Last May I read a story on the Poynter Institute”s Web site that had been in the Washington Guardian”s U.K. editon. The headline was, “Obama to scrap funding for abstinence-only programmes.” The sub-headline stated, “U.S. president proposes a new $110 million plan to help teens avoid pregnancy.” I printed the story because I just had an intuitive feeling that I might be able to use some of the articles”s information in a future column. Well, that day has arrived.
According to Neil Cole, the founder of the Candie”s Foundation, “Teen pregnancy is an epidemic. It is staggering that almost 750,000 American teens will become pregnant this year.” The Candie”s Foundation goal is to provide teens with information about the impacts of teen parenthood.
President Obama and his administration must have been convinced that it was best to attempt to reduce the U.S. teen pregnancy problem by providing condoms and birth control pills than to teach abstinence, so the president eliminated more that $150 million from abstinence programs and has now promised to pour $114 million into methods that had been “shown scientifically to work.”
One of the unfortunate issues about the president”s decision was that it was made before the results of any major, long-term study of abstinence programs had been released to the public. Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported on a recently completed research project that provided some startling information concerning the success of programs that teach teens that sexual activity abstinence is a good way to go until they are ready for a meaningful sexual relationship.
A Washington Post story called the research “a first-of-its-kind landmark study.” The research indicated that only about one-third of sixth- and seventh-graders who went through a course focused on abstinence from sexual activity started having sex during the next two years. On the other hand, nearly half of the students who went through the other type of classes, involving sex education and the usage of condoms and birth control pills, became sexually active within the next two years.
According to Sarah Brown, the director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, “This new study is game-changing. For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well.”
I think some of the abstinence-only programs have been criticized by some people for being considered to be religion-based, or due to being based on a plan to completely avoid sex until marriage. The program involved in the new study was neither. It was reported that “The program did not advocate abstinence until marriage, did not portray sex in a negative light or suggest condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information.”
I certainly don”t see anything wrong with teaching youngsters that it is best to wait longer before becoming sexually active. Research indicates that, on average, American kids are becoming sexually active earlier than at any time in the past. This is causing more unplanned, less-wanted children, interfering with the education of many teens and causing more children to be raised in poverty.
It would be na?ve to think that any administration would change its program funding based on one study. I am just hopeful that additional research will be accomplished and provide positive results. With the magnitude of the national teen pregnancy problem, I don”t believe that we should place all of our hope on a single type of program, especially one that, in effect, actually sends a message to teens that sexual activity is OK, just practice safe sex so you don”t wind up being a teen mom or dad.
Gary Dickson is the editor and publisher of the Record-Bee. Call him at 263-5636, ext. 24. E-mail him at gdickson@record-bee.com.
