Children & the Law Blog

In my colleague’s post, What Does Justice Mean For a 14 Year Old Girl Who Kills Her New Born Son? (07/02/08) he references the surprisingly common case of a woman who was unaware of her pregnancy until going to an ER in pain.  It was her second child.  The Baytown girl charged with capital murder also claims that she was unaware of her pregnancy.  The veracity of her claim may prove crucial to her case and is quite plausible. 

One can safely assume the sex health education taught in Goose Creek (Baytown) ISD meets the state’s abstinence-only-until-marriage guidelines.  If the 14 year old’s knowledge of pregnancy and childbirth was limited to the information Texas teachers are allowed to provide adolescents, she knew little if anything at all.

An irony in this case is the fact that the class was being taught the week the girl gave birth.  Another is that three weeks later (4/23/08) the program is being questioned by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data are staggering:

About 1/3 of girls in the United States get pregnant before age 20.  In 2006, a total of 435,427 infants were born to mothers aged 15–19 years, a birth rate of 41.9 live births per 1,000 women in this age group.  More than 80% of these births were unintended…  Although pregnancy and birth rates among girls aged 15–19 years have declined 34% since 1991, birth rates increased for the first time in 2006 (from 40.5 per 1,000 women in this age group in 2005 to 41.9 in 2006).  

Although this article will not discuss at length concerns regarding sexually transmitted disease (STD), keep in mind that unprotected sex presents the potential for unwanted pregnancy and potentially life-threatening illness.  According to the CDC 2006 National Surveillance Data for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis girls age 15-19 have the overwhelmingly highest rates of Chlamydia.  Less notorious than the other two STD studied or HIV, Chlamydia is extremely transmissible, often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed as a more benign yeast infection and causes painful Pelvic Inflammatory Disease which if untreated can lead to sterility or even death.

Yet school age children in Texas and 27 other states are essentially taught to just-say-no. Their state’s acceptance of federal funding for abstinence-only education disallows teachers and school administrators from offering any additional prevention information.  Seventeen states have said, “no thanks.” 

Abstinence-only education has a lengthy and complicated history.  Emphasis on abstinence-only education began during the Reagan era.  After a brief period of openness during the early 1990’s, the policy was signed into law as an attachment to the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act. The statute allocates funding only to states that promise their schools will teach students –including sexually inquisitive and active teens– to simply pledge abstinence.  Specifically, Title V, Section 510 states that “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which: 

1. has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity
2. teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children
3. teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
4. teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
5. teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
6. teaches that bearing children out-of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
7. teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances
8. teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Educators, youth advocates, and family planning, public health, and HIV experts initially objected with no luck and no data at the time to convince the conservative Congress otherwise.  Despite independent studies suggesting oherwise, the Bush administration bolstered funding for the policy.  Furthermore, it has ignored data showing no significant behavioral changes with abstinence-only educated children versus those receiving comprehensive sex education.  A study commissioned by the government was quietly released over a year ago with little more than a press release.   

Comprehensive sex education incorporates abstinence into a more complete discussion of family planning and safer sex; and also can be tailored for age appropriate information.  Astinence only advocates often suggest that sex education should be provided by parents in the home.  If that is the case, why have you and I spent over a billion dollars telling school children to just say no?

Key critiques of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs include: 

> Abstinence only as a program goal is out of touch with current trends.  In fact, 95% of Americans have intercourse before marriage.

> Many abstinence-only programs withheld vital information such as accurate condom efficacy or dispensed blatant misinformation such as claims that 50% of gay youth have HIV and 10% of women commit suicide post-abortion.  Although many have corrected their curriculum, some persist in promoting false information. 

> Abstinence-only programs have failed to demonstrate behavioral changes based on extensive evaluation.

> Conversely, evaluation of comprehensive sexuality education programs (virtually all include abstinence education) show that many help youth delay sex and learn how to use condoms if/when they decide to have sex.

> Declines in adolescent sexual activity (often touted as proof that the abstinence-only program works) preceded widespread federal funding of abstinence-only education and are attributed to better use of contraceptives.  Sadly, data also show that those numbers are again on the rise.  

For those eager to suggest only certain liberal organizations intent on encouraging underage sex oppose the policy, think again.  The list of organizations publically opposed to the failed policy includes: the American Medical Association, Office of National AIDS Policy, Institute of Medicine, CDC, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

It is time for policy makers to just say no to a failed policy that serves ideology, not youth or public health. The situation of an unwanted pregnancy in which school girls across America find themselves, IS shameful.  However, the shame is not on them for becoming pregnant.  The shame is on policy makers who have failed to speak truth to the complex topic of sex.  The shame is that ineffective abstinence only programs have received $1.5 billion tax dollars.  Conversely, zero tax dollars are spent on comprehensive curriculum which has been proven more effective by states that refused federal funds.  

For more information — including tips for discussing sex with your own children — check out the following websites:

Centers for Disease Control — http://cdc.gov

Advocates for Youth — http://www.advocatesforyouth.org

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy — http://www.thenationalcampaign.org

The Healthy Teen Network — http://www.healthyteennetwork.org