Et tu, Democrats?! Abstinence-Only Sex Education and The Politics of the Budget

by Carole Joffe

After nearly seven years of the George W. Bush presidency and its regressive sexual and reproductive politics, it is no surprise that this administration continues to staunchly support "abstinence-only sex  education."  The fact that study after study—including one commissioned by Congress itself has shown these programs to be ineffective does not trouble this president, who, in the face of inconvenient findings, has consistently allowed  ideology  to trump science.  Whether the issue is global warming or weapons of mass destruction or condom effectiveness, this administration is infamous for, as a Bush administration official—famously and unapologetically—put it, "creating its own reality." (New York Times magazine, October 17, 2004).

And it is no surprise that the Republican candidates for president support abstinence-only programs. This issue remains of great symbolic importance to the Religious Right base of the Republican Party. Though some observers say this movement is in decline, evangelicals remain very influential in the nominating process (witness Mike Huckabee’s recent meteoric rise), and candidates cannot afford to offend them on this issue. (And to be sure, abstinence-only is more than just symbolically important to many on the right; as The Nation so ably detailed, in "The Abstinence Gluttons," those  who receive  contracts to deliver these programs are raking in millions).

But Democrats supporting "abstinence-only," especially after the November 2006 election, when they regained control of the House and Senate?!  A powerful Democratic committee chair proposing to give even more to these programs than the Bush administration has asked for?!  No, this is not a Saturday Night Live or Jon Stewart parody. This is Washington politics. In a move that stunned advocates for "comprehensive" sex education—that is, programs that include discussion of both abstinence and birth control options—Congressman Dave Obey of Wisconsin, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, proposed increasing by $28 million the current abstinence-only allocation of $113 million. Obey made this move in order to lure Republican votes for Congress’s main domestic spending bill.    (In fairness, an equal increase was suggested for Title X, a federal family planning program that has been consistently under-funded during the Bush years.)

This (mis)appropriation may not see the light of day, given the wrangling taking place on the hill, but whatever transpires in the next few weeks, reproductive justice advocates are deeply demoralized  to see how casually an issue of such intense importance could be horse traded away.

With one breathtakingly cynical move, the Democratic leadership has now stamped its brand on one of the biggest ideological boondoggles in congressional history. More disturbingly, they have placed the health and safety of young people at risk by promoting programs that spread ignorance in the era of HIV/AIDS. Placing politics before public health and ideology over science have now become bipartisan follies. (James Wagoner, RHRealitycheck.org, Nov.1, 2007)

What exactly is abstinence-only sex education, and why are its opponents so distressed over Obey’s cynical maneuvers? Briefly, this form of sex education has its roots in the Reagan era of the 1980s, when a newly formed Religious Right started to expect payback in the domestic policy realm for its work on behalf of Reagan’s election.  The Reagan administration funded programs known colloquially as “Chastity Centers,” typically administered by church-affiliated groups, and then, as now, such programs became embroiled in lawsuits over issues of  church/state separation.

Abstinence-only funding received major boosting as part of the landmark 1996 welfare reform measure (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act).  The administration of George W. Bush increased abstinence funding even more.  In total, in the words of Congressman Henry Waxman, one of the program’s leading critics, "American taxpayers appear to have paid over one billion dollars for programs that have no impact."

Abstinence-only programs infuriate its critics both for what such programs don’t say and what they do say. Programs receiving federal funding are not allowed to mention contraception "except to point out (grossly inaccurate) failure rates. Abortion, needless to say, cannot be presented as an acceptable option in the face of unwanted pregnancy, though many programs are able to get away with unsupportable statements about high suicide rates of abortion patients and the discredited link between abortion and breast cancer.

What abstinence-only programs must address includes the following: "a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity," "sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects," "bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society."

In a devastating exposé of abstinence-only programs, Waxman’s staff found widespread misinformation and outright lies being told to young people. Most notoriously, some programs were teaching that HIV could be spread by "sweat and tears." Overall, the report concluded that, "over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health."  (Complete report)

Meanwhile, according to James Wagoner, every day in the United States some ten thousand young people get an STD, two thousand become pregnant and fifty-five contract HIV. These threats to young Americans’ health and wellbeing  are what your tax dollars are not addressing. At least not in the thirty-six states that still accept abstinence-only funding.

 

Carole Joffe is a professor of sociology at the U.of California, Davis.  She is the author of Doctors of Conscience: the Struggle to provide Abortion before and after Roe v Wade (Beacon Press, 1996).  She is currently at work on a book about contemporary abortion provision.

Comments

[Bill Baar]

When I took health class back in Freshman year of high school it was basically films from the Army on veneral disease.

Considering divorce rates, out of wedlock births, etc, were all much better back in those years although the coming plunge was clearly insight, you have to wonder if the approaches from the 50s weren't so bad.

Anyways, if one doesn't teach abstinance only, what are the criteria one gives kids for the lapses?

Is it just your human, expect to fail sometimes, or are their criteria for when sexual activity is ok? What are they?

[Bill Baar]

When I took health class back in Freshman year of high school it was basically films from the Army on veneral disease.

Considering divorce rates, out of wedlock births, etc, were all much better back in those years (although the declines to come were clearly in sight), you have to wonder if the approaches from the 50s weren't so bad.

Anyways, if one doesn't teach abstinance only, what are the criteria one gives kids for the lapses?

Is it just your human, expect to fail sometimes, or are there criteria for when sexual activity is ok? What are they?

[Katie]

Using terms like "fail" and "lapse" to describe sexual activity may be part of the problem.

When young adults are treated with respect and given a comprehensive scientific education, we'll be able to trust they'll make the best decisions for themselves, instead of demeaning them with scare tactics.

As far as criteria for when sexual activity is ok... how about keeping it consensual and emotionally and physically safe?

A note: It's Dave Obey, not James Obey. Great post.

[Steve]

Yes, great post!

Following up on Katie's post, a very good (and very controversial) book about why even liberal, medicalized and reasonable approaches to sex-ed have trouble getting things more than half-right: Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine. That link will take you to the site of her press, where you can read parts of her book; the controversy also has its own Wikipedia entry.

In partial defense of David Obey, for some values of X and Y, it's worth flushing X dollars down the pipe of absurd, ineffective, misleading abstinence-only education if by doing so we can get the government to fund Y dollars worth of genuine and comprehensive family planning. But it does sound as if X here is too high, and Y too low, to justify this particular compromise.

[Drew]

I think that this appeals to a broader issue that infects the American culture at large: our unwillingness to claim our sexuality and talk about it openly. We still see commercials and language of parent discussing "birds and bees" (as if they mate) with their kids and an awkwardness related to sex in general. Couple this overarching discomfort with disease and holy writ and you have a massive cultural dysfunction that the fideism of latching on to an irrational policy such as this only fuels.

The "pro-life" position is really "anti-abortion" (as I have argued before) and this "abstinence-only" program is really "anti-sexuality". It is a way to keep sex out of school literally and figuratively. This is a problem of America's various taboos and bad advice to parents who call vaginas "whoo-has" and penises "winkies" with their two and three year olds who are beginning to discover the presence of their sexual differences.

So this is symptomatic of irrational cultural taboo fueled by uncritical acceptance of religious dogma. For the politicians this is also a response to keeping the flow of support consistent by the constituencies that hired them in the first place! Welcome to the cycle of samsara for our political machines.

[Ruben]

>> that study after study—including one commissioned by Congress itself has shown these programs to be ineffective does not trouble this president

Obviously you haven't researched this very well, because there are recent studies which show that such programs work.

For example, a new study to be published in the Jan/Feb issue of American Journal of Health Behavior highlights a Virginia abstinence program that has shown to have made a significant impact in the delay of sex.

You can read more about it here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88807.php