|
Back to Policy and Advocacy Back to State Summaries
 Print
Sexuality Education and
Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in the States:
An Overview
This analysis highlights developments related to sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs at the state and local level. While this publication focuses on federal Fiscal Year 2005, which began on October 1, 2004 and ended on September 31, 2005, we have also included more recent legislation and events so that we can provide the most accurate and up-to-date analysis possible.
In order to underscore events and make predictions, we look at a number of factors: the impact of local and state laws and policies on what does or does not occur in our nation's classrooms; proposed legislation that aims to change those laws; and the result of the Bush Administration's continued support for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. But we also look at less quantifiable and more anecdotal evidence: notably the stories that we hear and observe as we cross the country aiding in the support of sexuality education.
This overview combines all these elements to reflect what we see happening in our nation, to highlight some of the trends that are the most troubling, and to help advocates build in those areas where good work is occurring. Perhaps most importantly, this analysis also anticipates some trends for the future and where, on a policy level, sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will be in the upcoming years.
LAWS AND LEGISLATION
In 2005, no piece of legislation passed on either the state or federal level that had a major impact on sexuality education. However, this did not mean that nothing of note occurred. Legislators introduced bills that attempted to do everything from mandating and funding comprehensive sexuality education to gutting existing progressive laws and implementing abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
Advocates in New York and Illinois continued to be forerunners in their attempts to fund sexuality education programs through well-designed grant systems. These grants would aid schools and organizations in providing age-appropriate, medically accurate comprehensive sexuality education. In other states, such as Massachusetts and Minnesota, advocates worked to guarantee that young people receive comprehensive sexuality education. Advocates in states such as Washington worked to guarantee that if a young person receives education on sex and sexuality, the information is medically accurate, age-appropriate, and comprehensive. Similarly, in Arizona and South Dakota, activists worked to ensure the medical accuracy of both abstinence-only-until-marriage and sexuality education programs. Lawmakers in Iowa tried another approach, attempting to require all programs to be science-based.
Unfortunately, not all legislation was so positive; in numerous states we saw attempts to restrict sexuality education. To make their case for such restrictions, opponents of sexuality education often sensationalized the subject matter and topics covered in courses or directly attacked providers of sexuality education. In Wisconsin, the only state to pass legislation regarding sexuality education in Fiscal Year 2005, it is now required that any school district which offers classes on “any facet of human sexuality” must “ensure that instruction in marriage and parental responsibility is provided in the same course, during the same school year.”
Other states tried to institute restrictions but failed. In Missouri, for example, legislation was introduced that prohibited certain instructors from teaching sexuality education. These instructors included any person who performs, induces, assists with, encourages, or refers people to abortion services. The bill provides an exemption, however, if the abortion in question is necessary to save the “life of the mother.”
In California, far-right ideologues attempted to sensationalize the subject matter of sexuality education programs while gutting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. The bill that was introduced attempted to place restrictions on “comprehensive sexual health education, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and assessments related to that education” by banning certain subjects in kindergarten through sixth grade and requiring parental permission for each day these subjects are discussed in seventh through twelfth grade. The subjects included domestic partnerships, homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbianism, transgenderism, necrophilia, and sadism. Under this legislation, instruction was defined as “an assignment, demonstration, depiction, discussion, dissemination, display, explanation, posting, question, survey, or test.” Supporters of this legislation were clearly trying to sensationalize sexuality education by making it seem as though necrophilia and beastality are included in a normal sexuality education class. What they were actually attempting to do, however, was restrict young people's access to important information on topics such as sexual orientation.
Other states, such as Maine, faced efforts to repeal or gut existing law. Maine currently has one of the strongest state sexuality education laws; it requires comprehensive family life education in schools. This year, lawmakers introduced legislation that would have allowed schools to offer “abstinence education” in grades 7 through 12 in place of or in addition to comprehensive family life education. The bill used the federal government's 8-point definition of “abstinence education.” This legislation was offered as a last ditch attempt by supporters of an abstinence-only-until-marriage program that was unable to gain access to Maine schools under the existing law.
In addition to legislation regarding what young people can learn, we also saw the usual attempts to restrict young people's access to information using administrative policies such as replacing “opt-out” policies (under which students are automatically enrolled in sexuality education but can be removed at the request of their parents or guardians) with “opt-in” policies (under which no student can take a sexuality education course without the express permission of their parent or guardian). In Arizona, we saw a new twist to this legislation with a bill that would have required an opt-in policy for sexuality education, but an opt-out policy for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. This new type of legislation will likely be repeated in other states as it clearly favors abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
FEDERAL DICTATES CLASH WITH STATE PRIORITIES
As the federal government continues to tighten the restrictions governing abstinence-only-until-marriage programs funded through Title V, states struggle to maintain the integrity of these projects. Specifically, the Bush Administration has required increasing adherence to all eight-points of the federal government's definition of “abstinence education.” By focusing on only some of the eight points, many states had designed programs that allowed them to receive the much-needed funding while still remaining committed to more comprehensive prevention strategies.
No place has more clearly illustrated this conflict than the state of Maine. In 2005, Maine took the bold step of joining California and Pennsylvania in rejecting Title V funding. Maine had historically accepted the funds and used them to run a media campaign that encouraged parent-child communication while avoiding messages of shame and fear that are often associated with abstinence-only-until-marriage campaigns. In rejecting Title V funding, Dr. Dora Anne Mills, Maine's public health director stated that tighter federal control made it difficult for Maine to continue its more inclusive media campaign. In addition, she explained that Maine law, which mandates a comprehensive approach to sexuality education, in effect prohibits abstinence-only-until-marriage funding from being used in schools. Dr. Mills referred to abstinence-only-until-marriage funding as “ideological money” and stated, “studies show over and over again when youth are given full information, including abstinence, they make the healthiest choices possible.”
In New Mexico, similar concerns have grown about curricula funded by Title V moneys. After numerous complaints about the medical inaccuracies within the curricula used by funded programs, the Department of Health took the bold step of restricting all Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding to grades six and below. According to the secretary of the New Mexico Department of Health, “the most effective way to protect kids is to discourage them from engaging in sexual activity. However, the reality is some adolescents do engage in sexual behavior. To be cognizant of that fact and do nothing about it is unconscionable. We want to make sure all of New Mexico's children know how to protect themselves if they become sexually active.” Unfortunately, the federal government feels that the New Mexico Department of Health does not know what is best for the state and is refusing to let it use the funds in this way. Advocates continue to wait for the Governor's response.
SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH
Activists are growing increasingly concerned about the use of abstinence-only-until-marriage funding in their states. One striking example occurred in Ohio where Dr. Scott Frank of the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine released the Report on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in Ohio. This report detailed problems within Ohio's federally and state-funded Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program.
Specifically, it explains that the curricula used in these programs contain false and misleading information about contraceptives and abortion, misrepresent religious beliefs as facts, present gender stereotypes as universal truths, do not meet the needs of all Ohio youth, and are not based in science.
The report also expresses concern that these programs are administered by groups that “are not public health organizations, but rather, ideologically oriented groups in a campaign to impose a strict understanding of religion, ‘purity,' and morality on America's youth.” For example, the report quotes the director of one abstinence-only-until-marriage program in Ohio as stating, “we want to be able to develop relationships with the clients and plant the seed for spiritual growth and help them develop a relationship with Christ.” The report concludes, “too often, the programs providing abstinence-only messages are not promoting public health but a message of morality, judgment, and fear with no room for exploration, self-discovery, and comprehension of individually based parameters for sexual activity. While moral decision-making is an element of healthy sexuality, teenagers need comprehensive, medically accurate information to help guide their decision-making in the context of their own families, their own lives, and their own conscience.”
According to the report, this agenda is promoted at the expense of factual information, for example, “condoms are a primary target in abstinence-only curricula, and the rate at which condoms fail to prevent pregnancy is often depicted as exponentially higher than the well-documented scientific evidence.” In addition, the report states that these classes are often taught by instructors who may not have the appropriate credentials or teaching experience.
Parents are also speaking out against these programs. In Georgia, a group of parents have formed Georgia Parents for Responsible Health Education to stop the spread of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in their state. This group began in 2004 when parents at Shamrock Middle School in DeKalb County, GA became concerned that their children would be enrolled in an abstinence-only-until-marriage program that used Choosing the Best, a fear-based curriculum. They successfully convinced the school board not to implement the program. At a school board meeting to discuss the curriculum, one parent stated, “yes, we would all like our children to be abstinent, if not to marriage, at least darn close to it. But you can't take this head-in-the-sand approach. You still provide them with the information to protect them.”
Georgia Parents for Responsible Health Education prevailed despite the fact that the founder of Choosing the Best is a former head of the Georgia Board of the Department of Human Resources. Choosing the Best has received over $4 million in federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds, including funds to work in DeKalb County.
THE MONEY GAME CONTINUES
Unfortunately, while concerned citizens continue to try and improve the health of young people, politicians persist in using abstinence-only-until-marriage funds as a political giveaway to shore up their conservative credentials. In Massachusetts, as Governor Mitt Romney (R) heads into a near-certain run for the United States presidency, he is using abstinence-only-until-marriage funding in an obvious ploy to strengthen his support among far-right voters.
Governor Romney's push began in 2005, when he introduced the Massachusetts' Fiscal Year 2005 budget with language that stated “funds dedicated to the abstinence education project in the department of public health shall be used solely for classroom education, and not for advertising or media purchases.” The Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage grant requires states to provide three state-raised dollars or the equivalent in services for every four federal dollars received. The state match may be provided in part or in full by local groups. In the past, Massachusetts' Title V funds were used in a media campaign that encouraged parent-child conversations about sexuality.
Both houses of the Massachusetts legislature rejected this bill, but the explicit action of the legislature proved irrelevant to the Governor. At a press conference to announce the change, the Governor stated that the funds would be given to A Woman's Concern, an organization that runs crisis pregnancy centers in Massachusetts and already receives a grant for nearly $1.5 million from HHS through the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) funding stream.
Parents and students at a school where A Women's Concern's program is already used reacted with apprehension, “A Woman's Concern uses an abstinence-only until marriage sex ed curriculum,” said Mindy Fried, whose daughter attends the school. She explained, “they're driven by a right-wing, Christian agenda, which to me is problematic. They talk about condom use being ineffective, so the curriculum is really misguiding kids. Most parents of course want their teenagers to delay sexual experiences, but that's not a reality. We need a curriculum that's broader than abstinence-only.” A student at the school shared her experience, “they were comparing sex to fire and telling students to keep sex in the fireplace. Looking back on it now, we were treated like children. I feel we were mature enough to learn about other things.”
State advocates accused the governor of misleading the public by claiming that the course is not an abstinence-only-until-marriage program. Patricia Quinn, director of public policy at the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy, pointed out that while the Governor claims the new program will be conducted in addition to existing sexuality education, in reality, state budget cuts have eliminated $28 million a year for health education in schools and these budget cuts mean that many schools may end up having only the abstinence-only-until-marriage program.
This may be exactly what A Woman's Concern and its backers are hoping for. Before receiving federal money, A Woman's Concern's abstinence-only-until-marriage program was privately funded by the Gerard Health Foundation. Ray Neary, director of education for the Gerard Health Foundation and former director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, told Massachusetts News that his job was to introduce abstinence-only-until-marriage programs to Massachusetts schools and “help rid the state of those sex education courses that really promote unbridled sex.” The Gerard Health Foundation is a conservative foundation that gives money to overwhelmingly anti-choice and far-right organizations including, Care Net (a crisis pregnancy center chain), Focus on the Family, and Heritage Community Services.
Advocates note that the same sexuality education programs that are being cut, however, have been credited with helping Massachusetts retain one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country.
FAR-RIGHT BELIEFS IN THE CLASSROOM
Massachusetts' situation is not unique. Abstinence-only-until-marriage funds do not just support the idea of abstinence-until-marriage, programs also push far right, anti-choice ideology. Crisis pregnancy centers and anti-choice organizations, like A Woman's Concern, receive over one-third of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding. In some states, more than half of the abstinence-only-until-marriage funding is given to overtly anti-choice organizations. This funding allows anti-choice organizations in-classroom access to our nation's youth, enabling these organizations to perpetuate their beliefs and their movement under the cloak of respectability that accompanies government funding.
In New Jersey, over a third of the funding goes to crisis pregnancy centers and well over sixty percent goes to anti-choice organizations. One such group is the Several Sources Foundation, which has already received over two million dollars in CBAE grants and is slated to receive almost another two million in the next two years. Several Sources runs a number of different organizations that endorse anti-choice and abstinence-only-until-marriage messages.
One of its websites, Lifecall, contains overtly anti-choice propaganda throughout. It includes testimonials from women who received information and “counseling” from Several Sources Foundation and decided to carry the pregnancy to term. Several Sources uses a video titled The Silent Scream, which purports to portray an actual abortion from the point of view of the fetus in the womb, as part of this effort. This video has been widely discredited as being scientifically, medically, and legally inaccurate.
Several Sources produces two versions of its curriculum The Choice Game : an “urban version” and a “Midwestern version.” Both versions include a section on teen pregnancy. On the website, the urban version follows a young pregnant woman of color as she attempts to decide if she will marry, put the child up for adoption, or raise the child alone. Abortion is not discussed as an option. The young woman is shown as having no support until the home for pregnant teens (which Several Sources also runs) steps in—her grandmother cannot help her raise the child because “you know that landlord won't have no babies,” her boyfriend leaves to join the Navy, and her boyfriend's mother doubts if her son is the father. The Midwest version does not deal with unintended pregnancies, instead stating that this “curriculum has as its exclusive purpose to teach abstinence and is consistent with the abstinence-until-marriage message.” This implies a double standard for Midwestern and urban youth: Midwestern youth have the ability to decide before they have sex, while urban youth must simply deal with the consequences.
THE REACH OF FEAR-BASED CURRICULA
Last year as part of this analysis, SIECUS detailed which abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula were used in which states. For the first time, advocates could confirm what they had intuitively known—the spread of these harmful programs in multiple states. In updating this information for Fiscal Year 2005, we found that many of the curricula had expanded into additional states and that other curricula, not included in last year's analysis, had become increasingly popular. In addition to tracking the same popular curricula from last year, we added two programs: Heritage Keepers and Worth the Wait.
To compile this information we have undertaken extensive research over the past three years, including making over two hundred phone calls and scouring hundreds of documents. Nonetheless, the listings have a major caveat: it is not possible to be one hundred percent accurate and complete. Even though over a billion dollars in taxpayers' money has gone into these unproven programs, the government requires no accountability and there is no one reporting system that allows us to know exactly what this money is funding. This means that while we have found many of the locales that are using these curricula in no way have we found all of them.
Two of the most popular programs from last year remain two of the most widely used curricula: A.C. Green's Game Plan and Choosing the Best. A.C. Green's Game Plan continued to be used in the eight states we noted in Fiscal Year 2004, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York, and Virginia; this year we have found it in seven additional states: Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, New Mexico, Ohio, and South Dakota. Parts of the Choosing the Best series expanded from eleven states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas) to seventeen with the additions of Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Ohio. Both of these curricula contain gross gender stereotypes, name numerous negative consequences of premarital sexuality activity, and suggest that teens should feel guilty, embarrassed, and ashamed of sexual behavior. For example, Choosing the Best LIFE states that, “relationships often lower the self-respect of both partners—one feeling used, the other feeling like the user. Emotional pain can cause a downward spiral leading to intense feelings of lack of worthlessness.” Choosing the Best PATH says, “sexual activity also can lead to the trashing of a person's reputation, resulting in the loss of friends.”, Game Plan, in a similar vein, states that, “even if you've been sexually active, it's never too late to say no. You can't go back, but you can go forward. You might feel guilty or untrustworthy, but you can start over again.”
WAIT Training, a program that has increased its reach with the help of federal dollars, is now one of the most often used programs; it expanded from five states in Fiscal Year 2004 (Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania) to eight this year with new programs in Georgia, Missouri, and New Hampshire. WAIT Training, shows the abstinence-only-until-marriage industry's attempt to address one of its critics' most common concerns: the lack of inclusion of LGBTQ youth. On the FAQS sections of its website, WAIT Training states that its program is acceptable for use with LGBTQ youth stating that “ they need to be abstinent, learn about healthy relationships and how to love well.” The section continues in a question and answer format:
Q: “But gays and lesbians don't marry?
A : Who says they don't?
The marriages that are performed for gays and lesbians are not legal.
That is a political issue and is not our issue”
While it is certainly true that LGBTQ youth should learn about healthy relationships and how to love well, WAIT Training continues to produce materials that are not relevant to their lives and realities. LGBTQ youth are well aware of the fact that they cannot legally marry in 49 out of 50 states and that their relationships are inherently vulnerable because of this. WAIT Training 's half-hearted attempt at being an ally while not taking a stand for LGBTQ's rights reeks of disingenuous showmanship.
Worth the Wait and Heritage Keepers epitomize two other areas of the abstinence-only-until-marriage industry: its attempt to use medical science to promote fear and legitimize these programs, and its inextricably linked relationship with the anti-choice movement. Both programs also receive large amounts of federal and state dollars and are becoming increasingly widespread.
Worth the Wait is currently in Arkansas, Arizona, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington DC. SIECUS reviewed Worth the Wait and found that it covers some important topics related to sexuality such as puberty, anatomy, and sexual abuse, and that the curriculum is based on reliable sources of data. Despite these strengths, Worth the Wait relies on messages of fear, discourages contraceptive use, and promotes biased views of gender, marriage, and pregnancy options. For example, the curriculum explains, “teenage sexual activity can create a multitude of medical, legal, and economic problems not only for the individuals having sex but for society as a whole.”
Heritage Keepers, from Heritage Community Services, is used in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. In 1995, Heritage Community Services was formed as an adjunct to the Lowcountry Crisis Pregnancy Center. While the two groups have since become separate non-profits, they remain closely linked; they are run by the same woman and share both office space and staff members. According to a fact sheet distributed by Heritage Community Services, Heritage Keepers, is taught in over 22 counties in South Carolina. The growth of this organization, both nationally and internationally, is a direct result of the amount of federal and state funding it receives, in fact, the overwhelming majority of Heritage Community Services' budget comes from federal and state funds. In total, Heritage Community Services and its affiliates has received over $10 million in federal and state funding since 1996.
LIGHT AT THE END OF TUNNEL
As we researched and wrote this third edition of the State Profiles, we were struck by a sense of hope that is unmistakable. People across the country are pushing back, both in small and in large ways. Sexuality education is not decided on the national or even the state level, but in schools and individual classrooms. Controversies that gain nation-wide attention are often started simply because a concerned parent asked why her child is learning anti-choice information or exaggerated statistics on condom failure or because a student questioned why his school's programming does not include him.
Based on our on-going analysis, we indeed see a changing of the tide. For years, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have grown like weeds throughout this nation. Now, we are seeing states, cities, towns, and their citizens pushing back. We see it in yet another state rejecting Title V funding, we see it in the number of calls SIECUS gets on a daily basis from outraged parents, and we see it in young people who refuse to be talked down to, silenced, or ignored. In the coming years, we believe more states will stand up for public health and reject Title V funding, more parents will refuse to let their children participate in harmful abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, and more schools will rebuff the fallacies of these programs.
The greatest area of change is how much more we know. Three years ago, there was no large scale tracking of how abstinence-only-until-marriage funding was spent. Now we pursue it—watching in communities, in states, in the federal government, and even overseas. We are still seeing these funds spread dangerous ideas and misinformation, but we know more and more about who is doing the work and how to stop them. Abstinence-only-until-marriage groups no longer have the luxury of anonymity, but are being called into the light to account for their programs, their lack of evaluations, and their ideology. Truly, in classrooms and in capitol buildings, knowledge is power.
References
- Paul Carrier, “Abstinence message too weak, official says,” Portland Press Herald, 3 October 2005, accessed online on 12 October 2005 at <http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/051003abstinence.shtml>.
- Ibid.
- New Mexico Department of Health, Press Release published on 8 April 2005, accessed 19 April 2006 <http://www.health.state.nm.us/pdf/PR-05-abstinence-04-07.pdf>.
- Ibid.
- Scott H. Frank, MD, MS, Report on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in Ohio (Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University, June 2005), accessed online 13 June 2006 <http://www.siecus.org/media/press/Abstinence_Report.pdf>.
- Ibid., 23.
- Ibid., 24.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 14.
- Ibid., 23-24.
- Editorial, “OUR OPINION: Sex miseducation; DeKalb parents were smart to say it's a mistake to teach teens that abstinence is their only course,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA), 4 February 2005, 18A.
- Andrea Estes and Tracy Jan, “State widens teaching of abstinence: Romney gives faith group sex ed grant,” Boston Globe, 21 April 2006, accessed 21 April 2006 <http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/21/
state_widens_teaching_of_abstinence?mode=PF>.
- Ibid.
- “Ray Neary Hired to Fight for Abstinence Education,” Massachusetts News, 10 October 2003, accessed 9 February 2005, <http://www.massnews.com/2002_editions/Print_editions/10_Oct/1002_mn_sightings.shtml#3>.
- The Choice Game Curriculum, (New Jersey: The Choice Game, January 2005), accessed 10 January 2005, <http://www.thechoicegame.com/>.
- The Choice Game Curriculum, (New Jersey: The Choice Game, January 2005), accessed 10 January 2005, <http://www.thechoicegame.com/a-h.html>.
- Bruce Cook, Choosing the Best LIFE (Marietta, GA: Choosing the Best Inc., 2000); Bruce Cook, Choosing the Best PATH (Marietta, GA: Choosing the Best Inc., 2000). For more information, see SIECUS' reviews of Choosing the Best LIFE and Choosing the Best PATH at <http://www.communityactionkit.org/curricula_reviews.html>.
- Scott Phelps and Libby Gray, A.C. Green's Game Plan (Golf, IL: Project Reality, 2001). For more information, see SIECUS' review of A.C. Green's Game Plan at <http://www.communityactionkit.org/curricula_reviews.html>.
- Patricia Sulak, Worth the Wait (Temple, TX: Scott & White Memorial Hospital, 2003). For more information, see SIECUS' review of Worth the Wait at <http://www.communityactionkit.org/curricula_reviews.html>.
- Heritage Community Services, 2003 Tax Return.
|
