New Spending for a Wider Range of Sex Education

[Zeno Swijtink]

May 10, 2010
New Spending for a Wider Range of Sex Education
By RONI CARYN RABIN

In a sharp departure from the abstinence-only message of the Bush years, the new health law pours hundreds of millions of dollars into sex education programs that aim to provide teenagers with comprehensive information about protecting themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The programs, to be financed by $375 million in grants to the states over five years, are meant to encourage teenagers to delay sexual activity but to use protection if they are already active — as half of all high school students are. Lessons on healthy relationships, financial literacy and other life skills are also woven into the program, called PREP for Personal Responsibility Education Program.

By contrast, while abstinence-only curriculums may discuss contraceptives and condoms, they emphasize their risks and failure rates, and avoid touching on homosexuality or abortion, said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Critics of that approach are delighted with the new law. “The fact that you have the federal government committed to this and putting some money behind it is really significant,” said Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “For years, the only thing offered by the federal government was money for programs that were proven to be unsuccessful in the area of sex education.

“While we would all like and hope and prefer that young people abstain from having sex,” she added, “that is not what many young people, unfortunately, are doing.”

A 2007 study commissioned by Congress found that students in abstinence programs were just as likely as those in a comparison group to have sex over the next four to six years; 49 percent in both groups remained abstinent. Those who had become sexually active had a similar number of partners, whether they had been through abstinence education or not, said Christopher Trenholm of Mathematica Policy Research in Princeton, N.J., the study’s author.

“There was no effect at all,” Mr. Trenholm said. “The bottom line finding is that there was no evidence the programs were effective at delaying initiation of sexual intercourse, or changing or reducing the number of sexual partners they had.”

(The study also found similar use of condoms in both groups of students, suggesting that the abstinence programs’ messages on risks did little to deter their use.)

Of the 19 million new sexually transmitted infections each year, almost half are in the age group 15 to 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a recent study found that 1 in 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease. And while teenage pregnancy rates have declined in recent years, the United States still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy in the developed world, with more than 400,000 births to teenagers each year.

Another evaluation found that there was not enough evidence to say whether abstinence education was effective at preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases like H.I.V. That review was issued in 2009 by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, which consisted of a panel of experts appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Abstinence education will not vanish under the new health care law. Alongside the money for PREP is about $50 million a year for abstinence programs. Unlike the sex-education grants, however, the abstinence funds will have to be matched by the states, at the rate of $3 for every $4 they receive from the federal government.

Proponents of abstinence-only education warn that the sex education initiative will earn President Obama the wrath of parents.

“Over 90 percent of parents want kids to be taught to abstain until they at least finish high school, and the comprehensive education curricula don’t do that — they pretty much normalize teen sexual activity,” said Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative research group. “They contain very explicit sexual material.”

But Randa Dean, associate director of adult education at Planned Parenthood of New York City, said many of the parents she works with were disappointed at how little sex education their children were receiving through the school system.

“Most come in saying, ‘Oh, they’re getting it in school, so I don’t really have to talk about this,’ ” she said. “When they hear most kids are not getting sex ed in school, they get really nervous and want to make sure their kids are safe.”

This is the fifth in a series of articles on how the health care overhaul will affect everyday lives.

[Debunker]

Are you being paid by the post? Every time it gets slow around here, you start flooding the forum with news articles.

May 10, 2010
New Spending for a Wider Range of Sex Education
By RONI CARYN RABIN

In a sharp departure from the abstinence-only message of the Bush years, the new health law pours hundreds of millions of dollars into sex education programs that aim to provide teenagers with comprehensive information about protecting themselves from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The programs, to be financed by $375 million in grants to the states over five years, are meant to encourage teenagers to delay sexual activity but to use protection if they are already active — as half of all high school students are. Lessons on healthy relationships, financial literacy and other life skills are also woven into the program, called PREP for Personal Responsibility Education Program.

By contrast, while abstinence-only curriculums may discuss contraceptives and condoms, they emphasize their risks and failure rates, and avoid touching on homosexuality or abortion, said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Critics of that approach are delighted with the new law. “The fact that you have the federal government committed to this and putting some money behind it is really significant,” said Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “For years, the only thing offered by the federal government was money for programs that were proven to be unsuccessful in the area of sex education.

“While we would all like and hope and prefer that young people abstain from having sex,” she added, “that is not what many young people, unfortunately, are doing.”

A 2007 study commissioned by Congress found that students in abstinence programs were just as likely as those in a comparison group to have sex over the next four to six years; 49 percent in both groups remained abstinent. Those who had become sexually active had a similar number of partners, whether they had been through abstinence education or not, said Christopher Trenholm of Mathematica Policy Research in Princeton, N.J., the study’s author.

“There was no effect at all,” Mr. Trenholm said. “The bottom line finding is that there was no evidence the programs were effective at delaying initiation of sexual intercourse, or changing or reducing the number of sexual partners they had.”

(The study also found similar use of condoms in both groups of students, suggesting that the abstinence programs’ messages on risks did little to deter their use.)

Of the 19 million new sexually transmitted infections each year, almost half are in the age group 15 to 24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and a recent study found that 1 in 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease. And while teenage pregnancy rates have declined in recent years, the United States still has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy in the developed world, with more than 400,000 births to teenagers each year.

Another evaluation found that there was not enough evidence to say whether abstinence education was effective at preventing pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases like H.I.V. That review was issued in 2009 by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, which consisted of a panel of experts appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Abstinence education will not vanish under the new health care law. Alongside the money for PREP is about $50 million a year for abstinence programs. Unlike the sex-education grants, however, the abstinence funds will have to be matched by the states, at the rate of $3 for every $4 they receive from the federal government.

Proponents of abstinence-only education warn that the sex education initiative will earn President Obama the wrath of parents.

“Over 90 percent of parents want kids to be taught to abstain until they at least finish high school, and the comprehensive education curricula don’t do that — they pretty much normalize teen sexual activity,” said Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative research group. “They contain very explicit sexual material.”

But Randa Dean, associate director of adult education at Planned Parenthood of New York City, said many of the parents she works with were disappointed at how little sex education their children were receiving through the school system.

“Most come in saying, ‘Oh, they’re getting it in school, so I don’t really have to talk about this,’ ” she said. “When they hear most kids are not getting sex ed in school, they get really nervous and want to make sure their kids are safe.”

This is the fifth in a series of articles on how the health care overhaul will affect everyday lives.

[LenInSebastopol]

I've met folks that were state raised, ya know, child juvi, adult prison and the like. Seemed to me not warm, empathetic, compassionate folks, for the most part.....Now we want to have that kind of approach to sex. with children. and pay for it. by strangers. How did we get this far?

[someguy]

“Over 90 percent of parents want kids to be taught to abstain until they at least finish high school, and the comprehensive education curricula don’t do that — they pretty much normalize teen sexual activity,” said Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative research group. “They contain very explicit sexual material.”

But Randa Dean, associate director of adult education at Planned Parenthood of New York City, said many of the parents she works with were disappointed at how little sex education their children were receiving through the school system.

“Most come in saying, ‘Oh, they’re getting it in school, so I don’t really have to talk about this,’ ” she said. “When they hear most kids are not getting sex ed in school, they get really nervous and want to make sure their kids are safe.”
.

Both of these positions are absurd. If parents want their kids to be taught abstinence, what is stopping them? Or if parents want their kids to be taught about birth control, what is stopping them? Why can't people teach their own kids what they want to teach them, and not put it off on the state?

[LenInSebastopol]

Both of these positions are absurd. If parents want their kids to be taught abstinence, what is stopping them? Or if parents want their kids to be taught about birth control, what is stopping them? Why can't people teach their own kids what they want to teach them, and not put it off on the state?

What?
Why does "the state" want to teach my kids about sex?
WHO in the state?
To whom do I go to alter that?
Nothing stops parents from teaching sex to their children, but notice that the state clashes with so many "political" and "social" groups! The old "not enough/too much" crowd of noise rabbling out to their own end.
I can tell you it's difficult to teach that sex is GREAT and in marriage it's best, but none around support such as it's mocked & scorned in every public venue. See how that is received when the state is "teaching" several alternatives.