CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Using the Human Rights Framework to Unravel Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs(Originally posted on Feministing.) The special fall issue of the journal Sexuality Research & Social Policy, titled Human Rights, Cultural, and Scientific Aspects of Abstinence-Only Policies and Programs, represents the latest research-backed critique of costly, misleading, and ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. It appears at a time when concerns about these programs, which require the exclusive teaching of abstinence until marriage and prohibit teaching about condoms or other contraceptives other than to discuss failure rates, are running high. That anxiety is driven by reality: despite having received over $1.3 billion in federal funding over the past decade, no viable evidence suggests that they actually work. Sexuality Research & Social Policy's special issue features articles written by some of the most prominent experts in the fields of adolescent sexuality, public health, human rights, and education. Topics run the gamut from state refusal of federal funding for abstinence-only, and a critical look at scientific errors about condoms present in abstinence-only programs, to yet another study that suggests that "abstinence programs have little evidence to warrant their widespread replication" while "strong evidence suggests that some comprehensive programs should be disseminated widely." What may be new for even seasoned consumers of information on abstinence-only programs is the volume's emphasis on sexuality education as a component of human rights principles as they have been defined internationally. Against that backdrop, the notion that teens should have access to medically accurate, comprehensive, ideologically neutral information about sexuality, sexually-transmitted diseases, and contraception simply indicates compliance with agreed-upon health and human rights standards. This matter-of-fact attitude towards granting teens access may come as a shock or a relief to readers in the United States, where sex has long been portrayed as dirty and dangerous — something to protect teens from — while the myth that teens who are deprived of sexual knowledge will remain chaste survives against all evidence to the contrary. But in this volume, and in the human rights context, teens are seen as having, as one of the many inalienable and universal rights that comes with being human, a right to obtain the kind of comprehensive information that will make it possible for them to make healthy and responsible decisions for themselves. The issue's overview article, which offers a critical perspective on the history and (in)effectiveness of abstinence-only policies and programs, notes that "offering information only on abstinence and withholding potentially lifesaving knowledge on risk reduction raises ethical and human rights concerns." The authors go on to explain that access to accurate health information as a basic human right was described in the Programme of Action at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development — a meeting that focused on reproductive issues and the application of human rights to the arena of sexual and reproductive health — and that similar ethical notions appear in later international statements that address HIV/AIDS and children and adolescents, such as those issued by the 2003 Committee on the Rights of the Child. Another piece that uses international human rights principles to examine the impact of abstinence-only programs on adolescents argues that abstinence-only programs in the United States defeat the object and purpose of a number of treaties, including the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. (The United States is one of only two member nation states in the United Nations to fail to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the other being Somalia.) This special issue is dedicated to the memory of Guttmacher Institute senior public policy associate Cynthia Dailard, who was remembered in a tribute by Guttmacher's Board of Directors and staff as being "driven by an abiding concern for human relationships, intimacy and commitment, and for sexual and reproductive health." This volume's rigorous scholarship and its commitment to justice pay fitting homage to a woman who, as the introduction notes, "tirelessly championed adolescent health and reproductive rights and fiercely opposed policies that she found to be scientifically misguided."
Mandatory Ultrasound Laws are About Political Interference, Not Medical InformationChristine Vestal had a story on Stateline.org yesterday about legislative efforts to require doctors to perform ultrasounds before an abortion. The green light really came on for anti-abortion activists this past April, when Oklahoma legislators easily passed a first-in-the-nation law that forces health care providers to perform an ultrasound before a woman has an abortion regardless of medical necessity or benefit, and requires the woman to listen to a description of the fetal image against her will. Vestal notes that 17 states considered more than 30 ultrasound bills this year, "a record level of legislative activity on any abortion issue," and that we should expect to be seeing even more of them in the next legislative session. Trevor Lippman, State Strategies Fellow for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, correctly nails the Oklahoma law's real intent, and the harm it poses to women's health: The Oklahoma law is about political interference, not about medical information. We think a woman should be able to trust that the advice she receives from her physician reflects what her physician really believes is in her best interest, not something that her physician has been forced to say.What the article fails to note, however, is that the Oklahoma law doesn't stop at mandatory ultrasounds. It also permits health care institutions and individual health care workers to refuse to provide certain health services without ensuring that patients can access the care they need elsewhere. And it restricts a woman's access to medication abortion (also known as mifepristone or the early abortion pill), despite the fact that it is a safe and effective non-surgical method of terminating early pregnancy, by limiting a doctor's ability to administer the drug and hampering a doctor's discretion to determine appropriate and necessary medical care. In the face of Oklahoma's law, and its copycats, the ACLU will continue working to ensure that every woman has medically accurate information, access to the medical care she needs, and is able to make the best decisions for her health and her individual circumstances without political interference.
States turn down US abstinence-only-until-marriage grants
As this site has been reporting for some time, more and more states have been turning down US abstinence-until-marriage grants. By December of 2007, a mere seven months ago, around 15 states had turned down the money: In January Arizona became the 16th state, followed just two months later by Iowa.
Now, an article in today's Associated Press reports that participation in the program is down 40 percent over two years, with 28 states still in (barely half) and two more saying that they're leaving.
Some $50 million has been budgeted for this year, and financially strapped states might be expected to want their share. But many have doubts that the program does much, if any good, and they're frustrated by chronic uncertainty that it will even be kept in existence. They also have to chip in state money in order to receive the federal grants. Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, made his decision to leave based on the congressionally mandated curriculum, which teaches "the social, psychological and health gains of abstaining from sexual activity." Instructors must teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects. "It was just too strict," said Emily Hajek, policy adviser to Culver. "We believe local providers have the knowledge to teach what's going to be best in those situations, what kind of information will help those young people be safe. You cannot be that prescriptive about how it has to be taught."For the full story, click here.
NYCLU Tells It Like It Is (Great Letter to the Editor)
Check out this letter to the editor of the Little Falls Evening Times by Galen Sherwin, the Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Rights Project. Sherwin takes the paper to task for failing to tell its readers that a so-called "character education program" the local school board is considering is the product of an anti-abortion organization. And she calls out abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for their inaccuracies and ineffectiveness.
Your May 16 article, "Little Falls school board discusses character education program," omits that Care Net, the organization proposing the program, defines its mission as "presenting the gospel of our Lord to women with crisis pregnancies." In other words, its true mission is preventing abortion…Based on Care Net's mission, and on the description in your article, we can only assume that the proposed "character building" program is an "abstinence-only-until-marriage" program. Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which often rely on religious messages, scientific inaccuracies and scare tactics, censor vital information students need to guard against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.But don't be content with this snippet. Sherwin's letter is a terrific read. For the complete version, click here.
Questions Surround Goverment Funded Abstinence Program (from ABC News)
Reporter Murray Waas' article asks "why an organization that promotes sexual abstinence for teens received a federal grant of over a million dollars, twice what it had requested, despite the skepticism Department of Justice staffers had about the group and the fact that it refused to participate in a congressionally mandated study?"
The organization is "Best Friends," and the congressionally mandated study they refused to participate in is presumably this one — the April 2007 study that presents clear evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs don't work.
So why did "Best Friends" make the grade and hit the jackpot? According to Waas:
"Current and former staffers say it was because of Best Friends' powerful president and founder, Elayne Bennett. Not only is Bennett the wife of Bill Bennett, a former Reagan and Bush administration official and conservative political commentator, but she is also personally close to the chief administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), J. Robert Flores."
Read on…
Massachusetts program speaks to parents and youth alike
This week's Boston Globe reports on a successful instructional program developed by a local nurse at a private medical practice. The pilot Smart Sex Education Program seems to have "taken the edge off for many parents by pitching sex education to them as well as to youngsters." Offered free and conducted outside of school, the private, voluntary course has "drawn rave reviews from parents, who say it has made them more comfortable about discussing the awkward subject with their children."
In addition to teaching the facts of life to middle and high school students, the creator of the course, Thu Anh Lewin, a nurse at Pediatrics West, holds classes for parents, "encouraging them to become the primary teacher about sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, and healthy relationships."
Beverly Jean Pinney, a local mother and course participant, said she appreciated Lewin's advice. "One thing that surprised me is, [Lewin] said don't have 'The Talk' with the kids. It's not one talk. It's a whole bunch of little talks [and] finding teachable moments."
For the entire Boston Globe article, and more on Lewin's instructional program, including her format and curriculum for different groups, click here.
Great Editorial from Florida Mother
This past Tuesday, The Daytona Beach News-Journal Online featured a terrific editorial by local mom Lynn Koller. It's inspired by her son, a 7th grader in a school that teaches federally funded Pure Energy Abstinence Education Program. The article kicks off with him telling her about that day's speaker, who urged "that everyone abstain from sex until marriage, because sex outside of marriage can cause serious physical and psychological problems."
Smart, funny, and spot-on, Koller's editorial reads like a checklist of all that is ineffective, inaccurate, and discriminatory about abstinence-only programs. Highlights of her critique include the following observations:
• The program's insistence that sex outside of marriage can cause serious physical and psychological problems "teaches the children of single parents that their mothers or fathers are engaging in illicit acts of danger."
• "The message blatantly discriminates against those who fall somewhere outside of heterosexual on the vast spectrum of human sexuality, who do not desire marriage, or are prevented by law from marrying in Florida."
• As a recipient of federal abstinence-only dollars, the Pure Energy program isn't allowed to discuss contraception with teens except to emphasize failure rates; this means that in addition to failing to provide teens with medically accurate and complete information about sex, the programs also fail to teach how to use condoms to prevent pregnancy and diseases.
• The speakers "have no credentials in health, education, or any related area," and they are teaching opinions as facts. (Per Koller: "It's not teaching; it's preaching.")
• "Abstinence-only programs don't work, in spite of our government investing more than $1 billion in them over the past decade. Major studies have repeatedly demonstrated that these programs are unsuccessful in reducing teenage sex, STDs or unplanned pregnancy. The April 2007 study commissioned by Congress found that the programs have essentially no effect."
As for the argument from other parents that abstinence-only programs do no harm because their children receive proper information at home," Koller will have none of it:
These arguments are seriously flawed. While students may receive sufficient sex education at home, as a community we cannot tolerate intolerance toward others promoted in our public schools and cannot dismiss the effect on our community. We cannot allow unqualified "coaches" to teach students that condoms are ineffective barriers against pregnancy and disease. We cannot allow our public schools to be soapboxes for evangelists."But don't settle for these tidbits. Go read the full editorial.
Congratulations to Angelina Momanyi, a Recipient of the 2008 ACLU Youth Activist Scholarship"Being a civil liberties activist isn't about the big events for me anymore. It's about the harder conversations I have with someone who doesn't share my views or having the courage to put friendships on the line for my beliefs in what is right." [Angelina Momanyi]Congratulations to Angelina Momanyi. Earlier this month the ACLU of Minnesota announced that the Blake School senior was a recipient of the 2008 ACLU Youth Activist Scholarship. She is the first-ever winner from Minnesota of this national honor, which is awarded to 15 seniors from across the country each year. As a peer educator with Planned Parenthood in Minneapolis, Angelina volunteered 230 hours during the 2006-07 school year to training high school students to be educators in reproductive health and providing them with opportunities to teach in area schools, churches, and community centers. Prior to attending the Blake School in eighth grade, Angelina was in the Minneapolis Public Schools system, which does not have a strong sexual-education program, she said. "I never got it [comprehensive sex education] in school," she said. "A lot of my friends still don't have that confidence and the correct information." Angelina called the "regression" of sexual education in the United States "counterintuitive," noting that teen pregnancy rates have increased in the last few years, after a long period of decline. The birth rate among 15-19 year-old girls rose 3 percent in 2006 after declining 34 percent between 1991 and 2005, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. In addition to speaking with state representatives about comprehensive sexual education in public schools at the 2007 Minnesota Youth Lobby Day, Angelina helped plan the 2008 Youth Lobby Day as well, which was held April 8 at the Capitol. The youth who participated April 8 lobbied for the passage of the Responsible Family Life and Sexuality Education Programs bill, authored by Neva Walker, DFL-Minneapolis, and introduced in the House last month. The bill would require public schools to provide sexual education that emphasizes abstinence while also including education about contraception and disease prevention. Since 2000, the ACLU has awarded scholarships annually to honor the efforts of graduating seniors who have demonstrated a strong commitment to civil liberties and civil rights through student activism. Along with 14 other high-school seniors from across the country, Angelina received a $5,000 college scholarship. She will attend Macalester College next year and plans to pursue a career in public health and policy-making. Click here and scroll down to read her scholarship essay.
"What Made It Nice Was It Was Free"That's Gina Castro being quoted in an article that appeared in this past Monday's San Antonio Express-News, in Texas. She's the administrator who oversees the school health advisory council for Harlandale. Of the 16 districts in Bexar County, where the teen birth rate is nearly double the national average, Harlandale is one of the poorest, with a majority of students coming from low-income homes. When Ms. Castro talks about why she decided to recommend "Worth the Wait," a federally funded abstinence-only curriculum that's free to all school districts, it's a simple dollars and cents explanation. "We had not really allotted any funds to buy a curriculum," Ms. Castro said, "so it came at the exact perfect time." On the face of it, Ms. Castro's decision makes sense - except for two not-so-minor details. First off, it's increasingly hard to ignore the evidence that abstinence-only curricula may not actually be all that nice since they don't do a whole heck of a lot to help teens. As the ACLU's Marshall Bright noted in a post late last month, a 2007 study by Mathematica found that students who participated in abstinence-only programs are just as likely to have sex as their peers who did not participate. (By the way, as the San Antonio Express-News article notes, one of the requirements for federally funded abstinence programs is that they teach contraceptives in terms of their failure rates. So what are the chances that a Harlandale school student who does decide to have sex is going to bother with using any?) Or consider the findings of a 2005 study of adolescents who took virginity pledges - a common feature of abstinence-only programs. It found no difference between pledgers and nonpledgers regarding the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, and only a slight difference in terms of the age of sexual debut. Pledgers waited a bit longer, but most still had sex before marriage, and fewer pledgers than nonpledgers used a condom their first time. By contrast, researchers from the University of Washington concluded that adolescents who receive comprehensive sex education are significantly less likely to become pregnant than adolescents who receive abstinence-only-until-marriage or no formal sex education. More importantly, even administrators for low-income school districts, like Harlandale, do have a choice when it comes to school sex education curriculum. There's the Family Life and Sexual Health curriculum (F.L.A.S.H.), a free, downloadable comprehensive pregnancy, HIV and STD prevention curriculum available for grades 4 through college. Also available for free to school districts in Bexar County is the Big Decision, a curriculum developed locally by the medical advisor of Project WORTH, San Antonio's teen pregnancy prevention program. While stressing abstinence, it also includes medically accurate information about various forms of contraception and their effectiveness rates. And that's really nice, especially for the students of Harlandale school district. Because youth deserve access to the factual information they need in order to make good decisions about their bodies and their lives. Won't you please reconsider, Ms. Castro? |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
