What is Abstinence Education?

    Abstinence education is not liberal or conservative, it is not an invention of the Republican or Democratic Party, neither is it a religious or faith based philosophy.  Abstinence education is simply. …logical.

     In the early nineties the failures of comprehensive sex education (try not to have sex, but you are going to anyway, so here is how to use a condom, where to get them and by the way, take a few with you.) were becoming obvious.  After years of well funded in school comprehensive sex education, pregnancy, sexual activity rates, and disease rates had increased, not decreased.     

     A grass roots movement made up of diverse and sometimes-contrary elements began clamoring for change.  They seemed to want several things: The benefits of marriage expounded, the choice to wait extolled, strategies for resisting peer pressure taught, the truth about condom failure rates explained, the physiological impact of early sexual activity revealed, and the idea that virginity can be “reclaimed” (Just because you started does not mean you can’t stop) taught.  These core beliefs were later to be added to and articulated into the 1996 title V welfare reform bill.

     The medical and educational community was not sure what to make of what became to be known as “the abstinence movement”.  Leaders began to push for serious consideration and government funding.  Until 1996 there simply was no federal or state money for abstinence education.  The movement was made up of volunteers, nonprofits, and para educators.  I remember once, in 1993, I called my wife completely excited because an organization had given me gas money for working with their youth (I was a school teacher at the time). I remember those years, abstinence and virginity were bad words.  Now years later, I speak at high school campuses where the “cool kids” wear t-shirts that proclaim abstinence and virginity as the wearer’s choice.

Title V

      In 96 the title V welfare reform bill was passed.  Title V gave block grants to states so that they could spend the money how they chose in order to promote abstinence.  The outlines were simple.  The money must be spent in accordance with the parameters of the Title V guidelines.  This implementation plan, though initially confusing, was brilliant.  Instead of dictating to the states how to promote abstinence, congress made the money available and set the parameters down in stone.  The title V guidelines were put in place and the states could fund any programs that worked within them in order to promote abstinence.  The strict guidelines combined with the flexible application are at the root of the brilliance and success of Title V.

       The diversity and effectiveness of the programs that received and put into play this money always astounds me in my travels.  Some states disseminated this money to the county schools and let the county chose and implement the programs and some funded nonprofit organizations to promote abstinence. I have continually been impressed with the dedication and professionalism of the folks in the abstinence movement “on the ground.”  I have seen abstinence promoted through after school clubs, in class with medically accurate curriculum, billboards, radio spots, and rallies where attendance is over six thousand.  Imagine six thousand children screaming and cheering for abstinence (If in 1993 if, when I did my first abstinence rally in the back of a Golden Corral restaurant for 19 teens, if you told me I would someday perform in front of 6000 teens, I would have laughed at you.)  I have seen teens compete to be in an ad on local TV that promotes abstinence.  That’s right, teens competing to be in an ad that will be on local TV that “the kids at school” will be sure to see and the ad promotes virginity. 

    What happened?  Well in the early 90s for the first time in 27 years, the teen pregnancy rate went down.  What ensued after these findings was a rather deplorable “cat fight” between the “safe sex” camp and the “abstinence camp.”  About whom or what was responsible for the decline.  Both camps agreed that the pregnancy rate went down; however, both claimed responsibility for the decline.  Studies came out that said increased abstinence was responsible for the decline.  Studies came out that showed that condom use was responsible.  I stated in the beginning of this brief that the abstinence movement is logical.  Ask yourself a logical question.  If a philosophy or action is practiced to prevent a negative trend for 30 years and the negative trend continues to get worse, and then a new philosophy and approach appears to counter the negative trend, and the negative trend improves, which philosophy or approach is responsible for the improvement in the negative trend?  It is simply logical to decide that the new or fresh approach was responsible for the change in the negative trend.  Abstinence Education was the new and progressive approach that turned around teen pregnancy rates and teen sexual activity rates.

What About Safe Sex and Comprehensive Sex Ed

    As if the wonderful news of teen pregnancy decline weren’t enough.  Scientific surveys began to show a decline in sexual activity itself.  In other words an increasing number of teens are simply choosing not to have sex.  Like the decrease in teen pregnancy rate, this is the first decline in sexual activity in thirty years. Why?  What changed?  What was the new variable…abstinence education?  This time the rush to claim responsibility was conducted in a more civilized manner. As is the norm, studies came out to support both sides.  However, the overwhelming evidence points to abstinence education as the reason for the decline in incidence of sexual intercourse amongst teens.  It is logical is it not?  How can an approach that encourages condom use be responsible for the decline of sexual intercourse amongst the target group?  Wouldn’t the approach that encourages teens not to have sex be responsible for the fact that an increasing number of teens are choosing not to have sex?  Logical. 

Is This Religious Indoctrination

   As the logic of abstinence education becomes apparent.  The illogical claims against it have increased.  One of the most ridiculous and illogical claims against abstinence education is that it is a religion.  The thinking goes like this, “the Bible, Koran, and many religious texts promote abstinence until marriage and monogamy after, and therefore, abstinence education in schools is promoting religious objectives.”  A third grader can dismantle this argument.  Ask yourself, is a motorcycle a car?  Of course not.  But they both have wheels?  Yes, both a motorcycle and a car have the property of having wheels.  They share that characteristic.  But that does not make one synonymous with the other.  Only a fool would claim that a motorcycle is a car.  Or stated differently, just because two ideas or things share a characteristic they are not automatically similar.

    One can test an idea by applying the driving principal behind it to other situations.  Some appose abstinence education with the simple and illogical statement, “abstinence is promoted in the Bible, the Koran, and many other ancient books, and therefore it should not be promoted in public schools.”  One need simply look at this statement logically.  All religions teach not to take others property; not to steel.  If you pick up any public school manual or guide book you will find rules against stealing.

    Why aren’t those opposed to abstinence education also opposed to teaching children not to steal?  Why isn’t the ACLU screaming about the fact that every school system in the country has laws written into all their student manuals against stealing? Isn’t this also religious indoctrination that has been specifically forbidden by the separation of Church and State?  Why is it that all the rules and guidelines that have roots in ancient books and are also taught in are public school are acceptable and not called “religious doctrine”, yet abstinence is.  Think about it, when a teacher punishes a student for stealing or cheating (both activities that are frowned upon by the Bible, Koran, Torah, Wicca, or any other religion on the planet). The teacher is not accused of “promoting religious ideology”.  However, if the same teacher discourages teens from having sex, he/she may be accused of “promoting religious ideology” Why is that?