Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Sex and Relationships

Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed Most Prevalent in the South

By Catherine Morrison , RH Reality Check. Posted July 31, 2008.


The children of Kentucky and Alabama for example are treated to a mix of religious propaganda, gender stereotypes, and misinformation.
Advertisement

The Administration for Children and Families, which oversees the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program, recently reported at least 23 states are no longer participating in the program, with another two out at the end of Fiscal Year 2008. In those states, advocates have convinced policymakers to reject funds for unproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and instead put their resources toward a more effective means of educating young people. As we anticipate a paradigm shift away from the abstinence-only approach, we still have to consider the states lagging behind this progress. And, the reality is, the majority of states still opting to take these monies are located in the South. This trend hasn't gone unnoticed by SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.)

In fact, in Fiscal Year 2007, nearly half, or almost $85 million of all abstinence-only-until-marriage monies, were poured into southern states. With this in mind, we've set out to investigate the use of abstinence-only-until-marriage funds in southern states, first in Alabama, and now in our just released report on Kentucky.

We found that some of the worst abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula are being used throughout Kentucky, and that a significant portion of state and federal funds are being directed towards crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).

As we looked into the programs and curricula in Kentucky, the first and most startling thing we found were the statistics on adolescent sexual health. The teen birth rate is nearly 20 percent higher than the national average (49.2 per 1,000 young women ages 15-19 compared to 41.1 in the same age group). Most states have experienced declines in teen birth rates, but in a single year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Kentucky's rate rose nearly 7 percent. The nationwide teen birth rate increased by less than half that in the same year.

The trend follows in HIV statistics. The overall prevalence is low, but the disease impacts one community disproportionately: African Americans make up only seven percent of the total population of Kentucky but nearly 34 percent of new HIV cases in the state, according to the CDC.

Kentucky is in need of effective intervention to combat high teen pregnancy and HIV rates. One place the state isn't helping itself -- by continuing to participate in the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program, which brings harmful money into the state. Since 1997, the state of Kentucky, through the Cabinet for Health and Family Services and numerous community-based organizations, has received over $16.9 million in abstinence-only-until-marriage funds through the three funding streams. In Fiscal Year 2007 alone, over $3 million went into these programs in Kentucky.

Where does this money end up? In Kentucky, the state spreads it far and wide -- to 16 local health departments -- 11 of which use fear and shame based curricula. The state also provides Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage sub-grants to more CPCs than any other state. CPCs are anti-choice establishments that function to dissuade women with an unintended pregnancy from choosing abortion. These centers often pose as family planning/reproductive health clinics and claim to offer "abortion information and referrals."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: south, sexuality, kentucky, teen pregnancy, abstinence-only

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Unproven?????
Posted by: slaird46 on Jul 31, 2008 3:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
advocates have convinced policymakers to reject funds for unproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs

Hunh? How on earth can you claim abstinence-only program are unproven? They've been proven time and time again to be totally useless, and quite often harmful beyond their ineffectiveness when their course materials reinforce stereotypical gender rolls and promote sexual shame.

Unproven, indeed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kentucky? Alabama?
Posted by: ranchero42 on Aug 1, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it works, who among us COULDN'T fall in love with this (Non-plan) plan?!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there a difference?
Posted by: luckypuck on Aug 2, 2008 10:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am opposed to abstinence-only programs in schools for just the very reasons presented in this article. However, one paragraph that lays out reasons why these programs are harmful is spurious: “Such a presentation is detrimental to all young people by limiting their options, influencing their behavior, and coloring their expectations for future relationships.” Parents and schools are SUPPOSED to do these things as part of their children’s/students’ learning process. For example, doesn’t the admonition, “Don’t drink and drive” limit young people’s options? Isn’t it appropriate and necessary? Isn’t “Don’t do drugs” an attempt to influence their behavior? By the above definition this influencing is “detrimental to all young people . . . .“ Is it detrimental to tell young boys to respect a girl’s right to say “no,” because it colors their expectations for future relationships? If not, why not?

What we need to know is the difference between the way abstinence-only programs attempt to limit, influence and color behavior and the way reality-based sex education curricula correctly attempt to do those things. Is it because the abstinence-based program's primary concern is to proselytize and propagandize a particular partisan and religious view? Is the reality-based program’s main concern the sexual health of the young people?

It seems to me, knowing the answers to these questions is critical to the future of sex-education in our schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]