The Immorality of Teaching Abstinence Only

Last week, the Obama administration released its first peek at its 2010 budget. One part that has received little attention so far calls for "state, community-based, and faith-based efforts to reduce teen pregnancy using evidence-based models. The program will fund models that stress the importance of abstinence while providing medically accurate and age-appropriate information to youth who have already become sexually active."

It's about time.

To date, the federal government has invested more than $1.5 billion in grant programs supporting abstinence-only education programs, despite growing evidence of the ineffectiveness of these programs. In 2007, an evaluation funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that youth enrolled in abstinence-only education programs were no more likely than other youth to delay sexual initiation, have fewer sexual partners or abstain entirely from sex.

Other studies have amply demonstrated that abstinence-only programs frequently are medically inaccurate, withhold vital information about contraception and disease prevention, and bear the taint of a moralizing religious ideology.

Today, the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing sent a letter to the White House, on behalf of hundreds of religious leaders around the country, calling on the administration to end federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. We are urging the President to renew our national commitment to comprehensive sexuality education that honors truth, respects diverse values, and prepares our youth to lead healthy and productive lives.

Continued investment in ineffective, irresponsible programs that mislead our children is morally wrong. That's why more than 925 ordained clergy and national religious leaders have endorsed the Religious Institute's Open Letter to Religious Leaders about Sex Education. The Open Letter states in part: "Education that respects and empowers young people has more integrity than education based on incomplete information, fear, and shame." It urges policy makers, school officials and educators to provide sexuality education that complements the guidance young people receive from their parents and faith communities.

The signatories of the Open Letter are part of a growing movement for comprehensive sexuality education in the U.S. religious community. A majority of mainline Protestant clergy support comprehensive sex education programs in public schools, according to a national survey released last week by Public Religion Research. At least 10 faith traditions and the National Council of Churches of Christ have policies supporting sexuality education in schools. And more than 15 denominations and faith-based organizations are part of the National Coalition to Support Sexuality Education.

As religious leaders, we believe there are strong moral foundations for giving young people the information they need to delay sexual intimacy, develop their capacity for moral discernment, and make mature, responsible decisions. Teaching and preaching abstinence alone is not enough.

We pray that the President, and the Congress, will create the first national, comprehensive sexuality education program that puts the well-being of our young people first. Our moral obligation to our young people requires nothing less.

Comments

[LiamLewis]

Especially in those instances when the Abstinence Only doctrine fails miserably, as it does all too frequently, the practice becomes culpable negligence that rose to the level of reckless endangerment.

Sadly, when that happens, we find the parents pointing fingers at the school system and the school system and the politicians pointing their fingers back at the parents. Of course all of the parties are absolutely sure that it was everyone else's duty to have done enough more to have made the difference.

While I have always agreed that there is nothing wrong with parents and or schools teaching children to abstain from premarital sex for reasons of faith alone, refusing to disclose other pertinent facts of life is simply neglect.

[Anita Farber-Robertson]

Great article - and you are right- it is about time! Our young people and their lives should not be used as political footballs. They deserve truth from us.
Thank you for writing so clearly on this important topic.

How d I get ot sign the letter?
Rev. Dr. Anita Farber-Robertson

[cbowers18]

"Don't do what your body, your instincts, your millennia of evolutionary heritage-- and the constant bombardment of American popular culture-- tell you to do" is a message not only doomed in the beginning, but proven over decades, to be a failure.

Information, please, not ideology, for our children.

There's a tragic inconsistency between "Here, do this because we tell you to-- and now go out and behave as responsible agents" on the one hand, and "Here is reliable and multi-sided information-- and now go out and behave as responsible agents." The first is enervating; the second is empowering.

The first has failed; the second might succeed.

[rmajh5]

On a subject related to abstinence, and thanks, in part, to President Obama's recent decision involving embryonic stem cell research, we are back to the war of words on abortion and stem cell research.

But before I go further into the debate, I need the religious among us who call both abortion and the destruction of embryonic stem cells murder to explain the contradiction found in the words of the God in which they believe.

In the Old Testament which is considered by the religious to be composed of the words of God, God claims a difference between a human born of a mother and a fetus awaiting birth in a human mother's womb. If anyone should kill a human, God says in Exodus 21:12, the killer shall be put to death. But, if a person hurts a woman resulting in the destruction of the woman's fetus, God says in Exodus 21:22, that person who caused said destruction against the will of the woman shall be fined or otherwise penalized.

So who is right? Is it the person who demands that a woman not have the right to an abortion, or is it the woman who demands the right to follow her own conscience and needs, and who believes that a fetus in a woman's womb is not a human being in both the woman's eyes and in God's eyes?

[oustfan]

When I was in school, my school system taught a progressive sex education curriculum. They told us that condoms felt just as good as the real thing.

Abstinence only proponents aren't the only ones who lie to kids.

[LeftRight]

I've never noticed that much of a difference....

[LeftRight]

While I'm glad that many religious leaders are able to finally throw off the yoke of the rightwing, and admit that when someone is already going to do something wrong, ensuring that it doesn't kill them is an okay thing to do, I must quibble with one point you make. You say that abstinence only sex ed is no better at delaying sex, decreasing partners, or reducing disease and pregnancy. Studies actually show that those who have comprehensive sex ed DO have sex later, have fewer partners, and have fewer diseases and unplanned pregnancies. And those that have AOSE have sex EARLIER, have MORE partners, and have MORE diseases and unplanned pregnancies than those who have NO sex ed!!

[Rockerbabe]

Just where have these people been for the last 8 years? I guess, better late than never, but we now have a least a million + kids out of school with not a clue about good and proper reproductive education. When will the clergy ever learn that appropriate healthcare education issues are best handled with honesty and not religious preaching?

[lisakaz2]

Awesome, but ya gotta wonder about groups who pretend to espouse morals or religion when they routinely lie to audiences, foes or children. They deserve scorn and then some.

[rixter1965]

AMEN!

My only -- admittedly idiosyncratic -- quibble with your article is a semantic one. As someone raised Methodist, but now Episcopalian, I think the term "mainline Protestant,' although commonly accepted and widely used, is a term that should be marked for elimination. First, "mainline" is used interchangeably with "mainstream" even though the former derives from the Main Line (suburbs of Philadelphia) and the latter suggests not only "normal" or "commonplace," but also pedestrian. As someone who does quite a bit of writing and publishing on religion, I try to use the term "historic denominations" to refer to Methodist, Episcolian, Lutheran (etc.) churches. Likewise, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are political adjectives that should be used sparingly -- if at all - when discussing churches and denominations.

Again, just my hang up as someone who writes about religion as an historian.