CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Across the Nation, Parents and Teens are Taking Action
Greetings from the Take Issue, Take Charge guest bloggers! We are writing from the ACLU of Pennsylvania's Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project.
Marshall Bright is an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania who was instrumental in raising awareness of the problems with abstinence-only education in her private, all-female high school.Stephanie Chando is a Master of Social Work Candidate at the Penn School of Social Policy and Practice who became interested in advocating for comprehensive sex ed after evaluating two sex ed programs in Trenton, NJ. Sarah Coburn is a recent graduate of Smith College and currently serves as Project Coordinator at the Duvall Project whose main focus is advocating for comprehensive sexuality education throughout Pennsylvania. Together, we have taken issue with abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and are devoted to the advancement of comprehensive sexuality education.We're eager to share our thoughts with you and openly welcome your comments: The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported on a high school in Mullica Hill, NJ, that is drawing criticism from concerned parents over their peer-education sex ed program. These parents have organized and even created a Web site for parents to sign a petition and get a look at the "very graphic" curriculum their teens are being subjected to. Some of the "disturbing" material chosen for its particularly lurid content, includes information on things that kids don't know about (masturbation), things they should never know exist (condoms) and things they should never consider (tolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people). Depressing and intolerant as that may seem, students and parents in other communities are taking positive steps toward education, such as a group of teens in Utah who lobbied their senators for full disclosure in sex ed. In addition, not all parents are as reactionary as those few in Mullica Hill, NJ. In fact, some open-minded and involved parents are becoming advocates themselves, such as a group of parents in Pittsburgh who have started a petition for comprehensive sex ed. They are supported in their efforts by the ACLU of Pennsylvania. In a warmer part of the country, Palm Beach County, FL, has realized that abstinence-only programming won't help their state's teen pregnancy woes; they are set to enact in April a sex-ed curriculum that teaches sixth graders about STD's and seventh graders about condoms. Peer education is taking off on the West Coast as well. In the San Fernando Valley, one program, Promoting Alternatives for Teen Health, is a peer-to-peer curriculum aimed mainly at poor Latinos. I wonder if the concerned New Jersey parents could look at the grim statistics on HIV infections and pregnancy rates amongst these teens and still insist they shouldn't learn about condoms. Another grim reason for increased sex education: unprotected oral sex may be more dangerous than originally thought. A recent study links unprotected oral sex to certain dangerous side-effects, including some rare throat and mouth cancers that previously were seen mainly in older heavy smokers. We can therefore expect to see such anomalous cancers in youth become more common if abstinence-only programs continue to preach a message where sex is shrouded in mystery and protection is never discussed.
Roe at 35
Today marks the 35th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade. In honor of the anniversary, the ACLU put together a video featuring interviews with ACLU staff from across the organization concerning the role of reproductive freedom in ensuring the full-range of civil liberties. If you think that access to abortion has nothing to do with gay and lesbian rights, racial justice, or immigrants' rights, think again.
A statement about today's anniversary from Louise Melling, the Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, is also online and draws important links between abortion and women's equality: With this anniversary we mark not only 35 years of reproductive freedom, but 35 years of impressive gains in the fight for women's equality....The numbers alone tell a significant piece of the story: Thirty-five years ago, there were 15 women in Congress; only 3 had ever held the office of state governor. Today, 92 women sit in Congress, including the first Madame Speaker; 26 women have served as governors; and in the current race for president, for the first time in our nation's history, a woman candidate is one of the leading contenders for the nomination of a major political party.The ACLU has also put together documents summarizing the year ahead in the courts and in Congress for reproductive rights. Last but not least, a federal appeals court in Missouri today upheld a ruling allowing women prisoners in Missouri to obtain timely, safe, and legal abortion care. Not a bad day to issue the decision if you ask me.
Arizona makes 16!
We just got word that the governor of Arizona announced today that she has turned down federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs! Arizona is now the 16th state that no longer accepts funds for these programs.
More information to come... ***UPDATE*** Here are some snippets from the ACLU of Arizona's press release: Napolitano made the announcement to eliminate the abstinence-only funds from her FY 2009 General Fund Executive Budget at a luncheon today sponsored by Planned Parenthood Arizona, stating she does not believe Arizona should spend money on "an educational system that doesn't educate."
Sex Ed News Round Up: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and South Carolina
For 11 years, students in California's San Ysidro School District have gone without sex education despite the county's high teen pregnancy rate. School officials say that their students aren't getting lessons on how to protect against unintended pregnancy and STDs "because there are so many [other] things that need to be presented." The school board will take up the issue this month and students may start getting sex education as early as March.
Later this year, the Florida state legislature will consider the Healthy Teens Act, a measure that would require schools in the state to offer students a more comprehensive curriculum. Georgia's Clark County school board voted to depart from a longstanding policy of abstinence-only-until-marriage instruction in local schools. The community has a high rate of teen pregnancy, and parenting teens addressed the school board, asking for a comprehensive curriculum. A freshman biology unit entitled "Meiosis/Reproduction" at Maine South High School has come under the scrutiny of sex ed foes because it discusses contracetpion. Located in Park Ridge, Illinois, the school has been targeted by the Illinois Family Institute of Glen Ellyn, an organization committed to "promote and defend biblical truths." Several high schoolers from Morris Heights in The Bronx recently testified before the New York City Council and called for sex ed to be mandatory feature of classroom education. Of the five New York City boroughs, The Bronx has the highest teen pregnancy rate. The students began agitating for comprehensive sex ed in 2006 as middle schoolers all with parenting friends. The Union County school board in North Carolina approved two changes to its abstinence-only-until-marriage programming: Two changes were made to the original proposal, following parental concerns that some content was too explicit. School officials revised a scripted set of answers to questions that fourth- and fifth-graders may ask about lessons on human growth and development. Instead of providing a factual answer to questions about what happens when sperm meets the egg, instructors will now tell students to ask their parents.Finally, South Carolina's Batesburg-Leesville school district is considering whether or not it should join six other state school districts in adopting the abstinence-only-until-marriage program Worth the Wait.
Opinion, Opinions, Opinions.
So far, 2008 has been chock-full of opinion pieces on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, no doubt driven by the perfect storm of media coverage: Jamie-Lynn's pregnancy in the tabloids, Juno, a new movie dealing with teen pregnancy, in theaters, and news coverage of 15 states that no longer accept federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
An editorial in Florida Today -- the daily newspaper serving Brevard County, Florida -- applauds the local school board's 2007 decision giving students information on how to prevent unintended pregnancy and STDs, calling the decision "timely and wise." The editorial notes that only a few counties in the state have followed Brevard's lead. On the other side of the state, The Tampa Tribune takes it one step further and calls on the Bush Administration to rethink its abstinence policies in the global fight against HIV/AIDS given the domestic failures of the programs. Ohio's Columbus Dispatch supports Governor Strickland's take on abstinence-only programs: The governor supports abstinence education. What he does not support is abstinence-only education. We are asking to put the money toward abstinence in the context of a comprehensive age-appropriate curriculumIn Houston, Texas, a columnist at The Katy Sun makes an unusual comparison about states' dependence on federal funding: It's much like heroin for an addict. That's the best way to describe federal money for state and local governments. They depend on it, and when it's made available, they'll go to great lengths to get it.And a Washington Post reader has this to say about only teaching abstinence: You can teach it. You can preach it. You can proselytize, and you can exemplify. You can cajole and bribe, threaten and chide, and advocate till you're blue in the face. You can just lay out the facts and hope for the best.In light of the current wave of coverage, some smaller newspapers are taking a look at local issues surrounding teen pregnancy. The Journal News has a piece on the rising teen pregnancy rate in New York's Lower Hudson Valley. Some high schools, including one in Port Chester, have programs to support pregnant and parenting teens (of the 525 girls in Port Chester High School, 19 are either pregnant or parenting) but an on-site medical clinic is only allowed to administer pregnancy tests -- it can't hand out condoms or prescribe birth control. And the Bristol Herald Courier in Virginia notes that the teen birth rate is up in Washington Country, Va., and Sullivan County, Tenn. (Bristol is on the Virgina/Tennessee border). Meanwhile, local groups in Virginia have announced their intentions to continue pushing for funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the state legislature. All this coverage and yet there is still no movement in Congress to help teens get the information they need. A blog posting on RH Reality Check yesterday from Marcela Howell of Advocates for Youth had this to say about the Congress's failure to take on federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs: If you talk to some Hill staffers, they will tell you that there was no "community" (i.e., advocacy groups) will to push these issues. If you talk with the advocacy organizations, they'll tell you that there was no real "political" (i.e., elected officials) will to take on difficult issues.I only hope that this increased buzz on teen pregnancy and the failures of abstinence-only-until-marriage keeps up. We need more people to realize that the federal government's insistence on a policy of abstinence-only-until-marriage is not only endangering teens, but also wasting an opportunity to address the high rates of pregnancy and STD transmission among teens in the U.S.
A sex ed resolution for 2008
With the New Year upon us, it seems only right to examine the state of sex education in the U.S. Launched in June 2005, this blog has witnessed a great deal of change. Back then, only a handful of states had rejected federal funds for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs -- in 2008 at least 14 states have joined their ranks. Others are set to lose funding as new state requirements conflict with the federal "just say no" policy. In recent weeks, federal representatives told Washington State that its proposal for new federal abstinence-only funding will likely be rejected because of state requirements mandating that schools provide "medically accurate information about preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases" -- a loss that at least one paper in the state is celebrating.
In 2005, congressional funding for abstinence-only programs was on a seemingly unstoppable ascent, as few in Congress were willing to fight the increases. Three years later, Congress has yet to turn the tide (but at least for the time being the increases have stopped). Perhaps of greatest import, the debate over just what teens should (or shouldn't) learn when it comes to preventing pregnancy and STDs has become a frequent topic in the national dialog. People are starting to examine the bigger picture, recognizing that the problem is much larger than whether or not teens are able to get the facts. Before the holidays, AlterNet ran a great piece called Virgin or Slut: Pick One. The article examines federal funding for abstinence-only programs, but it doesn't stop there: Welcome to contemporary American adolescence, where sexuality is either up for sale or moralized into nonexistence.The recent tabloid flurry surrounding Jamie Lynn Spear's pregnancy has brought the issue to an even larger audience. After Jamie Lynn called the pregnancy a "surprise" and noted that she and her boyfriend should have waited to have sex, a USA Today editorial remarked that "[i]f more girls were taught all their options in Sex 101, those words might be heard less often." Over at The Huffington Post, Cristina Page went even further calling Jamie Lynn (and other teen mothers) the "the victims of a one and half billion dollar social experiment." For the duration of the Bush administration, the policy of preference is to simply tell teens not to have sex before marriage. Like the Just Say No to drugs campaigns of the Reagan years, it too has been a colossal failure. Abstinence-only programs have not succeeded in convincing kids not to have sex, but have led many not to use contraception. To scare kids away from sexual activity, abstinence-only programs focus on the dangers of sex. If contraception is ever mentioned it is to highlight (and exaggerate) its failure rates. If a girl is told that even if her boyfriend uses a condom she'll get pregnant once every seven times -- as the popular abstinence program "Choosing the Best Way" instructs -- the incentive to use one dissipates.And while there's no doubt that the problems surrounding teen pregnancy and STD transmission extend beyond what teens learn in our schools, it is still true that fixing these problems will come bit by bit, one win at a time. Take for instance the recent news that the abstinence-only-until-marriage program Heritage of Rhode Island closed up shop this past fall. The battle against Heritage began when a mother in Pawtucket read her son's abstinence-only textbook and contacted her local ACLU. The ACLU wrote Rhode Island's Education Commissioner, "charging that the curriculum invaded students' privacy rights, promoted sexist stereotypes, isolated gay and lesbian students, and did not appear to comport with the state's comprehensive sex education standards." After many ups and downs Heritage finally left town. Little wins, like the one in Rhode Island, add up, and one mom in a small town can make a big difference for thousands of teens. Yes, the factors that contribute to teen pregnancy extend far beyond the classroom. But in 2008 let's resolve to remember that little things can make a big difference and keep up the fight.
States continue to turn down federal ab-only dollars
The Washington Post reported today that at least 14 states have turned down federal funds to teach abstinence-only-until-marriage programs:
The number of states refusing federal money for "abstinence-only" sex education programs jumped sharply in the past year as evidence mounted that the approach is ineffective. And an article in The Dallas Morning News indicates that New Mexico is the most recent state to turn down funding: The state Department of Health has not reapplied for federal funds for abstinence only programs in New Mexico schools next year.
Blog Series on Reproductive Rights in Prison
RH Reality Check ran a great series last week on reproductive rights in prison, an issue which the ACLU has done quite a bit of work.
The blog postings ranged from sexual abuse in prison to mothering as a reproductive right. I've pasted some excerpts below: What Do Prisons Have to Do with Reproductive Rights? By virtue of being a strict system of physical confinement and punishment, incarceration has unique institutional characteristics, and yet it also provides a kind of microcosm of reproductive politics. Nowhere is race and class stratification more evident than in the criminal justice and prison systems, where poor women and men of color are dramatically overrepresented relative to their numbers in the population. In a nationally representative government study, 20 percent of pregnant women in prison reported getting no prenatal care, and 50 percent of pregnant women in jails went without care. Powerless in Prison: Sexual Abuse Against Incarcerated Women While guard-on-prisoner sexual assault is common, putting a number on the instances is difficult because so many assaults are unreported….Despite the widespread underreporting, some statistics exist. First, there are about 200,000 women incarcerated in the U.S. (in federal, state, local and immigration detention settings), a number that is growing exponentially and that makes up about 10 percent of the total prison population. Amnesty International reports that in 2004, a total of 2,298 allegations of staff sexual misconduct against both male and female inmates were made, and more than half of these cases involved women as victims, a much higher percentage than the 10 percent that women comprise of the total prison population. It can vary from institution to institution, but in the worst prison facilities, one in four female inmates are sexually abused in prison, says Stannow. Unlike access to emergency contraception, access to abortion by inmates has seen its way through the courts. Crucially, women do not lose their right to decide to have an abortion just because they are in prison; rather, the issue is how the prison accommodates (or refuses to accommodate) her decision. "There are constitutional minimums," says Diana Kasdan, staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. Although the details can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, prisons must provide access to an abortion if one is desired. "Providing access" can range from providing transportation to an off-site medical facility, to allowing for a furlough or to providing abortions on-site, although Kasdan says she has not heard of the latter. A court in Arizona recently ruled that a court order to obtain transportation for an abortion cannot be required, and a federal court in Missouri ruled last year that a prison cannot refuse to pay for the transportation of inmates to receive abortions. Mothering as a Reproductive Right Since 1986, following the introduction of mandatory sentencing to the federal drug laws in the mid-1980s, and its adoption by many states at about the same time, the number of women in prison has risen 400 percent, according to a recent Department of Justice report, "Survey of State Prison Inmates;" for Black women, the figure is 800 percent. Most are mothers to minor children. The condition of mothers giving birth behind bars is equally difficult. Babies are removed from their mothers within a 24 hour period after their birth and placed into foster care. Babies born to mothers behind bars are often born to mothers who labored and gave birth to them while in shackles. In our federal prisons and most state prisons, restraints are routinely used on pregnant women when they are in labor and when they give birth. Only 2 states have legislation regulating the use of restraints on pregnant women: Illinois and California. In the other 48 other states, the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Prisoners, no such laws exist. This routine use of restraints on pregnant women, particularly on women in labor and giving birth, constitutes a cruel, inhumane and degrading practice that rarely can be justified in terms of security concerns during the delivery process. For more information on reproductive rights in prison check out Know Your Rights: Pregnancy-Related Health Care in Prison or Jail and Women Don’t Check Their Reproductive Rights at the Jailhouse Door
The New York Times: Sex, Science and Savings
Yesterday, The New York Times ran a great editorial calling on Congress to stop funding abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Excerpts are below:
President Bush's veto of Congress's main social spending bill has Democratic leaders looking for places to make trims to satisfy the president's sudden zeal for fiscal discipline. A small, but sensible, place to begin would be to eliminate the bill's $28 million increase for one of Mr. Bush's signature boondoggles -- abstinence-only sex education. You can read the entire editorial here.
No More Ab-only Funding
RH Reality Check's blog posted a letter yesterday that 10 prominent researchers in the field of adolescent sexual and reproductive health sent to Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid expressing concern over the recent increase in funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. I've posted some excerpts below:
By design, abstinence programs restrict information about condoms and contraception - information that may be critical to protecting the health of young people and to preventing unplanned pregnancy, HIV infection, and infection with other sexually transmitted organisms. They ignore the health needs of sexually active youth and youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning for counseling, health care services, and risk reduction education. Withholding lifesaving information from young people is contrary to the standards of medical ethics and to many international human rights conventions. Abstinence until marriage is another stated goal of the federal program; however, evidence from the past several decades indicates that establishing abstinence until marriage as normative behavior would be a highly challenging policy goal. Importantly, the emphasis on abstinence-only programs and policies appears to be undermining critical public health programs in the U.S. and abroad, including comprehensive sexuality education and HIV prevention programs. During the period of increased state and federal emphasis on abstinence, declines have occurred in the percentage of teachers in U.S. public schools who teach about birth control and the number of students who report receiving such education. The recent Congressional testimony of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona underscores these critiques from mainstream health organizations. Dr. Carmona's testimony confirms the political motivations behind abstinence funding and the failure to address issues of efficacy and scientific accuracy. He suggested that ideology and theology have taken priority over women's health in the current administration. Dr. Carmona reported that the Bush administration "did not want to hear the science but wanted to, if you will, ‘preach abstinence,' which I felt was scientifically incorrect."You can read the full text of the letter here. |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
