For more than three decades, the so-called pro-life movement — of which I was once a participant — has claimed to uphold sexual morality and the sanctity of human life, even as it promoted policies which encourage unsafe sex, untimely pregnancy, and abortion among women who are presented with no alternatives.
A new study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health finds that “pro-life” abstinence-only programs — marketed by the religious right, funded by the Bush administration, and imposed upon public schools in conservative school districts across the United States — may achieve the opposite of their intended objectives.
According to The Washington Post, the study focused on “virginity pledges,” a core element of abstinence-only education:
The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a “virginity pledge,” but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.
“Taking a pledge doesn’t seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior,” said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. “But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking.”
The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.
Focus on the Family continues to promote unsafe and disease-prone sex — and resulting unwed pregnancy — even as it condemns comprehensive sex-education programs which teach youths how to prevent disease and avoid pregnancies that — as such a young age — often end in abortion.
In a Dec. 16 article, Focus on the Family blames comprehensive sex education for disturbing stats on pregnancy and abortion at a school in urban Alexandria, Virginia — but fails to tell readers that the outcomes of abstinence-only programs are generally just as bad or worse. Focus also falsely insinuates that comprehensive sex ed does not educate teen-agers about abstinence.
In the view of Focus on the Family, teen-agers must remain ignorant of how to protect themselves, apparently for fear that mere mention of a behavior will encourage it. Furthermore, Focus apparently believes that — by protecting teen-agers from knowledge of any alternatives — teen-agers can be fooled into believing that abstinence until marriage is really their only option.
But the latest study suggests that the Focus myth — that youth behavior can be controlled through an echo chamber of abstinence-only misinformation and ignorance — isn’t working in practice.
The study tracked approximately 900 youths for five years, beginning in 1996.
By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.
“It seems that pledgers aren’t really internalizing the pledge,” Rosenbaum said. “Participating in a program doesn’t appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program.”
While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of those who had not.
Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms in abstinence-focused programs.
“There’s been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms,” she said. “They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control.”
Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy asks the Washington Post:
What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active — and most do well before marriage — they don’t protect themselves or their partners?
But Focus on the Family has already answered that question: Focus actively encourages young adults to marry early — without preparation and with too little money and career stability to support a family. Focus social policy ensures that young unwed couples will become pregnant and either marry or abort due to an absence of alternatives.
Tags: abortion, abstinence only, Focus on the Family, unsafe sex26 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Yes, religion is wrong about everything.
That is old news.
Comment by TheRadicalRealist — December 29, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Radical, I’m not sure how your conclusion logically follows from the content of the article. Please explain.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 29, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
“Yes, religion is wrong about everything.
That is old news.”
It’s not that religion is wrong about everything, it’s that religious people are incapable of giving out accurate information about science without letting their religion get in the way.
Comment by James — December 29, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
I read this article carefully, and did not think it well
written in that it doesn’t really give up anything to chew on one way or the other. Alot of words, turning onto a nice street of limited “studies”, landing us at a cul de sac to exit. I being 46 and counting backwards, would have been so embarrassed to have sex education in my school, and though people of junior high or younger today are far more exposed to matters of sex than my generation could ever have been, i think there is a great amount of
embarrassment even among todays youths, we don’t change.
In what i have come to see is that you do your best as a parent, single or otherwise. but usually in the end young
people will do what they want, as do adults. There are
many churches that would have young people think abtinence
is better, but they see so many double standards. I know your article was not meant to be all inclusive, but, i
wished there would have been more to digest. I do not believe surveys are a good way to measure ones behaviour.
who tells the truth, who lies?.
Comment by Mark — December 29, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Mark,
I believe the point here is that yet another small study, stacked on top of many others, finds that abstinence-only education is — at best — ineffective, and may be very unsafe.
I agree that self-disclosure surveys are much less reliable than objective observation. That is why I hope there will be studies that count sexually transmitted infections and pregnancies among abstinence-only and comprehensive sex-ed students.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 29, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
James, that still does not logically follow.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 29, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Thank you. don’t you believe drug use also plays a part in
this seemingly no care attitude? i know several young people who got drunk, had sex, and hoped against hope, but 9 months later!!!. I appreciate you clarifying for me
main point of your article.
Comment by Mark — December 29, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Mark,
My opinion, very few cases involves drugs. At least when it comes to teenage pregnancy in the “bible belt”/southern states. The teenagers there start screwing around and getting knocked up, for a lack of things to do where they’re from.
LOL James, I love that line, and I also believe it’s true:
“religious people are incapable of giving out accurate information about science without letting their religion get in the way.”
Remember that “christians” have said numerous times that even if science proves without a doubt that homosexuality is something you’re born with, they will continue to deny any kind of rights to gays, and will continue treating gays like dirt.
And let’s not forget how “christians” fuck with legit scientific studies to further their hateful agenda. Can you say “Paul Cameron”, “Exodus International”, “Peter LaBarbera”, “Matt Barber”, “Jerry Falwell”, “Pat Robertson” and “PFOX” (for starters)?
Comment by Scott — December 29, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
I would beg to differ. I bet many of the Jewish doctors who provide accurate information about sexuality are religious to some degree.
Comment by Emily K — December 29, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
The article has nothing to do with religion per se.
It suggests to me that Focus on the Family exploits and promotes populist resistance to knowledge and critical analysis, in order to reinforce its educational model of ignorant sexuality and compulsory marriage, which a growing body of research shows is harmful to health and family.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 30, 2008 @ 12:25 am
The original commenter’s reaction made perfect sense to me.
A person having or not having faith or spirituality doesn’t seem to be a predictor of his/her ability to advocate for decent social policy, but the presence of fundamentalist “religion” does indeed have an inverse relation to a person’s ability to make good choices, think through things with their minds, vote reasonably, etc.
Comment by Evan — December 30, 2008 @ 1:21 am
Evan, I agree that fundamentalism does negatively affect a person’s ability to perform sound analysis and decisionmaking. But I think it’s an extreme stretch to equate fundamentalism with all religion.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 30, 2008 @ 1:47 am
Do us Jews get a “free pass” once again? Or do we not count as being “religious?”
Comment by Emily K — December 30, 2008 @ 5:09 am
Fundamentalism and all religions are one and the same. They all come from an irrational basis and unfalsifiable belief in the “supernatural”. There is no logical way to discern the “right” way to use religion from the “wrong” way to use religion. All of it has an irrational basis, therefore no such distinction can be made. Until one’s “god” comes down and explains to everyone exactly what they want, no interpretation of religion is any more likely to be any more right than any other interpretation. You have no foundation on which to claim that homophobic fundamentalist christians are wrong about what “god” wants, and that liberal christians are right about what “god” wants.
Religion relates to this article because without irrational dogma, there would be no “abstinence-only” programs. There would be no reason for holding teens to a “supernatural” standard in the face of scientific fact.
Any theistic jews are just as irrational as the aforementioned christians. There is no free pass for irrationality.
Comment by TheRadicalRealist — December 30, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Umm, who said that “liberal christians are right about what ‘god’ wants”?
A key problem with fundamentalists is that they throw away reason, fact, and reality whenever they contradict dogma; other religious individuals reject dogma when it conflicts with reality.
Like philosophy, religion can help fill in the blanks when facts are — and will likely remain — unavailable.
I fail to see how religion poses an inherent threat to reason — provided that its practitioners conform their religious beliefs to proven fact and reason.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 30, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
It is not “conforming religious beliefs to proven fact and reason” to believe in a skyfairy/skyfairies that care about and interact with humans.
All religious faith is inherently unreasonable. It is no consolation to say some religious people are “more reasonable” than others. Anyone who can believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities.
Furthermore, any religious belief at all legitimizes the religious beliefs of those who actively disregard fact and reason. If it’s okay for a theist to believe that god loves gays, then it’s also okay for a theist to believe that god hates gays. Like I said in my previous comment, there is no basis on which to say one use of faith is good and that the other is bad.
Comment by TheRadicalRealist — December 30, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Wouldn’t the basis used to decide which science is “good” (cure cancer?) and which science is “bad” (weed out genetic “impurities” in humans?) be similar to that which decides which faith is good or bad?
Comment by Emily K — December 30, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
“Wouldn’t the basis used to decide which science is ‘good’ (cure cancer?) and which science is ‘bad’ (weed out genetic ‘impurities’ in humans?) be similar to that which decides which faith is good or bad?”
No, because the objectives of science are determined by people, human experience, empirical data, and other tangible sources. If the intent of medical science is to alleviate suffering, then scientists/people are able to make judgments on whether or not a scientific practice is working in favor of that objective. These conclusions are reached by observation of tangible realities and effects in the natural world. The evaluations are also open to scrutiny from any other scientist or any other person. In science, the authority on what is a good/bad use of science lies with humanity. There is no higher authority than humanity and empirical data that can be deferred to.
The objective of following a religious faith is to do the will and follow the rules of the religion/god/gods. When one’s faith is criticized, they claim their justification lies with a “higher power”, deferring to religious texts, god, or gods. Unlike in science, there is no empirical, tangible way to discern what does or does not meet the objective of following god(s)’ will. No one can know what god/gods is/are thinking, or what their will is for humans. Following the supposed will of a “higher being” is not falsifiable or testable in any way. Even religions with so-called holy books that are supposed to be the word of the god/gods are contradictory and (as we can see from the dozens of different sects within even one religion like christianity) are open to many, many different interpretations. Without clarification from the god in question, there is no way to know which interpretation is the correct one. One person of faith calling another person of faith irrational or extreme in their interpretation of religion is like the pot calling the kettle black. This is because both interpretations of faith are rooted in unfalsifiable and untestable claims about the will of a supernatural entity.
Science operates within the natural world, which allows it to be tested, questioned, falsified, and observed. Faith, which relies on the “supernatural”, is the antithesis of these things; it is a free-for-all of opinions, none of which can be proven or disproven. There are no parallels between science and faith.
Comment by TheRadicalRealist — December 30, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
My point is that if humans are going to be doing the deciding anyway, whether it be religion/science/health/going to war, the principals that determine what is “good” vs. what is “bad” would be the same no matter what the topic would be. So a “bad” religion would be one that causes suffering. But a “good” religion would be one that alleviates suffering.
Which brings in all sorts of grey areas. Because not everything determined to be “good” is “good” for everybody. the “good” medicine I take would damage somebody without my ailments. Likewise, someone who would be miserable without their private, personal, daily prayers and meditations would be damaged by the lifestyle of someone who doesn’t include that.
Of course, your argument is that all religion is damaging to everybody. But I say, as in ALL personal lifestyle choices, my freedom ends where yours begins. And as long as people aren’t hurt, there shouldn’t be a problem. Which is why civil equality for same sex couples should – and WILL eventually be – a non-issue.
Comment by Emily K — December 30, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Emily K,
Nice sum up there. But ONE thing you got wrong is that you mentioned “lifestyle choice”. Homosexuality is not anymore of a choice than heterosexuality.
Comment by James — December 31, 2008 @ 12:27 am
Amid all the bickering over religion, I’m surprised that no one has expressed an interest in whether abstinence-only indoctrination results in higher rates of sexually transmitted infection or abortion.
Comment by Michael Airhart — December 31, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
“My point is that if humans are going to be doing the deciding anyway, whether it be religion/science/health/going to war, the principals that determine what is ‘good’ vs. what is ‘bad’ would be the same no matter what the topic would be. So a ‘bad’ religion would be one that causes suffering. But a ‘good’ religion would be one that alleviates suffering.”
Humans can observe the effects of certain beliefs and determine their effect on humanity. However, the problem with that is that all religious beliefs are rooted in unfalsifiable claims about the “supernatural”. Science is rooted in the natural world, and the natural world only. Many religious people connect observable reality to the “supernatural”. For example, take a religious person who campaigns against equal rights for gays because they believe that tolerance of homosexuality will bring “the wrath of god” upon humanity. To them, they are protecting humanity; therefore their faith is good. They believe they are alleviating the “spiritual” suffering of humanity. They believe that humanity will suffer in the natural world via natural disaster, drought, famine, etc. if gays have equal rights. And as I have said a few times already, once you enter the cesspool of belief in unfalsifiable claims, there is no basis on which to tell these people that their faith causes suffering on gay people. To them, you are causing suffering to humanity by supporting gay rights. And since “god/gods” cannot be contacted to clarify their will, you are no more likely to be right than the anti-gay person.
“Likewise, someone who would be miserable without their private, personal, daily prayers and meditations would be damaged by the lifestyle of someone who doesn’t include that.”
The problem is not prayer/meditation in itself. There are many non-theistic people who meditate. The problem is irrational belief in a “higher power”. Even if that person were to keep their belief in a “higher power” to themselves, they are still legitimizing the irrational belief in a higher power, including those that believe the higher power wants them to fight against homosexuality. If a person can believe a god is satisfied with or wants a person to keep their faith private, then another person can believe that their god wants them to spread their faith and impose its rules upon others. Again, in the realm of religious faith, there is no basis on which one person of faith can tell another person of faith that imposing their beliefs on others is “wrong”. If you think religious people who impose their beliefs on others are “wrong”, get their god down here to tell them it is wrong. Until then, you have no basis to tell them their interpretation of god is incorrect.
“I say, as in ALL personal lifestyle choices, my freedom ends where yours begins.”
That would be a good principle, if only all religious people followed it. Of course, many religious people do follow that principle. But many do not. Religion is inherently hostile towards personal freedom. Many religious people even outright defy that principle, since they believe they are on a mission from “god” to spread their faith by any means necessary. But many more defy that principle passively. For example, take a little old lady who voted yes on proposition 8. She keeps her faith private; she does not hurt anyone directly, but she believes it is her right to follow “god’s will” to oppose homosexuality. How exactly can you argue that “god made all people equal and wants them to have equal rights”? There is no standard to determine who is right and who is wrong since both stances are rooted in the unprovable. Someone who disagrees with the little old lady from a secular stance can tell her that she cannot prove her claims, therefore they cannot be a valid argument. By espousing faith, one is unable to do this. They seek to argue irrationality with irrationality, which will never get anywhere.
“And as long as people aren’t hurt, there shouldn’t be a problem.”
Anyone who holds an irrational belief in god/gods is legitimizing the beliefs of those who do actively or passively hurt other people. If believing in things that cannot be proven is okay, then it is okay for anyone, and there is no foundation on which to judge the validity of such beliefs.
“Which is why civil equality for same sex couples should – and WILL eventually be – a non-issue.”
“Eventually”….it will take much longer than it should because “moderate” religious apologists continue to validate and legitimize the religious beliefs of those who oppose equality for LGBT people.
Religious apologists should be ready to tell the elderly gays, “Sorry we couldn’t secure your right to equal marriage before you die. Making sure we weren’t upsetting the adults with imaginary friends was more important than your rights.”
Comment by TheRadicalRealist — December 31, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
“I’m surprised that no one has expressed an interest in whether abstinence-only indoctrination results in higher rates of sexually transmitted infection or abortion.”
That’s too obvious to remain interesting for long.
The fact that the abstinence-pushing United States has higher STD rates, higher teen pregnancy rates, and higher abortion rates than any other 1st world country, all of which use comprehensive sex-education, is not a coincidence.
Comment by TheRadicalRealist — December 31, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Actually James, when I wrote “lifestyle choice,” I was referring to religion. :-) Since I’m gay myself, I’m well aware that my orientation is not a “lifestyle choice.” I guess I figured people around here would not automatically assume I was talking about being gay when i used that phrase… oh well.
Comment by Emily K — January 1, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Sorry, Emily K, I misunderstood.
Comment by James — January 1, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
[...] Here is the truth. [...]
Pingback by Truth Wins Out - North Dakota Ideologues Divorced From Reality and Abstaining From Facts — February 2, 2011 @ 2:47 pm