Sex education funding increases, accuracy falters

Since President Bush took office, federal funding for “abstinence-only’’ sex education has more than doubled.

Abstinence-only programs, which encourage teenagers to refrain from sex outside marriage and provide no information about contraceptive options, are to receive $167 million this fiscal year, and the president wanted to give even more: $270 million.

Whether these programs are effective in reducing unwanted pregnancy and whether they work better than more comprehensive sex education programs are charged questions.

Advocates on both sides insist that the data resoundingly back their position, but in fact it’s too early, and much of the work that’s been done has been too loosely designed, to provide conclusive answers.

That is troubling in itself: As the federal government devotes increasing funds to abstinence-only programs, it ought to insist on rigorous studies to determine whether they work.

What’s gotten even less attention, though, is the content of the federally funded abstinence-only curricula.

The government reviews only a brief summary about the programs it funds, and applicants must teach, among other things, “that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.’’

Astonishingly, for most of the programs there’s no requirement that the information they provide be scientifically accurate. In fact, a study released this week by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) cites numerous examples in which abstinence-only programs spread false or misleading information.

The study found that, of the 13 most often used federally funded abstinence-only curricula, 11 contained “errors and distortions.’’

Some of the cited statements were anachronistic, if not outright offensive. “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments,’’ says one guide.

Another offers a fable of a pushy princess who’s dumped for a village maiden: “Moral of the story:

Occasional suggestions and assistance may be all right, but too much of it will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess.’’

The teaching materials also exaggerate the failure rate of condoms and minimize their ability to prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that “latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.’’

These kinds of misstatements shouldn’t be tolerated in programs paid for with federal funds. It’s good to encourage adolescents to refrain from having sex, and there’s evidence this message is having an effect.

The latest figures show a continuing drop in teen pregnancy rates—the birth rate among girls ages 10 to 14 is at its lowest level in 60 years—and a major part of the decline appears due to delaying sexual activity.

That’s terrific, but for those who don’t abstain, there must be accurate information about how to avoid pregnancy and disease. Dissuading people from using condoms by suggesting they don’t work is particularly counterproductive.

—This editorial appeared in
The Washington Post