Abstinence-only programs — they still don’t work

November 7, 2007

There seems to be something of a pattern here. A study is commissioned to test whether abstinence-only programs are effective in affecting teens’ sexual behavior. Another study is commissioned, and we see the same results. And on and on.

Those who are concerned with reality probably didn’t need more evidence, but we have some anyway. The nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released the results of its latest research project today. (thanks to R.K. for the tip)

Programs that focus exclusively on abstinence have not been shown to affect teenager sexual behavior, although they are eligible for tens of millions of dollars in federal grants, according to a study released by a nonpartisan group that seeks to reduce teen pregnancies.

“At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners” among teenagers, the study concluded. […]

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having “positive outcomes” including teenagers “delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.”

“Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect,” said the report.

You mean, simply telling teenagers not to have sex doesn’t work? And quality, comprehensive education does? And the Bush administration insists on supporting the prior while rejecting the latter? You don’t say.

This comes on the heels of a congressionally-mandated study released in April that found — wait for it — the exact same thing.

Surely, in light of the overwhelming evidence, the government would stop throwing money at programs that obviously don’t work, right? Wrong.

A spending bill before Congress for the Department of Health and Human Services would provide $141 million in assistance for community-based, abstinence-only sex education programs, $4 million more than what President Bush had requested.

Yes, lawmakers are giving extra money to abstinence-only programs that don’t work, because Dems need to make the spending bills more attractive to Republicans, and this is what the GOP wants to see.

As for today’s report, Amie Newman summarized the highlights:

* Studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination.

* There exists no strong evidence that any abstinence-only program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners.

* In contrast, the positive outcomes of comprehensive sexuality education programs included: delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.

* Comprehensive sex education programs are well suited for widespread replication and dissemination.

It seems like common sense, and yet, it eludes policy makers altogether.

Oxymoron: Defined as (1) “George W. Bush embracing a program that actually works.” (2) “George W. Bush rejecting a program that is proven not to work.” (3) “George W. Bush having common sense.”

How many more days until that moronic twit of a “scared-of-horse cowboy” is gone?

  • I love those studies they do where they give abstinence only programs to fundie teenagers in some rural or western area, and they reveal that the kids who stick with the program in the study only stick with it for a few months, and then there ends up being about the same incidence of vaginal intercourse between study kids and non-abstinence program kids, and a slightly larger incidence of anal intercourse among the study kids than among the non-study kids.

    Why is all the Jesusology so effective at getting teenagers to engage in anal intercourse?

    And why don’t we just stick to encouraging people to be monogamous? Or just to wait for the right person, and not rush to lose your virginity while your in your teenage years? Or just to not lead people on, and to not sleep with someone without setting the record straight if you think they might be thinking you want them for more than a night or a few nights when you’re only out for fun?

  • Imagine that. Being honest and talking to young adults as if they were responsible and really want to do what is best for themselves and those around them pays off in responsible mature behaviors on their part.

    Who would have thought that people respond better to being treated with respect over being told they will spend an eternity in hellish pain and terror if they don’t do what they are told.

  • Of course, this is more about wingnut welfare than actually caring about kids and their problems. The people who run these abstinence programs are pretty much those same people who wouldn’t be able to get a job in the real world but have learned that if you shout “Hallelujah Jesus!” the cash just rolls in as long you keep parroting the party line.

    Shameful, is what it is. They should be required to take home all the unwanted babies their stupidity helps create. Then they might get a partial clue of the real-world consequences of their ludicrous incompetence.

  • And the Bush administration insists on supporting the prior while rejecting the latter? You don’t say.

    CB….

    The bigger picture:

    Republicans understand something fundamental about government that democrats simply can’t comprehend:

    Their aim has always been to spend as much of the tax revenue as possible on people of the same ideological persuasion. It doesn’t matter if intellectual rigor supports that spending or not. What counts is the spending. What matters is the funneling of tax money to those who voted them into office. This is true from the money being lavished on Halliburton, to the chump change being thrown on the abstinence folks. Everything is politic$ for them.

    The raping of America has always had this four-fold plan:

    1) Bitch about “Big government taxes” with the volume set to 10.
    2) Be first in line at the feeding trough for government contracts.
    3) Bitch as loud as possible about freeloaders and free lunchers.
    4) Extol the value of hard work.

    The rest of the story?

    Red states take in more fed tax dollars than they pay…

    ‘nuf said.

  • What romantic idealism…just wait for that perfect love…that one only partner to marry and raise a family and live happily ever after. No wonder we have such a high divorce rate. Who the hell wants to marry a virgin…another virgin. You can always tell when one is past it, when sex is no longer that important, they start ranting about abstinence only programs.
    There’s idealism and then there’s reality. Teens are never clear about either but think they have both under control. As adults it is our responsibility to share our experience and knowledge not impose our will on sexual activity if we are to face reality. Just say no doesn’t get it. ‘Why’ you should say no and what happens and what you can do if you don’t say no is what we should be offering.

    Amazes me that people who are so against abortions (like catholics) are also so against the ability to prevent pregnancies with contraceptives.
    How can someone say the want to prevent the spread of aides and then deny people the use of condoms. What moral fantasy world do these abstinence only people live in?
    Because they pay a lot for that fantasy with our tax dollars.
    The answer is government efficiency not stupidity.

  • “Red states take in more fed tax dollars than they pay…

    ‘nuf said.”

    this comment is right on. and it’s time that it stopped in my opinion.

  • Even Catholic priests have a problem with “abstinence only.”

    The fundies are opposed to sex – simple as that – but only for other people. It makes them crazy to think that someone, somewhere, is making love. They oppose abortion under all circumstances, but they also oppose condoms and other forms of birth control. If you enjoy “God’s gift of sex,” you must be prepared to accept the consequences!

    Republican lawmakers who pander to the fundies certainly don’t practice what they preach – David Vitter, Larry Craig, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and of course recent Medal of Freedom winner Henry Hyde. I could go on and on of course, and so could you.

    “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.’” When was the last time you heard a fundie quote that verse?

  • Or how about just classes that are like relationship advice for teenagers so they don’t have bad relationships?

    Bjobotts wrote:

    Amazes me that people who are so against abortions (like catholics) are also so against the ability to prevent pregnancies with contraceptives.

    Aren’t Catholics as a whole less opposed to abortion than Protestants? That is, isn’t the percentage of anti-abortion Catholics lower? You’re talking as if every Catholic was the Pope.

    A lot of Catholics may be apostates according to anachronistic, technical rules, but you’ll never find a single nun or priest calling a name like that to a generous church donor’s face.

  • …because Dems need to make the spending bills more attractive to Republicans…

    And why do Dems need to make them more attractive to Republican’ts? We have a majority. If Bush wants to use his veto power, then a few extra million for abstinence-only programs isn’t going to make it veto-proof.

    I was in an abstinence only program in high school. We called it band.

    LOL!

  • I was in an abstinence only program in high school. We called it band.

    I was in a cannabis-only after-school program in high school. Sometimes we even got excused from classes to go on field trips.

    From what I hear, we had a lot better time with it than those kids in the abstinence-only programs do.

  • I was in a cannabis-only after-school program in high school. Sometimes we even got excused from classes to go on field trips. -Swan

    You can’t possibly understand how much this explains. 😉

  • Unfortunately, the program failed in limiting my substance-use only to cannabis. But it was an effective program for many others that I knew.

  • You have to give credit where credit is due. Years of evidence that abstinence only programs don’t make the dent the right would like you to think they do, yet they still keep throwing gargantuan amounts of money the same lame ass programs. Once we can get rid of hormones in the teenage human body then we can talk. Until then, take the money for these stupid programs and invest it in an account to accumulate money in order to pay for Bush’s exile.

  • That reminds me. I’m having a HUGE abstinence-only party this weekend. Clothing optional.

  • Why is all the Jesusology so effective at getting teenagers to engage in anal intercourse?

    Oooh, oooh! I know the answer to this one:

    Ahem – “Because anal sex isn’t sex. Just like oral sex.”

    A fundie roommate in college explained THAT one to me. Needless to say, having been raised Roman Catholic myself I was a bit surprised. Young me was raised to think that holding hands counted as sex (and probably required confession), so the idea that you could have anal sex with a woman and it didn’t “count” as sex made me dumbfounded. But that was what he believed. I think someone was a bit too literal with the whole definition of sex in his upbringing.

    (And, before anyone asks, this was before Bill Clinton used basically the same definition of sex to deny getting a blow job. I know Clinton was some evangelical denomination – maybe he got the same twisted definition of sex my roommate got…)

  • I’m not saying give up on telling your teenager not to be a slut or anything, I’m saying give up on the expectation that they not have sex before marriage (even if that’s your ideal) and tell ’em that they can use a condom and / or birth control pills if they have sex, not that they have to avoid sex, period, to avoid STDs and sex.

    So if any conservatives thought I was being an idiot by complaining, guess what, it was you’re own idiot-ass mind that made you think that by not bothering to think about what I really think for a second.

  • Abstinence only programs are for people too ugly to get laid; hence the reason why they are always implemented in RED states…

  • Why is all the Jesusology so effective at getting teenagers to engage in anal intercourse?

    Because the preachers have been fucking them up the ass for so long, they’ve learned to be turned on by it?

  • Pingback: Outside The Beltway | OTB

    • Comments are closed.