Vol. 2 No. 1 Specials

“Freeing myself to reach for the best life has to offer, I promise to abstain from sexual involvement from this day until I enter a marriage relationship.” At the end of the Louisiana Governor’s Abstinence Program (GAP), students are encouraged to take this oath to keep their virginity until they are married.

Over the past school year, more than 400,000 seventh-graders in Louisiana public schools were enrolled in the Governor’s Abstinence Program for one hour each week over eighteen weeks. Volunteer teachers in Physical Education or Health classes advocate abstinence until marriage as the only certain way to avoid some sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies, and the emotional challenges of intimacy. Students in GAP also receive “Abstinence Curriculum Student Workbooks,” which include lessons on when to date, how to define love, and how to build self-esteem.

The Louisiana Governor’s Abstinence Program, established in 2001, is only one of the many sex education curricula being taught in public junior high schools and high schools across the nation. Most states require some form of sex education but do not necessarily specify the content and approach; as a result, sex education in the US varies widely by region, by school district, and even by classroom. Although many sex education programs fall somewhere between the extremes of abstinence-only and comprehensive plans, the debate over sex education in the US is often bitterly divided over the two approaches. Last November, Congress approved $131 million for abstinence-only programs as a part of a $388 billion spending bill. This allocation is still $100 million less than the amount President Bush has proposed for abstinence projects in 2005, although it is a $30 million increase from the previous year’s funding.

A national evaluation of the effectiveness of abstinence programs is not expected from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) until 2006. In the meantime, critics point to evaluations conducted by interest groups like Advocates for Youth, which show minimal changes in teen sex behavior and argue that the government is wasting taxpayers’ money on ineffective – and therefore dangerous – programs. Nonetheless, total federal funding for abstinence education will reach nearly $900 million by the end of the year.

Federal law does not actually require sex education, but the 1981 Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) set the precedent of federal support for abstinence-based sex education by funding services that aim to prevent adolescent sexual relationships. What began as a congressional response to the rising number of American teenage pregnancies gained even wider scope when Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (also known as Title V Welfare Reform Act), appropriating $50 million annually over the following five years for abstinence education. Specifically, the proposal outlined eight points to be addressed by eligible programs, including the teaching of abstinence as the “only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancies, sexually transmitted disease, and other associated health problems.” A third federal grant, the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance-Community-Based Abstinence Education program, was also created in 2000 with a similar premise.

Federal funding has enabled the rapid spread of abstinence education over the past five years. Since these funds are allocated as entitlements, grant applications adhering to the abstinence-only-until-marriage guidelines are approved without otherwise reviewing the content of the curricula. Public agencies, private companies, and community- and faith-based organizations receive money to develop, distribute, and teach abstinence programs as long as they match three dollars to every four dollars given. If state-developed programs like the Louisiana GAP are not available, public schools without sex education have the freedom to choose from well-known providers like Teen Aid, Sex Respect, or Worth the Wait. Schools that previously discussed contraceptives or abortion in their sex education classes can now lighten their financial burden by switching over to the abstinence-only track.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, points out that the government spends only $1 encouraging abstinence for every $12 it spends promoting contraceptives. Supporters believe that overbearing messages about “safe sex” may promote casual sex that they view as both morally depraved and dangerous in a world of STDs. “We just want parity,” says Kimberly Martinez, executive director of Abstinence Clearinghouse, a popular non-profit organization based in South Dakota. But for opponents of abstinence education, asking for financial parity in sex-ed funding is like asking for financial parity in teaching that women belong in the kitchen – anachronistic, reactionary, and socially and psychologically destructive.