Re: Reauthorization of Abstinence-Only Funding During Welfare Mark Up
Dear Senator:
The American Civil Liberties Union urges you to support an amendment that will be offered at tomorrow's mark up of the "Work, Opportunity, and Responsibility for Kids (WORK) Act of 2002" that would mitigate the harms of the federal abstinence-only education program contained in Section 510 of the Social Security Act. This amendment, to be offered by Senator Max Baucus, would permit states greater flexibility in using Section 510 money, allowing them to fund programs that also educate teens about methods to reduce unintended pregnancy and other health risks.
While the ACLU believes that discussion of abstinence is an important component of any educational program about human sexuality, we oppose programs, such as the one outlined in Section 510, that focus exclusively on abstinence and censor other valuable information that can help young people to make responsible and safe decisions about sexual activity and reproduction. Moreover, in addition to their restrictions on free speech, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs endanger the health of young people, create a hostile environment for lesbian and gay youth, and dangerously entangle the government with religion. Because of these serious civil liberties and public health concerns, the amendment that will be offered today is crucial to help alleviate Section 510's harms.
I. Section 510's Harms
- A. Section 510 Constitutes Government-Sponsored Censorship.
The current Section 510 language permits federal funds to be used only for programs that have as their "exclusive purpose," teaching the benefits of abstinence. See 42 U.S.C. § 710. In addition, recipients of Section 510 funds may not provide teens with any information that is inconsistent with this and similar messages in the same setting as the abstinence program. Consequently, funding recipients may not advocate contraceptive use or teach contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.
Thus, recipients of Section 510 funds operate under a federally imposed gag order that censors the transmission of vital information. Grantees are forced to omit any mention of topics such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and AIDS or to present these subjects in an incomplete, and thus inaccurate fashion.
- B. Section 510 Programs Are Ineffective and Can Endanger Young People's Health.
There is no compelling data that demonstrate that abstinence-only programs funded under Section 510 are effective in helping to delay sexual initiation or in reducing risk-taking behaviors among young people. In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that programs that include messages about both abstinence and contraception are most effective in delaying the onset of sex among young people, reducing the number of sexual partners they have, and in making them better users of contraception when they do become sexually active. Evidence also suggests that the availability of federal abstinence-only dollars is steering schools away from teaching comprehensive sexuality education altogether, even in their non-restricted (i.e. non-federally funded) programs. In 1999, 23% of secondary sexuality education teachers taught abstinence as the only way of avoiding STDs and pregnancy, up from 2% in 1988. Thus, abstinence-only money is reducing the availability of information that young people -- many of whom are already sexually active -- need to protect their health and to prevent unintended pregnancies.
- C. Section 510 Programs Create a Hostile Environment for Lesbian and Gay Teens and Pose Particular Risks to the Health of These Teens.
By excluding information about safer sex practices and teaching about sex only in the context of marriage, abstinence-only programs stigmatize gay and lesbian teens and undermine efforts to educate those teens about HIV and STD prevention. Abstinence-only programs also create a hostile environment for lesbian and gay youth. These programs rely on fear and shame and address same-sex sexuality only as a context for HIV transmission. At least two widely used abstinence-only curricula -- Clue 2000 and Facing Reality -- are overtly hostile to lesbians and gay men. Such hostility violates the rights of lesbian and gay youth to attend school free of discrimination.
- D. Section 510 Programs Entangle the Government with Religion.
Many abstinence-only curricula use religious doctrines as guidelines for determining appropriate behavior and values. These curricula violate the First Amendment's guarantee of the separation between church and state by using tax-payer money to endorse religious beliefs. A popular abstinence-only curriculum called "Sex Respect," for example, was originally designed for parochial school use. While it now uses the term "nature" in place of "God," it still has strong religious undertones and references religious publications. Although federal guidelines do not permit abstinence-only grant recipients to convey religious messages and to impose religious viewpoints, in practice, many of these programs do precisely that. In Louisiana, for example, the Governor's Program on Abstinence, which runs on federal and state funds, has made thousands of dollars in grants to programs that are overtly religious. The misuse of tax dollars to promote religion in this fashion violates the Constitution.
II. Senator Baucus's Amendment
Senator Baucus's amendment will help mitigate Section 510's serious harms. The amendment would offer states the flexibility to fund programs with Section 510 money that comport with their own definition of abstinence-only education. While many programs that comport with Section 510's restrictive definition would likely continue to be funded, this amendment would also permit the funding of abstinence-based programs that also educate teens about methods to reduce unintended pregnancy and other health risks.
The Baucus amendment does not address all of our concerns because some states will likely continue to fund restrictive abstinence-only programs to the detriment of adolescents' health and rights. But giving states flexibility in these circumstances to fund more comprehensive programs is certainly a step in the right direction.
The ACLU urges you to support this modest amendment to reduce the serious civil liberties and public health harms of Section 510.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
Gregory T. Nojeim
Associate Director and Chief Legislative Counsel