CWA Applauds New Proof that Abstinence Works

Americans have received messages for years from so-called social scientists presenting “evidence” that abstinence programs are ineffective, that they actually increase sexual activity among teens. Now, a landmark study on abstinence education published in a refereed journal, The Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, gives solid evidence that abstinence education is effective in delaying teen sexual activity, preventing teen pregnancy and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases. The study, conducted by University of Pennsylvania researchers and funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, found that two years after the program only one-third of the ‘abstinence-only’ group reported having sex, compared to one-half of the ‘control’ group. Neither the ‘condom’ group nor the ‘abstinence and condom’ education groups revealed any impact on sexual involvement.

Penny Nance, Chief Executive Officer of Concerned Women for America, said, “This new study is extremely important because the earlier teens begin having sex, the more partners they have and the more likely they are to be exposed to sexually transmitted diseases. This evidence shines a light of truth on the myths that are promoted by Planned Parenthood and those who benefit financially from ‘comprehensive’ sex education programs at the expense of the well-being of the nation’s adolescents and pre-teens.”

The study involved 600 Black youths (grades 6-7) who participated in 1 of 4 randomly assigned interventions. One group had 8 hours of abstinence education; another 8 hours of condom education; another 8-12 hours combining abstinence and condom education; and the control group received no education about sexual behavior.

Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Director and Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America’s think tank, the Beverly LaHaye Institute, said, “When informed, parents have overwhelmingly indicated that they don’t like the agenda-driven content of so- called ‘comprehensive’ sex education programs. All thinking adults recognize that teen sexual activity is harmful to teens and the consequences can be life- changing (ranging from STDs to unplanned pregnancies). Yet, the left continues to offer teens the option of so-called ’safe sex’ as though they are expected to engage in sexual activity and that it can be made ’safe’ for their physical and psychological well- being.”

Crouse added, “BLI’s research and analyses show that many of the positive reviews of comprehensive sex education — self-defined as ‘evidence based’ — are misleading and biased. Frankly, leftist organizations have convinced Congress to de-fund abstinence programs based on self-serving, financially-driven myths that have been constructed without a solid foundation in fact or scientific evidence.

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

Source:  Fort Hard Knox.com

About That Abstinence Study

Thanks, Maggie, for speaking up on this important issue:

Somebody up there has a wicked sense of humor.

How else do you explain the release this week of a new study by John B. Jemmott III proving that an abstinence-only education program works?

First President Obama slashes virtually all federal funding for abstinence-only education programs in 2010. (”It’s about time that evidence-based management — and sanity — return to family planning programs,” applauded Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.)

Then just last week, the Guttmacher Institute — which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood, but usually does good science anyway — reported that teen pregnancy rates are once again rising. Oddly, with a minimum of evidence, the Guttmacher Institute decided to blame abstinence-only education.

“After more than a decade of progress, this reversal is deeply troubling,” intoned Heather Boonstra, the institute’s senior public policy associate. “It coincides with an increase in rigid abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which received major funding boosts under the Bush administration. … Fortunately, the heyday of this failed experiment has come to an end,” and new federal rules ensure that programs will be “based on research demonstrating their effectiveness.”

Good job, Obama!

Less scientifically credentialed voices spoke more like Scripps Howard columnist Bonnie Erbe: “A new study should silence members of the religious right who continue to support the nonexistent efficacy of abstinence-only sex education. … Nothing silences zealots, least of all truth or the facts.”

So the release of this new study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine this week is weirdly timely.

What about that new abstinence study?

Well, it’s just the gold standard for intervention research, a bright and shining pinnacle of research design that social science seldom ever reaches: random assignment. In this case 662 black sixth- and seventh-graders in low-income communities were assigned to one of four interventions, plus a control group: abstinence-only education, contraceptive “safer sex” education, two different comprehensive-education programs, plus a control group of kids who received general health education. Even the teachers were randomly assigned to one of the five groups.

The main conclusion of this rigorous clinical trial? “The abstinence-only intervention compared with the health-promotion control intervention reduced by about 33 percent the percentage of students who ever reported having sexual intercourse by the time of the 24-month follow-up, controlling for grade, age and intervention-maintenance condition.”

Wow. Any negative side effects? Are the kids less likely to use condoms? Nope. The authors report that “a randomized controlled trial and a literature review found no effects of abstinence interventions on condom use. Similarly, in this trial the abstinence-only intervention participants did not differ in self-reported consistent condom use compared with the control group.”

How about the contraceptive “safer sex” education program? Did teaching the kids to use condoms make them more likely to use condoms? Remarkably, no. The kids in the control group were just as likely to use condoms as kids given safer-sex education. Well, then, did the comprehensive “abstinence plus” approach do better at increasing condom use, compared to doing nothing? No, it did not either delay sex or increase condom use, either. The abstinence-only approach, in this one rigorous study, was the only one that “worked.”

I know this is only one study, no matter how high quality. Can it be replicated? Do other abstinence-only approaches work equally well? Do they work with older teens or middle-class teens? Would similar clinical trials support the efficacy of some other types of abstinence-plus programs? There is much to be learned.

But recall that the Guttmacher Institute required no real study at all to claim (and get widely reported as “fact”) that abstinence-only education was causing the increase in teen pregnancy rates.

Yet in 2008, according to a Health and Human Services funding analysis requested by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., the federal government spent just $177 million on abstinence education compared to $609 million on contraceptive-based sex education.

Are progressives like Carolyn Maloney going to call for an end to safer-sex education now? Will the Guttmacher Institute retract its attack? Will President Obama step forward to restore abstinence-only funding?

We will learn something about the alleged commitment of people like this to science from their response to this new research.

By Maggie Gallagher

Maggie Gallagher is president of the National Organization for Marriage and has been a syndicated columnist for 14 years.

Source:  RealClearPolitics.com

Abstinence classes might work: report

This was an interesting blog report that I recently read:

 Educators are being asked to take another look at sex education for 11 to 13-year-old students in light of a recent study from the United States that suggests abstinence programmes could persuade young people to delay sexual activity.

 

The report, written by researchers from Pennsylvania University and published in the Archives of Paediatric & Adolescent Medicine, found only a third of the 662 students who completed an abstinence programme started having sex within the following two years, whereas nearly half of the students who attended other programmes, including ones that combined contraception and abstinence, became sexually active within the two-year timeframe.

 

The study concluded that theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.

 

“Abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in delaying sexual activity until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. This can reduce undesirable consequences of sex, including pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections like HIV and Aids,” the researchers said.

 

New Zealand lobby group Family First has welcomed the study and has called on the education sector to take another look at the sex education curriculum.

 

“New Zealand parents have long supported their children being taught abstinence, self control and good choices rather than the flawed ‘we don’t want you to but here’s how anyway’ method currently short-selling our young people,” national director Bob McCoskrie said.

 

“With New Zealand having one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the OECD, it’s time we acknowledged the importance of giving our teens the real facts of life - that postponing sexual involvement is in their very best interests. This is further evidence that abstinence-only intervention can help teenagers delay sexual activity,” he said.

 

“The current sex education curriculum is failing to meet national standards, parental expectations, and is based on a false assumption that everyone is doing it - which they’re not. It’s time the current approach was ditched.”

 

However, Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand president Peter Gall said he was happy with the programmes schools used to teach sex education.

 

“I’m absolutely convinced any responsible educator would not be promoting promiscuity in 11 to 13-year-olds in any way, shape or form and certainly there is a message there about abstinence.

 

“Although it’s hard to ensure that it happens,” Mr Gall said.

 

He said the programmes run included information about abstinence as well as information on contraception and ways to be protected from pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

 

Mr Gall said he was “pretty sure” messages about abstinence were given in every school in the country.

 

“I don’t think the report will make much difference in relation to those programmes,” he said.

 

The study released on Monday involved 662 African-American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004.

 

Source:  Otago Daily News

 

Abstinence Education Works

Article 2/2/10 from citizenlink.com

by Nima Reza, managing editor

Students who took part in the abstinence education class were less likely than their counterparts to engage in sexual activity.

Abstinence education is effective in reducing sexual activity among youth, according to a study published in the February 2010 Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine conducted by University of Pennsylvania researchers.

The students in the abstinence class initiated less sex, had fewer sexual partners and had more pronounced risk reductions compared to those receiving safe-sex and comprehensive sex education.

Leslee Unruh, president and founder of National Abstinence Clearinghouse, said abstinence programs showed “kids there are too many great things riding on their future to risk it to STDs, pregnancy and broken hearts.”

“Finally, a study that proves what those of us who have been teaching abstinence have known for years,” she said, “these programs help develop self-control and self-esteem, teaching kids they do not need to fall prey to the game of Russian Roulette with condoms.”

More than 600 high-risk African-American students, in grades 6-7, took part in a study that confirms what pro-life leaders have said for years.

Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the 16,000 member Christian Medical Association, said science has finally caught up with logic.

“Parents have known for centuries,” he said, “by empirically demonstrating that equipping teens to abstain from sexual activity is an effective way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.”

Article 2/2/10 from citizenlink.com

Pornography causes at least two major problems for boys: They’re more likely to have casual sex and are less likely to develop successful relationships as they grow older.

The report that made the findings, Harms of Pornography Exposure Among Children and Young People, was conducted in a dozen countries.

The study also found that young boys who see pornography are more inclined to believe there is nothing wrong with pinning down or sexually harassing a girl.

Joann Condie, a licensed counselor, said viewing porn can warp God’s intent for sexuality.

“If boys are viewing pornography,” she said, “they begin objectify females and see them as something to be used for self-gratification, rather than to be viewing them in an honorable, respectful way.”

– Staff Report

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
February 2
, 2010

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A national Christian doctors organization is applauding a new study showing how abstinence education is more effective than either comprehensive sexual education or teaching only about contraception. They say the results coincide with polling data showing parents favor teaching their children abstinence.

Dr. David Stevens, the head of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association, said he appreciated the new study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.

Science has finally caught up with logic and what parents have known for centuries by empirically demonstrating that equipping teens to abstain from sexual activity is an effective way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases,” he said.

Stevens told LifeNews.com: “It is notable that John B. Jemmott III, the University of Pennsylvania professor who led the federally funded study, candidly admitted, ‘I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence.’”

“What we should learn from this experience is that while science itself is objective, scientists themselves can be biased and can mislead the public and policy makers,” he said.

Stevens pointed out that a survey from Zogby International shows that when parents become aware of what abstinence education versus comprehensive sex education actually teaches, support for abstinence programs jumps from 40% to 60% while support for comprehensive programs drops from 50% to 30%.

Some 59 percent of parents said more funding should go to abstinence education; 22% said more should go to comprehensive sex education.”

Stevens said it is time for abstinence education opponents to realize that abstinence education is effective.

“Many groups and individuals up until yesterday had relentlessly railed against abstinence programs as totally ineffective, even counterproductive,” he said. “They had used their own studies to convince many legislators, including President Obama, to eliminate federal funding for abstinence programs altogether, in the process depriving teens and their parents from a potent resource that can mean a lifesaving difference.”

He concluded: “It turns out that when it comes to educating their children on matters of sex, Mom and Dad really do know best.”

Source: www.lifenews.com

Abstinence-only programs might work, study says

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010; A01

washingtonpost.com

 

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

The findings are the first clear evidence that an abstinence program could work.

“I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence,” said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. “Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used.”

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After falling for more than a decade, the numbers of births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing.

The Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective. Instead, the White House is launching a $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work — a program the administration on Monday proposed expanding to $183 million.

“This new study is game-changing,” said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. “For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex.”

The study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully designed approach comparing it with several alternative strategies and following subjects for an extended period of time, considered the kind of study that produces the highest level of scientific evidence.

“This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education,” said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. “I’ve always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap.”

Longtime critics of the approach praised the study, saying it provides strong evidence that such programs can work and might merit taxpayer support.

“One of the things that’s exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire,” said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.

“No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there’s promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention,” said Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

“There is no data in this study to support the ‘abstain until marriage’ programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program is equivalent to many other well-designed abstinence curricula that are thorough, tailor their messages to students’ ages and provide detailed information.

“For our critics to use marriage as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is,” said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

The study released Monday involved 662 African American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004.

Students were randomly assigned to go through one of the following: an eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching them other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising. The abstinence-only portion involved a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.

Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52 percent who were taught only safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who learned about other ways to be healthy did.

The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

“The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy,” said Jemmott, adding that he thinks the program would be equally effective among other age and racial or ethnic groups.

“There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms,” he said. “This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer.”

Quotable Quotes

“I am only one, but still I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do something.”

Edward Everett Hale

“This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education,” said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. “I’ve always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap.”

Heritage Foundation: http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=4589

Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html?referrer=emailarticle

Family Research Council Press Release: http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/frc-responds-to-new-study-showing-abstinence-education-is-most-effective

Quotable Quote

“Character is power.”

Booker T. Washington




About

The Abstinence Clearinghouse is a privately funded 501(c)3 non-profit, non-partisan international educational organization. The Clearinghouse was founded to provide a central location where character, relationship, and abstinence programs, curricula, speakers, and materials could be accessed. The Clearinghouse serves agencies on a national, state and local level, as well as international organizations.