‘Historic’ Ruling States That Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Isn’t Sex Ed

Tinark

Tinark

Active member
In a decision that’s being hailed as “historic,” a judge in California has ruled that health classes focusing exclusively on telling students to remain abstinent until marriage fall short of the state’s comprehensive sex ed requirements.

In his opinion, Fresno County Superior Court Judge Donald Black concludes that, given the high rates of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy in the U.S., medically accurate sexual health information is “an important public right.”

Black’s decision narrowly applies to about 40,000 students who attend the Clovis Unified School District. However, since his opinion represents the first-ever ruling on California’s decade-old sex education standards, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — whose legal counsel represented the plaintiffs in the suit — believes it sets an important precedent for the rest of the state.

“This is the first time that abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula have been found to be medically inaccurate,” Phyllida Burlingame, the director of reproductive justice policy at the ACLU, told the San Francisco Chronicle. She added that the ruling should send a strong message to other schools that “young people need complete, accurate health information required by law.”
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/05/13/3658139/california-judge-abstinence-only/

:thumb:
 
H

HisServant

New member
Abstinence is the only thing that will save you from HIV, HPV, Herpes, drug resistant Chlamydia and a whole host of other diseases that can be contracted when you don't keep your clothes on... it's much worse for women though, because even though some STD's are curable, the scaring that remains can make it very difficult to get pregnant when you want later on.
 
Tinark

Tinark

Active member
HisServant said:
Abstinence is the only thing that will save you from HIV, HPV, Herpes, drug resistant Chlamydia and a whole host of other diseases that can be contracted when you don't keep your clothes on... it's much worse for women though, because even though some STD's are curable, the scaring that remains can make it very difficult to get pregnant when you want later on.
Click to expand...

And not entering a vehicle is the only thing that will save you from a car crash. Doesn't mean that we should never enter a vehicle. It means that we need to be aware of the risks and how to minimize them when we do decide to enter a vehicle. And it certainly doesn't mean that drivers ed should consist of nothing other than "you should never enter a vehicle."

It should be a requirement as part of a comprehensive education to cover those things you mention and how prevalent they are for those who engage in the activity, but also educating on ways to reduce such risks.
 
T

TrakeM

New member
Abstinence only sex ed has often been full of information that's just factually inaccurate. Also, some of these classes have explicitly tried to further a religious agenda in the public schools.

Even without all of those problems, you're deciding not to teach students information, not because of accuracy concerns or time limitations, but because students may choose to make a different decision with their lives than you want them to. There in lies the rub. The goal of abstinence only education isn't to teach students facts so that they can make their own decisions on how to live their lives. The goal is to control students by picking and choosing facts to teach them based on trying to get them to live their lives the way you want them to. That's evil.

Lastly, let's not pretend abstinence only education works. Just look at the teen pregnancy belt.
 
Tinark

Tinark

Active member
genuineoriginal said:
What makes you think the purpose of sex education classes is to prevent teen pregnancies?
Click to expand...

The purpose is to provide comprehensive information. One of the benefits of doing so is a reduction in the social problem of teen pregnancy. Teen pregnancy results in high rates of abortions, far higher rates of child growing up without father, higher rates of problems for the child, negative economic and career impacts to the mother, among other things.
 
H

HisServant

New member
TrakeM said:
Abstinence only sex ed has often been full of information that's just factually inaccurate. Also, some of these classes have explicitly tried to further a religious agenda in the public schools.

Even without all of those problems, you're deciding not to teach students information, not because of accuracy concerns or time limitations, but because students may choose to make a different decision with their lives than you want them to. There in lies the rub. The goal of abstinence only education isn't to teach students facts so that they can make their own decisions on how to live their lives. The goal is to control students by picking and choosing facts to teach them based on trying to get them to live their lives the way you want them to. That's evil.

Lastly, let's not pretend abstinence only education works. Just look at the teen pregnancy belt.
Click to expand...

It might work for some.. and not work for others.

But I think education that trivializes bad decisions and reinforces character flaws is never a good idea.

People that cannot control themselves definitely have a character flaw and are a danger to our society... because at the end of the day, society bears the burden of taking care of single parents and their kids most of the time.
 
elohiym

elohiym

Well-known member
Tinark said:
It's not the cause of it but it is a terrible preventative measure in comparison with comprehensive sex ed.
Click to expand...

Where is your evidence that "comprehensive sex ed." however you are defining that has been a successful preventative measure?
 
elohiym

elohiym

Well-known member
Tinark said:
The purpose is to provide comprehensive information.
Click to expand...

For example?

Tinark said:
One of the benefits of doing so is a reduction in the social problem of teen pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Proof?

Tinark said:
Teen pregnancy results in high rates of abortions, far higher rates of child growing up without father, higher rates of problems for the child, negative economic and career impacts to the mother, among other things.
Click to expand...

Teen pregnancy doesn't cause abortion.
 
Tinark

Tinark

Active member
elohiym said:
Where is your evidence that "comprehensive sex ed." however you are defining that has been a successful preventative measure?
Click to expand...

Researchers at the University of Washington set out to compare the sexual health risk of adolescents who have received various types of sexuality education. Though a number of recent studies have evaluated specific programs, little research has been done on the adolescent population as a whole.

This study used data collected in 2002–03 through the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), a nationwide survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,719 heterosexual respondents to the NSFG who were 15–19.1 The median age of respondents was 17. The authors focused on young people’s answers to two questions: whether they had received “any formal instruction at school, church, a community center, or some other place about how to say no to sex” before the age of 18 and whether they had received any formal education about birth control. Young people who reported only receiving information on how to say no to sex were classified as participants in abstinence-only programs and young people who reported getting both messages were classified as having received comprehensive sex education. These two groups were also compared to young people who reported receiving no formal sex education.

To assess sexual risk researchers looked at whether respondents reported ever having engaged in vaginal intercourse, been involved in a pregnancy, or been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease (STD).

Key Findings

Young people who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report a teen pregnancy compared to those who received no sex education.

Abstinence-only programs were not significantly associated with a risk reduction for teen pregnancy when compared with no sex education.
In comparing abstinence-only programs with comprehensive sex education, comprehensive sex education was associated with a 50% lower risk of teen pregnancy.

After adjusting for demographics, abstinence-only programs were not significantly associated with a delay in the initiation of vaginal intercourse.

Comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with reduced reports of vaginal intercourse.

Neither abstinence-only programs nor comprehensive sex education were significantly associated with risk for an STD when compared to no sex education.
Click to expand...

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1041

In other words, rates of sex were essentially the same with comprehensive sex ed vs. absistence only sex ed, and rates of STDs were also basically the same. However, teen pregnancy was reduced by a whopping 50% with comprehensive sex ed. vs no reduction with abstinence only sex ed vs no sex ed.

Here is more interesting data:

In an effort to reduce unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) in adolescents, both abstinence and comprehensive sex and STD/HIV education programs have been proffered. Based on specified criteria, the author searched for and reviewed 56 studies that assessed the impact of such curricula (8 that evaluated 9 abstinence programs and 48 that evaluated comprehensive programs) on adolescents’ sexual behavior. Study results indicated that most abstinence programs did not delay initiation of sex and only 3 of 9 had any significant positive effects on any sexual behavior. In contrast, about two thirds of comprehensive programs showed strong evidence that they positively affected young people’s sexual behavior, including both delaying initiation of sex and increasing condom and contraceptive use among important groups of youth. Based on this review, abstinence programs have little evidence to warrant their widespread replication; conversely, strong evidence suggests that some comprehensive programs should be disseminated widely.
Click to expand...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.18
 
elohiym

elohiym

Well-known member
Tinark said:
In other words, rates of sex were essentially the same with comprehensive sex ed vs. absistence only sex ed, and rates of STDs were also basically the same. However, teen pregnancy was reduced by a whopping 50% with comprehensive sex ed. vs no reduction with abstinence only sex ed vs no sex ed.
Click to expand...

The correlation is hardly evidence of what you believe. It's an assumption that the teen pregnancies are unwanted or that being taught about birth control prevents pregnancies.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
elohiym said:
The correlation is hardly evidence of what you believe. It's an assumption that the teen pregnancies are unwanted or that being taught about birth control prevents pregnancies.
Click to expand...

How many teenagers do you seriously think are deliberately getting pregnant?
 
TracerBullet

TracerBullet

New member
elohiym said:
Where is your evidence that "comprehensive sex ed." however you are defining that has been a successful preventative measure?
Click to expand...

Comprehensive sex education reduces teen pregnancy by 50% over no sex education and abstinence only education
Comprehensive sex education delayed sexual initiation by 1.8 years in girls and 1.2 years in boys
Comprehensive sex education reduced the number of sexual partners an individual has.
Comprehensive sex education reduces the incidence of STD’s in teens by 85%

Ref:
Kohler et al. “Abstinence-only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(4): 344-351.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top