Abstinence-Only Education

While there is no clear definition of what sex education is due to the varying degrees of how it is taught, it is loosely defined as “education in schools on the subject of sexual activity and sexual relationships (Collins).” More specifically, comprehensive sex education is defined by the Advocates of Youth Organization as a course that “teaches about abstinence as the best method for avoiding STDs and unintended pregnancy, but also teaches about condoms and contraception to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with STDs, including HIV, [and]…also teaches interpersonal and communication skills and helps young people explore their own values, goals, and options.” Contraceptives are more clearly defined as “a device or drug

serving to prevent pregnancy” and come in a variety of forms, including hormonal contraceptives such as birth control or “the pill”, barrier contraceptives such as male and female condoms, and intrauterine contraceptives such as hormonal IUDs (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development).
Despite the National Education Association calling for teacher training programs in sex education as early as 1912, sex education was only first enacted during the 1940’s when the U.S. Public Health Service labeled it as an “urgent need” (Pardini). Even then, it was not until 1953 that the American School Health Association began a nationwide program focused on family life education. Similarly, it was not until the mid-1980s when the AIDS outbreak urged U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to issue a report for comprehensive sex education to be taught within public schools as early as the third grade (Pardini). However, Koop’s report did not force or even issue a nationwide requirement for a comprehensive sex education course to be taught. Even today, only 22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools to teach sex education with only 19 of those states requiring the information “be medically, factually or technically accurate” (NCSL). Likewise, public schools today can choose between comprehensive sex programs; abstinence-only programs such as WAIT, also known as Why Am I Tempted; abstinence-centered programs; and abstinence-strong programs, along with when such programs can begin being taught (LastWeekTonight).
Even with the surplus of sex education programs at the United States’ education system’s disposal, many claim that comprehensive sex education—when compared to other forms of sex education—is the most effective in preventing unintended teen pregnancy. Researchers found that young people ages 15-19 who received comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence-only education (Kohler). Likewise, since the induction of comprehensive sex education in the mid- to late-1980s, teen pregnancy rates within the United States have continued to significantly drop and have now reached a historic low. As a result, the teen pregnancy rate from 1990 to 2010 has dropped from 116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 females, ages 15 to 19, to 57.4 pregnancies per 1,000—the lowest rate since 1972 (Child Trends).
Nevertheless, others may argue that abstinence-only or abstinence-centered/strong programs are still more effective at preventing teen pregnancies and delaying sexual intercourse. However, according to the “Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs,” after a study of four abstinence only programs, no students who participated in the programs were more likely to abstain from sex than other students who did not. Another example involves how a majority of Mississippi’s school districts teaches on a basis of abstinence-only programs (LastWeekTonight). Correspondingly, Mississippi also has the second highest teen pregnancy rate, along with the highest percentage of sexually active high school students in the nation (Mississippi First).
This is not only true in Mississippi, but in all other states still teaching abstinence-only educations.

According to Matt Essert of mic.com, “There's almost no getting around it. States with abstinence-only education have the highest rates of teen pregnancies.” In his article “The States With the Highest Teenage Birth Rates Have One Thing in Common,” Essert discusses a figure from a study conducted by PLOS One that depicted the correlation between abstinence only educations and teen pregnancy rates state-by-state. The figure showed the direct variation between abstinence teaching levels and teen pregnancies per 1,000 women with states that had higher abstinence teaching levels—such as Texas, Kentucky, and Utah—also having higher amounts of teen pregnancies. Contrariwise, states with low abstinence teaching levels, such as New Hampshire and Iowa, have a lower amount of teen pregnancies. As said by Erika Sánchez: “No matter how much politicians, parents and educators wring their hands, adolescents will continue to have sex — and teaching them abstinence isn’t going to deter them from

it.”
Just as there is a correlation between comprehensive sex education and teen pregnancies, there is an equally impactful one with teen pregnancies and contraceptives. A study conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and Columbia University examined the decline in teen pregnancies within the 1995 to 2002 period, and found that 86% of the decline was caused due to an improvement in contraceptive use. The remaining 14% was caused by a decline in teens’ sexual activity. The data was further broken down into age groups and found that teen pregnancies within the 18-19 year old range declined completely due to contraceptive use as this group’s sexual activity did not decline from 1995 to 2002.
Later, in 2014, Guttmacher conducted another study using data from the National Survey of Family Growth. With this, Guttmacher discovered that from 2003 to 2010, teens’ sexual activity did not diminish with only a one percent difference between 2003 and 2010. Instead, teens’ contraceptive use increased once more with sexually active women aged 15–19 contraceptive usage increasing from 37% in 2006–2008 to 47% in 2008–2010; dual method usage increasing from 16% to 23% over the period, and the usage of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods increasing from 1.4% to 4.4%.
The Guttmacher Institute later conducted an experiment in 2001-2003 to explain how an increased ease of access of emergency contraceptives did not lead to more sexual activity, but increased their use. Guttmacher stated that female adolescents, aged 15-19, who were given packs of emergency contraceptives had a higher rate of use than those who had to go to the clinic to obtain it, with a 44% usage versus a 29%, although each groups’ risky sexual behavior did not differ.
States have also begun to increase the ease of access of hormonal contraceptives such as “the pill,” which is the most common birth control method for women (Haelle).

Two states, California and Oregon, have begun to offer over-the-counter birth control as, beforehand, birth control could only be given with a doctor’s prescription (Almendrala). This practice is actually common within most of the world, but with the United States’ gradual acceptance, it will not only decrease teen pregnancy, but will have other benefits as well. Dr. Taraneh Shirazian, an assistant professor at NYU Langone Medical Center, said that “in many ways, by preventing pregnancy, you actually are lowering an individual woman’s risk for blood clots, in general.” Likewise, with the recent introduction and spreading of condom accessibility programs, male condom use has increased along with the decrease in teen pregnancy and even the spread of STDs and STIs (Alford). However, these programs do not encourage teens to engage in sex at an early age or to have more sexual partners, which also helps to lower the teen pregnancy rate

(Furstenberg).
Opponents of this claim that the United States’s teen pregnancy decline is only prevalent for white women aged 15-19. While it is true that pregnancy rates for African American and Hispanic teens are still twice as high as that of white teens, all ethnicities have experienced a significant drop in teen pregnancy. Currently, non-Hispanic African Americans have had a 67% decline since 1991, Hispanics have had a 60% decline, American Indians or Alaska Natives have had a 63% decline, and Asians or Pacific Islanders have had a 68% decline (Wiltz). Instead, teen pregnancy follows a trend based on regional differences rather than ethnic ones. This trend is more clearly defined by Mike Lillis, a writer at a political newspaper called The Hill, who states that “all five states with the highest teen birth rates have adopted policies requiring that abstinence be stressed…Of the four states with the lowest teen birth rates, none requires that abstinence be stressed to students…”.
Another argument is that an increase in teen abortions has led to the decline in both teen pregnancy and teen birth rates. However, this also cannot be true as the teen pregnancy and birth decline has varied directly with the teen abortion rate. As of 2001, the teen abortion rate fell 66 percent from 1988 with only 14.7 abortions per 1,000 women compared to the original 43.5 abortions per 1,000 women (Lewis). If teen abortions rates were the cause of the lower teen pregnancy and teen birth rates, their rate would be increasing rather than decreasing, thus disproving its correlation and causation.
Despite the United States having one of the highest teen pregnancy rates of all industrialized and developed nations (Office of Adolescent Health), its decline is hopeful for its future. The utilization of comprehensive sex education and increase in contraceptive access is a step in the right direction both for the United States and for its youth. These resources and programs allow teenagers to no longer fear the natural occurrence of sex in their lives like abstinence-only programs do, prepares them for when it does happen, and prevents unintended teen pregnancy.