In Texas, a stand to teach 'abstinence only' in sex ed

Christian Science Monitor ^ | Nov. 9, 2004 | Stacy A. Teicher

[Ahriman]

Presidential politics isn't the only realm where the Texas way prevails. As a heavyweight in the $4.3 billion textbook market, the state puts its stamp on materials bound for many of the nation's classrooms. On Friday, two messages came through loud and clear as the State Board of Education voted on a new list of approved health books: That abstinence should be taught without any textbook discussion of contraception. And that the books should be explicit about marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Texas is one of 21 states with a centralized process to review textbooks, but it's the second-biggest market. "If [interest] groups can be successful in California and Texas in getting some restrictions as to what content is covered, that will have a major influence on textbooks that are sold nationally," says Martha McCarthy, chancellor's professor of education at Indiana University in Bloomington.

Everything from evolution to multiculturalism has come up for scrutiny in textbook debates over the past century. But the origin of the state-approval process dates even further back to just after the Civil War. Southern states organized to keep out textbooks that they saw as disparaging the Confederacy, so Northern publishers began sending separate books with more palatable references, like "the War for Southern Independence," according to a September report on textbooks by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington.

The report criticizes states that dictate what books schools can purchase, saying the practice "entices extremist groups to hijack the curriculum, and papers the land with mediocre instructional materials." Textbook publishing is ripe for reform, it argues, because students spend somewhere between 50 percent and 90 percent of class and homework time focused on textbooks.

In hearings before Friday's vote in Texas, the debate centered on the discussion of abstinence and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in four high school books. Protect Our Kids, a coalition of educators, health experts, parents, and religious leaders, raised concerns that three of the books don't talk about condoms or other contraceptives at all, while one mentions latex condoms briefly.

Instead, all the books teach that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy or STDs. One offers strategies such as going out in groups, avoiding alcohol and drugs, and getting plenty of rest to avoid having "to make a tough choice when you are tired."

[Pitiricus]

Soi am I... I am for the schjool nurse being able to hand out condoms...

Abstinence preaching never prevented a pregnancy!

[Pitiricus]

Funny that there are much less abortions and teen pregnancies in countries with a good sex-ed course ythan in the ones where abstinence is preached...

[Weirdad]

Countries with a good sex ed course?

Your one-liner makes no sense as either reality or sarcasm. Cite examples of such countries, how you know they are "with a good sex ed course" or "where abstinence is preached," and what their birth abortion and teen pregnancy rates are. If you compare similar demographics I do not believe that you will be correct.

But you are just shooting from the hip anyway, right?

[Weirdad]

"Abstinence preaching never prevented a pregnancy!"

So much for your credibility EVER on FreeRepublic, because that statement is on its face totally bogus unprovable hyperbole.

And you also must be a DEMOCRAT because only DEMOCRATS think that government ought to be providing free stuff for the masses, like condoms from a school nurse, and managing their lives.

[Pitiricus]

Holland, Germany, even France...

The rates of teenage pregnancies and abortion are much lower than in the States...

In spite of a permissive culture as to sex...

Teaching: don't do it never cut much ice with adolescent hormones!

[Pitiricus]

Actually, as a parent, this kind of currivulum would force me to say the contrary at home, something that is not correct from the pedagogical point of view...

So yes, this would impose something on me...

[Pitiricus]

What crock! Because, yes, epidemiological studies have shown that sex education and availability of contraception works against both teen pregnancies AND STD (and as a concurrent issue, abortion rates). If you are keen on public health and not in pushing an agenda, you would recognize it.

And I love how you start insulting when people don't toe the line... Let me remember who you accuse of doing that...

[Pitiricus]

To add, try this site
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922117.html
Abortion rates:
Country Rate per 1,000
United States 21.3
Australia 22.2
Sweden 18.7
Denmark 16.5
Canada 16.4
England & Wales 15.6
Germany 7.6
Holland 6.5

NOTE: 1996 data, except the U.S. (2000 data).
w.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922117.html

[Weirdad]

You say this: "Abstinence preaching never prevented a pregnancy!"

That's on its face invalid, you have no way to prove it, and it only takes one prevented pregnancy to show it's wrong. Statistics and testimony right here where I live prove it is wrong.

Pitiricus, when you make a brusk, snide unsupported one-line statement as though it blows away another position expressed seriously and in more detail, you are the one casting an insult, so no surprise you get a brusk answer back. And since you are wrong, it makes you incredible, and that's a fact, not an insult.

And when you want free stuff handed out by the government, well that's just acting like a Democrat, and my pointing it out not an insult from me, but a challenge to you to see if you are being internally consistent with your own views on this issue. And if you're embarrassed to look like a Democrat, then don't take a Democrat position.

Epidemiologic studies also show what is painfully obvious to us all--that Planned-Parenthood-Style sex education offered since the mid 1960's has been a continual dismal failure, whereas the new wave of Abstinence-Based education is producing better results.

So you can cite countries with lower abortion rates. That proves nothing. What you need is to show the counties you were talking about that are "with a good sex ed course" whatever that means. You would then find your countries "where abstinence is preached" and then you would control for demographic variables and cultural exposures (easier said then done) and then make sure there are no confounders like cross exposure to the education methods, and then you might be able to start making valid comparisons.

So unless you have those studies there is no validity to your one-line teaser about how funny it that countries "with a good sex ed course" have superior outcomes.

Here's the real rub between people on both sides of this argument: Since Abstinence Education promotes behavior coherent with Christian ideals, it is distasteful to those who do not subscribe to those ideals to go along with it whether it is effective on pregnancy rates or not. People on my side route your own line right back at you about the validity of Abstinence: "If you are keen on public health and not in pushing an agenda, you would recognize it."

[Weirdad]

More good news - Abstinence programs are working!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20041115/us_nm/health_teenmoms_dc_1&printer=1

Birth Rate for Young Teens Lowest Since 1946

Mon Nov 15, 1:58 PM ET

By Paul Simao

ATLANTA (Reuters) - The birth rate among adolescent and young teen girls in the United States fell sharply in the 1990s, hitting a 58-year-low in 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites) reported on Monday.

CDC researchers said the drop in births among girls aged 10 to 14 might be a sign that programs emphasizing abstinence and other forms of birth control were having an impact on this high-risk group.

They noted that the downward trend in births occurred despite a rise in the number of girls in this age group.

"A number of surveys have shown that in recent years fewer teenagers are sexually active, and they seem to be acting more responsibly," said Fay Menacker, a CDC statistician and one of the authors of the study.

Young girls have a higher risk of delivering babies that are premature or have low birth weights. These young mothers also are more likely to suffer hypertension and eclampsia, a serious condition marked by convulsions and seizures.

There were 7,315 babies born to girls aged 10 to 14 in 2002, compared to 11,657 in 1990. The 2002 birth rate for this age group was 0.7 live births per 1,000 girls, one-half of the 1990 rate and the same rate as 1946.

"We are encouraged by our continued progress in reducing births to teens of all ages, but we're particularly pleased to make this kind of progress in such a young and vulnerable group," CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said in a statement.

Blacks had the highest birth rate among girls in the study at 1.9 per 1,000, more than six times the rate for whites. The rate for Hispanics was 1.4 per 1,000, while Asians and Pacific Islanders had a much lower rate of 0.3 per 1,000.

Among the states, Maine had the lowest rate at 0.2 per 1,000, while Mississippi had the highest at 2 per 1,000.

The drop in births among adolescents and young teens mirrors a similar trend among older teenagers in the United States, which typically has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in the world.