The ignorance of abstinence
By Hailee Richman
(SEX EDUCATION IS VITAL FOR TEENAGERS HEALTH TODAY)
The national rate for teenage pregnancy has decreased an astonishing 44% from the year 1991 to 2010. While it is great that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped, it is not due to more schools teaching abstinence only sex education like some people may think. A study by the Guttmacher Institute found that abstinence accounted for about a quarter of the drop, while a higher rate of contraceptive use, which teens learn in sex education, was responsible for the rest (Livni, par. 5). Comprehensive or Abstinence Plus sex education programs should be offered in schools across the nation because abstinence only programs do not work, parents more often than not do not want to talk to their kids about sex, and teens need to be well informed. Teens need to learn the benefits of abstaining from sex, but also about how to protect themselves from the dangers like pregnancy and STDs so that they can make informed decisions on when they want to start having sex.
Schools should not be allowed to teach abstinence only. It has been proven that abstinence only sex education does not prevent unplanned pregnancies and it takes away the parents right to choose what their kids learn in school. Parents should be required to sign the waiver they are given at the beginning of every semester choosing whether or not they want their child to learn about sex education. I am concerned that if more states require abstinence only sex education, that the teen pregnancy rate will start to increase because they would not be properly informed. They would not be learning and getting the information they need about sex and how to prevent an unplanned pregnancy if they find themselves in that kind of situation.
What is abstinence only sex education? It teaches teens that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best way to ensure that they don’t get sexually transmitted diseases or an unplanned pregnancy (“Abstinence and Sex Education” par. 2). This is very true, it is common sense that abstinence is the best way to avoid those things. But we live in the 21st Century, people have to understand that they can teach teens abstinence all they want and there may be some that actually listen, but the majority of teens will still find themselves in situations where learning about contraceptives and condoms would have been useful. Teens can learn those things in a comprehensive sex education class. This approach explains to them the benefits of delaying sex until they are physically and emotionally ready, but it also teaches them how to protect themselves from infections and pregnancy when they are ready to have sex (“Abstinence and Sex Education” par. 3). There is one other approach called abstinence plus, this combines both abstinence only and comprehensive approaches. This would be a good approach for all schools to have if everyone could agree to teach everything about sex education. It teaches the good of both abstinence only and comprehensive sex education, but a lot of parents are not ok with their kids learning it all at school. Some parents would prefer to teach their kids about condoms and contraceptives at home, while some parents prefer to have their teachers teach them about those things.
Schools should not be allowed to teach abstinence only. It has been proven that abstinence only sex education does not prevent unplanned pregnancies and it takes away the parents right to choose what their kids learn in school. Parents should be required to sign the waiver they are given at the beginning of every semester choosing whether or not they want their child to learn about sex education. I am concerned that if more states require abstinence only sex education, that the teen pregnancy rate will start to increase because they would not be properly informed. They would not be learning and getting the information they need about sex and how to prevent an unplanned pregnancy if they find themselves in that kind of situation.
What is abstinence only sex education? It teaches teens that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best way to ensure that they don’t get sexually transmitted diseases or an unplanned pregnancy (“Abstinence and Sex Education” par. 2). This is very true, it is common sense that abstinence is the best way to avoid those things. But we live in the 21st Century, people have to understand that they can teach teens abstinence all they want and there may be some that actually listen, but the majority of teens will still find themselves in situations where learning about contraceptives and condoms would have been useful. Teens can learn those things in a comprehensive sex education class. This approach explains to them the benefits of delaying sex until they are physically and emotionally ready, but it also teaches them how to protect themselves from infections and pregnancy when they are ready to have sex (“Abstinence and Sex Education” par. 3). There is one other approach called abstinence plus, this combines both abstinence only and comprehensive approaches. This would be a good approach for all schools to have if everyone could agree to teach everything about sex education. It teaches the good of both abstinence only and comprehensive sex education, but a lot of parents are not ok with their kids learning it all at school. Some parents would prefer to teach their kids about condoms and contraceptives at home, while some parents prefer to have their teachers teach them about those things.
(you could blame abstinence only sex ed for this)
Are there other factors that can contribute to the teen pregnancy rates? According to University of Georgia researchers, factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, education level and access to Medicaid waivers can influence the teen pregnancy rate. But they still found that the more abstinence is emphasized in a state’s sex education program, the higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates are (Shearer, par. 4-5). “The states with the lowest teen pregnancy rates were those that prescribed comprehensive sex and/or HIV education, covering not only abstinence, but also proper contraception and condom use,” said Stanger-Hall, a professor of plant biology and biological sciences at Franklin College (Shearer, par. 6). An example of the opposite would be Mississippi, it has the highest rate of unplanned pregnancies and the state does not require sex education in school, but when it is taught, they teach abstinence only (Peterson Beadle, par. 4).
(Basically what teens are learning in AO classes)
When Governor Herbert of Utah vetoed the bill HB363, which would have allowed schools to teach abstinence only sex education, it made a lot of people respect him. However, there was one woman who was outraged, Gayle Ruzicka, a supporter of the bill. Upon hearing about the veto she said that it never entered her mind that the governor, who is conservative, would veto such an appropriate piece of legislation. She went on to say that by vetoing the bill he is sending the message that Utah’s “stamp of approval” is on teaching children how to have sex and that teaching contraception is saying this is the safest way to have sex (Gehrke, Schencker, Par. 9). While she is right about the fact that using contraceptives is the safest way to have sex, she is wrong saying that Utah approves teaching children how to have sex. That is not what he was saying, he just understands that kids will be kids and some will have sex anyway and a lot of people think he was very smart for vetoing the bill. In a letter to the editor of Independent Record, Ronald F. Waterman says it perfectly, he states, “Complete and accurate sex education is essential for individuals to make positive and constructive decisions in their lives. Sex education does not promote sexual activity, it does give essential information to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. Abstinence only education does not work…We don’t need schools to sponsor ignorance about essential and vital health issues. We need to provide education and information to our youth and then encourage them to make healthy choices” (Waterman, par. 3-5).
(the rate of contraceptive use is going up)
Teaching abstinence only restricts parents from being able to choose what their kids learn in school. Shouldn’t the decision of whether or not their kids learn about sex be the guardians’ choice, not the states? In fact, two mothers in California are suing the Clovis Unified School District over its sex education program. They say, “Northern California district’s abstinence-until-marriage teachings endanger the health of its students by omitting information about condoms and contraception.” It is a fact that if teens do not learn how to protect themselves, it may affect their health in the future. The mothers go on to say, “Our kids need complete, accurate information to help them protect themselves against STDs and unintended pregnancy…that’s information they’ll need at whatever point in their life they become sexually active.” These mothers are not saying they are easy going, and couldn’t care less if they’re kids start having sex in junior high or high school or even elementary at this rate, they are saying that they want their children to be well informed about how to be safe, when they do start having sex. The mothers claim that the school district is not meeting the standards of the state law, requiring them to teach comprehensive, medically accurate, science-based, and biased free sex education (Reynolds, par. 1-4). Their representative Phyllida Burlingame agrees that schools should teach teens about building healthy relationships before they become sexually active, the benefits of delaying sexual activity, and accurate information about condoms and birth control. That’s what state law requires and that’s what meets the needs of teens. More people throughout the United States are thinking more logically and accepting a comprehensive or abstinence plus sex education program. A study by the Center of Disease Control (CDC), says the teen pregnancy rate is not necessarily dropping because teens are having less sex, but because they are using contraceptives more often (Brooks Olsen, par. 1).
I interviewed a high school health teacher at a local school who has a strong opinion about the topic. She explained to me that she does teach abstinence only and that she absolutely believes in it. But at the same time she believes more in a comprehensive, or abstinence plus, approach. She told me that in the seven years that she has been teaching health, she has only had three parents opt their child out of the sex education portion. This, she believes, is because parents today understand the importance of sex education and that it can only benefit their children, but of course there will be those few parents that are completely against it. She also said that she thinks it is due to parents not having a lot of knowledge on the topic and that they don’t know how to bring it up to their children, so they let their teachers handle it. It’s a good thing that they at least let the teachers educate them, but if the parents do not let their children learn about sex and continue not talking to them about it, it will become a continuous cycle. The parents today have no knowledge about sex education, so the children don’t learn about it. Then when those children turn into parents, they won’t have the knowledge to teach their children and so on and so forth.
The teens of today are the most important part of our future, they are the ones that will be running our country and raising our grandchildren and great grandchildren. If they grow up now thinking that abstinence only is the only approach to sex education, we will have some problems in the future. We will have more grandchildren and great grandchildren than we bargained for. They need to have good examples of a healthy sex life. One where they know the benefits of birth control and abstinence, but where they also know that failure to use birth control and condoms will lead to STDs and pregnancies. The only way to do this is to have parents and teachers teach them the comprehensive approach.
Now, I am not saying that abstinence only sex education cannot prevent some teen pregnancies, but put it together with a comprehensive approach and it has the best shot at working since studies have shown that abstinence-only does not prevent unplanned pregnancies. Teens need to learn these things if they are going to be a part of society, they are a danger to society if they are ignorant and do not care about being well informed. Schools that have a sex education program that teaches the benefits of abstaining from sex until marriage, but will also teach the proper use of condoms and birth control would have the best programs available. The schools should also have a waiver that parents can sign if they do not want their children to learn anything and would rather do it themselves, this will involve the parents and will only benefit everyone. That is a school I would be comfortable sending my future children to.
I interviewed a high school health teacher at a local school who has a strong opinion about the topic. She explained to me that she does teach abstinence only and that she absolutely believes in it. But at the same time she believes more in a comprehensive, or abstinence plus, approach. She told me that in the seven years that she has been teaching health, she has only had three parents opt their child out of the sex education portion. This, she believes, is because parents today understand the importance of sex education and that it can only benefit their children, but of course there will be those few parents that are completely against it. She also said that she thinks it is due to parents not having a lot of knowledge on the topic and that they don’t know how to bring it up to their children, so they let their teachers handle it. It’s a good thing that they at least let the teachers educate them, but if the parents do not let their children learn about sex and continue not talking to them about it, it will become a continuous cycle. The parents today have no knowledge about sex education, so the children don’t learn about it. Then when those children turn into parents, they won’t have the knowledge to teach their children and so on and so forth.
The teens of today are the most important part of our future, they are the ones that will be running our country and raising our grandchildren and great grandchildren. If they grow up now thinking that abstinence only is the only approach to sex education, we will have some problems in the future. We will have more grandchildren and great grandchildren than we bargained for. They need to have good examples of a healthy sex life. One where they know the benefits of birth control and abstinence, but where they also know that failure to use birth control and condoms will lead to STDs and pregnancies. The only way to do this is to have parents and teachers teach them the comprehensive approach.
Now, I am not saying that abstinence only sex education cannot prevent some teen pregnancies, but put it together with a comprehensive approach and it has the best shot at working since studies have shown that abstinence-only does not prevent unplanned pregnancies. Teens need to learn these things if they are going to be a part of society, they are a danger to society if they are ignorant and do not care about being well informed. Schools that have a sex education program that teaches the benefits of abstaining from sex until marriage, but will also teach the proper use of condoms and birth control would have the best programs available. The schools should also have a waiver that parents can sign if they do not want their children to learn anything and would rather do it themselves, this will involve the parents and will only benefit everyone. That is a school I would be comfortable sending my future children to.