Abstinence approach gets an unlikely ally

In the 1990s, amid a growing culture war over the role of religion and morality in public policy, Republicans used their congressional majorities to crank up funding for programs that encouraged teens to abstain from sex until marriage.

But now, though Democrats have taken control of Congress, abstinence-only programs are surviving attempts to shut them down. And they could even get an increase with the aid of an unlikely ally: House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), one of the old liberal lions.

“We’re expecting funding to be pretty comparable to what it was in the past,” said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Assn. “Those who oppose abstinence education are probably more surprised than I am.”

Democrats have long criticized the programs, saying they’re ineffective in combating teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases because they do not include instruction in the use of condoms.

Expectations that a Democratic-controlled Congress would gut abstinence-only education rose this spring after a major federally funded study concluded that such programs do not appear to have any effect on sexual abstinence among youth, nor on age of sexual initiation or number of sex partners.

But the oldest abstinence program won a reprieve last month. And a companion program may get a significant funding increase. The reason: Led by Obey, some Democrats are suddenly protecting the programs.

Obey is supporting abstinence-only education, saying he wants to steer his panel away from the highly charged terrain of moral issues.

And by increasing funding for such programs, he is also making a political calculation that he can pick up some Republican support for much bigger health and social welfare programs that the White House wants to cut.

However, the Senate could take a different direction. Its committee leaders are trying to reduce funding for abstinence-only education, but individual senators are expected to try to prevent that.

The issue could flare up soon on the Senate floor during debate over legislation to fund the Labor Department and the Health and Human Services Department.

The reversal of fortunes for abstinence-only education has caused political discomfort for some Democrats.

“I’ve made clear to my colleagues that I don’t believe abstinence-only is an effective approach, or that it makes sense to increase funding,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), one of the most prominent critics of the programs. “I haven’t been able to prevail on the issue of appropriations but plan to continue to fight for better programs for youth.”

In 2004, Waxman issued a report cataloging inaccuracies in the curricula of abstinence-only programs.

Reflecting the sensitivity of the intraparty feud, Obey’s office declined a request for an interview.

Some foes of abstinence-only education are feeling abandoned.

“The Democrats, and most notably Henry Waxman, used the abstinence-only issue as the cornerstone of the claim that the Bush administration was putting ideology and politics ahead of science,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a nonprofit policy organization on sexual health. “Now they suddenly have gone mute and silent when their own people are in power. There is an element of political hypocrisy here.”

Wagoner supports what is known as comprehensive sex education, which includes instruction both on abstinence and condoms, and is the leading alternative to abstinence-only programs.

Supporters of abstinence-only education are relishing the squabble.

“My sense is that moderate Democrats in particular do not want to be saddled with killing abstinence education,” said Robert Rector, a senior policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“Certainly, for the freshman Democrats, that would be a very difficult vote. People do not want the Democratic Party, after it has taken over Congress, to be out in front saying, ‘We are jettisoning abstinence education and going back to condoms for all kids.’ ”

Rector is one of the original advocates of federal funding for abstinence-only education.

At issue is a small slice of federal spending, about $200 million in a $2.9-trillion budget.

But it has oversize political implications.

As defined in law, abstinence-only education has as its “exclusive purpose” to teach the “social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.” It teaches that sex outside of marriage is “likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”

Many people who support abstinence-only programs say that education in the use of condoms and other contraceptives undermines the abstinence message.

Most of the federal abstinence funding goes to two programs. Community-Based Abstinence Education now gets $113 million a year; a somewhat older program known as Title V gets $50 million. Community-based funding goes directly to hundreds of nonprofit groups and other local organizations; Title V money is funneled through states. Twelve states, including California, refuse Title V funding because of the requirement to teach only abstinence.

Both programs are holding their own in the Democratic-controlled Congress.

President Bush, in his budget request, asked for a $28-million increase in community-based grants, which Obey has obliged.

And an attempt loosen Title V funding rules faltered in the House, to the disappointment of Waxman and others.

Among other changes, the new rules would have allowed states to use the money for a broader range of sex education programs.

Teen pregnancy rates went down in the 1990s, partly because of contraception use and partly because teens were postponing sex. Dr. John Santelli of Columbia University, an expert on teen sexuality, said most of the progress occurred before federally funded abstinence-only programs came on the scene.

“If a program that teaches about contraception and abstinence works to promote both, and a program that only promotes abstinence doesn’t work, that would suggest that if you want to promote abstinence, you should promote comprehensive sex education,” said Santelli.

Both sides in the abstinence funding battle say it is far from over.

Jackie Payne, Planned Parenthood’s head Washington lobbyist, sees progress in the attempt to change the Title V funding rules, even if it has been sidelined for now. “That is tangible evidence that there is going to be an end” to federal funding for abstinence-only programs, Payne said.

Rector, the policy analyst who helped create abstinence programs, said he believed that Democrats were only waiting for a politically opportune time to deliver the fatal blow.

“I don’t think they are going to attempt that until after the 2008 elections,” he said. “I don’t think that Democrats, before an election, want that particular albatross wrapped around their necks.”

ricardo.alonso-zaldivar @latimes.com