ADVOCATES FOR YOUTH

Transitions
Volume 12, No. 3, March 2001

This Transitions is also available in [PDF] format.

The Future of Sexuality Education: Science or Politics?

By Marcela Howell, Director, Public Affairs, Advocates for Youth

This year, proponents of comprehensive sexuality education—education that includes information about abstinence and contraception—face a major battle. The 107th Congress will debate the reauthorization of welfare reform, which includes an entitlement of $250 million for abstinence-only-until-marriage education.

At the end of session last year, Congress added an additional $50 million ($20 million in fiscal year 2001 and $30 million in fiscal year 2002) to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs under the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education (SPRANS-CBAE) program under the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Like the welfare reform programs, SPRANS-CBAE also includes the eight-point restrictive definition of abstinence education that requires funded programs to teach that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."¹ The SPRANS funded programs must comply with all eight points of the definition.

Advocates for Youth is working with a coalition of organizations in the fields of HIV/AIDS, civil rights, public health, and reproductive rights to craft model policy language for education that includes both messages about abstinence and information about contraception for the prevention of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Advocates is also working with activists at the state level to protect comprehensive sexuality education and to defeat attempts to expand abstinence-only-until-marriage education through states' education statutes.

History of Abstinence-only Education

The federal government has funded abstinence-only programs for more than two decades. In 1981, the Office of Population Affairs began administering the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) Demonstration Grants Program. In its first year, AFLA received $11 million. AFLA's primary goal is to prevent teen pregnancy by establishing family-centered programs to promote chastity and self-discipline.²

AFLA stirred controversy from its inception. Some early AFLA-funded programs developed curricula that promoted particular religious values and taught abstinence as the only option for teens. In 1983, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against AFLA, asserting that funding such programs violated the Constitutional separation of church and state. In 1985, a U.S. district judge found AFLA unconstitutional. On appeal in 1988, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case to a lower court. Finally, an out-of-court settlement in 1993 stipulated that AFLA-funded sexuality education programs must:

• Not include religious references
• Be medically accurate
• Respect the "principle of self-determination" regarding contraceptive referral for teenagers
• Not allow grantees to use church sanctuaries for their programs or to give presentations in parochial schools during school hours.

Despite 20 years of federal funding, no peer-reviewed research has yet proven the effectiveness of any abstinence-only or abstinence-only-until-marriage program. A meta-evaluation that assessed evaluations of AFLA grantees' programs found these evaluations to vary from barely adequate to completely inadequate.³ Another meta-evaluation of over 15 years' worth of abstinence-only approaches to sexuality education found that there were no methodologically sound studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of curricula that teach abstinence as the only effective means of preventing teen pregnancy.⁴

Despite the almost total lack of proven effectiveness of abstinence-only-until-marriage education, proponents worked hard to favor such programs and to restrict comprehensive sexuality education programs. In 1994, during the debate over reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Representative John Doolittle attempted to add a federal abstinence-only component to education curricula. However, four federal statutes prohibited the federal government from prescribing state and local curriculum standards: the Department of Education Organization Act (Section 103a), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Section 14512), the Goals 2000 (Section 319 (b)), and the General Education Provisions Act (Section 438).

From this experience, opponents of comprehensive sexuality education learned they could restrict sexuality education through state health policy rather than education.

As a part of comprehensive welfare reform legislation, the 104th Congress established a five-year entitlement to states to support educational efforts that have the exclusive purpose of promoting abstinence outside of marriage. Under Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, states that chose to accept federal funding had to match every four federal dollars with three state dollars. With the state matching dollars, annual governmental funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage education rose to $88 million each year. This amounts to about half a billion dollars over five years for programs that have never been proven effective.

Signed into law by President Clinton, this provision of the welfare reform legislation represents a broad attack on Americans' ability to provide their young people with comprehensive sexuality education. Moreover, that is exactly what its authors intended.

Regardless of how one feels about the standard of no sex outside marriage, we believe that the statutory language and … intent of Congress [is] clear. This standard was intended to put Congress on the side of social tradition—never mind that some observers now think the tradition outdated—that sex should be confined to married couples. That both the practices and the standards in many communities across the country clash with the standard required by the law is precisely the point.⁵

Not content with this level of funding, abstinence-only-until-marriage advocates in Congress have repeatedly sought opportunities to throw more money at these ineffective programs. Ignoring the science that says the programs are ineffective, Congress allocated another $50 million in advance funding ($20 million for FY2000 and $30 million for FY2001) for abstinence-only-until-marriage education. This means that when re-authorization of welfare reform-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage education comes before Congress in 2001, the federal government may already have invested $300 million or more in ineffective and unproven programs.

Sexuality Education in the Schools

While the federal government has mandated abstinence-only-until-marriage education under Section 510(b), states have varying policies that dictate whether or not sexuality education is taught in schools. Based on information provided by NARAL and the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of July, 2000:

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia require schools to provide sex education to students (DE, DC, GA, IL, IA, KS, MD, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NC, RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, WV,).

• Three of the 18 states require the teaching of abstinence with no requirement about contraception (IL, KY, UT).
• Two require abstinence-only-until-marriage education (IL, UT).
• Nine require that both the teaching of abstinence and the provision of information about contraception (DE, GA, NJ, NC, RI, SC, TN, VT, WV).

The remaining 32 states do not require schools to teach sex education (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, HI, ID, IN, LA, ME, MA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, VA, WA, WI, WY).

• Of the 32 states, 10 require that, if sex education is taught, it must include abstinence; they do not require information about contraception (AL, AZ, CO, FL, IN, LA, MI, MS, OK, TX). Six specify abstinence-until-marriage (AL, FL, IN, LA, MS, TX).
• Five of the 32 states require that if sex education is taught, it must include abstinence and provide information about contraception (CA, HI, MO, OR, VA). Three specify abstinence-until-marriage education (CA, MO, VA).⁶

Based on nationally representative surveys:

• One-third of U.S. schools provides information described as "abstinence-only."⁷
• Twenty-three percent of secondary sexuality education teachers present abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs.⁸

Among parents:

• Eighty-five percent want schools to teach how to use condoms and 84 percent want schools to teach about other forms of birth control.⁷
• Eighty-eight percent want schools to teach young people how to communicate with partners.⁷

Among 7th to 12th grade students:

• Fifty-five percent want to know what to do in case of rape or sexual assault.⁷
• Forty-six percent want to know how to deal with the emotional consequences of sexual activity and how to talk with a partner about birth control and STDs.⁷
• Forty percent want to know how and where to get birth control.⁷

In October 2000, the Institute of Medicine issued a report citing its concern that Congress was "investing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state funds …with no evidence of effectiveness."⁹ This prestigious scientific body joined other professional organizations—such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Office of National AIDS Policy, and the American Nurses Association—and the overwhelming majority of American parents in supporting a comprehensive approach to sexuality education.

The Institute of Medicine, however, went one step further in calling on Congress, "as well as other federal, state and local policy makers to eliminate requirements that public funds be used for abstinence-only education."⁹

Advocates for Youth remains committed to putting science before political ideology when it comes to the health and well-being of young people around the world. We ask that you join with us in educating policy makers and the media about the dangers of censoring vital information about contraception.

End Notes:

1. Welfare Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193).
2. Saul R. Whatever happened to the Adolescent Family Life Act? Guttmacher Report on Public Policy 1998; 1(2):5+.
3. Bartels C. et al. Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Sex Education Programs: A Meta Evaluation. Paper delivered to the Fifth Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA, February 11, 1994.
4. Wilcox BL, et al. Federally Funded Adolescent Abstinence Promotion: An Evaluation of Evaluations. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, March 10, 1996.
5. Haskins R, Bevan CS. Implementing the Abstinence Education Provision of the Welfare Reform Legislation. Written by Congressional staff for the authors of the legislation. Washington, DC: Capitol Hill, 1996.
6. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Sex Education in the US: Policy and Politics. [Issue Update], September 2000.
7. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Sex Education in America: A Series of National Surveys of Students, Parents, Teachers, and Principals. Menlo Park, CA: September 2000.
8. Darroch JE, et al. Changing emphases in sexuality education in U.S. public secondary schools, 1988-1999. Family Planning Perspectives 2000; 32:204-211+.
9. Committee on HIV Prevention Strategies in the United States of the Institute of Medicine. No Time to Lose: Getting More from HIV Prevention. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, in press.

Transitions (ISSN 1097-1254) © 2001, is a quarterly publication of Advocates for Youth—Helping young people make safe and responsible decisions about sex. For permission to reprint, contact Transitions' editor at 202.419.3420.

Editor: Sue Alford

Click here to view the Publications Catalog and/or to order this publication.