news blog | May 02, 2012 | 44 comments

Obama administration backs abstinence-only sex ed

By Stephanie Whiteside / current.com

When it comes to policies on sex education, it's the GOP that's pushing for abstinence-only policies, right? Not necessarily; the Obama administration quietly added an abstinence-only curriculum to the list of officially sanctioned guidelines from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The program is the South Carolina-based Heritage Keepers program, which is included as one of the 31 evidence-based programs for preventing teen pregnancy and it was included in the list this spring.

Students in the Heritage program are not given information about contraceptions, sexually transmitted disease, puberty or sexual behavior. They are encourage to take virginity pledges or "recommit" to secondary virginity, that marriage is the only acceptable context for sexual behavior, and given time to envision and plan their future wedding day.

With a focus on modesty (one guideline recommended by the group is to "declare everything covered by a bathing suit as off-limits.") and a focus on heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable outlet for sexual urges, the Heritage Keepers curriculum fails to give students information on safe sex practices or address the needs — or even existence — of LGBT youth.

Those aren't trivial omissions. RH Reality Check reports that approximately 40 percent of high school students have had sex, and roughly 30 percent of new HIV infections are in people under the age of 29. The emphasis on heterosexual marriage and exclusion of LGBT youth also feeds into a climate where nearly two-thirds of LGBT students report feeling unsafe at school.

If all this weren't troubling enough, abstinence-only sex education doesn't prevent teen pregnancy. Studies have shown that students receiving comprehensive sex education (which includes information on birth control) were 60 percent less likely to become pregnant. Additionally, there was no corresponding increase in sexual activity. Teen pregnancy in the U.S. has fallen to a record low in recent years. This is good news, but the states with the highest rates are those that have abstinence-only sex education policies.

Sex education is a sensitive subject for educators and politicians, one that collides full force with the vast array of religious and moral views that exist in the U.S. But why deprive students of all the information they need to make their own individual choices? Quietly going along with the conservative spin that abstinence-only policies are no less effective than comprehensive sex education is doing just that. The Obama administration should be looking to research that supports the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education, not catering to the moral fear-mongering coming from abstinence-only programs and their supporters.

(Photo: Getty Images)

  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   news blog
  2. tags:
    Obama,  Obama Administration,  The Underreported Story
  3.     
    |

44 comments // Obama administration backs abstinence-only sex ed

  • Robin_Thompson
    • 0
      Robin_Thompson  

    • Not all conservatives back abstinence only programs. I am conservative and lead a high school girl's group on Monday nights at my church. They come voluntarily, and we share what we believe from the Bible. But, we are also very understanding that they may come and listen, but not practice what we preach. They know we accept them no matter how they choose to live their lives; they also know that we may disagree with their lifestyle, and still trust us.

      We've created such a good rapport with the girls, that recently a youg girl came to us - she thought she was pregnant. When we found out she had sex unprotected, we told her our bigger conern was for her health. We told her that though we disagree with premartial sex, if she wants to continue in that direction to be smart and protect herself. We told her if she doesn't want to talk to her mom, at least go to planned parenthood for condomns and to get on birth control.

      All this to say, don't dismiss all Christians/Republicans as irresponsibly teaching our youth. I agree that our youth need to be informed so they can be safe from STDs, and so they can prevent teen pregnancy. Yes, I disagree with premarital sex, but I would rather my high school girls be safe and informed if they are choosing to partake in premarital sex.

    • 1 year ago
  • BonniJones
    • 0
      BonniJones  

    • I am all for dropping condoms from planes if that's wht it takes, but I am with the pres on this. If a portion of the population wants to teach their kids the merits of abstinence, it is not my right to shove sex down their kids' throats. And here's another obvious reality people: do you want the G.O.P. in the white house? If not, don't insist upon alienating a huge portion of the population and leaving them no alternative but to vote in the fundamentalist right. I personally hit the ground running at an early age, but it wouldn't be a bad idea for people to spend less time playing with their privates and more time functioning.

    • 1 year ago
  • unimatrix0
    • +1
      unimatrix0  

    • Why is Current doing a hit piece on Obama? This is very misleading.

      The Obama admin has allowed ONE abstinence only program on their list of 31 approved sex-ed programs. The administration is not backing abstinence only sex ed, but they are allowing a token representation of abstinence only sex ed. This is simply showing some respect for the great many Americans who believe in abstinence only sex ed.

      If the Obama admin refused to allow any abstinence only sex ed the right wing would be screaming fascism, socialism, etc.

      If anything, the decision demonstrates that Obama and the Obama admin. bend over backwards to be fair, inclusive and open minded.

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
    • +1
      HeatherOK  
    • unimatrix0:

      If you know something is wrong and you endorse it anyway, you're a hypocrite. People who want to endanger children over dogmatic bullshit are wrong. It doesn't matter if it's one program or a thousand; it's wrong, and Obama is wrong for signing off on it.What would be even more wrong is Current ignoring the truth and making this an Obama puff-piece. It's not a hit-piece if it's true.

    • 1 year ago
  • cmc101
  • GENERALNATTY
    • 0
      GENERALNATTY  
    • Image

    • You need to look at this from the political side of the coin, being against abstinence education can be twisted into "for teen sex" and a lot of parents already in dismay over the direction society is going even if they are being absolutely and completely naive, don't want their teens having sex and definitely don't want the president of the united states saying "hey kids have sex just do it safely" In todays fear mongering media system. Its best not to make a political issue out of things that don't need to be political issues.

      The reasons why that backwards legislation on sex ed keep passing, is because a lot of parents believe in it.

      Democracy is supposed to be government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not by the enlightened for the foolish. At the end of the day despite the factual evidence that shows this isn't necessarily the right path, the wants of the people must be considered and respected.

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
    • +2
      HeatherOK  
    • GENERALNATTY:

      No, no, NO. Absolutely not! We don't pander to the ignorant at the expense of INNOCENT CHILDREN! And those parents believe in making the world their babysitter; any amount of parenting they can shove off onto the schools is fine by them. Fuck them. If they want their kids taught that drivel, let THEM do it. Educators are there to EDUCATE, not make moral judgments for others! They should give the kids the facts and tell them about the risks, and the PARENTS should teach their kids values! These hypocrites don't want to take any of the responsibility to teach their kids values, and then they want to rail against "liberal teachers" for "turning [their] kids into liberals". Shame on them, and shame on Obama for giving legitimacy to their bullshit.

    • 1 year ago
  • GENERALNATTY
  • HeatherOK
    • 0
      HeatherOK  
    • GENERALNATTY:

      What a lot of deflection that was. Doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. One program or a thousand, WRONG. If Cenk were here he would call Obama "spineless", but frankly, I don't think he gives a shit about anything but getting re-elected anyway. Does it not bother any of you guys that he has not kept one of his campaign promises and has, in fact, been more Bush than Bush? Or are you really so blindered into this D-R crap that you just don't care what's right anymore?

    • 1 year ago
  • GENERALNATTY
    • 0
      GENERALNATTY  
    • HeatherOK:

      I don't know Obama or any politician to know what their true intentions are, election time these guys are just lawyers In the court of public opinion trying to win the case. Approving a guideline on a list that people were barely aware existed in the first place is irrelevant to whether or not it will be taught, those measures are decided by state regardless of how, the federal govt feels about it. As for Cenk I respect him but in some ways he's an idealist, that couldn't get stuff done in Washington if he was a politician in this current climate. It's easy to be self righteous from his position but Washington is a effed up place, that requires effed up tactics. Is Obama spineless? That depends on his end game. Yes he is all about getting re-elected but to get what done is the question and is mittens Romney a viable alternative.

      I think the bigger issue is, is democracy in America truly served by always having only two choices platforms to choose from? Michael Manley former Jamaican prime minister once said that "choosing between two parties every 4-5 years isn't democracy, that's just choosing between two platforms and hoping to god you know the difference between the two in the first place"

      Sometimes a injection of fresh blood is necessary.

    • 1 year ago
  • Abbynrml
    • +3
      Abbynrml  

    • This is just another example of President Obama's moderate republican views. He is willing to back their extremist agenda to get re-elected. I am finding it harder to give my support as he keeps slapping me with his lies on the campaign trail. I guarantee he will pass the XL pipeline if reelected to appease republicans. He has already extended our footprint in Afghanistan, attacked immigrants and seperated families, bailed out Wall Street and penalized them a meager 26 billion for the nearly 750 billion they stole while giving them immunity fom the easiest prosecutable & proveable offense, refused to openly support gay marriage and now with this decision caves once again, and the Big Pharma/insurance giveaway known as Obamacare. I know in my heart that a republican would cut down the social safety net and burden the middle class even more as they cut taxes for the wealthy but being sold out by your own party by members of Congress and a democratic president in a thousand little caves tothe right to get vital legislation passed is by no means better and it hurts a lot longer. What is needed is a complete overhaul of the democratic party and a purging of the blue-dogs from it. A new and clear definition of what we stand for must be voted on and all party members held to its standards. Once this is achieved, you work to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate and then a rewriting of Senate rules to end the 60 vote requirement and a simple majority reaffirmed for all legislation. Next, the filibuster must be tweaked to limit it's use so it cannot be used to stall a majority vote or to bring a vote. Democrats must start speaking out in public to their opposition to this all all his subsequent re-election promises to conservatives. Since his election, President Obama has failed to learn from his past mistakes and continues to give ground on every issue and weakens the democratic position. The right knows and exploits this weakness. Even when the president has the upperhand they have talked tough and he caves. I voted for change and hope not disillusionment and despair.

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
    • 0
      HeatherOK  
    • Abbynrml:

      I agree with much of what you said, but please refer to the posts below: both parties are in need of this "overhaul". We need to ditch this broken Right-Left mentality, stop letting the handful of people directing both sides fool us, and start making our decisions based on facts rather than this false-dichotomy bullshit.

    • 1 year ago
  • frustrated
    • -1
      frustrated  
    • Abbynrml:

      I totally agree with you and I believe Obama was put in place to make people vote republican in the next election. People knew that we americans were not going to elect a republican after going through 8 years of bush so they put Obama believin he would make them look better.

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
  • jubal
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • TENNESSEE:

      “Teen 'Sexual Activity' Bill OK'd”

      Knoxville News-Sentinel (04.30.12)::Tom Humphrey

      The Tennessee Senate on Friday approved a House amendment to SB 3310, sending the sex education guidelines bill to the governor for consideration.

      Under the measure, classroom instructors who promote or condone “gateway sexual activity” are subject to a $500 fine. The bill says “gateway sexual activity means sexual contact encouraging an individual to engage in a non-abstinent behavior.” Some lawmakers objected to that language, calling it unclear. “Gateway sexual activity is so vaguely defined it could be holding hands, hugging, anything that teenagers do like that,” said Rep. Mike Steward (D-Nashville).

      The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jim Gotto (R-Nashville), said the definition is based on state criminal code. Sexual contact is the “intentional touching” of another person’s “intimate parts, or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of ... any other person’s intimate parts, if that intentional touching can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification,” according to section code.

      Rep. John DeBerry (D-Memphis) spoke out in favor of the bill. “Everyone in this room knows what gateway sexual activity is,” he said, noting that leaving teens without classroom guidance has resulted in the state caring for thousands of neglected or abused children.

      SB 3310 calls for the family life curriculum taught in schools to have an “emphatic and exclusive” focus on abstinence; current law calls only for an emphasis on abstinence. The measure also allows parents to bring charges against an instructor for condoning “gateway sexual activity.”

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
    • +2
      HeatherOK  
    • jubal:

      Wow, that is truly awful. These fascists would have us abandon peronal responsibility entirely, wouldn't they? And really, like teachers don't have enough problems. What a bunch of jerks.

    • 1 year ago
  • cmc101
  • Ricky84
    • +3
      Ricky84  

    • Whoa this reminds me of when President Obama tanked the DC voucher program to score some political points even though parents overwhelming supported the program. Say what you want about the guy but he WILL burn a few folks to benefit politically.

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
    • 0
      HeatherOK  
    • Ricky84:

      Reminds me of ALL the bullshit promises he's made and renegged on. Gitmo? Open. Wars? Ongoing and multiplying! Civil liberties? He WROTE NDAA HIMSELF. Change?? Hardly. Just more of the same old Bush-y crap.

    • 1 year ago
  • cmc101
  • HeatherOK
    • +1
      HeatherOK  
    • cmc101:

      Huh? I cannot tell if you are agreeing with me or not, nor what you're actually trying to say. Please clarify. If you think I don't think Bush a scumbag, you are mistaken. All I'm saying is that Obama is no better, as evidenced by his own actions.

    • 1 year ago
  • cmc101
  • CELTIXSHAMROX
    • -4
      CELTIXSHAMROX  

    • People should be careful what they ask for! If contraceptives were used back in the old days, most of these folks that leave these ridiculous comments wouldn't be here or occupying wall st.! Watch what you wish for you might just get it!!

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  

    • Abstinence only programs have consistently been demonstrated to not prevent teen pregnancy or lower transmission rates of STD's. The evidence is overwhelming that this strategy doesn't work. Could this be another example of Obama cow towing to another special interest group? In this case the extremist religious people?

    • 1 year ago
  • frustrated
    • 0
      frustrated  
    • jubal:

      evidently no one is spelling out for them what abstinence means. No one is standing in front of them and telling them that a BJ is sex, anal is sex, I once read an article where kids who went through abstinence thought they could still do those two things. They should be telling these kids abstinence means no sex of any kind

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  
    • frustrated:

      That is one article. Not everyone gives comprehensive education. The reality is that children are sexual beings from very early ages. I was a child once and I know that I had curiosity about my genitals and the genitals of other kids, even adults. I masturbated as a child beginning probably around the age of 6. Probably earlier, but I just don't remember. Sexuality doesn't just start when you magically are declared an adult by society. 200 years ago, 14 year olds were getting married and having kids. So all this "morality" about sex is an Evangelical Puritan creation forced upon a secular society that was trying to break free from domination by religion, only now everything is slipping back under religious control, even programs such as sex education.

      I assure you that when I give classes here in my county, I explain what abstinence is, and I don't stigmatize it. But I am realistic and know that kids are going to touch and fondle and look and get excited and if they do end up doing something that they "shouldn't" then its better if they are equipped with the facts.

      I was raised with abstinence only education back in the 60's and what did that get me? What did that get most of my school comrades? STD's, teen pregnancies, and HIV.

      So from personal experience I can tell you that only teaching abstinence is a disaster in the making.

    • 1 year ago
  • EngineeredObsolescence
    • 0
      EngineeredObsolescence  

    • Idk, I certainly think abstinence should be the message well into high school. I mean what do you suggest? Handing them the Kama Sutra and telling them to have fun?

      Teenage sex really didn't help most of us, and in fact caused many the pain of trips to the clinic, or being forced into parenthood without ever really knowing what it means to be a child, much less adult or parent.... And then there's the STD issue.

      Not saying that condoms, or birth control or anything else should be denied them, just.... Sex is kinda... Innate, it's something everybody figures out as they go, and standard sex ed certainly makes things clear enough...

      You can't deny them education of their organs and reproduction, as well as STD's, and potential ramifications of unprotected sex or teenage parenthood...

    • 1 year ago
  • sgwhites
    • 0
      sgwhites  
    • EngineeredObsolescence:

      There's a difference between recommending abstinence and abstinence-only sex education. Comprehensive sex education in high school includes, generally, an emphasis on abstinence -- but it also includes information about types of birth control and safe sex practices. Even if kids don't end up having sex in high school, most people are going to at some point so knowing how to be safe is important. Accurate information about how STDs are transmitted and can be prevented, what forms of birth control exist and how they are used, along with education on abstinence and the physical and emotional ramifications of sexual activity can all give kids information on which to base their own choices.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • sgwhites:

      I have been doing HIV education since 2004 to in my community speaking to Middle School, High School, Community College, and University Students. Our state requires comprehensive sex and STI education which includes suggesting abstinence but also talking about transmission prevention strategies which includes condoms. Our program in our county should serve as a national model because we have probably one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the country. This was not the intention of HIV Alliance's Speakers in the Schools program, but it certainly has been a very pleasant side effect of our comprehensive education curriculum. We send HIV positive individuals into classrooms and to residential treatment facilities, outpatient drug and alcohol rehabilitation clinics and juvenile detention centers to speak to about what it is like to live with HIV/AIDS and that has the greatest impact of all. Together with Planned Parenthood and our HIV 101 presenters, the students and community get a great comprehensive program. Also our needle exchange program has resulted in a lowered rate of IV drug user transmissions and a largely reduced number of IV users going to the emergency rooms because when they come to exchange the used needles, they get a medical visit with a nurse practitioner where they get wound care and they are offered counseling services and the opportunity to get clean and go into treatment, if they want it. The key is that they are treated with dignity, not like subhuman scum. Another unexpected side effect of this program is that our parks and rivers have been cleaned up and children can play safely without fear of coming in contact with a used IV needle.

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
    • 0
      HeatherOK  
    • EngineeredObsolescence:

      Yeah, did you read this article at all? They are not teaching these kids anything about health or safety, and that is negligence. There is plenty of room between this bullshit and "handing them the Kama Sutra and telling them to have fun". That is the sort of overly simplistic argument I expect from Rush Limbaugh.

    • 1 year ago
  • ithink
    • +1
      ithink  

    • Good try here but if true why would they have pushed contaceptives that got the catholic church and all the republicans up in arms and caused the republican idol rush limbaugh to call the george town girl those nasty names.

    • 1 year ago
  • HeatherOK
    • 0
      HeatherOK  
    • ithink:

      Because as usual, Obama is trying to play both sides. He's kinda just exactly like Romney in that regard. Check out the segment on Afghanistan where--in the same speech!--he says opposite things in an obvious attempt to pander to everyone. The short answer: Obama is every bit the corrupt politician Romney is and Bush was.

    • 1 year ago
  • MDBard
    • -2
      MDBard  

    • I hate the whole Obama administration did this or that....tell me the name of the who's who in the administration, tell me who signed off on it.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
  • jubal
  • Radical_Centrist
  • HeatherOK
    • +1
      HeatherOK  
    • jubal:

      Absolutely! It really is Us v Them, we just have the sides all wrong.

      Side 1: Us (the people)
      Side 2: DNC, RNC, MSM, their collective puppetmasters

      We either stop the infighting or we lose everything we care about. It really is just that simple.

    • 1 year ago
  • JRBarilla
  • Radical_Centrist
  • MSII
  • Radical_Centrist
  • HeatherOK
    • 0
      HeatherOK  
    • Radical_Centrist:

      Yes, this! This SO much! At what point do we abandon our knee-jerk politics for the common good? Can we not hold each person accountable for his/her actions?! And yeah, awesome reference. Thanks for the pic!

    • 1 year ago
sgwhites
more from news blog:
from the community

top videos