Abstinence education as a human-rights violation?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Some public health experts believe so. Columbia University researchers studied the impact of abstinence-only sex education programs and concluded that they’re ineffective, riddled with inaccuracies, out of touch with young people’s lives and, oh, right -- unethical.
In a special issue of Sexuality Research and Social Policy, which is published by the National Sexuality Resource Center, the researchers present their findings. Among the highlights:
* In a comparison of nine abstinence-only programs with 48 comprehensive sex-ed programs, most of the abstinence programs were found not to actually delay initiation of sex. Further, the comprehensive programs were considered generally better at affecting teens’ sexuality in positive ways -- that is, they delayed sex or used contraceptives -- than were their counterparts.
* Three widely used abstinence-only curricula suggested condoms don’t provide protection against HIV infection. (They do.) The information included out-of-date references, faulty reasoning, incorrect comparisons of risk and other less-than-accurate statements, the researchers found.
* Then there was an analysis of why some states don’t accept federal abstinence-only education funds, and a look at how human-rights principles can be used by policy advocates.
The conclusion to the special issue’s introduction states:
‘Taken as a whole, these articles build a strong scientific and human-rights case against AOE [abstinence-only education]. Together, they find that the very idea of an abstinence-only approach to sexuality education is scientifically and ethically flawed. Such programs reflect a religious and cultural belief system of socially conservative groups who have attained considerable political leverage at both state and federal levels. AOE programs not only fail the usual public-health standard of program efficacy but also actively restrict life-saving information and promote misinformation about scientifically accepted public-health strategies such as condom use.’
It’s hard to say for sure, but the researchers appear to be opposed to abstinence-only sex ed.
Adds Gil Herdt, the National Sexuality Resource Center’s executive director, in a news release: ‘The piece lacking from all the recent attention paid to teen pregnancy has been real data. This latest research brings that to the table.’
-- Tami Dennis