Courteney Stuart broke the story in last week’s Hook that the Pregnancy Center has received $645,000 in federal funding to teach Christian-premised, abstinence-only sex education in local schools. The small organization should be thrilled with the substantial allotment, but has attempted to keep things quiet, treating Stuart with a suspicion when she called to inquire. They intend to teach the “Why kNOw” curriculum, which is a scare-based program that teaches that sex outside of marriage will ruin your life and that homosexuals should remain forever abstinent.
The Pregnancy Center was the subject of an alarming investigative article by The Cavalier Daily‘s Leah Nylen, in which it was revealed that the group provides information to women that is demonstrably false and damagingly so, including that the birth control pill can cause cervical cancer, breast cancer, increased risk of AIDS, and infertility; that emergency contraception causes an abortion, rather than preventing conception; and that abortifacient RU-486 causes heart attacks, birth defects, and infertility. The organization is fundamentally opposed to contraceptives. Worst of all, studies show that this approach to sex ed results in kids having sex without condoms, has no impact on STD rates, and doesn’t actually stop kids from having sex.
The Pregnancy Center has broken their press silence and conducted an interview with Bob Gibson for today’s Daily Progress, in which their executive director states that their goal is to get their program into city schools. In order to do so, they’ll have to be placed on a list of approved speakers by the school board. Won’t that be an adventure?
It wasn’t that long ago that I took the required “family life” classes at WAHS. Trying to teach an abstinence-only course to my class would have gotten the teacher heckled out of the classroom. I can’t imagine it’d go much better this time around.
National problem, see page A08 of today’s Wash. Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701145.html
Entrepreneurial Christian fundamentalism, government funded, if that’s not too much a contradiction in all terms, is sucking money and lives all over Africa also, courtesy of the U.S. For the gory details, Helen Epstein is worth reading
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17963
She’s not simple. South Africa is completely different from, and more like America than Uganda. For her NYT Magazine article, search “The Fidelity Fix” (in quotes) at nytimes.com.
A few questions to put out there:
What topics does the current curriculum cover? My sex-ed curriculum (at a private school in another state 15 years ago) contained information about contraception and STDs and also included counseling on how to navigate dating and sexual relationships, how to recognize abuse in relationships, stereotypes/double standards for men and women and their sexual activity, and information about human sexual development, particularly personal choice about when to begin a sexual relationship. I count myself lucky.
Are these topics addressed in our highschools? Would they be axed by abstinenece-only education?
There’s only so much time in the school day.
The right is using the gov’t to send a gale of money to these “faith-based” groups. It is also filling the middle level of the federal beuracracy with bible school grads. These are the tactics of a dedicated political movement.
Meanwhile it looks like it’s the “blue states,” and “blue” segments within other states, that are producing most of the value in this economy. California, New England, Charlottesville, tech centers, etc. The red states are leeching off this production using every lever in the gov’t, tax policy, grants, etc.
In all fairness, abstinence is the only theoretical way to avoid various maladies (both physical and emotional) from sex at an early age. I say “theoretical” because studies reveal that abstinence pledges and various efforts have marginal effect. A lot of confusion arises because there are two groups which are often conflated:
1) People who think pre-marital sex and promiscuity are social ills
2) People who believe the latter and want abstinence-only education
The first group is sympathetic to the second, but I’ve met plenty of social conservatives who see through the wishful thinking of abstinence-only education. I believe we could go a long way toward reaching common ground if the current curriculum, in addition to discussing public health issues would address some of the emotional and psychological risks of promiscuity.
Next on the fundamental extremist agenda for public education: creationism, earth is flat, and sun revolves around the earth.
Duane, your comments make sense, but “abstinence” has proved less effective than “partner reduction,” at least according to Helen Epstein (links above).
edit: change “but” to “and” !
Love this line from the article:
Ah, yes, and “condom-based” content never uses fear-mongering tactics! But now that abstinence is on the same plane as geocentrism, I guess we can stick our fingers in our ears and safely ignore all those religious fanatics.
I believe that the amount of abstinence taught to our children should be directly proportional to the amount of non-violent conflict resolution taught to our troops.
Waldo, you think our children are like professional sex workers? That’s pretty f**ked up, dude.
No more than I advocate compulsory sex ed. for soldiers.
Here are two things that should be taught, although I am sure some people do not like it: 1) It is against the law in the Commonwealth of Virginia to have sexual intercourse with someone that you are not married to, 2) the Bible speaks against it.
Let’s pretend for a minute its a perfect world. Then these arguments would be vaild. The fact is teenagers have sex whether they have heard the abstience side or not. Instead of sentencing these youngsters to pregnency, disease and emotional instability why not inform them of the real dangers and consequences once they make this choice. We can’t change anything unless we change the way we approach the problem.
Change that to “Some teenagers have sex whether they have heard the abstinence side or not” and I’ll agree with you.
Also, some teenagers have unprotected sex whether or not they have been educated on condoms, birth control, etc. We’re awfully fond of pointing out how many teenagers break their wait-until-marriage pledges. Anyone have stats on the number of teenagers who have unprotected sex despite education to the contrary?
Careful — somebody’s going to accuse you of fearmongering with talk like that.
It’s not fearmongering if the information is valid and unbiased. I don’t think the best course is to tell kids whether or not to have sex. Sex ed is not to make choices for kids, it is meant to educate them about sex by to providing straighforward information about health and sexuality, choices, risks, and consequences such as pregnancy and STDs. Teenagers insist on making their own decisions, especially when they feel that their right to make decisions has been limited (by teachers, parents or boyfriends, for example). They base their decisions on information from all over- friends, family, media, school, and religion. Certainly, kids who don’t have sex avoid many problems, such as pregnancy and school attrition. However, abstinence-only education leaves out information about healthy sexuality, de-moralizes kids who are having sex, and leaves kids twisting in the wind if they wind pregnant or infected with an STD. I believe that school sex ed programs should include abstinence as a valid choice, but not packaged in a religion/morality format. School is one place where kids can get unbiased, straightforward information that is not tied to parental pressure, religious shame, or partner guilt. Kids have a right to that.
Not true. That was struck down by the Virginia Supreme Court in January of 2005.
this law is still on the books,
18.2-344. Fornication.
Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor
Removing it from the code law is a formality. When the court of last resort strikes down a law, that’s that — it doesn’t continue to be enforced until such time as the General Assembly (or Congress, as the case may be) reconvenes and eliminates it. Otherwise the judiciary wouldn’t have any ability to act as a check on the power of the legislature.
For more information on the case, Martin v. Ziherl, see the court’s decision, the Washington Post article and the Wikipedia entry.
This law as well as the “crimes against nature” laws, although on the books still, have not been enforced for years unless it involves a child, rape, or this type of relations in public. The bottom line with this whole issue is it was not meant to be done by our creator except thru the bonds of marriage. I am sure there are a lot of people who will not agree with me, but things will work out for people much better if you keep these activities confined to your spouse. I also read yesterday about the laws on living together with someone whom you’re not married to. This is unlawful in 7 or 8 states , The Commonwealth being one of them. It has been challenged in North Carolina, so I am sure it will be here before long
Um. How do you know that?
The laws in question are not actually about cohabitation — it’s about “lewd and lascivious cohabitation,” which is just a euphemism for sex outside of marriage, or the struck-down law that we’ve been discussing here.
I would like to ask this question of all who advocate the “no sex before marriage” position. Exactly what the F### are gay and lesbian teenagers supposed to do???? Since they are not permitted the option of marriage(nor gay people of any age if that amendment passes).
Whose largely pushing the abstinence only line? The same sorry lot that is anti-abortion rights, anti-birth control, and anti-gay!!
Waldo Jaquith Says:
July 22nd, 2006 at 9:31 am
The bottom line with this whole issue is it was not meant to be done by our creator except thru the bonds of marriage.
Um. How do you know that?
The Bible tells me so, and that’s good enough for me
# Hollow Boy Says:
July 23rd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I would like to ask this question of all who advocate the “no sex before marriage” position. Exactly what the F### are gay and lesbian teenagers supposed to do???? Since they are not permitted the option of marriage(nor gay people of any age if that amendment passes).
Whose largely pushing the abstinence only line? The same sorry lot that is anti-abortion rights, anti-birth control, and anti-gay!!
and the Bible also has all the answers here as well
I wonder if you’d be OK with, say, The Koran being used to teach students for sex ed. Or the Bhagavad Gita. Or the Book of Mormon, The Rāmāyaṇa, or the Principia Discordia.
You don’t have to answer that. It’s just something to think about. :)
I wonder if you’d be OK with, say, The Koran being used to teach students for sex ed. Or the Bhagavad Gita. Or the Book of Mormon, The Rāmāyaṇa, or the Principia Discordia.
You don’t have to answer that. It’s just something to think about. :)
Waldo,
The Bible is what we should follow
what some folks don’t know you can’t tell ’em. And then there are those who think their Way is the only Way. And we get the Twin Towers burning. Or witches and heretics centuries ago. There is the Taliban and the Islamic fundamentalists. And there are our own homegrown Reichwing religous nuts, like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps.
And what of Mormon families who may object to having sex ed taught using anything other than The Book of Mormon? Should the Bible or The Book of Mormon be taught in Utah, given that LDS is the majority religion there? And, if The Book of Mormon, would you support teaching with the Koran in Virginia if the majority of the population were Muslim?
Waldo, God gave us all the free will to do as we please, but there are consequences. Being a Christian is the right thing for me, and my family, and that’s what we’ll follow. I also know that when my days on earth are done, I will be in a much better place above for leading the lifestyle that I do. I can only hope and pray for the others in the world. The Bible gives you great instructions on how to live your life. We can argue on this all day, all night, all week, etc. And in the end, I am sure that the only thing that some people will agree with me on is to disagree. That’s seems to be how it is with religion and politics
troy_43 said: Being a Christian is the right thing for me, and my family, and that’s what we’ll follow.
I think the key is that you said it’s the right thing for YOU. That’s fine. But this is a secular country, not a Christian country, and the question is whether the Bible should be driving our laws and policies. People will always be free to follow the Bible (there’s nobody stopping you from waiting until marriage to have sex, for example), but I’m not so sure the laws of the U.S. — or any state or locality within it — should be determined by a single religion, when this country is certainly made up of a whole spectrum of religions. And in the same way, government-funded programs probably shouldn’t reflect a specific religion either.
Just a thought.