Teen abstinence campaign does more harm than good

  Mitra Ebadolahi Ebadolahi is a
fourth-year international development studies and history student
who believes that the forces of good will kiss evil on the lips.
She encourages comments at [email protected].

Click Here for more articles by Mitra Ebadolahi

Nearly a decade after George Bush Sr. promised Americans no new
taxes, George Jr. has decided to eliminate the horizontal
hokey-pokey.

This summer, the White House announced its new “no
sex” campaign, which will receive $30 million in federal
funding in 2002 and as much as $135 million in subsequent years.
The campaign is rooted in an “abstinence-only” message
and will divert federal resources away from contraceptive programs
and sex education (“Administration Promoting
Abstinence,” Washington Post, July 28).

Since taking office, President George W. Bush has aggressively
pursued policies aimed at diminishing or eliminating family
planning services, youth sex education initiatives and reproductive
health services for poor women.

The separation between church and state has been blurred as
religious politicians working in key departments have prioritized
funding for conservative church groups preaching against
pre-marital sex. Having these religious politicians in key
positions has resulted in many conflicts of interest.

For example, a deacon working in the Department of Health &
Human Services questioned a parent-child sex education program
designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because
it conflicted with the Catholic beliefs of HHS secretary Tommy
Thompson (Washington Post, July 28).

But sex education and family planning work.

Since former California governor Pete Wilson overturned his
conservative abstinence-only campaign in favor of comprehensive
family planning services, more than 100,000 unplanned pregnancies
have been prevented in this state per year, including 41,000
abortions and 15,000 miscarriages (Washington Post, July 28).

The Conservative Coalition’s hold on the Bush
administration is made obvious by such actions as the Bush
administration’s releasing a report questioning the efficacy
of condoms.

But medical experts at the CDC, the U.S. National Institutes of
Health and World Health Organization have rejected this report,
maintaining that latex condoms, when used consistently and
correctly, are the only contraceptive proven to protect against
unplanned pregnancies and decrease the risk of sexually transmitted
diseases, including HIV.

While in high school, I was trained by the American Red Cross to
serve as a youth HIV/AIDS volunteer educator, and went to countless
high schools throughout Orange County to teach my peers about safer
sex.

Unbelievably, nearly every school district in the area
prohibited the ARC from showing correct condom use. We were allowed
to talk about safer sex, but could not demonstrate the means to
that end.

Now, let’s think about this. How many shy, awkward
teen-agers (or, conversely, macho, invincible teen-agers) are going
to feel good about using condoms when the time comes to have sex if
they have no idea what they are doing?

The chances of improper contraceptive use or, worse yet, of
having unprotected sex is inversely proportional to the amount of
information young people have about all contraceptives and their
functions, especially condoms.

In the AIDS era, subscribing to an “ignorance is
bliss” policy regarding sex and sexuality can have lethal
consequences. Honesty and access to information are crucial;
unfortunately, many concerned parents and conservative policy
makers believe that candidly discussing condoms and safer sex
techniques will inevitably lead teen-agers to have more sex, and
sooner.

But WHO studies indicate that safer sex education programs do
not necessarily result in increased sexual activity among young
people. In fact, in nearly a quarter of the programs studied, the
WHO found that educating youth about safer sex and condom use
actually delayed sexual activity.

Teen-agers aren’t stupid, nor are they immune to their
raging hormones. Sexual activity and experimentation can be a
healthy expression of a young person’s budding sexuality
““ as long as each teen-ager is fully aware of the health
risks and possible repercussions of sex and the treatments for
them.

Although the Bush administration’s efforts will not stop
young people from being sexually active, it will eliminate crucial
safe sex resources, which means more teen-agers will end up with
STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Well-stocked condom dispensers on high school campuses,
up-to-date sex education programs and expanded funding for
community health clinics are just some of the steps Americans must
take if we are serious about confronting and combating the negative
consequences of sex.

There is no margin for error or ideology; supporting abstinence
programs has the potential to have a profoundly negative and
life-endangering impact on American youth.

Parents may not want their children to experiment with
pre-marital sex, but they cannot ultimately decide how their
teen-agers will behave. In light of this reality, the most
important role a parent can play is that of an educator.

Sexuality, especially teen-age sexuality, is often stigmatized
in American society. Yet this stigma comes with a human price
““ in the seven months since Bush took office, 12,000 young
Americans have contracted HIV (Washington Post, July 28). We cannot
“just say no” to sex. Instead, we must try to confront
sex openly so that young people no longer die due to ignorance.