Abstinence Awareness Week is March 6 – 12

Abstinence Education

The American College of Pediatricians strongly endorses abstinence-until-marriage sex education and recommends adoption by all school systems in lieu of “comprehensive sex education”. This position is based on “the public health principle of primary prevention – risk avoidance in lieu of risk reduction,” upholding the “human right to the highest attainable standard of health.”¹

By every measure, adolescent sexual activity is detrimental to the well-being of all involved, especially young women, and society at large. Children and adolescents from 10 to 19 years of age are more at risk for contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) than adults.² This is due to the general practice of having multiple and higher risk sexual partners, and to the immaturity of the cervical tissue of girls and young women. The CDC recently stated that of the 19 million new cases of STIs annually reported in the United States, 50 percent occur in teens and young adults under 25 years of age.³ Twenty-five percent of newly diagnosed cases of HIV occur in those under 22 years of age.⁴ This translates into one in four sexually active female adolescents being infected with at least one STI.⁵

Bacterial STIs may cause life-threatening cases of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and infertility. Viral STIs which include herpes, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) and HIV are generally incurable. Herpes afflicts its victims with life-long painful recurrences, may be passed on to sexual partners even when asymptomatic, and may be life threatening to infants if passed on at birth during vaginal delivery. HPV is found among 90 percent of sexually active young adults and teens.⁶ While often self-limited, HPV has high-risk strains that may persist for life and cause cancer of the cervix. HIV not only causes premature demise, but also significant suffering with life-long dependence on multiple toxic and costly medications. The CDC estimates that STIs cost the U.S. health care system as much as $15.3 billion dollars annually.⁷

Adolescent pregnancy is similarly associated with adverse socioeconomics that have an impact on the family, community, and society at large. One in thirteen high school girls becomes pregnant each year.⁸ Adolescent pregnancy results in decreased educational and vocational opportunities for the mothers, an increased likelihood of the family living in poverty, and significant risk for negative long-term outcomes for the children. For example, children of adolescent mothers are more likely to be born prematurely and at a low birth weight; suffer from poor health; perform poorly in school; run away from home; be abused or neglected; and grow up without a father.⁹

Even if sexually active teens escape acquiring sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and becoming pregnant, few remain emotionally unscathed. Overall, one in eight teens suffers from depression,¹⁰ and suicide has risen to become the third leading cause of death for adolescents, paralleling the rise in STIs within this population.¹¹ Infection with an STI has long been recognized as a cause for depression among teens. More recently, however, adolescent sexual activity alone has been acknowledged as an independent risk factor for developing low self-esteem, major depression, and attempting suicide.¹² In studies that controlled for confounding factors, sexually active girls were found to be three times as likely to report being depressed and three times as likely to have attempted suicide when compared to sexually abstinent girls.¹³ Sexually active boys were more than twice as likely to suffer from depression and seven times as likely to have attempted suicide when compared to sexually abstinent boys.¹⁴ This is not mere coincidence. Scientists now know that sexual activity releases chemicals in the brain that create emotional bonds between partners. Breaking these bonds can cause depression, and make it harder to bond with someone else in the future.¹⁵

Sexual activity is defined as genital contact. This includes mutual masturbation, as well as oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse. While only vaginal intercourse may result in pregnancy, all of these practices may spread STIs, and lead to emotional trauma. Abstaining from all sexual activity is the only 100 percent safe and effective way to avoid teen pregnancies, STIs, and the emotional fallout of adolescent sexual activity. Almost 40 years of emphasis on “safer sex” with “values-neutral sex education,” condoms and contraception has clearly failed our young people. Abstinence education does not occur in a vacuum, making it especially difficult to separate its influence from the opposing influence of the media and cultural milieu. Nevertheless, effectiveness of abstinence sex education in delaying the onset of sexual debut has been demonstrated in rigorous scientific studies. For example, five out of seven programs recently reviewed showed a significant reduction in sexual initiation rates (two programs showed rates decreased by half).¹⁶ Evaluation of community-based abstinence programs in peer-reviewed journals showed that they are effective in significantly reducing pregnancy. According to an April 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation “fifteen studies examined abstinence programs and eleven reported positive findings of delayed sexual initiation.”¹⁷ Reviews by The Institute for Research and Evaluation state that “several well designed evaluations of abstinence programs have found significant long- term reductions in adolescent sexual activity.”¹⁸ These do not begin to thoroughly evaluate the hundreds of ongoing programs.

In its endorsement of abstinence-based sex education, the College calls attention to the scientific controversies surrounding alternative educational platforms. Most sex education curricula fall into two categories, abstinence-until-marriage or comprehensive sex education programs (occasionally also referred to as “abstinence plus” programs). Recently, abstinence education has been criticized for not providing critical health information about condom use. Abstinence education curricula, however, do not discourage the use of condoms; rather they note that chastity obviates the need for condoms. Abstinence education programs do not claim that condoms have no place in preventing STIs. Comprehensive programs, on the other hand, are misleading in the emphasis they place on condom use. These programs give teens the impression that condoms make sexual activity safe. In reality, there has been much conflicting medical literature on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs since the 2000 NIH report on the subject and much of the controversy remains unresolved.¹⁹ Teens must be informed that condoms do not offer complete protection from either pregnancy or STIs.

The College position supporting abstinence-until-marriage education, unlike alternative education platforms, also recognizes the unique neurobiology of adolescent brains. The frontal cortex of the adolescent brain is still in development and unable to make the consistently wise executive decisions necessary to control action based on emotional input. Researcher Jay Giedd and others have found that young people do not have the physical brain capacity to make fully mature decisions until their mid-twenties.²⁰

Consequently, when it comes to sex education, adolescents need to be given clear direction repeatedly, as is done with programs that address smoking, drugs, and alcohol use. Emphasis on contraceptive methods undermines the authority of parents and the strength of the abstinence message. This approach reinforces the ubiquitous (yet erroneous) message presented by the media that engaging in sexual activity is not only expected of teens, but also the norm. Adolescent brains are not equipped to handle these mixed messages. Parents and teachers need to “function as a surrogate set of frontal lobes, an auxiliary problem solver” for their teens, setting firm and immutable expectations.²¹ Adolescents need repetitive, clear, and consistent guidance.

As families address this issue of sex education, the American College of Pediatricians recommends that parents be fully aware of the content of the curriculum to which their children are being exposed. The national “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sex Education” that were drafted by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) place strong emphasis on “values neutral” sex education beginning in kindergarten. According to these guidelines, children between the ages of 5 to 8 should be taught not only the anatomically correct names of all body parts, but also the definitions of sexual intercourse, and masturbation.²²

Overall, these comprehensive programs only emphasize “safer sex.” Many comprehensive programs also provide sexually erotic material to teens with explicit condom demonstrations. Other programs suggest alternative types of sexually stimulating contact (referred to as “outercourse”) that would not result in pregnancy but still could result in STIs. Some of these activities, depending on the ages of those involved and the state in which they occur, could actually be illegal. These education programs can break down the natural barriers of those not yet involved in sexual activity and encourage experimentation. Additionally, many programs emphasize that teens do not need parental consent to obtain birth control and that teens therefore need not even discuss the issue with them.²³

Discouraging parental involvement eliminates one of the most powerful deterrents to sexual activity, namely, communication of parental expectations.²⁴ Firm statements from parents that sex should be reserved for marriage have been found to be very effective in delaying sexual debut. Parental example and “religiosity” have also been found to be similarly protective. Adolescents reared by parents who live according to their professed faith²⁵ and are actively involved in their worship community,²⁶ are more likely to abstain from sexual activity as teens. Successful sex education programs involve parents and promote open discussion between parents and their children.

The American College of Pediatricians also believes parents should be aware of the current state of funding, and government involvement in sex education choices. Comprehensive programs receive seven to twelve times the funding of abstinence programs.²⁷ However, according to a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services, comprehensive programs do not give equal time to abstinence.

In 2004 Congressman Henry Waxman of California presented a report before Congress critical of the medical accuracy of abstinence education curricula.²⁹ The Mathematica Study was similarly critical of the medical accuracy of abstinence education programs.³⁰ However, in 2007 the U.S .Department of Health and Human Services conducted an extensive review of nine comprehensive sex education curricula using the same methods employed by Congressman Waxman and the Mathematica Study. These comprehensive programs were found to have no better record for medical accuracy. The HHS review also found that the comprehensive programs were hardly comprehensive. The amount of discussion dedicated to “safer sex” exceeded that spent on abstinence by a factor of up to seven. Some of the programs failed to mention abstinence altogether. None of the programs carefully distinguished between reducing and eliminating the risks of sexual activity, and nearly every program failed to mention the emotional consequences of early sexual activity. Although some of the comprehensive programs showed a small effect in reducing “unprotected” sex (7 of 9 programs) and to a lesser extent in delaying sexual debut (2 of 8 programs), the impact did not extend beyond six months.³¹

According to a 2004 Zogby Poll, 90% of adults and teens agree with The American College of Pediatricians position that teens should be given a strong abstinence message.³² Programs that teach sexual abstinence until marriage are about much more than simply delaying sexual activity. They assist adolescents in establishing positive character traits, formulating long-term goals, and developing emotionally healthy relationships. These programs increase the likelihood of strong marriages and families - the single most essential resource for the strength and survival of our nation.

March 13, 2009
Edited January 28, 2010

The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well being. More information is available at www.BestforChildren.org.

For further information visit the website www.abstinenceworks.org, read the 2009 Minority Report’s critique of the Center for Disease Control’s Guide to Community Preventative Services, the 2006 U.S. House Committee on Government Reform Staff Report, Abstinence and Its Critics, and the February 2010 Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine “Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months.”

An Adobe Acrobat (pdf) of this paper is available by clicking here.

References

¹Freedman, L.P. “Censorship and Manipulation of Reproductive Health Information.” Coliver, S, ed. “The Right to Know: Human Right Access to Reproductive Health Information.” Philadelphia, Penn.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995: 1-37. qtd. in Hendricks, Kate et.al. “The Attack on Abstinence Education: Fact or Fallacy?”
Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 2006.

²US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in Reportable Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the United States, 2007. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; January 2009; available at: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm.

³Ibid.

⁴Sulak, PJ and Herbelin, S. “Teenagers and Sex: Delaying Sexual Debut.” The Female Patient; Vol. 30, May 2005, p30.

⁵Oral Abstract D4a – Prevalence of Sexually Transmitted Infections and Bacterial Vaginosis among Female Adolescents in the United States: Data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004; presented at the 2008 National STD Prevention Conference; March 11, 2008; available at: http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2008/media/summaries-11march2008.htm#tues1

⁶Sulak, PJ and Herbelin, S. “Teenagers and Sex: Delaying Sexual Debut.” The Female Patient; Vol. 30, May 2005, p31.

⁷“Annual CDC Report Finds High Burden of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Especially among Women and Racial Minorities.” CDC press release on January 13, 2009.
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/PressRelease011309.html

⁸Sulak, PJ and Herbelin, S. “Teenagers and Sex: Delaying Sexual Debut.” The Female Patient; Vol. 30, May 2005, p31.

⁹Guttmacher Institute. “U.S. Pregnancy Statistics.” New York: Sept. 2006. qtd. in “’Abstinence’ or ‘Comprehensive’ Sex Education?” Salt Lake City, Utah: The Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2007.

¹⁰Meeker, Meg. Your Kids at Risk. Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC, 2007, p. 68

¹¹Ibid.

¹² Hallfors DD, Waller MW, Ford CA, Halpern CT, and Brodish PH, Iritani B. “Adolescent Depression and Suicide Risk: Association with Sex and Drug Behavior. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 27 (2004): 224-230.

¹³McIlhaney, J and McKissic Bush, F. Hooked: New Science on How Casual Sex is Affecting Our Children. Northfield Publishing, Chicago. 2008, p.78.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵Ibid pp. 77-78.

¹⁶Weed, Stan E. Ph.D. “Testimony Before the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.” 23 April 2008.

¹⁷Kim, Christine, and Robert Rector. “Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence.” Backgrounder 2126. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, 22 April 2008.

¹⁸“‘Abstinence’ or ‘Comprehensive’ Sex Education?” Salt Lake City, Utah: The Institute for Research and Evaluation, 8 June 2007. .

¹⁹“Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention.” 2000. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Herndon, Virginia. .

²⁰Strauch, Barbara. The Primal Teen - What the New Discoveries About the Teenage Brain Tell Us About Our Kids. Doubleday, 2003, p.16.

²¹Medical Institute for Sexual Health. “Integrated Sexual Health Today: Maturation of the Teen Brain.”
institute.org/includes/downloads/ishspring2005.pdf>.

²²“Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education.” 2004. Siecus. Nov. 2008. .

²³“Comprehensive Sex Education Curricula Report.” 6-7.

²⁴McNeely et.al. “Mothers Influence on Adolescent Sexual Debut.” Journal of Adolescent Health 31.3 (2002).
—Sieving, R.E. et.al. “Maternal Expectations, Mother Child Connection, and Adolescent Sexual Debut.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 154.8 (2000): 809-816.

²⁵Manlove JS; Terry-Humen E; et.al. “The Role of Parent Religiosity in Teens’ Transitions to Sex and Contraception.” Journal of Adolescent Health. 2006; 26 (1):42-28.

²⁶ Sinha JW; Cnaan RA; Gelles RJ. “Adolescent Risk Behaviors and Religion: findings from a national study.” Journal of Adolescent Health. 2007; 30(2): 231-49.

²⁷Pardue, Melissa, Robert Rector, and Shannon Martin. “Abstinence and Its Critics.” The Heritage Foundation. 14 Jan. 2004. p8.

²⁸“Comprehensive Sex Education Curricula Report.” 2007. Department of Health and Human Services. . p6.

²⁹Waxman, Henry A. “The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs.” Dec. 2004. United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform: Minority Staff Special Investigations Division. .

³⁰“‘Abstinence’ or ‘Comprehensive’ Sex Education?”

³¹ “Comprehensive Sex Education Curricula Report.” 8.

³²With One Voice 2004. “National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.” Dec. 2004. qtd. in “Abstinence and Its Critics.” Oct. 2006. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform. Washington, DC. .

http://www.americancollegeofpediatricians.org/Abstinence-Education.html

Monday, February 8, 2010

HAGELIN: Obama abstains from what works

Rebecca Hagelin

Culture Challenge of the Week: Abstinence Education

This week, the American Medical Association (AMA) published a report that shows abstinence education works. Tragically, President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already pandered to dishonest groups, such as Planned Parenthood, that profit from teen sexual activity, and took the unbelievable action of terminating government funding of these successful abstinence programs.

When adults take the time to tell children what is right and what is wrong, and teach them how to avoid sex, the majority of them actually do. But when a young person is constantly bombarded with sexual images, taught by those in authority that he can freely engage in sex if he wants to, and is presumed to be unable to control himself, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that he will most likely become sexually active.

In the AMA’s Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, a study of sixth- and seventh-graders reveals a stark contrast between kids who are taught Mr. Obama’s preferred sex education and those who receive abstinence education. When students are told that abstinence is best at the same time that the educator is telling them how to use a condom, nearly half of the teens end up having sex within two years. But when teachers give a consistent abstinence-only message, equip children with practical methods to say “no,” and relay the full expectation that they can control themselves, only about one-third of those children become sexually active in the next two years.

How to Protect Your Family from dangerous sex education

Arm yourself with truth and teach it to your children.

While many in the policy and education world are shocked at the revelation that abstinence education works, Robert Rector and Christine Kim of the Heritage Foundation have known this truth for years. In 2008, Heritage analyzed 21 different studies done on abstinence-education programs. Researchers “found that in 16 of the 21 reports, there were significant positive results in delaying early sexual activity and initiation.”

In addition to eliminating all chances of becoming pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease, Mr. Rector also reports that the research reveals that teens who practice abstinence “will be happier and less depressed than their permissive peers.”

“Abstinent teens also do dramatically better in school. They are half as likely to drop out as their sexually active peers. And teens who abstain until at least age 18 are twice as likely to attend and graduate from college as those who become sexually active while in high school,” he reported.

In most states, parents have the right to opt their children out of the sex-education classes, but you have to act to make that happen.

Contact your school counselor and find out what the options are, and then sit down with your children and explain why you are choosing a better way. Make certain that the teachers do not belittle or punish them for not taking the classes. Find other parents in your child’s classroom who dare to take a stand, and support each other.

Secondly, be proactive in teaching abstinence to your children. Check out sites like family.org, abstinence.net, sexrespect.org, awareprogram.net and heritage.org for great abstinence-education resources. Do your homework, take action and be committed enough to your children to teach them the truth. Since the president abandoned what works and is even funding programs that make your job harder and your children more vulnerable, your sons and daughters are more reliant than ever on you to show them the way.

• Rebecca Hagelin is the author of “30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family.” For more family tips, visit HowToSaveYourFamily.com or e-mail rebecca@howtosaveyourfamily.com

You can read the article online here: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/08/hagelin-obama-abstains-from-what-works//print/

Jenay Hallickson

Affiliate Coordinator

Abstinence Clearinghouse

801 E. 41^st St.

Sioux Falls, SD 57105

605-335-3643

jenayh@abstinence.net

www.abstinence.net

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60865

CNSNews.com

Study Supports Effectiveness of Abstinence-Only Message
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor

Posters for the Purity Ball are displayed on a table at the Seventh-day Adventist Madison church in Nashville, Tenn. on Saturday, Jan. 16, 2010. The dance features a vow to abstain from sex until marriage and offer tips on “appropriate” touching between the sexes. (AP Photo/Josh Anderson)

(CNSNews.com) – The “abstinence-only” message to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases actually works. That is the conclusion of a scientific study that was released Monday by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

The study found that an abstinence-only message was significantly more successful in getting pre-teens to delay the onset of sexual activity than was a “health-promotion control intervention” – or general risk-reduction effort.

“It shows that the kind of abstinence-only intervention that we used was effective in reducing rates of sexual initiation among young African American adolescents, compared with a health-promotion control group,” lead author John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the UPenn School of Medicine, told CNSNews.com.

Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial in which a total of 662 African American students in grades 6 and 7 took part in Saturday “interventions” – activities and programs held in classrooms at four public schools participating in the study.

The students were randomly assigned to an eight-hour abstinence-only “intervention” promoting the abstinence message; an eight-hour “safer sex-only” intervention; an eight- or 12-hour combined abstinence and safer-sex intervention, or an eight-hour health-promotion control group.

There was a 33 percent reduction in self-reported sexual intercourse from the abstinence-only group, compared to the control group, by the end of the study. Of the students who reported that they were sexually active during the study, there were fewer reports of recent sexual activity from the abstinence-only intervention participants (20.6 percent) compared to the control participants (29.0 percent).

Participants in the abstinence-only intervention had reduced reports of multiple sexual partners compared with the control group (8.8 percent vs. 14.1 percent).

After two years, one-third of the abstinence-only group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the control group.

While abstinence-only intervention did not eliminate sexual activity all together, this is the first randomized controlled study to demonstrate that an abstinence-only intervention had reduced the percentage of adolescents who reported any sexual intercourse for a long period, in this case two years, following the intervention.

Leslee Unruh of the Abstinence Clearinghouse sees the study as vindication of the abstinence-only message — one which has been under fire since the Clinton administration, when Congress passed a law providing funding for abstinence education.

“It’s what we’ve known all along,” Unruh told CNSnews.com. “We have been tracking the numbers all along, and until this particular study came out, we have really been ignored.

“We feel that this study is one of the best ones that have been done because it is one of the first evaluations and design that have employed a ‘full random assignment — a design that would be fair to abstinence-until-marriage education programs,” Unruh said.

“It cannot be dismissed like other evaluations that have been done,” she added.

Researchers ask: is a successful abstinence-only program ‘even possible?’

Jemmott told CNSNews.com that the researchers didn’t undertake the study to vindicate abstinence-only education, but to find out if it was even possible for an abstinence-until-marriage program to be successful.

“Objectively speaking, there (are) basically two strategies that you could use to reduce the risk of exposure to sexually transmitted disease and risk of pregnancy – one is to reduce the frequency of sex, and the other is to increase the frequency of condom use or contraception,” Jemmott said.

“But it just turns out that most of the recent evidence has used an approach that emphasized condom use and included abstinence — or in general, used both of those strategies combined. There have been many, many studies showing that this comprehensive approach is efficacious, but very little evidence on the side of abstinence-only,” Jemmott said.

“We started thinking – ‘Is it even possible to develop an abstinence-only intervention that could be effective?’ And we thought, ‘To do that, what you would have to do is take into effect the research that’s been done on comprehensive interventions – why did those interventions work and what are the qualities of successful interventions?’ And then apply those qualities in the development of an abstinence-only intervention. That’s what we tried to do,” Jemmott added.

What features worked? Jemmott said researchers found out what motivated pre-teens – and engaged them.

During the eight-hour abstinence-only session, “facilitators” used interactive small group activities to build the pre-teens’ knowledge of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, bolster beliefs supporting practicing abstinence, and improve skills and confidence to help negotiate abstinence and resist pressure to have sex.

“You don’t lecture – you use activities that engage the adolescents – games, brainstorming, using videos, interactive activities,” Jemmott said. “You make it fun.”

Nearly a year ago, the Obama administration eliminated more than $150 million in federal funding for abstinence programs and launched a new $114 million “comprehensive” pregnancy prevention initiative. Obama pledged that the U.S. would only fund programs that have been demonstrated scientifically to be effective.

The president’s proposed budget, introduced Monday, would expand that program to $183 million next year.

Jemmott, meanwhile, said that his research doesn’t presume to speak for all abstinence-only approaches — more research needs to be done before policy-makers weigh in on abstinence-only education.

“I think that a lot has been said against abstinence-only interventions categorically,” Jemmott told CNSNews.com. “I think this study says, ‘Wait a minute! It is possible for an abstinence-only intervention to be efficacious. And the study calls for more research.

“This is one study. What we really need is a larger body of evidence – several studies, rigorous studies — evaluating whether an abstinence-only intervention can be efficacious. Once you have that body of evidence, then you can make strong public policy decisions,” Jemmott added.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. It appears in the Feb.1 edition of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2010/teaching-teens-about-abstinence-may-delay-sexual-activity-reduce-risk-behaviors.shtml

Abstinence ed, minus the morals, may work

Study finds long-term success in experimental abstinence-only approach

updated 4:00 p.m. ET, Mon., Feb. 1, 2010

CHICAGO - An experimental abstinence-only program without a moralistic tone can delay teens from having sex, a provocative study found.

Billed as the first rigorous research to show long-term success with an abstinence-only approach, the study differed from traditional programs that have lost federal and state support in recent years. The classes didn’t preach saving sex until marriage or disparage condom use.

Instead, it involved assignments to help sixth- and seventh graders see the drawbacks to sexual activity at their age, including having them list the pros and cons themselves. Their “cons” far outnumbered the “pros.”

The students, mostly 12-year-olds, were assigned to one of four options: eight hour-long abstinence-only classes, safe-sex classes, classes incorporating both approaches; or classes in general healthy behavior.

Two years later, about one-third of abstinence-only students said they’d had sex since the classes ended, versus nearly half — about 49 percent — in each of the other three groups.

The study was released Monday in the February edition of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

Critics of abstinence-only programs have long argued that most evidence shows they don’t work. The new study challenges that, but even the authors say the results don’t mean more comprehensive sex education should be ignored.

Advocacy groups favoring traditional abstinence-only programs praised the study and said it shows that the Obama administration’s move away from funding these programs is misguided.

The administration has focused on programs proven to prevent teen pregnancy. But the study is unlikely to revive enthusiasm for a narrow abstinence approach, and an Archives editorial suggests that it shouldn’t.

“No public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policy makers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies,” said the editorial by Dr. Frederick Rivara, the journal’s editor, and Dr. Alain Joffe, an associate editor.

The abstinence-only program was based on social psychology theories about what motivates behavior. It encouraged abstinence as a way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, although the researchers didn’t collect data on those outcomes.

Psychologist John Jemmott III, the lead author, called the findings surprising given negative results in previous abstinence-only research. Jemmott said the single focus may have been better at encouraging abstinence than the other approaches in his study.

“The message was not mixed with any other messages,” said Jemmott, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who has long studied ways to reduce risky behavior among inner-city kids. He created the four programs for the study with his researcher-wife, Loretta Jemmott.

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Program, praised the results and said she hopes they revive government interest in abstinence-only sex education.

When asked if the new study might shape the Obama administration’s policy, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said: “Our approach is to use science and evidence to fund what works, while leaving room for innovation and new thinking. We feel the policy we introduced at the beginning of the administration accomplishes that.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and involved 662 black children in Philadelphia.

Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, an advocacy group favoring comprehensive sex education, said the study doesn’t mean other abstinence-only programs would work.

“It’s unfair to compare this abstinence-only intervention to the typical abstinence-only-until-marriage program that young people in this country have been put through,” she said. These typically portray sex and condom use in a more negative light, she said.

Rodriguez said the program studied might be one approach to try with younger children, but that it probably would be less successful with older, more sexually experienced teens.

Almost one-fourth of the teens studied said they’d already had sex at least once, similar to other studies of urban, mostly black middle school-aged kids.

The classes were taught at schools on weekends. Jemmott said the program might work better if it were taught during regular school hours by the students’ regular teachers — an approach he hopes to examine in additional research.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35186417/ns/health-sexual_health/from/ET

ProjecTruth’s 7th Annual

Abstinence Creativity Contest

“Waiting is Easier because…”

Who is Eligible

Western New York students in grades 7- 12.  Entries will be divided into two categories:

Category 1:  7^th and 8^th Grade Students             

Category 2: 9^th – 12^th Grade Students

Contest Rules

·         Students may submit one entry per category.

·         Maximum poster size is 18” x 24”.

·         All entries must represent the theme of sexual abstinence until marriage.

·         No sexually explicit graphics or photos may be used.

·         Correct spelling and grammar must be used.

·         Text may not contain slang or vulgarities of any kind.

·         Chalk drawings will not be accepted.

·         Winners will be judged on the best representation of the abstinence until marriage theme and artistic consideration as portrayed in a positive light.

·         Maximum words for essays and poems is 100 words or less.

·         Song lyrics must be written, along with an accompaniment of music/lyrics recorded on a music cassette or music CD.

Entries & Deadlines

All entries must be received by February 10, 2009*.

– Please note that your school may have an earlier deadline!!

Entries must include the following information printed or typed on an index card affixed to the BACK of their entry: (Failure to do so will result in disqualification.)

Student Name

Parent or Guardian Name

Age / Grade

School

Home Address

Phone Number.

Submit your entry at school or directly to ProjecTruth at:

ProjecTruth  ▪ 3982 Main Street   ▪  Buffalo, NY 14226-3411

*Entries may be submitted when completed, prior to the February 16^th deadline date.

Student Prizes - 1st & 2nd place in each category.

School Prize - School with the most entries (includes all categories)

Latest Developments from the Obama Administration and Capitol Hill

Funding for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Approved in Appropriations Bill

The Office of Adolescent Health within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will soon announce the availability of competitive grants for effective and promising teen pregnancy prevention programs.  This funding was provided through the annual federal appropriations process. In December 2009, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2010, which included the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The President signed it into law on December 16, 2009 (P.L. 111-117).

Read the legislative and report language for the new teen pregnancy prevention initiative.

Congress provided a total of $110 million for a new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative, which includes $100 million for competitive grants to a range of public and private entities for evidence-based programs that reduce teen pregnancy.  All programs must be medically accurate and age appropriate.  The $100 million is divided into two separate pots: (1) $75 million to replicate programs that have been rigorously evaluated and have the strongest evidence of success and (2) $25 million for innovative strategies and programs that may not yet have a strong evaluation.  The initiative also includes $10 million for technical assistance, training, evaluation, outreach and additional program support to assist the newly-established Office of Adolescent Health in effectively running the program.   In addition, Congress provided $4.5 million for program evaluation (which is similar to amounts provided in past years).

This initiative, which is very similar to what the President proposed in his FY 2010 budget (see pages 490 and 491), replaces the Community Based Abstinence Education program.

Tier 1: $75 million for replicating proven programs

According to language in the bill that was passed, the majority of the funding for this initiative will be reserved for organizations who are replicating programs that have been rigorously evaluated and shown to actually change teens’ behavior related to teen pregnancy.  While the Congressional language does not define what qualifies as a rigorous evaluation, it is generally accepted that the strongest studies are those that use an experimental design – that is, participants are assigned to treatment and control groups – and focus on changes in behavior among program participants rather than changes in knowledge or attitudes.  The Congressional language also does not specify exactly which behavior a program evaluation must measure, but this might include such measures as delaying sex, increasing condom/contraceptive use, and/or reducing teen pregnancy among program participants.  [Note: This does not mean that individual applicants need to perform/fund a rigorous evaluation of the program they are applying to use; rather, applicants must choose a program already shown through a careful evaluation to meet the criteria to be specified by HHS]

Tier 2: $25 million for research and innovation

The new program also provides funding for research and demonstration grants to develop, replicate, refine and test innovative strategies and other programs that may not yet have rigorous evidence of success.  The Office of Adolescent Health will likely provide further guidance and criteria on what types of programs will be eligible for this funding.

Eligible entities can probably apply for either pot, according to which criteria the program it’s proposing to use best fits.

There is no indication that a match will be required for either tier of funding.

The Office of Adolescent Health, a newly established office within HHS, will administer the initiative.  Congress has required the office to submit a report on the progress of the new office within 60 days of enactment of the law (around mid-February).  The National Campaign will provide more detailed information as it becomes available.

Note: The information presented here is based on the limited information that is available from Congress – the Administration has not yet provided any official guidance or information.

Funding for Teen Pregnancy Prevention in Health Reform – Pending Congressional Action

Mandatory funding* for states, tribes, and territories for evidence-based programs

The Senate health reform bill—although not yet passed— currently includes a program that would provide a total of $75 million in mandatory funds for FY 2010 through FY 2014 to help young people avoid teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.  The Personal Responsibility Education program would provide approximately $50 million to states and territories for evidence-based programs. These formula grants would be based on the proportion of youth in a given state and funds would be given directly to the state agency that would administer the program.  These programs would also be required to address several other issues to help prepare youth for adulthood including healthy relationships, financial literacy, parent-child communication, and educational and career success.

The Personal Responsibility Education program would also provide $10 million annually to support innovative strategies and services for high risk and vulnerable youth, approximately $3 million specifically for Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and approximately $6 million for research, training and technical assistance.

There is no indication that a match will be required for this funding.

Mandatory funding for states and territories for abstinence-only programs

The Senate health reform bill—again, not currently passed—includes a provision that would restore the Section 510 Abstinence Education grants that expired on June 30, 2009.  These grants would also go directly to state agencies, and grantees would be required to adhere to an eight-point definition of abstinence currently in statute.

Guidance issued under the Bush Administration required grantees to give equal weight to each of the eight points in the definition.  It may be the case that the Obama Administration would return to the original interpretation of the law, which was less restrictive.

This provision would provide $50 million in formula grants annually for FY 2010 through FY 2014, and a state match of $3 for every $4 in federal funds would be required.

Discretionary funding** for states and territories for evidence-based programs

The House health reform bill includes the Healthy Teen Initiative a program that would provide $50 million annually in formula grants to states and territories for medically accurate, age-appropriate programs to reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections.  Unlike the two mandatory streams above, this funding would be subject to the annual appropriations process.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would create a registry of evidence-based programs eligible for the funding from which applicants could choose.  Programs that have been found through “methodologically sound” research to delay initiation of sex, to decrease number of partners, to reduce teen pregnancy, to reduce sexually transmitted infection rates or to improve rates of contraceptive use would be included.

Like the abstinence grants, the formula is based on the proportion of low-income youth in a state.  A match of $1 (cash or in-kind) for every $4 in federal funding would be required for states.

Next steps in health reform

The Senate is expected to pass its health reform bill on December 24th.  The House and Senate will then reconcile their respective health reform bills in January 2010.  If the Senate bill passes with both the Personal Responsibility Education program and the Abstinence Education provisions intact, the House and Senate will negotiate during conference to decide which of the three programs will end up in the final health reform bill.

*Mandatory funding is funding that is authorized and directly appropriated from the federal budget for the specified amount of time, rather than being subject to the annual federal appropriations process.

**Discretionary funding is subject to annual Congressional approval through the federal appropriations process.

NAEA Opposes Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010
Provision Disregards Increasing Health Risk to Youth

Washington, DC (December 10, 2009) — NAEA sent the following letter to Members of Congress today to voice its disapproval of the sex education provision which zeros out all funding for abstinence education. “If passed,” says Valerie Huber, Executive Director of NAEA, “the Appropriations Act will prevent more than 1.5 million students from receiving the important risk avoidance skills found in their current abstinence education classes. The Act will also transfer jurisdiction of the new Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program to the HHS Office of the Secretary, a move that further politicizes an issue of health for youth.”

———–

December 10, 2009

Dear Member of Congress:

NAEA writes in strong opposition to the LaborH portion of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3288) pertaining to funding for a new Teenage Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program within the Office of the Secretary at HHS.  NAEA will score the vote on this Act.

As currently drafted, H.R. 3288 fails to place a priority on primary prevention in the area of teen sexual activity. While other public health initiatives place heavy emphasis on risk avoidance, the TPP program departs from this accepted health strategy, thereby potentially compromising the health of America’s youth. Teens are best served when they are afforded the skills necessary to avoid sexual activity. In fact, published research documents that teens that are part of an abstinence program are about half as likely to become sexually active as their peers. Sexually experienced teens are also more likely to reduce their number of partners or choose to become abstinent when they are provided the skills and encouragement present in an abstinence program. Further, youth who are part of an abstinence program are no less likely than their peers to use condoms if they become sexually active.

Research shows that children who are born within a stable married relationship tend to fare better than those born to young and single parents – financially, scholastically and from a health perspective. They are also less likely to become teen parents themselves. Therefore, abstinence education also has generational benefits that directly impact the family and society, in general.

The passage of H.R. 3288 without an inclusion of funds designated specifically for the primary prevention abstinence education approach is unacceptable to parents who want the best health outcomes for their children. Further, NAEA does not support transferring authority for teen sex education away from ACF. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to vote “no” on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3288).

Stronger Together,

Valerie Huber
Executive Director

———–

Congress votes to eliminate funding for abstinence education in Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3288)
» House votes against abstinence education in 2010 budget bill.

» Senate votes against abstinence education in 2010 budget bill.

———–

About NAEA:
The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) is comprised of leading abstinence educators and supporters who represent 2 million youth across the U.S.

To arrange an interview with NAEA, contact Rachel Turner at 202-248-5420 or 404-285-1876 or email her at rturner@Abstinenceassociation.org

Senate Health Care Bill Contains Abstinence Education Reauthorization

Washington, DC (November 18, 2009)-  Abstinence education funding is partially restored
within the Senate Health Care Bill, a result of the Reid reconciliation of versions
offered by the Senate HELP and Finance committees.The Reid bill also includes state block
grant funding for so-called “comprehensive” sex education, which primarily focuses on
risk reduction, while abstinence education focuses on risk avoidance. Earlier this fall,
an abstinence amendment passed with bipartisan support in the Finance committee. Offered
by Sen. Hatch (R-UT), the amendment would continue the Title V state funding for
abstinence education through 2014. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)  added the provision on page
618 of the 2,074 page health care proposal.  “Inserting language to restore funding for
abstinence education could not have come at a more critical time. The recent CDC
statistics detailing epidemic levels of STDs calls for a strong primary prevention
message - a strategy only found within abstinence educationî noted Valerie Huber,
Executive Director of NAEA. ìWe are pleased that Senator Reid inserted this provision
within his health care bill because the sexual health of America’s teens depend upon the
kinds of skills that are a part of a typical abstinence education program.”

“It is encouraging to know that the program originally signed into law by President Bill
Clinton is back on track for continued funding. However, while we applaud Senator Reid’s
support for  abstinence education within his proposal, we acknowledge that this is only
an intermediate victory. Much work remains before Congress finishes its work on health
care. Today’s news is a welcome sign at this critical stage, but we will continue our
efforts until youth are again assured continued abstinence education in their schools”
added Huber.

About NAEA:
The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) is comprised of leading abstinence
educators and supporters who serve 2 million youth across the U.S.

For more information:
http://www.abstinenceassociation.org  www.AbstinenceWorks.org     www.ParentsForTruth.org

To schedule an interview with NAEA Executive Director Valerie Huber, please contact
Rachel Turner at 404-285-1876