Sex and Reality

A recent study commissioned by Congress concluded that abstinence-only programs are completely ineffective in preventing or delaying teenagers from having sexual intercourse. Nor do they lower unwanted pregnancy rates or lessen the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Given this reality, it's bad news that the federal government will waste $176 million on these programs in 2007 alone. "In short, American taxpayers appear to have paid over one billion federal dollars for programs that have no impact," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The good news: Leaders at the state and federal level are learning how counterproductive abstinence-only programs are and are starting to take action.

Several states, including California, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have already rejected Title V funds, for being too restrictive. And more recently, Congressional leaders have indicated that they would allow Title V, a $50 million abstinence-only program, to expire on June 30. "Abstinence-only seems to be a colossal failure," said Rep. John Dingell, (D- MI) chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over Title V funding.

Rep. Waxman is also considering holding hearings on the issue in the near future.

"With all we know about how to prevent teen pregnancy and reduce sexually transmitted diseases," said Rep. Diana DeGette, (D-Col.), "it is high time to redirect the millions of federal dollars that we squander every year on abstinence-only education to programs that actually work."

This post was co-written by Michael Corcoran, a former Nation intern and freelance journalist residing in Boston. His work has appeared in The Nation, the Boston Globe and Campus Progress. he can be reached at www.michaelcorcoran.blogspot.com. Please send us your own ideas for "sweet victories" by emailing to nationvictories@gmail.com

Comments (11)

1. Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/04/2007 @ 12:35pm |

   Well, technically, FRANK..."mankind was doomed" when they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge...not when they had sex.

   But otherwise, you're right. "Abstinence-only" was idiocy from Day One. The studies show it, and just a common knowledge of human psychology would tell you that it was doomed to fail.

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2007 @ 12:55pm

2. Posted by MASK 06/04/2007 @ 12:55pm

   Yes, but I'd still like to read some wingnut support for the concept.

   (It's been a long day, and I could use a chuckle...)

   Posted by drhammer at 06/04/2007 @ 2:18pm

3. Posted by DRHAMMER 06/04/2007 @ 2:18pm

   Well, with the departure of LVLIB, not sure we have that many social cons left.

   Maybe ABELL12CT will show up and tell us how teaching kids not to hump is part of the "War On Terror" and we'll all surrender monkeys for not supporting it....and one more surge of unprotected sex by the teens will end teen pregnancy!

   Posted by Mask at 06/04/2007 @ 2:21pm

4. " "In short, American taxpayers appear to have paid over one billion federal dollars for programs that have no impact," said Rep. Henry Waxman ☼ (D-Calif), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

   I am stunded to find a nut like Waxman making a statement such as this...now, what other programs does he feel the same about? Can we expect programs to be eliminated along with this boondoggle of abstinence?

   Posted by john maasch at 06/04/2007 @ 6:52pm

5. Stunded...should read stunnedededededdddd......

   Posted by john maasch at 06/04/2007 @ 7:03pm

6. Abstaining is a nice goal for young children , but human nature does take over. Without educating your children on life with character molding influences in the home, then abstinence has no chanc...sex ed in school at age 8 with rubbers and cucumbers are just as ridiculous....I never thought it was the job of the teacher who can't teach children to read at an eigth grade leve when graduating high school, to expect him/her to teach sex to the same 8th grader...

   Govt should be now here near sex ed...look what it has done to help overall education in our country an schools...earning a well deserved F.

   Posted by john maasch at 06/04/2007 @ 8:03pm

7. The abstinence only program was mere pandering to the religious right, and its complete failure is yet further proof of why we need to keep religion out of government.

   Posted by Balrog at 06/05/2007 @ 12:41am

8. RIO BRAVO:

   The past 6 years of the Bush Administration is proof of what happens when you allow people whose blind faith lead them, rather than allowing a clear-eyed, sober assessment of reality to guide them.

   I know this is trite, but we all know the definition of insanity. It's doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting a different result.

   Tell me, RIO BRAVO... ALL the studies show that abstinence only programs do not work. So are you telling me that a) you personally like the idea of the federal government teaching morality to our kids and b) you relish the idea of funding a failed and failing program? Seems to me that both of those ideas are in direct contravention to your stated ideological tilt. Personally, I have always thought it is the parents who should be teaching their children proper moral behavior, not the government. And since the types of economic policies you seem to support have done nothing but undermine the nuclear family, from supporting "free" trade to supporting the privatization of everything under the sun (which has been a complete disaster everywhere it has been tried), it seems to me that your words smack of total hypocrisy.

   Step down from the soapbox long enough to realize the absurdity of your own words. We all know you're a joke. The problem is, you're just not in on it yet.

   Posted by jorcheim at 06/05/2007 @ 08:01am

9. Posted by JORCHEIM 06/05/2007 @ 08:01am

   Waste of time, JORCH. Bush and the Religious Right say "abstinence only" works....a bunch of "liberal Demoncrat scientists" with a "study" MUST be wrong in RIO's eyes. Data and facts aren't important...FAITH in the leaders is.

   BTW, notice these "family values" right-wingers want the SCHOOL to teach "good moral and social judgements"? Why not the PARENTS, RIO?

   Posted by Mask at 06/05/2007 @ 09:54am

10. BTW....what 'family values' and morals do the right wing-nuts subscribe to? They tend to be mutually exclusive: old testament (stone people, sacrifice bulls), Islamic? We've had lots of examples of those.

    But we know what 'morales' they want. Rove and crew trot them out every election.

    Posted by jaymo at 06/05/2007 @ 2:14pm

11. of course abstinence doesn't work no shocker doesn't take genius to know that

    Posted by studlyguy at 06/05/2007 @ 5:20pm