|
Back to Policy and Advocacy Back to State Summaries Sexuality Education and
|
An Overview of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Funding in the States
|
MANUFACTURING A MOVEMENT, FUELING AN INDUSTRY
With more than $1.5 billion federal and state dollars over the past quarter century, abstinence-only-until-marriage groups have become more than a community of individual organizations with a shared goal. These groups, now representing a full-fledged movement and industry, will continue to grow if funding remains consistent. In Fiscal Year 2006 alone, abstinence-only-until-marriage grantees received over $200 million in federal and state dollars.
Movement and Industry Leaders
The growth of the abstinence-only-until-marriage movement has strengthened and spread the coordinated messages and efforts of its organizations around the country and fueled an industry of national abstinence-only-until-marriage speakers, products, and curriculum producers.
Two abstinence-only-until-marriage grantees, The Medical Institute for Sexual Health (Austin, TX) and the Abstinence Clearinghouse (Sioux Falls, SD), have emerged as leaders over the past several years in crafting messages for, distributing materials to, and driving the agenda behind the national abstinence movement. Their resources appear on the websites of organizations around the country and are used in classrooms nationwide. Most grantees, and even many state departments of health, list these two organizations as resources on their websites even though their materials and resources are riddled with misinformation and incomplete information about sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unintended pregnancy.
The Medical Institute for Sexual Health relies less on ideological arguments about purity and morality, and instead exaggerates the risks of condom use and the nature of STDs in order to persuade young people to wait for sex until marriage. Its graphic slides on the late stages of untreated STDs pop up in classrooms around the country.
The Abstinence Clearinghouse was founded in 1997 by Leslee Unruh. The organization’s mission is to “promote the appreciation for and practice of sexual abstinence (purity) through the distribution of age-appropriate, factual and medically-accurate materials.”1 The Abstinence Clearinghouse’s medical advisory board is comprised of over 60 health professionals who do not promote or prescribe contraception for unmarried teens.2 Abstinence-only-until-marriage organizations around the country, including many federal grantees, are affiliate members of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. The Abstinence Clearinghouse sells and distributes information on abstinence, purity, and chastity to their affiliates around the country. For example, Glamour magazine reported in 2007 that the Abstinence Clearinghouse distributes close to 700 “Purity Ball Planner” booklets a year and points out that the tips in the booklet include “printing out the vows on beautiful paper” and “serving wedding cake for dessert.”3
Unruh is also the founder of a crisis pregnancy center in South Dakota, the Alpha Center, which also receives federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding. Over the years, the Abstinence Clearinghouse, the Alpha Center, and Ms. Unruh have been charged with misconduct involving paying young women to carry their pregnancies to term and accused of misusing funding and carrying out illegal lobbying activities.4 Nevertheless, Unruh reportedly has had personal conversation with President Bush on a number of occasions and he appeared in a pre-recorded video spot with a message of support at the Abstinence Clearinghouse’s annual conference in 2004.5 Since George W. Bush took office, Unruh’s organizations have received millions in federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding. (See the South Dakota State Profile for more information.)
Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Speakers, Curricula, and Merchandise
“All of a sudden, abstinence is a business,” Unruh told a reporter in 2002 as she noted that more than 900 new abstinence-only-until-marriage organizations emerged in the last decade.6 In fact, with the influx of federal and state funding, business is booming. A cadre of national abstinence-only-until-marriage speakers, charging anywhere from $1,000–$5,000 per presentation, are at the fingertips of school districts, local county health departments, faith-based organizations, and others who have hundreds of thousands of federal dollars to spend every year. Whether receiving federal funds themselves or not, many of these entrepreneurs advertise to federal grantees that their products, presentations, and novelty items meet the federal government’s requirements for use in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
Mike Long, a national abstinence-only-until-marriage speaker, created the Everyone is NOT Doing It curriculum and refers to himself as one of the “pioneers of the abstinence education movement.”7 His website describes him as the most sought after abstinence speaker for crisis pregnancy center (CPC) fundraisers.8 Long collects $1,500 for his presentations, teacher trainings, parent gatherings, and youth rallies at schools and organizations and charges $179 for his Everyone is NOT Doing It tape series. He claims he has reached millions of young people in his 20 year speaking tenure and that his Everyone is NOT Doing It series is currently in 5,000 school systems across the country. His website notes that the series “is designed to enhance the abstinence component of any curriculum and follows all federal and state grant guidelines.”9 In his web-based newsletter, Long announces, “Utilizing Title V federal funds for abstinence education, these school districts incorporated this innovative series with existing curriculum teachers (sic) use on the subject….It pleases me that so many school systems throughout America are using these funds for what they were intended with great results.”10
Keith Deltano, a national abstinence-only-until-marriage speaker and Christian comedian, travels throughout the nation to schools and churches. In early 2007, he returned to Loudon County, Virginia after a controversial and highly publicized debut there in October of 2006. SIECUS staff observed Deltano’s presentation and found that it relied on messages of fear and shame, discouraged contraceptive use, and promoted biased views of gender and marriage. A highlight of his performance included an activity designed to illustrate the ineffectiveness of condoms against HIV in which he dangled a cinderblock over the genitals of an unsuspecting young man while yelling “is 10% good enough for you? Is it good enough?” Deltano has been speaking to young audiences for more than 10 years and has toured 46 states.11 He charges a fee of approximately $1,500 for his presentations which includes materials, press releases, and consulting. On his websites, www.virginityrocks.com (secular) and www.defyconformity.com (faith-based), he sells books, CDs, and DVDs with his messages and presentations.12 According to the advertisements on his website, “Keith’s student and parent presentations, as well as his book, Fighting Back, adhere to the Title V guidelines.”13
Pam Stenzel, another widely known abstinence-only-until-marriage speaker, is scheduled to visit 35 cities in 18 states in 2007 and the beginning of 2008.14 She is currently scheduled to give presentations in over 30 schools and speak at approximately 30 other events including rallies, parent’s nights, banquets, and conferences.15 Stenzel’s fee for each event ranges from $3,500– $5,000. Based on her own publicly available pricing list, these speaking engagements alone represent a $200,000–300,000-a-year business.16 This does not include the items for sale on her website such as abstinence-themed jewelry, t-shirts, video and audio cassettes, curriculum, brochures, and books which range in price from $7 to $50.16
Recently, Stenzel spoke in Dayton, Ohio at Springboro High School.18 Advocates of comprehensive sexuality education who witnessed her speech found more than 20 factual errors about STDs, condoms, pregnancy, and childbirth in Stenzel’s routine. An article in the Western Star written in response to her performance exposed many of them. For example, Stenzel told the audience of young people, “Condoms aren’t safe. Never have been, never will be.”19 As a co-host, Elizabeth’s New Life Center, a CBAE grantee, used federal taxpayer dollars to cover its portion of the $5,500 fee for Stenzel’s appearance.20
Another producer and marketer of abstinence products is The Silver Ring Thing (SRT), an organization that was at the center of an ACLU lawsuit against HHS for funding organizations that explicitly promote religion with public dollars.21 HHS eventually pulled federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding from the organization for its misuse of funds.22
SRT offers a vast menu of abstinence-only-until-marriage merchandise on its website, including the SRT 434 program.23 The name of this program is derived from verse 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4: “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable.”24 The SRT 434 package includes four DVD enhanced Bible studies, a hand-crafted sterling silver ring inscribed with a bible verse, and an SRT abstinence study Bible. The leader package sells for $59.95 and each student package is $29.95.25 Student packages include a Silver Ring Thing Merchandise Brochure where students can find information about purchasing abstinence-themed clothing, books, mugs, stickers, hats, and, of course, rings.26 There is no pricing information for the live events that SRT hosts across the country on the organization’s website. Instead, it states, “The SRT program is dependent for its success on its high-tech format. For communities interested in launching a SRT program, three different high tech packages have been developed. Contact the Silver Ring Thing National Office for assistance and for details about pricing.”27
Choosing the Best, Inc., a Georgia-based organization that produces five of the most widely used abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula in the country, claims to have reached over 2,000,000 students nationwide.28 Each of the Choosing the Best curricula costs $395 for the classroom set (which includes a teacher’s guide and videos, as well as other materials) and an additional $5 for each student manual.29 Its website advises visitors that “to underwrite Choosing the Best programs, many organizations apply for one or more of three types of federal funding earmarked for abstinence-until-marriage education (known legislatively as “abstinence-only.”)” It goes on to describe both the Title V and CBAE funding streams.30 SIECUS has reviewed two of the curricula produced by Choosing the Best, Inc.: Choosing the Best LIFE (for high school students) and Choosing the Best Path (for middle school students). These reviews found that the curricula name numerous negative consequences of premarital sexuality activity and suggest that teens should feel guilty, embarrassed, and ashamed of sexual behavior.31 (See SIECUS’ curricula reviews at http://www.communityactionkit.org/curricula_reviews.html for more information.) Choosing the Best, Inc. was started in 1992 by Bruce Cook. Cook was pulled from his position as Board Chairman of the state Department of Human Resources in 2005 after he was exposed for using his position to promote Choosing the Best, Inc. products and curricula.32 Cook travels the country speaking to young people and the Choosing the Best curricula is used by federal abstinence-only-until-marriage grantees in nineteen states.
Many other curriculum producers market their curricula to federal grantees by advertising that these resources are compliant with the federal definition of “abstinence education” and can be paid for with Title V and CBAE funding. Some of the most widely used curriculum include A.C. Greene’s Game Plan and Navigator,33 WAIT (Why Am I Tempted) Training,34 and Why kNOw.35 A.C. Greene’s Game Plan and Navigator, produced by CBAE grantee Project Reality in Illinois, are being used by federal grantees in 13 states. Project Reality also offers CBAE application assistance and trainings at a reduced price for federal grantees.36 WAIT Training is used by federal grantees in 14 states and was included in the April 2007 Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. study, which showed that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective. Why kNOw, produced by a CPC in Tennessee, is utilized by grantees in six states. All of these curricula were also among the programs reviewed by Representative Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) 2004 report titled The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, and were found to contain medical inaccuracies, blur the lines between religion and science, and present gender stereotypes as fact.37 The use of these curricula in programs paid for with federal taxpayer dollars, along with a summary of SIECUS’ review of each, is included throughout the profiles.
These are just a few examples of ways in which non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private companies in the abstinence industry are profiting from the millions of federal dollars awarded to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs each year. The list of curriculum producers, speakers, and merchandise for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs is long and will continue to grow as long as there are millions in federal dollars to cash in on.
Misinformation and Bias on the Internet
The internet plays an enormous role in the lives of young people today and serves as a main source of information for everything from music to books to health. A 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study, Generation Rx.com: How Young People Use the Internet for Health Information, found that 90% of all young people have gone online and three out of four of them have used the internet at least once to find health information. This is more than the proportion who have ever gone online to check sports scores (46%), buy something (50%), or participate in a chat room (67%), and about the same proportion that have ever played games (72%) or downloaded music (72%) online.38
In our research for the Fiscal Year 2006 edition of the SIECUS State Profiles, SIECUS staff visited the websites of hundreds of grantees. Despite the fact that so much attention has been brought to the abstinence-only-until-marriage movement’s track record of misinformation, fear and shame tactics, and gender stereotypes, we discovered nothing less than an army of federal grantees bypassing the classroom and delivering their messages directly to young people via the web. While it is often difficult to determine whether the websites of grantees are paid for with federal abstinence-only-until-marriage dollars or with private funding, the existence of fear- and shame-based information, medical misinformation, and bias on a grantee’s website calls into question the organization’s credibility as a source of information or education for young people in any capacity. Considering that young people rely so heavily on the internet for confidential information about their health, including their sexual health, it is unconscionable that organizations receiving federal taxpayer dollars are spreading false and biased messages about health and sexuality.
One of the most prominent medical inaccuracies we saw was misinformation about the effectiveness of condoms, particularly in relation to the transmission of the human papillomavirus (HPV). A surprisingly large portion of the websites we looked at tell young people that condoms offer no protection against HPV. However, according to a 2006 University of Washington study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, consistent condom use cut a woman’s risk of infection by 70% and protected her from developing precancerous cervical changes.39
Additionally, despite the existence of the HPV vaccine, of the grantees that mention HPV on their websites, only a small handful even mention the vaccine and, when they do, they generally warn teenagers that it isn’t 100% effective and offer no information on when, where, or how to obtain it. In truth, a vaccine for HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that abstinence-only-until-marriage proponents use to scare teens into sexual abstinence, could represent a blow to their strategy. Advocates of comprehensive sexuality education have witnessed the abstinence-only-until-marriage movement attacking legislation concerning the HPV vaccine at every turn, claiming that a vaccine for a disease that is preventable through sexual abstinence until marriage is unnecessary. Leslee Unruh, founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said last year, “I personally object to vaccinating children when they don’t need vaccinations, particularly against a disease that is one hundred percent preventable with proper sexual behavior… Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. Let’s not encourage it by vaccinating ten-year-olds so they think they’re safe.”40
One grantee in Florida, Abstinence Between Strong Teens (ABST), hosts the “Closing the Gap” project and implements an “HPV Awareness Symposium” for at-risk female students from the area. Its website explains that teen girls will “be informed that HPV is one of the most commonly contracted Sexually Transmitted Deadly Diseases in young women today. Which often translate as a death sentence to many teenagers.”41 Another grantee in Arkansas, Tree of Life Preventative Health Maintenance, Inc., tells teens on its website that, “AIDS is the result of HPV.”42 (In truth, AIDS is the result of HIV.)
Websites of federal grantees also contain biased information about healthy sexuality. A number of federal grantees’ websites advise young people that masturbation is unsafe and unhealthy and that they should avoid it. For example, WAIT Training, a CBAE grantee in Colorado and producer of the WAIT (Why Am I Tempted) Training curriculum used across the country, informs visitors to its website that, “as one gets used to self pleasuring and also one looks at pornography to enhance this behavior, it can become addicting and something that causes relational problems.”43 AWARE, Inc., a CBAE grantee in Washington State, asks teens visiting its website to “consider that masturbation is often practiced in conjunction with viewing pornography. Both of these behaviors have the ability to become addictive. As with anything that can be addictive, it is best to steer clear and find other healthy activities to engage in.”44 The Alabama Abstinence-Until-Marriage Education Program, a project of the Alabama Department of Health, implies on its website that masturbation puts a young person at risk for contracting an STD by defining sexual activity as including “mutual masturbation, & other purposeful sexual touching” and advising teens that any sexual activity puts them at risk.45 The “Wait for Your Mate” website in Illinois, a project of the federally funded CareNet Pregnancy Services of DuPage, tells teens that masturbation is not “emotionally or mentally healthy or safe.”46 In fact, masturbation is a safe and healthy behavior.
We found countless instances of federally funded organizations using fear and shame tactics and biased information to manipulate teen’s behavior. The box below highlights some of the more disturbing examples.
Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Grantees at Work on the Web
Fear and Shame “Being able to have sex does not make you any different from a rat in a warehouse. They have sex too. Is that what you want to compare yourself with?” “Abortion is a surgical procedure which can have complications that will leave your body physically damaged, infertile and possibly dead” - Women’s Clinic of Kansas City/Life Guard, MO, $848,073 |
Gender Stereotypes “Males tend to think about sex more often than females, and often times what a person ‘thinks about’ is what they talk about.” “Sometimes girls flirt to get attention. They may want to feel they are attractive to guys. Looking for this attention may be the cover for underlying insecurities, and having this attention lets them think they are at least good at one thing.” - A Positive Approach to Teen Health (PATH), IN, $517,266 |
On Sexual Assault After describing a lengthy scenario in which Rochelle, a teenage girl, claims a classmate, Jason, raped her after a party, ATM Education asks teens, “Based on all accounts, which story sounds least credible? Answer: Rochelle. She has made several questionable decisions. She has a motive to lie. She’s been pinned [sic] reputation for being ‘loose.’” - Abstinence Til’ Marriage (ATM) Education, OH, $686,728 |
The Ties That Bind: Religion Permeating the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Movement
One community of grantees receiving a large portion of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage dollars each year is crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). As the abstinence movement becomes stronger and more coordinated, its ties with its ally, the anti-choice movement, become more solid.
In July 2006, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a report titled False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers. The study found that 87% of federally funded “pregnancy resource centers,” more commonly knows as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), provided false and misleading information about the physical and mental health effects of abortion and grossly exaggerated the medical risks of abortion. The report also found that, under the current Bush administration, crisis pregnancy centers have received over $30 million in federal funding and virtually all of that funding has been funneled through federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding streams.47
This report illustrated the clear connection between the abstinence-only-until-marriage movement and the anti-choice movement and shed light on the extent to which federal funding is being used to drive a movement with an ideological and religious mission, rather than a public health one. Our research for this edition of the State Profiles found that close to $20 million went directly to CPCs in 30 states around the country. Kentucky dedicates the majority of its $3 million in Fiscal Year 2006 abstinence-only-until-marriage federal funding to CPCs, a larger percentage than in any other state. Beyond this, a large percentage of the overall federal funding goes to other anti-choice organizations around the country, and a significant amount of funding also goes to faith-based organizations. Catholic-based organizations and medical centers represent a large chunk of the money directed to faith-based organizations with over $10 million in federal funding going to 37 entities in 17 states. In New York, for example, Catholic charities and medical centers received over $4 million, the most in any state.
If CPCs are the clinical arm of the anti-choice movement, their abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are the educational arm, and the influx of abstinence-only-until-marriage funding to organizations with religiously based agendas designed to restrict access to abortion and other reproductive health services sheds light on the locked arms and close ranks of the two movements. CPCs that once relied on very small budgets now have multi-year grants of hundreds of thousands of dollars to sustain them from federal “abstinence education” funding streams. They use a variety of curricula and bring their presentations directly into schools, after-school programs, community centers, and churches.
SIECUS staff researched the CPCs around the country that carry out abstinence-only-until-marriage programs with federal funds and found an alarming mix of religious and anti-choice rhetoric interlaced with the abstinence messages they bring to young people. Lakeshore Pregnancy Center (LPC), a crisis pregnancy center and Title V sub-grantee based in Holland, Michigan with locations throughout the state, describes itself as “a Christ-centered ministry responding to those in our community experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, emphasizing the eternal value of all human life, and teaching Biblical sexuality.”48 The Alpha Center, founded by Leslee Unruh, is a crisis pregnancy center and CBAE grantee in South Dakota. It provides abstinence programs called the Lady in Waiting and The Bride Wore White to churches and schools and sponsors events such as God, Mom & Me Teas and the Memorial for the Unborn.49 According to the Alpha Center website, Lady in Waiting and The Bride Wore White are studies that “incorporate a Biblical perspective on the importance of purity.”50 Raindrop Ministries, a Title V sub-grantee in Elizabethtown, Kentucky and a mission of Grace Heartland Church, also goes by the name of Crossway Pregnancy Resource Center. In its February 2006 newsletter, under the headline “What God did in 2005,” it claims to have reached over 1,500 students with “the abstinence until marriage program.”51
When it comes to misinformation and scare tactics online, CPCs are among the worst offenders. The Fiscal Year 2006 SIECUS State Profiles are filled with examples of CPCs misrepresenting and exaggerating condom failure, referring to emergency contraception (EC) as a form of abortion, and bringing anti-choice language to the teen-focused websites they’ve created specifically for “abstinence education.”
The New Lobbying Arm of the Movement
2007 brought the newly formed lobbying arm of the movement called the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA). The group, a 501(c)(6) that describes itself as having the ability to carry out “unlimited legislative lobbying on behalf of abstinence education”52 has secured the services of Creative Response Concepts (CRC). CRC is the public relations firm in Washington, DC best known for the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign against John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential election.53 A percentage of the NAEA’s funding will come from federal dollars, according to its website, which instructs federal grantees on how they can use abstinence-only-until-marriage funding for a portion of their $150 membership dues.54 Clearly, however, there is another major source of funding for this new organization as the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign was a $10 million effort and membership fees can’t possibly foot the entire “public relations campaign” bill.
The NAEA is headed by several long-time leaders in the national abstinence-only-until-marriage industry, many of whom have been investigated for granting federal dollars to themselves and their friends. It is directed by Valerie Huber, the former Title V Coordinator in Ohio who was investigated by the Ohio Department of Health when she attempted to award a contract to an organization for which she served as an agent.55 Other advisors and board members include Anne Badgley of Heritage Community Services (see the South Carolina state profile) who was dismissed by the Charleston County, South Carolina school system in 2000 because the “health and sex education program is too important and sensitive to be led by a volunteer who cannot be held accountable as a school district employee,” according to officials at the time.56 Bruce Cook of Choosing the Best, Inc. (see the Georgia state profile) is also an advisor and has also been investigated for fraudulent use of funds in the past.57 Both Cook’s and Badgley’s organizations are current federal grantees.
Whatever the NAEA’s efforts to disparage comprehensive sexuality education amount to, one thing is clear—attacking comprehensive sexuality education programs is the only card in their deck. Given that no scientifically sound evidence suggests abstinence-only-programs work, that public opinion in the United States is squarely on the side of comprehensive sexuality education advocates, and that every major medical organization in America supports comprehensive sexuality education, they have no choice but to provide cover for their programs, and their millions in federal dollars, by going on a smear campaign.
THE POLICIES BEHIND THE PROGRAMS
This abstinence-only-until-marriage movement and industry has been allowed to flourish over the last decade because it has been solidly backed by the federal government’s continued financial and political support for their programs. The good news is that we are beginning to see the seeds of change.
Federal Government Continues to Push Flawed Policy
The Bush administration remains steadfast in its support of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. This was clearly articulated by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt in his hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee on February 6, 2007. In response to a question by Congresswoman Hilda Solis, Leavitt said that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are “part of the ideology of the administration and you can expect that we will continue to offer those proposals.”58
In January 2006, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), the division of HHS in charge of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, released a new program announcement for the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) funding stream, the largest federal funding stream for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The new program announcement, which showed once again that ACF has a total disregard for sound public health practices and responsible spending, shifted from promoting abstinence among teens as a way to reduce “risky behavior” to promoting abstinence because it “improves preparation for a stable marriage.” This signified a further step in the federal government’s path toward marriage promotion under the guise of a public health strategy. In addition, the new program announcement does not require grantees to ensure that their sources for medical information are credible and requires no meaningful evaluation on the part of grantees of their programs.
Then, in late 2006, ACF released its program announcement for the Fiscal Year 2007 Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program, the second largest funding stream, revealing even more restrictions than in previous years. That announcement stated that all proposals must “describe measures the State will use to assure that the proposed abstinence education program’s curricula, and any additional materials [m]eaningfully represent each of the Section 510(b)(2) A-H elements.” In previous years, states had some limited flexibility to craft programs which emphasized specific points of the definition. While still quite rigid, under these guidelines, states could create programs that better reflected the needs and realities of their young people. This limited flexibility allowed states to avoid more ideological and non-evidence-based points of the definition, and instead focus on more positive youth development approaches, such as the importance of delaying sexual activity and the negative influences of drug and alcohol use on risky sexual behavior.
In addition to preventing such uses of the funding, the new program announcement stated that programs must now focus on individuals ages 12–29. This new focus on older youth and adults flies in the face of common sense given that the National Center for Health Statistics reports that over 90% of people ages 20 to 29 have had sexual intercourse. Moreover, a recent Guttmacher Institute study showed that premarital sex has been universal for decades and that “even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.”59
The new program announcement also further restricts the ability of programs to deliver medically accurate information about contraception and condoms. Past announcements passively stated that, “sex education programs that promote the use of contraceptives are not eligible for funding under this announcement.” The 2007 announcement, however, says that funded states must provide “assurances” that funded curricula and materials “do not promote contraception and/or condom use.”
States Begin to Turn Away Ideologically Driven Funding
While the federal government continues to disregard proven public health strategies to curtail teen pregnancies and STDs, a growing number of states have taken proactive steps to protect the health and well-being of their own young people. As of May 2007, SIECUS is aware of ten states that are currently not participating in the Title V program or will be discontinuing their participation in the next two fiscal years. This will leave close to $12 million, or more than one fifth of the annual budget for this funding stream, unspent—funding that could be better used by states on evidence-based, comprehensive prevention efforts that meet the public health needs of their young people.
Maine and California are among the pioneers in the movement of states saying “no” to Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding. California has never accepted Title V funding based on its own state evaluations that have shown abstinence-only-until-marriage programs to be ineffective. Maine, a state with one of the strongest sexuality education laws, declined funding beginning in 2005 because the programs would put the state out of compliance with its own law.
In October 2006, Fred M. Jacobs, Commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, and Lucille Davy, Commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Education, informed the federal government of the state’s decision to reject Title V funding in a letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt. According to the letter, the federal government’s abstinence-only-until-marriage guidelines contradict the core curriculum content standards in comprehensive sexuality education that New Jersey has had in place for more than 25 years. Moreover, the governor’s office cautioned that accepting federal abstinence-only dollars may, in fact, cost the state money because students may require additional sexuality education to clarify the partial and misinformation that is taught in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Another reason Jacobs and Davy cited for rejecting Title V funds was the new requirement that states adhere to all eight points of the federal government’s definition of “abstinence education” leaving them with no flexibility to determine the best approach for New Jersey students and putting them out of compliance with their own state education standards.60
Wisconsin followed suit in March 2007 when the Department of Health and Family Services announced that it would reject Title V funding for Fiscal Year 2007.61 Many advocates of comprehensive sexuality education praised this decision, which was directed by Governor Jim Doyle.62 Weeks later, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland announced that his state has no plans to reapply for Title V funds.63 Keith Dailey, spokesman for the governor, stated, “The governor believes that continuing to pay for a program that has not been proven to work is an unwise use of tax dollars, particularly when we’re facing a very challenging or constrained budget environment.”64 Similarly, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announced in April 2007 that Massachusetts would not continue applying for Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding.
A handful of other states have quietly decided not to reapply for funding for Fiscal Year 2007, as well. These decisions, made by Governors across the nation, who stand in different places along the political spectrum, illustrate that public officials from different schools of thought have come to the same conclusion: abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are not meeting the needs of the young people in their states. As such these states are rejecting policies that do not give them the flexibility to craft programs to reduce unintended teen pregnancies and prevent the transmission of STDs according to their own standards and in response to how these adolescent reproductive health issues are unfolding in their communities.
A number of other states are currently involved in serious discussions about whether to accept Title V funding, and we expect to see more courageous moves on the part of governors’ offices to protect the health and well-being of young people in their respective states.
|
On turning away federal funds for abstinence-only-until- “We don’t believe that the science of public health is pointing in the direction of very specific and narrowly defined behavioral approaches like the one that is mandated by this funding.”1 - John Auerbach, State Commissioner for Public Health, MA “In past years, your department has provided us with the flexibility to run this program in a manner consistent with our state core curriculum content standards (CCCS). However, strict adherence to all of the elements of the Title V abstinence education program is not consistent with the Comprehensive Health and Physical education standards and the New Jersey’s AIDS Prevention Act of 1999.”2 - Fred Jacobs, Commissioner, NJ Department of Health and Services, letter to HHS “I don’t believe abstinence-only education programs work in the long run. There is some evidence that they may delay the onset of sexual activity, but over the long term, there’s no data there that show they prevent, in a statistical sense, sexual activity outside of marriage. I believe in a comprehensive approach.””3 - Governor Ted Strickland, OH “There’s a debate now about whether kids should be taught abstinence only. Of course abstinence is the best choice for kids, and that’s an important message they need to hear. But ideology isn’t more important than our kids’ health.”4 - Governor Jim Doyle, WI
|
When ACF could no longer ignore this growing number of states turning back federal dollars, it issued a memo to “State and Territorial Agencies administering or eligible to administer grants in the State Abstinence Education Grant Program funded under Title V, Section 510 of the Social Security Act.” The memo attempts to reassure states that there is “flexibility in administering the State Abstinence Education Grant Program.” However, the implication that states have flexibility is disingenuous. The memo states that HHS “in its efforts to reduce out-of-wedlock births and teen pregnancy, uses multiple approaches and does not focus exclusively on abstinence education” and that “abstinence education is another tool in the toolbox.” At this point, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are the only “tool” to which the federal government gives any substantial support. In fact, there are no federal funding streams for comprehensive sexuality education and the A–H federal definition of “abstinence education” attached to all federal funding streams prohibits discussion of condoms and contraception, except in terms of their failure rates.
ACF is blurring the intent of its own policy in an attempt to subdue state’s concerns about the restrictions placed on abstinence-only-until-marriage funding and turn around governors’ decisions to reject funding they believe to be ideologically driven and poor public health practice.
State Legislation also Impacts What Young People Learn
While the decision to turn back Title V funding is often made by officials in governors’ offices and departments of health, other decisions that impact sexuality education—both positively and negatively—are voted on within state legislatures. In 2007, some legislators attempted to combat progressive approaches to instruction of human sexuality and implement abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Other legislators around the country, however, introduced several bills that require, mandate, and/or expand comprehensive sexuality education in public schools, as well as other measures that require all materials used in sexuality education instruction to be age-appropriate and medically accurate.
In Utah, Governor Jon Huntsman signed a bill into law in March 2007 that requires parental consent for students to join clubs and allows schools to deny a club application if leaders think it necessary to “protect the physical, emotional and moral well-being of students.” This bill was clearly designed to target such groups as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and limit the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth and their supporters. In fact, Senator Buttars (R-District 10), sponsor of the bill, announced in February of 2007 that, “My agenda is straight and clear. I don’t like gay clubs.”65
Lawmakers in New Jersey attempted to restrict access to sexuality information in a different way when the state senate introduced a resolution that would urge Governor Jon Corzine to apply for the almost $800,000 of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding available to the state through Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program. The resolution states that, “to reject available funding which can be used for a needed and worthy program for our children is poor public policy, and students should be taught that abstinence is the only completely reliable option available to prevent pregnancy or the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.” As discussed above, Corzine had previously decided that the abstinence-only-until-marriage funding was too restrictive and at odds with the states laws which support a comprehensive approach.
Conservative lawmakers in Missouri also attempted to curtail progress in their state. Missouri’s law explicitly requires schools to teach “the latest medically factual information” about contraception. Lawmakers introduced a bill which would effectively gut this good law by instead requiring that students are presented with “information on contraceptives, pregnancy and abortion, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal Abstinence Education Law.” Moreover, the sponsors of the legislation refused to acknowledge that the bill’s language was misleading and that, in fact, the federal guidance around “abstinence education” has always been interpreted to mean that no information about condoms and contraception, other than their failure rates, can be discussed in a classroom.
However, not all legislative agendas across the country were so bleak. Lawmakers in Iowa and Washington State passed legislation that requires any school district offering courses in human sexuality to include information on contraception and STD prevention. These bills also require that any instructional materials used are culturally sensitive for all students including students with disabilities and students of all sexual orientations. Colorado school districts are now also required to include comprehensive and medically accurate information, with the exception of those that accept federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding. These bills were signed into law in all three states. These wins at the state level are crucial to the health of young people in those states and represent an increase in legislative wins from last year’s session.
New York advocates also continue their efforts to pass the Healthy Teens Act. This bipartisan bill would secure funding for age-appropriate and medically accurate sexuality education for youth in New York State. As of this writing, the Healthy Teens Act passed the house and the senate health committee. In Minnesota, legislation introduced in February would mandate school districts to implement age-appropriate, medically accurate sexuality education programs in grades seven through twelve. Montana lawmakers also offered a bill that would provide funding for comprehensive sexuality education to local, county, and tribal health departments, however, the bill died.
Advocates in North Carolina are supporting legislation that would modify the state’s existing laws to include information about both abstinence and contraception. In other states, such as Florida and Missouri, comprehensive sexuality education supporters continue to advocate for legislation that would guarantee young people receive comprehensive sexuality education that is medically accurate and age-appropriate.
LOOKING AHEAD
As the federal government continues to support a growing movement and industry dedicated to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and advocates of comprehensive sexuality education in the states push back, we look towards the future and are heartened to see progress on many levels.
Evidence Continues to Mount Against Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs
Since we released the previous edition of SIECUS State Profiles in July 2006, the conversation around abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, and the federal funding behind them, has been bolstered by numerous government and NGO reports. These various reports, which reviewed the content of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, the federal policy driving their funding, and the federal government’s accountability, have shed light on the ineffective programs that have been garnering more than $1.5 billion in federal funding over the past quarter century.
The July 2006 report False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers released by Representative Henry Waxman found that, under the Bush administration, CPCs have received over $30 million in federal funding and virtually all of that funding has been funneled through federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding streams.66 This report on CPCs followed Waxman’s December 2004 report that verified what many public health experts and advocates had been saying since the advent of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs showed that 11 of the 13 most commonly used abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula in federally funded programs contain medical misinformation, use fear and shame, blur religion and science, and perpetuate stereotypes about gender roles.67 Despite this report, our research found that these 11 curricula remain quite popular in federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
In another report released in 2006, the Society for Adolescent Medicine (SAM) examined the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage policy and determined that such programs are an infringement on young people’s basic human right to the highest attainable standard of health.68 The authors concluded that these programs, which withhold information about contraception in an attempt to coerce young people into abstinence, may actually “cause teenagers to use ineffective (or no) protection against pregnancy and STIs.”5 The paper also notes that “abstinence-only sex education classes are unlikely to meet the health needs of GLBTQ [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning] youth, as they largely ignore issues surrounding homosexuality (except when discussing transmission of HIV/AIDS), and often stigmatize homosexuality as deviant and unnatural behavior.”69 The authors recommended that federal funding for the programs be redirected to comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education.70
Since that time, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released two findings calling into question HHS’s oversight of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding and programs. In October 2006, the GAO released a letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt finding that HHS was in violation of federal law by failing to enforce a requirement that the federally funded grantees working to address the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, must provide medically accurate information about the effectiveness of condoms.71 The next month, in response to concerns about HHS spending of millions of taxpayer dollars on these programs raised by several members of Congress, the GAO released a report outlining evidence that the federal government failed to provide effective oversight for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.72
Perhaps most importantly, however, in March 2007, after years of delay in its release, a federally supported evaluation of Title V funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs showed that the programs were ineffective in changing teens’ sexual behavior. The report, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. on behalf of HHS, found no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence. Students in the abstinence-only programs had a similar number of sexual partners and a similar age of first sex as their peers not in the programs. Out of 700 programs, the four programs studied weren’t selected randomly—they were hand picked and they still failed. As prominent researcher Doug Kirby has said, “This was a very rigorous study with very clear results.”73
Success in Hometowns
Despite the myriad debates on the federal and state levels, much of what young people learn in the classroom about sexuality is actually decided on the local level, and this year there have been many victories that continue to encourage advocates for comprehensive sexuality education around the country.
After a long controversy involving comprehensive sexuality education in Montgomery County, Maryland that drew national attention, local advocates celebrated a victory in January 2007. The controversy stemmed back to 2005 when the county’s school board gave approval to a revised sexuality education curriculum that spoke positively of gays and lesbians and expanded instruction on the importance of contraceptives and condoms in protecting the health of sexually active students. National right-wing organizations from Florida and Virginia, as well as major national groups like Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, descended upon the community in an attempt to usurp local decision-making.74
After a battle that embroiled the school board and mobilized local parents to action on behalf of comprehensive sexuality education, a revised sexuality education lesson for eighth and tenth graders was approved by a unanimous vote in January 2007. The new lessons discuss sexual orientation and gender identity in the eighth and tenth grade Family Life Curriculum, and the tenth grade health classes will include expanded information about the importance of using condoms for sexually active youth.75 The new program, which utilizes a curriculum titled Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality, was field tested in select middle and high schools in the spring of 2007. Only four percent of parents chose to exercise their “opt-out” rights and remove their kids from the lessons. Supporters celebrated this as proof that “the vast majority of parents approve teaching their teenage children about sexual orientation.”76
Ohio experienced a similar victory in October 2006 when the mayor of Cleveland made an announcement outlining his decision to implement and fund a city-wide comprehensive sexuality education program that discusses both abstinence and contraception. The age-appropriate program will begin in kindergarten with lessons on “how viruses work and appropriate and inappropriate touching.” Students in grades four through six will begin learning about puberty and reproductive health and those in grades seven through twelve will get information on interpersonal relationships, STDs, including HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, and respect for sexual orientation. This change in policy will ensure that Cleveland, home of one-third of all Ohio HIV/AIDS cases, provides its young people with the information they will need and use into adulthood as they make decisions about their sexual health.77
Other successes in school districts across the country are taking place, as well. In March 2007, the Alameda Board of Education in Alameda, California unanimously approved a policy making condoms available in high schools in the district.78 In Oregon, the North Clackamas and Beaverton school districts approved a comprehensive sexuality education program that includes information about abstinence, contraception, condoms, and responsible decision making. While the Oregon Department of Education has been encouraging school districts to adopt such programs for years, new health education standards effective in early 2007 have pushed districts to consider reviewing curriculum and programs. The Oregonian reported in January that many school districts are expected to follow suit.79
A comprehensive sexuality education program in Bamberg County, South Carolina, written about in the American Journal of Health Education and the Wall Street Journal in August 2006, was credited with effectively reducing the county’s teen pregnancy rate which is quickly falling below the national and state average. The program was developed in 1982 by Murray Vincent, a professor at the University of South Carolina’s School of Public Health, with a $50,000 federal grant. The purpose of the grant was to design an intensive teen pregnancy prevention program. The program relies on a mix of in-classroom and outside activities. The classes include 45 minute life skills sessions and lessons on healthy relationships, self-esteem, abstinence, and contraception, which are integrated into the school curriculum.80 This success points to the fact that public policies can work when they are rooted in science.
CONCLUSION
As we reflect on the past year, we see numerous hopeful signs that point to a future where every young person has the information they need about their own sexual health in order to make responsible choices and lead healthy lives.
As states continue to make headway by turning away federal dollars for programs that have no proven effectiveness, they are sending a strong message to Washington that states should have the flexibility to craft and fund programs that meet their own needs. This reaction demonstrates the collective power that state policymakers have when it comes to the federal government.
We also know that public opinion in America continues to be in our favor. Over the last two decades, public opinion polls have demonstrated that parents and adults agree that young people should have comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education in school. One of the most recent studies, by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and published in the Fall 2006 issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, found that, regardless of their political leanings or religious affiliation, most Americans favor medically accurate, age-appropriate education that includes information about both contraception and abstinence, as opposed to programs that take an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach.81
These factors, in combination with reports and findings over the last year that have called abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs into serious question, will continue to aid advocates around the country in their efforts to secure responsible laws and policies for comprehensive sexuality education at the state and local levels. The fact that the abstinence-only-until-marriage hardliners have created a lobbying arm and hired a firm known for smear campaigns confirms that they consider their programs and funding in jeopardy. The National Abstinence Education Association, representing a right-wing, socially conservative agenda, will bring their fight to Washington and national advocates of comprehensive sexuality education, in concert with state advocates, will answer their call with research, public support, and science on our side.
SIECUS will continue to monitor and expose the fear and shame tactics of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and the misinformation they continue to spread. We expect to see more of the same from abstinence-only-until-marriage organizations as long as there is funding available to them. However, we are heartened by the progress made by the strong and committed coalitions and advocates at the national, state, and local levels who work everyday to see that young people have the range of information they need in order to live long and healthy lives.
References
Home |
Publications |
Support SIECUS |
Links |
About SIECUS |
Site Navigation |
Search |
Donate |
Contact Us
Policy & Advocacy |
Media |
International |
Library |
Youth Development |
School Health Education Clearinghouse
copyright ©
1996-2007 , SIECUS
Web Master: siecus@siecus.org
Print