Congress might cut funding for abstinence-only education

Pending legislation would divert funding.

By Victoria Guida

Published Oct. 2, 2009

New legislation has been introduced in Congress that would reduce funding for abstinence-only sex education and move toward comprehensive safe sex education.

This legislation is part of a $163 billion appropriations bill, which includes $104 million for reducing teen pregnancy through "evidence-based efforts," according to a news release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations. This is a break from abstinence-only sex education, which has caused controversy.

Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior research fellow and a designer of the first federal abstinence program, said this bill has effectively killed abstinence education, but called it only a short-term victory for supporters of comprehensive sex education.

"What is happening now in Washington is that a very narrow group of special interest groups that represent only 3 or 4 percent of parents have hijacked the field and have eliminated the very small amount of funds in abstinence education, replacing it with safe sex education," Rector said. "This is unacceptable to almost all parents. It is a ticking time bomb waiting to blow up in the face of the Obama administration."

James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a group supporting the policy shift, said in a news release, moving toward comprehensive sex education brings science and evidence back into government policy. He said Congress should go further in this process.

"Shifting funds from failed abstinence-only programs to a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative is only a first step in the long battle to reverse the effects of 12 years of bad sex education policies," Wagoner said.

There is also disagreement over which approach is more effective: abstinence-only sex education or comprehensive sex education.

"Evaluation studies have found some of each to be effective," said Stephen Jorgensen, dean of the College of Human Environmental Sciences. "A large part of it is the conditions that surround the program. The person doing the program delivery is a powerful variable, whether it's an abstinence program or a more comprehensive program."

Jorgensen said it is important also to take into consideration the duration of program, because with more sessions and a more intensive program, the outcome is usually more positive. He also said when parents are involved, it is a more meaningful experience.

Rector also said there are almost as many studies, percentage-wise, who show abstinence is effective as studies that show safe sex programs are effective.

Maureen Lyon, a licensed Clinical Psychologist and assistant research professor in pediatrics at The George Washington University Medical Center, said research shows after going through abstinence-only education, teenagers were less likely to use a condom, and had a slightly increased risk of getting an STD, though she added there was no definite evidence of cause and effect.

"Studies show that students who participated in comprehensive sex education, which includes abstinence education, were more likely to practice safe sex and less likely to get STDs," Lyon said.

People on both sides continue to debate the effectiveness of each approach.

"It's not so much whether its abstinence-based or not, it's who's delivering it and under what conditions it's delivered," Jorgensen said.