• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Science or Ideology?: What Lies Behind the Abstinence Education Debate

    Abstinence education is back in the headlines, prompted by a new study that shows such intervention can reduce teen sexual activity in the long term.

    The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, appeared in this month’s issue of the medical journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, a publication of the American Medical Association.

    It found that, two years after receiving an eight-hour abstinence-only intervention, middle school participants were a third less likely to initiate sexual activity, compared to peers who attended a non-sex-ed health class instead.  Moreover, although the abstinence-only intervention did not teach contraception, sexually active participants were no less likely to use contraception.

    In contrast, sex-ed programs that taught contraception only (i.e., safe sex) or a combination of abstinence and contraception (i.e., comprehensive) did not delay sexual initiation or increase contraceptive use.

    The study used a highly rigorous evaluation method, which randomly assigned students to one of the intervention programs or a general health class for comparison.

    While these findings are encouraging, they are not wholly surprising.  Eleven prior studies have reported similar results.

    Foes of abstinence education, however, continue to disregard the accumulating evidence, ostensibly in the name of sound social science.   In truth, such claims are often disingenuous.

    Take, for example, responses from a panel of experts during a 2008 congressional hearing on abstinence education.

    To the panel, Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) directed the following question:

    If provided evidence of abstinence education programs are as or more effective than comprehensive sex education, would you support optional federal funding for such programs?

    The answers are revealing

    Six of the eight panelists gave an unequivocally “No.”  They include a Columbia University medical professor, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, Chair of the Committee on Adolescence at the American Academy of Pediatrics, a youth speaker, and a policy advocate.

    If not social science research, what then motivates the opposition?

    Heritage senior research fellow Robert Rector provides an acute diagnosis. The debate about sex education is really a debate about values. Authentic abstinence education, he notes, teaches that school-aged children should abstain from sex until they have at least graduated from high school; that sex should involve love, intimacy, and commitment, qualities that are most likely to be found in marriage; and that marriage can benefit children, adults and society.  Despite the fact that nearly all parents want their children to be taught these messages, Congress and the Obama administration recently eliminated all federally funded abstinence programs.

    Heritage’s Robert Rector Concludes:

    In the place of abstinence, they will fund programs that teach that teen sex is fine as long as the teen uses a condom.  Because almost no parents approve of this message, the new programs will be wrapped in deceptive labels.

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Science or Ideology?: What Lies Behind the Abstinence Education Debate

    1. Barbara F Delo says:

      One major additional problem with a condoms based sex ed program is that it gives a false sense of security. The education programs present condoms as nearly foolproof, yet in real world studies the effectiveness of using condoms for preventing pregnancy drops from over 95% to approximately 60%. It may not be often that a condom breaks, but the complience rate is just not that good. And it becomes even worse if one or two…drinks are involved.

      A 30-40% chance of pregnancy…thats a whole lot of pregnancies and a whole lot of tears.

    2. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      From a student health perspective:

      "Remember the ABCs of STDs"

      "Abstinence – more than a moral choice, it's the only sure method of avoiding an STD. A committed relationship with a non-infected partner is another…"

      "Barrier – a latex condom offers no guarantee but … used correctly it can block [some STDs]…"

      "Chance – ignoring warnings about STDs is a careless mindset that [can] quickly ruin your day and possibly your life."

      "Following the ABCs will help … prevent unplanned pregnancy"

      Humans have the greatest brain function of all animal species on planet Earth. Unfortunately, some folks believe that everyone essentially operates on primordial instincts.

    3. Pingback: Abstinence Day on the Hill | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×