Victor R. Claveau, MJ
There is a good deal controversy about the effectiveness of “Abstinence-only” (AO) education programs; much of it caused by misinformation promulgated by its opponents. According to law, to be eligible for federal assistance, an abstinence education program must:
- have as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
- teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
- teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
- teach that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
- teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
- teach that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
- teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and
- teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.[i]
Despite the overwhelming popularity of abstinence education, some groups seek to divert funds away from abstinence and into “safe sex” programs.
Critics of AO programs contend that this is a one-sided approach to sexuality education that fails to give teens medically appropriate information about birth control, prevention of STDs and the option of abortion.
In recent years, a new approach, termed “abstinence plus” or “comprehensive sexuality education,” has played a prominent role in the public debate over sex education. According to proponents, abstinence plus or comprehensive sex education programs place a strong emphasis on abstinence but also contain information about contraception. This approach is presented as the middle ground between “safe sex” and abstinence.
In reality, comprehensive sex education programs are nothing more than standard “safe sex” programs wrapped in a new label.
Facts about Abstinence Education
- Sexual activity at an early age has multiple harmful consequences;
- Most sexually active teens say they wish they had waited until they were older before having sex;
- Sexually active teens are more likely to be depressed and to attempt suicide;
- Abstinence education programs are effective in reducing teen sexual activity;
- Abstinence programs dramatically reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing;
- Government spends $12 to promote contraceptives for every $1 spent on abstinence;
- Government spending priorities do not match parental priorities;
- “Comprehensive sex education” or “abstinence plus” programs are merely safe sex programs wrapped in a deceptive label;
- Parents overwhelmingly support the values and messages of true abstinence education;
- Parents overwhelmingly oppose the values and messages of comprehensive sex education curricula;
- Comprehensive sex education programs contain sexually explicit material that is offensive to nearly all parents;
- Claims that parents support comprehensive sex education or “abstinence plus” programs are false;
- Most parents want their children to be taught a strong abstinence message as well as basic biological and health facts about contraception, but this does not mean that parents oppose authentic abstinence education;
- Allowing state public health agencies to use federal abstinence funds for comprehensive sex education or safe sex programs would effectively eliminate federal support for abstinence education.[ii]
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise” (Deut. 6:4-7). (Emphasis mine).
For the past 40 years, or so, American schools, both public and parochial, have been immersed in a comprehensive sex education curriculum. Parents were told that this was necessary in order to prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs. Obviously these programs have been abject failures. AO programs have been only slightly more successful. AO must be presented with conviction by well trained teachers, in conjunction with parental participation.
“Chastity presupposes respect for the rights of the person, in particular the right to receive information and an education that respect the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life” (CCC 2344).
These governmentally mandated programs involve an intrinsic violation of parental rights. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that it is the right and duty of parents to educate their children (not the federal government) (§1653, 2221, 2223, 2372).
Rather than abdicating their responsibility in regard to the moral upbringing of their children, parents would do better to safeguard their primacy of rights and the rights of the Church in education and vigorously oppose all governmental interference in a moral area where schools are riddled with moral relativism and have proven themselves simply incompetent to reinforce traditional moral norms.
The key to AO success lies with knowledgeable parents who practice and teach the Commandments of God.
[i] U.S. Social Security Act, §510(b) (2).
[ii] Robert E. Rector, Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.