Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
George Bush's sex education failure
Share:
by generaldecay | July 20, 2009 at 10:25 am
280 views | 38 Recommendations | 5 comments
"The data presented in this report indicate that many young persons in the United States engage in sexual risk behaviour and experience negative reproductive health outcomes." That is the very clinical and polite way a new Centre for Disease Control and Prevention report introduces its finding that rates of teen pregnancy and STDs are, after more than a decade of decline, once again on the rise.
This piece argues that the rise in risky sexual behaviour among young people in the US is linked (ironically, of course) to George Bush's 'abstinence-only' agenda. It bases this claim largely on research evidence which indicates that comprehensive and thorough sex education is fundamental in reducing risky sexual behaviour and unwanted pregnancies.
Indeed. And, frankly, that's not news to most of us. I, for one, have always been horrified at 'abstinence-only' programmes, not least because of evidence such as the following:
And that was six months after the Guttmacher Institute reported that "a nine-year, $8m evaluation of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programmes found that these programmes have no beneficial impact on young people's sexual behaviour," and three years after congressman Henry Waxman requested a report (pdf) which found that over 80% of the [abstinence-only sex ed] curricula reviewed was found to contain "false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health," effectively ensuring that pregnancy rates and STDs would rise.
The piece goes on to, quite rightly, comment on the 'race- and income-based' differences in rates of unwanted pregnancy.
It was also a year after another report found that the increased number of unwanted pregnancies was disproportionately concentrated in impoverished communities: "Women living in poverty are now almost four times more likely to become pregnant unintentionally than women of greater means."
All in all, this is very salient piece of commentary on a disaterous and ill-conceived concept. Thankfully (and hopefully) those days are behind America.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Related Stories
Recommendations (38)
Samir Joshi
Vadodara, Gujarat, India
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States
mudricky
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
jazzyzazzy
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 17:26 on July 20th, 2009
I don't know of any schools that teach "abstinence only". I have subbed and taught at at lot of schools in California and I have never heard that any school teaches "abstinence only".
What is taught is sexual education with a lot of emphasis on birth control and prevention of STDs, yet how often have I heard about some young woman getting pregnant? Gee, teacher, I have to go to the doctor today to get my abortion.
We need to be able to verify or falsify this thesis that Bush's programs did what some experts have accused them of doing by looking at the data in detail.
For that, you need to demonstrate how widespread Bush's programs were. Then you need to compare the populations over time in the recent US, broken down by education, income, cultural background and see if the Bush program has an effect that is above and beyond whatever the effect is in the young people who never received Bush's abstinence program.
Do you have data to provide that comparison?
If you don't have it, then this whole thing is an exercise in demagoguery that is designed to blame something that might be due to a lot of other factors such as Internet porn's availability, the level of depression of today's youth, role of self-discipline in today's youth, and so on, on the Republicans, as if all the evil of the world originated there. And it does, if you have a father complex, and most modern liberals do, in fact, have one.
Teenage girls got pregnant at the time of the Puritans, meeting boys on the way to their friends' farms. About one-third were pregnant at the time of their marriages.
Yes, back then abstinence ed didn't work, either, but my impression from seeing the increasing numbers of young women who had babies in the '70s and '80s, is that "Murphy Brown", the TV show with the executive who has a baby without being married, had more effect than failing to learn to use birth control.
It simply became ok to have a baby as a teenager without a father.
My wife and I have been watching the MTV show, "16 and Pregnant". It is a very good show. I don't think that any of the women I have seen on the show got pregnant because they didn't know about condoms. They just don't bother to use them, just like only 7% of California drivers used to use seat belts before they were required.
That is just how stupid people are. And I can be stupid, too. Just a thought.
at 17:44 on July 20th, 2009
Part of this sort of behaviour may not be the result of a lack of education nor a bad education, but rather an illness of our times and a self destructive almost suicidal mind set.
I do not think that G.W. Bush had such an impact since this sort of behaviour can be observed in other countries as well where Sex education is well implemented.
at 17:52 on July 20th, 2009
Beyond that, someone we know has just had a baby without even knowing who the father is. Her family, working class people, taught her both by example and by direct instruction to not do this.
My theory is that the peer group is a bigger influence at a certain age, and that some young women are depressed and that a baby gives them something meaningful to do, a new life to take care of.
This for me is the real problem: loss of authority in the home, and loss of faith in the value of discipline for future achievement.
There is also a war against men. We aren't seen as useful, let alone necessary.
In San Francisco, the gay population and the medical community have combined to produce great programs about condom use and how to prevent AIDS.
Yet, periodically, the STD rate goes up and then the HIV rate goes up as well.
The experts there write it off to depression, addiction to certain sexual practices, and even to the fact that having HIV is not a death sentence anymore.
So, you can educate all you want. Young people don't have their emotional center attached to their reasoning centers until about age 30, which is why the ancient Greeks didn't consider anyone an adult until 30. You don't need the lesson in neuro-anatomy to see the changes.
What is going on in the schools is that impulse control is at an all-time low and authority is automatically considered to be "authoritarian".
I would not teach "abstinence only" but I wouldn't teach that it was ok to have children too young and without the commitment of your partner.
How many of these young women in "16 and Pregnant" are surprised at how much work it is to be the mother of an infant?
I mean, how hard is it to figure out that one? These are kids literally raised, in some sense, to ignore obvious realities.
at 10:48 on July 20th, 2009
Unfortunately, abstinence-only is just not realistic in many circumstances, I hate to say it, but it's true.
at 10:52 on July 20th, 2009
Amy, agreed. And it's truly naive (or deliberately stupid) of Bush et al to think otherwise.
Thanks for the recommendation and comment. :)