9th, 10th, or 11th grade when transition to sexual activity typically occurs. Of course the programs failed. How could they succeed? How can you expect to impact sexual behavior if you don't intervene during the years that sexual behavior starts? They were failed programs to begin with.

Why did Mathmatica pick such poorly structured programs to look at in the first place? Or perhaps more importantly, why didn't Mathmatica study vibrant ongoing abstinence programs that had contact with students throughout the teen years...could it be because those programs were successful in reducing teen pregnancy rates? Yet congress cut abstinence funding based largely on the Mathmatica study. This would be like judging the American Auto industry after test driving four Ford Pintos.

Why cut a program (title V) that has been proven to work? Because of one flawed study? Because the "Abstinence" word is not popular with certain groups? Think about it. Teen pregnancy rates went through the roof during the 70s and 80s when comprehensive sex ed (condoms) reigned supreme. They only started to decline in the mid nineties after abstinence education came on the scene. And congress wants to stop that...why?

The health of the nation's teens is more important than party affiliation. Abstinence education programs have been proven to reduce teen pregnancy rates and sexual activity rates. The overall decline of pregnancy rates since the mid 90s (the start of the modern abstinence movement and the beginning of Title V funding) should be enough to guarantee Title V funding. Yet congress killed Title V. Why?

Article Source: ABC Article Directory

About The Author: Keith Deltano is available for school assemblies, evening rallies, parent workshops, and debate. He is the winner of the "Teaching Excellence Award" as well as the "National Impact Award". He has served and worked with youth as a public school teacher, youth leader, parent coach, author and abstinence speaker.