Whose Right to Sex Education?

The principle of equality for children is fundamentally at odds with the American interpretation of the principle of equality for adults. We defer parenting to parents at the cost of equality for their children. This happens in myriad ways, lots of which involve education. Just as adults are free to donate thousands of dollars to just our neighborhood school's PTA, to benefit our children and evade responsibility for those of our non-neighbors, we may be free to dictate the terms of the education our children receive.

The right of the parents to control their children is great when it's great. And the denial of that right is often egregious when it's taken away from parents who are disenfranchised or oppressed, to the detriment of parents and children alike. But when it's exercised poorly, the right of parental control is too-often protected by law.

Take sex education. Most states let parents "opt" their children out of what little sex education is still offered. A new report from the Guttmacher Institute lists 37 states and the District of Columbia that permit parental opt-outs for education about sexually-transmitted infections (3 more require affirmative consent before any education on the subject may be delivered). And, before you think better of those without opt-out provisions - most of them only teach abstinence anyway. (Even when parents "opt in," what do they get? Teachers may have permission to teach about contraception while being blocked from its "advocacy or encouragement.")

In the last 15 years, the public provision of real sex education has been drastically curtailed in this country. In the short period from 1995 to 2002 the percentage of adolescents receiving formal instruction on birth control methods dropped from 81% to 66% for boys, and 87% to 70% for girls. This was driven by the political movement for "abstinence only" education, abetted by $1.9 billion in federal and mandatory state matching funds.

What did we get for $1.9 billion? Nothing good. Abstinence-only education has been shown to have no effect on how much teenagers have sex - none. It also has no effect on the number of partners teenagers have if they do have sex, and no effect on birth control use, pregnancy rates, or sexually transmitted disease infection. Not that these programs don't accomplish anything. Like virginity pledges, abstinence-only programs do help spread myths that discourage condom use. The opt-out provisions for sex education are intended to permit parents to raise their children according to a particular moral code, and their children's free access to lifesaving knowledge is a secondary concern.

The last year has seen progress toward broadening sex education, including federal efforts to break the political stranglehold of the abstinence-only movement. But even where such reforms are on the table, as in Wisconsin, more comprehensive sex education still includes a parental opt-out provision. Maybe this is politically unavoidable. But shouldn't children have rights to real education that are not alienable?

 

Comments

[FreeThinkn1]

R.H. Reality Check is a great resource about current reproductive health issues. Their website also includes a comprehensive list of the ridiculous myths the anti-choicer gang has/is spreading.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/

[EbonBear]

I hate to tell you but if you hadn't already noticed, your country is effectively controlled by religious fanatics who regard sex as a horrible, damnable sin that you should know nothing about and save for someone you love.

[Philip N. Cohen - Huffpost Blogger]

Why save something so terrible for someone you "love"? Seems odd: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-n-cohen/teaching-to-the-choir-on_b_292418.html

[EbonBear]

I'm not entirely sure. It's a really weird dichotomy that seems to emerge from the already muddled mass of beliefs that militant fundies hold.

[FreeThinkn1]

Sex without the birth of a child is a sin according to the radical anti-choice gang. That's how they can equate all forms of birth control to abortion.

[ramsha]

Teaching abstinence is not SEX education. How many times can you spend trying to teach abstinence? How many different ways can you drive in the lesson? Our children deserve to be taught more including birth control.

[HPdevotee]

"But shouldn't children have rights to real education that are not alienable?"

That would be nice, wouldn't it...but unfortunately, the religious fanatics think differently. Thus, the whole 'teach the controversy' nonsense of trying to get creationism taught in science classes. A clear separation of church and state needs to be reasserted as the last 8 years under the Bush theocracy has embolden those with regressive attitudes to push their agendas.
How one of the most powerful countries on this planet is still being held hostage by a select few is ridiculous and needs to stop.

The wingnuts trotted out "Obama wants to teach sex-ed to kindergartners" during the campaign and some still cling to this talking point...when in reality, Obama's incentive is to educate children in AGE appropriate protections (ie, bad touch-good touch moving up into high school sex-ed).
Abstinence Only programs have failed and failed miserably to the detriment of many young lives. In a reality-based view and understanding it would be this (lack of) education that tends towards child-abuse..but until society loses it's special category for religious 'respect' regardless of it's damage, nothing will change and the few will control the many.

[WinterParkMom]

No Mr. Cohen, abstinence only education actually resulted in an increase in teen pregnancy.

[Philip N. Cohen - Huffpost Blogger]

That seems to have been the case in Lubbock, TX: http://lubbockonline.com/stories/110109/loc_511339712.shtml

[FreeThinkn1]

According to a study by Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found, "taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior. But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking." Here's a link to the article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801588.html?hpid=topnews

[FreeThinkn1]

I see that you are already familiar with Janet E. Rosenbaum's study.