Ironically,
these are exactly the kind of sentiments attributed to young people involved in
American programmes that have actively campaigned against the provision of comprehensive sex education to young
people. These programmes have also pursued a policy of teaching that the only
safe sex is sex within marriage - advice which, if followed literally, would
imply no choice but celibacy for entire populations.
Such ‘abstinence-only-until-marriage’
(AOUM) sex education programmes became an important factor and focal point of
debate within global HIV prevention from 1996 onwards, because the largest
single programme funder, the USA, pursued a policy of reserving HIV prevention
funding (or a proportion of funding) solely to programmes that taught this
philosophy. This policy applied not only to domestic HIV budgets but to PEPFAR,
the US
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the largest single funder of
international HIV care and prevention.
From 1996
onwards, the only money directed by the federal government towards sex
education for young people in the United States was directed towards
programmes specifically teaching teenagers that the only sure way to avoid
pregnancy, STIs and HIV was to abstain from sex altogether until marriage.
Note that
this policy change happened around the start of Bill Clinton’s second term, as
the policy is usually and erroneously associated exclusively with the George W
Bush administration (though Bush greatly increased funding for this programme).
The Clinton administration was the first to set aside $50 million a year
specifically for abstinence education, though the Christian Education Centre
had first mooted abstinence education as a way of reducing HIV and STIs in
1987, and programmes such as ‘True Love Waits’ had been running since 1992.
Comprehensive
sex education packages, often financed by states or local authorities, included
abstinence as one of the strategies teenagers could use. However they also
included unbiased information on methods teenagers could use if they were
sexually active, including condoms and oral contraceptives.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage
programmes were quite explicit about ruling out such a comprehensive approach.
Two of the three federal funding streams that financed these programmes (AFLA
and Title V) required that states signed up to an eight-point definition of
abstinence education, which stated that, to be eligible for funding, a
programme must:
A Have as
its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to
be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B Teach
abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for
all school-age children;
C Teach
that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid
out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated
health problems;
D Teach
that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is
the expected standard of sexual activity;
E Teach
that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful
psychological and physical effects;
F Teach
that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for
the child, the child’s parents, and society;
G Teach
young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use
increases vulnerability to sexual advances;
H Teach
the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual
activity.
By 2000,
three separate programmes financed AOUM programmes:
Section 510 of the Social Security Act
(Title V), federal funding
The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA)
- The
Community-Based Abstinence Education Program (CBAE).
Total
funding in 2007 for these programmes was $204 million, and in total the George
W Bush administration is calculated to have spent 80% of the $1.5 billion
directed towards AOUM programmes.1 There
was no comparative federal funding set aside directly for comprehensive, non
abstinence-based sex education in schools. Conservative think-tank The Heritage
Foundation2 argued
that this was still only one-twelfth the money spent on all condom provision
and comprehensive sex education, and that a large proportion of the federal
money was in fact being spent by ‘abstinence-plus’ programmes which taught
abstinence as the preferred option in a comprehensive sex education package.
Abstinence-only
programmes and their public funding attracted criticism from the start,
however, and opposition to them grew as the scientific evidence pointed towards
their ineffectiveness (see below). In June 2006, more than 200 organisations, coming
from all 50 US states and
the District of Columbia,
launched a nationwide No More Money campaign (see
www.nomoremoney.org) in an
effort to stop federal funding for AOUM programmes, co-ordinated by the
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US (SIECUS). California had always
refused Title V funding, and a growing list of states joined in this refusal.
From the
late 1990s, scientific studies, including randomised controlled trials, were conducted
on abstinence programmes, and also on non-exclusive comprehensive sex
education. This research found that AOUM programmes did not achieve their aims.
Over long-term follow-up, most AOUM programmes had no effect whatsoever on any
measure of subsequent sexual risk taking (see below). In contrast, similar
studies showed that comprehensive sex education programmes that mentioned
abstinence as one of a menu of choices, alongside monogamy, condoms,
contraception and so on, were in the main effective using the same measures.
In the
face of this convincing scientific evidence, the administration of President
Barack Obama made a major policy change. It abolished the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) and Community-Based Abstinence
Education Program (CBAE) streams in 2009, and in 2010 it proposed the
replacement of the largest funding stream, Title V, with a new stream called
the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), which would teach
comprehensive sex education to children and young people between the ages of ten
and 20. This was allocated $500 million over the next five years. The
background documents to PREP explicitly encourage states to devise curricula
that are based on “the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and
questioning youth” and rates against “how their programs will be inclusive of
and non-stigmatizing towards such participants”.
In August
2010, however, Obama lost a vote in congress to abolish Title V altogether.
Instead, the money was split equally between Title V and the new PREP scheme,
allocating $250m over the next five years to each. However, while the PREP
programme offers 100% grants towards states applying for it, states applying
for Title V funding only get 25% of the cost and must match-fund it with the
other 75%. Under these circumstances, state governors who opt exclusively for
Title V are open to the accusation of wasting public money.