First off I don't think there are "many" schools out there teaching abstinence only sex-ed.
I agree. One, if not the main, reason why is because there is a war going on between the two factions. The contraceptive "safe sex" ed lobby made up of organizations like the NEA, SIECUS, Alan Guttmacher, and Planned Parenthood fight tooth and nail against sharing tax payer money which would fund abstinence only education programs.
EL DUDERINO POSTS:
There are many out there. And there are studies that have been done that prove that abstinence-only sex-ed doesn't do any better at preventing teen sex than comprehensive sex-ed,
The only fact that the comprehensive sex ed side can rightly claim can be taken from a direct quote from Donna Leiberman, NY head of CLU reproductive rights effort, who over 10 years ago, admitted in a debate, "Every scientific study of sex education programs that has ever been done shows that the only effect of sex education is increased use of contraceptives among teengagers."
The studies are out there....
One of the largest and most comprehensive studies of teen sex education was conducted by Dr. Stan Weed of the Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City. It shows why abstinence is the most successful method of preventing physical and emotional complications resulting from pre-marital sexual activity.
Last April, the Heritage Foundation also released a detailed on Abstinence education saying it's "crucial to the physical and psycho-emotional well-being of the nation's youth,".
The report, "Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence", examined 21 studies of abstinence education programs, and concludes that statistics show that abstinence programs are effective in deterring teens from becoming sexually active, thereby reducing the risk of STDs, teen pregnancy, etc.
The Heritage Foundation authors, Christin C. Kim and Robert Rector, demonstrate that a majority of abstinence programs have reported a statistically significant decrease in levels of sexual activity for students who participate in them.
Of 15 sex-ed programs that primarily taught abstinence, 11 reported positive findings, while of 6 "virginity pledge" programs, 5 reported positive findings.
One abstinence program, Reasons of the Heart, reported that only 9.2 percent of virgins who went through the program were sexually active a year later, compared with 16.4 percent of those virginal teens who didn't go through the program.
Another program, called Heritage Keepers, reported, "One year after the program, 14.5 percent of Heritage Keepers students had become sexually active compared with 26.5 percent of the comparison group," making students from the abstinence program about half as likely to become sexually active as those not in the program.
A third program, Best Friends, found that "Best Friends girls were nearly 6.5 times more likely to abstain from sexual activity" than those not in the program. It was also found out, "They were 2.4 times more likely to abstain from smoking, 8.1 times more likely to abstain from illegal drug use, and 1.9 times more likely to abstain from alcohol."
Abstinence programs, observes the report, are admirable in that they are not only about sexual behavior, but "also provide youths with valuable life and decision-making skills that lay the foundation for personal responsibility and developing healthy relationships and marriages later in life."
The report complains that while an enormous amount of effort is being put into teaching "comprehensive" sexual education, very little effort is put into teaching abstinence. "Today's young people face strong peer pressure to engage in risky behavior and must navigate media and popular culture that endorse and even glamorize permissiveness and casual sex," write Kim and Rector. "Alarmingly, the government implicitly supports these messages by spending over $1 billion each year promoting contraception and safe-sex education - 12 times what it spends on abstinence education."
Instead, says the report, "In the classroom, the prevailing mentality often condones teen sexual activity as long as youths use contraceptives. Abstinence is usually mentioned only in passing, if at all."
The Heritage Foundation's report concludes urging that, "When considering federal funding for abstinence education programs and reauthorization of Title V abstinence education programs, including maintaining the current definition of 'abstinence education,' lawmakers should consider all of the available empirical evidence."
To read the Heritage Foundation report, see:
Classroom sex ed programs really got underway in 1970 right after Congress passed its Title X funding program. They were established under the general Health curriculum. It wasn't long after that Alan Guttmacher told supporters that in order to achieve "the perfect contracepting society" Planned Parenthood in addition to offering contraceptive products, would have to establish "contraceptive education for all youth so that at the approprieate time in thier lives contraception will be accepted as naturally as breathing." Then came Roe v Wade in 1973. And thus a whole new ball game as far as sex ed was concerned...general health education became "reproductive health education" and all the sex educaiton programs are nothing other than marketing programs designed to sell sex to kids. Granted they aren't in all schools across the nation, but they are working on it.
Guttmacher told the Washington Star newspaper, "Then how can the Supreme Court decision be absloutely secured? The answer to winning the battle for elective abortion once and for all is sex education." And there it is...straight from the horse's mouth, sex ed is all about selling birth control products to children and indoctrinating them that when it doesn't work, abortion does.