SERT

Help Reform Sexuality Education NOW!

2007-04-15T21:24:00.000-07:00

This is an exciting time for advocates of Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE). The study that Congress authorized ten years ago to analyze abstinence-only programs was finally released in April 2007, and it confirms what many experts have been saying all along: abstinence-only programs DO NOT reduce the risk of teen sexual activity, unwanted pregnancy, or sexually transmitted infections (STIs). A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released in October 2006 reported that abstinence-only programs contain inaccurate information and receive little federal oversight. And here in Ohio (where SERT is based), a report by Dr. Scott Frank of Case Western Reserve University has spurred Governor Strickland to refuse federal money for abstinence-only education.

This is all good news, but the battle is far from over. In Ohio, the Republican-controlled legislature has already threatened that it will restore abstinence-only funding to the budget, while President Bush has requested an unprecedented $204 million for Fiscal Year 2008. Now it's up to us--as constituents, parents, siblings, friends, and concerned citizens--to let our government know that America's youth deserve an education that is accurate, unbiased, and effective.

This website is intended to provide reliable background and advocacy information about the debate over Comprehensive Sexuality Education. Please take a few minutes to browse the links at the right; they contain a great deal of useful--and often provocative--information. We've tried to cite and document every claim we make. If you feel that any of our information is inaccurate, or want to know where we got it, feel free to leave a comment on that particular page. We'll show you our background research and give you as much supporting evidence as we can.

After all, in the long run it's not about who's right or who's wrong--it's about what's best for our youth.

Take Action for Sex Education Reform in Ohio

2007-04-12T12:00:00.000-07:00

Governor Ted Strickland announced earlier this year that Ohio will no longer accept federal funding for abstinence-only education programs. The Republican-controlled state legislature, however, has already challenged his proposal, and is attempting to put this funding -- including $500,000 in annual matching state funds -- back into Ohio's budget.

We need YOUR help -- we need every Ohio resident who cares about the education and welfare of our children to let their representatives know where we stand on this issue.

It's quick and simple! Just follow these steps:

1) Use these convenient links to find your state representative and senator. All you need to know is your zip code!

2) Write them a letter. Below is a sample letter. Feel free to copy it word-for-word, or make any changes you would like. Be sure to mention that you are a constituent: these peoples' jobs depend on YOUR vote.

Sample Letter

The Honorable Barbara Boyd
77 S. High St
10th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-6111

Dear Representative Boyd,

As a constituent, I urge you to support Governor Strickland’s budget proposal to stop giving state money to abstinence-only education programs.

Every year the state of Ohio spends $500,000 on abstinence-only programs that have been shown to contain inaccurate or misleading medical information. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that these programs are not effective in improving teen sexual behavior.

Unlike abstinence-only programs, comprehensive curricula combining abstinence education with information about proper contraception methods and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been shown to positively influence teen sexual behaviors. Studies have shown that comprehensive sexual education can delay the onset of teen sexual activity, reduce teens’ number of sexual partners, and increase the number of teens taking appropriate precautions against pregnancy and disease.

Surveys have found that more than 90% of parents support comprehensive sex education that includes instruction about both abstinence and contraception. However, programs funded by the $500,000 in question are required to deliver information only about abstinence and are forbidden to mention the benefits of contraception.

I urge you again, therefore, to support Governor Strickland’s proposal to stop wasting our tax dollars on ineffective, inaccurate, and unsafe educational programs. I look forward to hearing from you on this important issue.

Respectfully yours,

Michael Stentz

3) Take 30 seconds out of your day to call your representative and senator. Usually a staffer will take down your name and the reason for your call. It may not seem like much, but these all get passed on to the legislators -- and they listen!

The whole process will only take about 5 minutes of your time, but imagine the difference it can make!

What is Comprehensive Sexuality Education?

2007-04-10T22:41:00.000-07:00

All sex education classes, whether abstinence-only or comprehensive, ultimately strive to reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among teens. Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programs are grounded in the philosophy that the best way to achieve this goal is to give students accurate, complete, and unbiased information about human sexuality, and to deliver this information using scientifically-tested and proven methods.

After extensive research into the efficacy of various abstinence-only and sexuality education programs, Dr. Douglas Kirby compiled a list of "10 Characteristics of Effective Sex and HIV Programs". He found that the most effective programs:

Focus on reducing one or more sexual behaviors that lead to unintended pregnancy or HIV/STD infection.
Are based on theoretical approaches that have been demonstrated to influence other health-related behavior and identify specific important sexual antecedents to be targeted.
Deliver and consistently reinforce a clear message about abstaining from sexual activity and/or using condoms or other forms of contraception. This appears to be one of the most important characteristics that distinguishes effective from ineffective programs.
Provide basic, accurate information about the risks of teen sexual activity and about ways to avoid intercourse or use methods of protection against pregnancy and STDs.
Include activities that address social pressures that influence sexual behavior.
Provide examples of and practice with communication, negotiation, and refusal skills.
Employ teaching methods designed to involve participants and have them personalize the information.
Incorporate behavioral goals, teaching methods, and materials that are appropriate to the age, sexual experience, and culture of the students.
Last a sufficient length of time (i.e., more than a few hours).
Select teachers or peer leaders who believe in the program and then provide them with adequate training.¹

It is important to note that abstinence and CSE are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the two should go hand-in-hand, as studies have shown that programs combining a strong abstinence message with proper HIV/STI and contraception information are the most effective in improving teen sexual behavior.² STI and contraception presentation is the main difference between CSE and abstinence-only programs: while CSE tries to present the information as accurately and fully as possible, abstinence-only programs are required by law to present contraception as unreliable and risky.³

In addition to providing complete information about contraception, CSE programs also tend to be more likely to focus on the needs of "non-traditional" students, such as LGBTQ teens, children of single or divorced parents, teens who are already sexually active, victims of sexual abuse, etc.⁴

For an excellent list of CSE curricula, compiled by SIECUS, please see the annotated bibliography here.

References

¹Douglas Kirby, Emerging Answers: Research findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Washington, D.C., 2001. p. 6.
²Ibid., p. 87.
³ CBAE Funding Guidelines
⁴Scott Frank, Report on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in Ohio, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, June 2005. p. 28.

Take Action for Sex Education Reform in the U.S.

2007-04-10T20:29:00.000-07:00

The long-awaited report on abstinence-only programs that Congress authorized in 1997 has finally been released, and it confirmed what many scientists and public health officials already suspected: abstinence-only education is not successful in improving teen health. Now it's time to make sure Congress gets the message. Please take just a few minutes of your time to write to your U.S. Senators and Representative to let them know where you stand.

It's quick, easy, and can make a HUGE difference. Just follow these easy steps:

1) Find your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative. If you're from Ohio, your senators are:

Sherrod Brown
455 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-2315

George Voinovich
524 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3353

2) Write them a letter. Below is a sample letter. Feel free to copy it word-for-word, or make any changes you would like. Be sure to mention that you are a constituent: these peoples' jobs depend on YOUR vote.

The Honorable Sherrod Brown
455 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Brown,

As a constituent, I urge you to stop federal funding for abstinence-only education programs.

President Bush’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2008 includes $204 million for abstinence-only education programs, including $50 million Social Security Title V, Section 510 programs, $141 million for Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) programs, and $13 million for Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) programs.

However, in April 2007 the Mathematica report authorized by Congress to evaluate these programs announced that abstinence-only programs DO NOT improve teen sexual health. This finding is supported by other peer-reviewed scientific studies from the past ten years. Furthermore, a Government Accountability Office Report (GAO-07-87) prepared for Representative Waxman et al. found that many abstinence-only curricula contained false or misleading statements, and that there is little federal oversight of the programs being funded.

Unlike abstinence-only programs, comprehensive curricula combining abstinence education with information about proper contraception methods and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been shown to positively influence teen sexual behaviors. Studies have shown that comprehensive sexual education can delay the onset of teen sexual activity, reduce teens’ number of sexual partners, and increase the number of teens taking appropriate precautions against pregnancy and disease.

Surveys have found that more than 90% of parents support comprehensive sex education that includes instruction about both abstinence and contraception. However, the programs receiving the funding mentioned above are required to deliver information only about abstinence and are forbidden to mention the benefits of contraception.

I urge you again, therefore, to oppose President Bush’s effort to continue wasting our tax dollars on ineffective, inaccurate, and unsafe educational programs. I look forward to hearing from you on this important issue.

Respectfully yours,

Michael Stentz

3) Take 30 seconds out of your day to call your representative and senators. Usually a staffer will take down your name and the reason for your call. It may not seem like much, but these all get passed on to the legislators -- and they listen!

The whole process will only take about 5 minutes of your time, but imagine the difference it can make!

Ohio's Abstinence Laws

2007-04-10T14:12:00.000-07:00

Standards for sexuality education in Ohio were outlined as part of the Ohio Competency-Based Program for Health and Physical Education, developed by the Ohio Department of Education. Unfortunately, due to controversy surrounding the inclusion of sexuality information, the Department of Education never finalized the competency standards for health and physical education.

Although the Health and Physical Education standards were never implemented, abstinence education is still mandated by Ohio law. Section 3313.6011 of the Ohio Revised Code requires schools to provide a venereal disease education program that does all of the following:

1. Stresses that students should abstain from sexual activity until after marriage;

2. Teaches the potential physical, psychological, emotional, and social side effects of participating in sexual activity outside of marriage;

3. Teaches that conceiving children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;

4. Stresses that sexually transmitted diseases are serious possible hazards of sexual activity;

5. Advises students of the laws pertaining to the financial responsibility of parents to children born in and out of wedlock;

6. Advises students of the circumstances under which it is criminal to have sexual contact with a person under the age of sixteen pursuant to section 2907.04 of the Ohio Revised Code.

These requirements are very similar to the eight points laid out for Title V funding. Nevertheless, it should be noted that although schools must teach abstinence, they are not required to teach abstinence exclusively, as Title V programs are. Many Ohio schools have already adopted comprehensive sexuality education curricula, including Cleveland Municipal School and Shaker Heights Schools. Many other schools are working on developing new curricula to reflect the growing demand for comprehensive and accurate sexuality education, although they have asked that the names of the districts not be published until the curricula are finished.

What's Wrong With Abstinence-Only?

2007-04-10T14:07:00.000-07:00

The sole purpose of abstinence-only programs is to teach and promote abstinence from sexual activity as the only way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). To be eligible for federal funding, these programs either must not teach about the benefits of alternate methods of preventing pregnancy or disease—such as condoms or oral contraceptives—or, in some cases, they may mention contraception methods while highlighting the chances of failure. These programs have many supporters and receive tens of millions of dollars in annual federal funding.

The only problem? They don’t work.

It’s true that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies or STIs. But it’s also true that one-third of high school students will have engaged in sexual intercourse by their freshman year, two-thirds by their senior year, and four-fifths of youths will have had sex by age 24¹. In light of these staggering statistics, we can’t afford for our young men and women not to know the facts about sex.

A study was commissioned by Congress in 1997 to investigate the efficacy of abstinence-only programs funded by the newly-enacted Title V program. Nearly ten years later, the research group released its final report—and found that abstinence-only programs in no way increased the likelihood that teens will remain abstinent.² This supported previous research suggesting that abstinence-only programs have no effect on teen sexual behavior.³

A separate report, prepared by the Government Accountability Office, found that there is little oversight of the content of federally-funded abstinence-only programs. Although some individual states require some form of review for scientific accuracy, recipients of Title V and CBAE funding are not required to undergo any form of review. The GAO report also identified some scientifically inaccurate statements from federally-funded curricula, including the assertion that condoms do not protect against HIV because they are porous.⁴ (This is untrue—the NIH, CDC, and WHO have all recognized condoms as highly effective in protecting against HIV infection).⁵

In fact, errors in abstinence-only curricula are not unusual. One commonly cited example comes from Choosing the Best PATH, a widely-used curriculum for 7th- and 8th-grade students. The curriculum stated⁶ that “Couples who use condoms for birth control experience a first-year failure rate of about 15% in preventing pregnancies. This means that over a period of five years, there could be a 50% chance or higher of getting pregnant with condoms used as the birth control method.”⁷ The first part of this statement is correct: studies have shown that typical condom users have a 14% chance of becoming pregnant in the first year . However, it is an egregious mathematical error to imply that this statistical figure is cumulative—in other words, every year the probability of becoming pregnant increases another 14%. Instead, every year about 14% of typical condom users will experience a pregnancy.

Abstinence-only programs also generally do not draw a distinction between method failure (defects in the condom) and user failure. Only 2% of “perfect” users will experience a pregnancy, while those who do not correctly use a condom every time they have intercourse will experience a pregnancy rate of 14%--still considerably lower than the 85% pregnancy rate among those who do not use contraception.⁸ Ironically, by denying students access to information about proper condom use, abstinence-only programs are in fact increasing the likelihood that students will not practice perfect-use, putting teens at a higher risk for pregnancy.

Abstinence-only programs have also raised many concerns over the separation of church and state. Commonly used federally funded curricula contain passages about making a "commitment to God" to remain abstinent "until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship". Others assert that by having even a non-sexual relationship in high school, teens are "dishonoring God" and "violating each others' purity" and "spiritual lives".⁹

In addition, many abstinence-only programs have been criticized for perpetuating gender stereotypes, implying that men always have stronger libidos than women, females lose self-respect through sexual activity whiles males don't, etc. Others even implicitly blame victims of sexual assault for wearing sexually suggestive clothing. Not only is this psychologically damaging, it is also morally and legally wrong, as stated in the Rape Shield Laws of many states.¹⁰

All abstinence-only must stress that teens should not become sexually active until they are married. Unfortunately, marriage is forbidden to non-heterosexual couples in every state except Massachusetts, so this message has very little meaning for LGBTQ youth. In fact, federal funding guidelines require that all references to marriage define it as between a man and a woman.¹¹ In short, it is legally mandated that abstinence-only programs discriminate based on sexual preference.

Abstinence-only programs have failed to improve teen sexual behavior, contain biased and often inaccurate statements, and are inherently discriminatory. It is outrageous that these programs continue to receive millions of dollars in federal funding each year when other, more demonstrably effective comprehensive sexuality programs have already been implemented throughout the country.

References
¹Abstinence Education: Efforts to Assess the Accuracy and Effectiveness of Federally Funded Programs. Government Accountability Office, GAO 07-87, October 2006.; “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System—National College Health Risk Behavior Survey, 1995,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46.SS-6 (14 November 1997).
²Christopher Trenholm et al., Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 2007. Full text available for download here.
³Douglas Kirby, Emerging Answers: Research findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Washington, D.C., 2001. p. 87.
⁴GAO, Abstinence Education.
⁵King K. Holmes et al., Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Bull World Health Organ vol.82 no.6 Genebra, June 2004. Full text here; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, July 12-13, 2000; Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases—Prevention Messages, (Atlanta, GA: National Center for HIV, STD & TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, undated document).
⁶Although I have not seen the new curriculum, I understand that this particular statement has recently been amended.
⁷Choosing the Best PATH, Leader Guide, p. 22, as quoted in Scott Frank, Report on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in Ohio, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, June 2005, p. 14.
⁸J. Trussel, et al., "Contraceptive Failure in the United States: An Update," Studies in Family Planning, January/February 1990, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 52.
⁹Frank 2005, pp. 17-18.
¹⁰Ibid, pp. 18-20.
¹¹ CBAE Funding Guidelines.

Federal Funding for Abstinence Education

2007-04-10T13:43:00.000-07:00

The federal government's definition of "abstinence education" is set forth in the Social Secuirty Act, Title V section 510(b), commonly referred to simply as "Title V". According to these rules, a program is only only eligible for this funding if it:

(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;

(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

(G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and

(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
(Full Text)

As part of Title V, the federal government sets aside $50 million each year for abstinence-only education. Two additional federal programs, the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA - $13 million requested for FY 2008) and Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE, formerly known as SPRANS-CBAE - $141 million requested for FY 2008), also require that programs meet the criteria of Title V to be eligible for funding. These three programs distributed a total of $178 million this year, and President Bush has requested $204 million for abstinence programs in FY 2008.¹

References
¹Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Completed as Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Released, SIECUS, February 2007. Full text available here.

Why Comprehensive Sexuality Education?

2007-04-10T12:29:00.000-07:00

In the end, Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) and abstinence-only programs have the same goal: reduce unwanted pregnancies and STIs among America’s youth. The major disagreement, of course, is over the best way to do so.

CSE strives to give students accurate information about pregnancy, contraception, and STIs. Included in this category are “abstinence-plus” programs, which emphasize abstinence but also encourage teens to use proper contraception if they do become sexually active.

So why choose CSE? Simply put, it works. Sexuality education programs that include STI/HIV education have been shown to delay the initiation of sex, decrease the frequency of sex among teens, decrease the number of sexual partners, and increase the use of condoms and contraception.¹ On the other hand, a long-term report authorized by the U.S. Congress and released in April 2007 found that abstinence-only programs do not increase the likelihood that teens will abstain from sexual activity or decrease the number of sexual partners.²

Critics often suggest that teaching teens about sex and contraception will only encourage them to become more sexually active. However, multiple studies have shown that this is not the case, and that CSE in fact improves several meaningful measures of teen sexual activity.³

Furthermore, school districts often worry that implementing CSE in their schools will upset parents. However, polls have shown that 93% of voting-age adults support teaching sexuality education courses to high school students; 84% support sexuality education courses for junior high students; 96% support teaching about HIV/STIs at some point during junior high or high school; 91% support teaching about birth control and contraception; and 85% support teaching about sexual orientation.⁴ Similar levels of support have been found when the studies are limited to only parents of junior high and high school students, suggesting that school boards’ primary constituents favor a shift toward CSE.⁵

Finally, CSE addresses the needs and concerns of several student groups commonly ignored or ostracized by abstinence-only programs. Federal funding guidelines for abstinence-only programs mandate that “throughout the entire curriculum, the term ‘marriage' must be defined ‘only as a legal union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse' refers to only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'”⁶ This clearly alienates the LGBTQ youth population, who are arguably at the greatest risk of contracting some STIs. Abstinence-only programs are also required to emphasize that sex outside of marriage has negative consequences for personal mental health and stability, as well as society at large. This would likely alienate the 62% of high-school seniors who report having had sex, and ignores the fact that 80% of college students will have sex before marriage.⁷

Parents, advocates, politicians and policy makers all want what’s best for America’s youth. Research and experience have shown time and time again that Comprehensive Sexuality Education is more effective in improving teen sexual behavior and teen sexual health than abstinence-only education. We MUST all do our part to make sure that our students are receiving the most effective and accurate sexuality education. Be sure to check out the sections on Taking Action in Ohio and Taking Action Nationally.

References
¹Douglas Kirby, Emerging Answers: Research findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Washington, D.C., 2001. p. 87.
²Christopher Trenholm et al., Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 2007. Full text available for download here.
³Anne Grunseit et al., Sexuality Education and Young People’s Sexual Behavior, Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, 421-453 (1997) Abstract available here.
⁴Public Support for Sexuality Education Reaches Highest Level, Hickman-Brown Public Opinion Research Survey, 1999. Survey was conducted in February-March 1999 of 1,050 adults nationwide. The poll has a +/- three percent sampling error.
⁵Sex Education in America: General Public/Parents Survey. (Washington, DC: National Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation, Kennedy School of Government, 2004), 5
⁶ CBAE Funding Guidelines
⁷Jo Anne Grunbaum, et. al., “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance — United States, 2003,” Surveillance Summaries, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53.SS-2 (21May 2004): 1- 95; “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System—National College Health Risk Behavior Survey, 1995,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 46.SS-6 (14 November 1997); Reality Behind Programs, No More Money, SIECUS, 2005. Text available here.

Government and Abstinence: A History

2007-04-10T11:04:00.000-07:00

The federal government’s involvement in abstinence-only education formally began under the Reagan Administration in 1981. In this year, Senators Jeremiah Denton (R-Ala.) and Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) cosponsored a bill, known as the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA). The AFLA, commonly referred to as the “Chastity Act”, became Title XX of the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 97-35) and passed without any debate on the floors of Congress.

The AFLA was meant primarily to counteract the Adolescent Health Services and Pregnancy Prevention and Care Act, which had been sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and passed under the Carter administration. The Carter-era legislation provided money to organizations that “enable pregnant adolescents to obtain proper care,” including pregnancy testing and abortion counseling (although the money was prohibited to be used for the actual performance of abortions).¹

The AFLA, on the other hand, gave money to groups that “emphasize the provision of support by other family members and religious and charitable organizations.” Discussion of abortion was strictly forbidden for any group receiving AFLA funding. Furthermore, the AFLA stressed that programs must “actively support abstinence from sexual relations for all adolescents.”²

From 1981-1996, the AFLA provided the only federal money directed toward abstinence-only programs. In 1996, congress passed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act (TANF), commonly known as “welfare reform”. Part of this act was the addition of Section 501(b) of Title V of the Social Security Reform Act (P.L. 104-193), which set aside $50 million for abstinence-only education. This Title V funding could only go to programs that met the stringent definition of “abstinence education” laid down in the act.³ According to Title V, an abstinence education program:

(A) teaches the gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
(C) teaches that abstinence is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other health problems;
(D) teaches that a monogamous relationship in context of marriage is expected standard of human sexual activity;
(E) teaches that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful effects;
(F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences;
(G) teaches young people how to avoid sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances;
(H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.⁴

Furthermore, from the fiscal year 1997 onward, all AFLA funding has been required to conform to this definition of abstinence-education programs. Title V funding is provided to the state, which must provide a 75% match of federal dollars received. Title V authorized $50 million of federal funds each year until the fiscal year 2002, although funding has remained constant since then, and President Bush’s FY 2007 budget included $50 million for Title V programs.

References

¹Patricia Donovan, The Adolescent Family Life Act and the Promotion of Religious Doctrine, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 5. (Sep. - Oct., 1984), pp. 222-228.
²A Brief History of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding, SIECUS, 2005, <http://www.nonewmoney.org/history.html>
³Ibid.
⁴Ron Haskins, Abstinence Education Under Welfare Reform, University of Maryland, 1997. <http://www.welfareacademy.org/conf/past/haskappb.shtml>