Pros And Cons Of Abstinence-Only Education

It may surprise people how much of the information in abstinence-only curricula is inaccurate. More than 80% of the abstinence-only curricula used by over two-thirds of Special Programs of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education (SPRANS) grantees contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health ("What the Research Shows”). According to a 2004 study by the Government Reform Committee Staff, out of the thirteen most commonly used abstinence-only education curricula, only two are completely accurate. The other eleven, used by sixty-nine organizations in twenty-five states, contain medical inaccuracies, treat gender stereotypes as facts, blur religion and science, and contain outright

falsehoods about reproductive health, contraceptive effectiveness, and the risks of abortion ("The Truth About Abstinence-Only Programs"). The curricula that are used by SPRANS, and other federally funded programs, are not reviewed by the federal government for accuracy, and under SPRANS requirements, abstinence-only programs are not allowed to teach participants any methods to reduce the risk of pregnancy other than abstaining from sex until marriage, and are only allowed to mention contraceptives when describing their failure (“The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs”).
The failure of such contraception is something many curricula give erroneous information about. The Why kNOw Abstinence Education Program Teacher’s Manual, published in 2002, stated that condoms have a 14 percent failure rate for preventing pregnancy, and do not protect against STDs. In reality, when used consistently and correctly, condoms only have a 2 percent failure rate, and can protect effectively against both pregnancy and STDs (Malone and Rodriguez). Many curricula also make highly exaggerated or even completely inaccurate claims about abortion; one states that five to ten percent of legal abortions cause sterility, and teaches that “premature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancy,” and another states that abortions increase the rate of tubal and cervical ectopic pregnancies (“The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs”). None of these claims are accurate, and the overall effect of these statements are young teens scared to get an abortion when it is the best option for them and raising children before they are ready.
A lot of curricula also blur religion and science. Many state that life begins at conception and another teaches that a 43-day-old fetus is a “thinking person.” Another thing that shows how little the authors of these curricula care about accuracy is the amount of completely erroneous scientific information. For example, one states that exposure to sweat and tears is a risk factor for HIV, while another, perhaps the most outlandish, teaches that touching another person’s genitals can result in pregnancy (“The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs”).
The relationship between abortion and serious mental health issues is often misrepresented in these programs. Educators often distort and exaggerate the risk of cervical cancer, while leaving out that cervical cancer is highly preventable when women get regular Pap smears. One curriculum took a chart by the CDC that showed that 41% percent of female teenagers with HIV reportedly acquired it from heterosexual sex and scrambled the data to suggest that 41% of heterosexual female teenagers have HIV. Other curricula outlandishly state that many mental health problems, mental illnesses, and personal problems are a consequence of sexual activity and can be eliminated from abstaining from sexual activity until marriage. This is an outrageous and even dangerous claim (“The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs”).
Instead of abstinence-only programs, all states and schools should implement comprehensive sex education for their students. Over 40% of the 48 comprehensive education programs studied, that supported both abstinence and condom and contraceptive use in sexually active teenagers, delayed the initiation of sexual activity, reduced the number of sexual partners, and increased condom and contraceptive use. About 30% of these programs reduced the frequency of sex in already sexually active teens, including a return to abstinence, and more than 60% of these programs reduced the rate of unprotected sex (Kirby). Additionally, a nationwide study of 15-19-year-olds found that teens who participated in comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancies than teens with either no sexual education or abstinence-only sex education. The CDC states that “research has clearly shown that the most effective programs [to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS] are comprehensive ones that include a focus on delaying sexual behavior and provide information on how sexually active young people can protect themselves” ("What the Research Shows”). When youth are educated on all the options, they can make more well-thought and prepared decisions when it comes to their body and their sexuality. For example, teenage pregnancy had decreased 37% in the past 20 years, and use of contraceptives is responsible for 86% of the decline. Only 14% is caused by a decline of sexual activity, unlike what many abstinence supporters would like you to believe (“Law Students for Reproductive Justice”).
Many parents believe that teaching their children about sex and contraception will encourage them to become more sexually active, and at an earlier age.

It is understandable why parents would believe this, but, in fact, this fear is unfounded. There is absolutely no correlation between comprehensive sex education and higher rates of sexual activity in teens; in some cases, teens in comprehensive programs have more of a delay in sexual initiation, and fewer sexual partners, than students in abstinence-only education. Also, comprehensive programs have been effective for all major ethnic groups, all genders, in different settings and communities, and for both sexually experienced and inexperienced teens (Kirby).

If any more convincing is needed, here is more evidence: The lowest pregnancy rates are found in states that teach comprehensive sex education (Kirby), and an analysis of the comparison between federal funding, chlamydia, gonorrhea and pregnancy in teens age 15 to 19 found that there is a link between higher funding of abstinence education programs and higher rates of negative health outcomes (Trenholm, Devaney, Fortson, Quay, Wheeler, and Clark) . To conclude, abstinence-only sex education is ineffective, inaccurate, and injurious to students’ health, and states should adopt a more comprehensive sex

education.