In my view, there are several problems with the ah definition. For example, part "a" of the definition indicates that abstinence education "has as its
exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity." The first question is, how can a program meet the "a" part of the definition (exclusive purpose) and then also meet the seven other parts of the definition? The answer; it can't.
The second problem is with access to information. If the program has abstinence as its exclusive purpose, then information about contraceptives should not be a part of such programs. Several programs funded with "a-h" monies do, however, include information about condoms and other methods of birth control. The emphasis, however, is on the (overstated) failure of these methods in preventing sexually transmitted disease and/or pregnancy.
<snip>
That is a major message of many abstinence programs funded under a-h, "be abstinent, because condoms don't work." My concern is that most people will not choose abstinence, but many will believe the misinformation about condom effectiveness. Consequently, because they now believe that condoms don't work, they will not protect themselves from sexually transmitted disease.
<snip>
The "b" part of the definition indicates that abstinence education programs are those that teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children; the "d" part of the definition expands the marriage standard from school age children to everyone, regardless of age, teaching "that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity." This is problematic for two reasons: (1) again, we don't know the behavior, or behaviors from which we are expected to abstain and (2) the definition imposes a value or standard to which the vast majority of adult Americans have not adhered and simply do not support.
Another concern is accuracy of information. Part "c" of the definition indicates that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems. The fact is that (1) abstinence is not a guarantee of protection from sexually transmitted disease, since diseases, such as HIV, can also be transmitted via contaminated blood; (2) non-married people who are non-infected, who only engage in sex with people who are also non-infected, will neither transmit nor receive an STD from engaging in sex with such individuals.
Part "e" of the definition also raises concerns regarding accuracy. Part "e" indicates that one should teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects....One must acknowledge that sexual activity (however it is defined, and whether inside or outside of marriage) may have harmful psychological and physical effects. Acknowledging that something is a possibility, however, is quite different from making a blanket assertion that such outcomes have a reasonable expectation of occurrence or that they will probably occur.
<snip>
Three current federal programs fund abstinence education programming. There is direct federal funding of a number of Adolescent Family Life (AFL) demonstration projects from the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (OAPP). OAPP must use the a-h definition and has indicated that programs do not have to emphasize all eight aspects of the definition, but must not be inconsistent with any aspect of the definition. Abstinence education funding is also block granted to states from the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health. Again, projects must not be inconsistent with any aspect of the a-h definition....The third program is also from the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (SPRANS Abstinence Education Grants). This program provides direct abstinence education funding to community groups. Grant applicants must demonstrate that their proposed program will meet all eight aspects of the a-h definition. These tend to be sizable grants, as much as $800,000/year for a three year project period.
In addition to the direct funding of abstinence education programs the a-h definition has had a broader influence on the educational landscape. Some states are indicating that all school-based educational programs about sexuality must teach abstinence only and have adopted the a-h definition. Many school districts in other states have also adopted an abstinence only education policy.
<snip>
A big issue related to the use of many abstinence education curricula is medical accuracy. Our young people want and need accurate information, but many abstinence curricula spread misinformation. They often include a number of other errors of fact, provide incomplete and misleading information, and promote a negative view of sex.
Information about condoms. A common area of concern is condom use. Many abstinence curricula do present information about condom use, but ignore the clear weight of the evidence that demonstrates that condoms are effective in preventing pregnancy, reducing the transmission of HIV, and reducing the risk of transmission of most other STDs. Instead they concentrate on providing information designed to discredit the use of condoms, including overly exaggerated failure rates. The message is that AIDS kills and condoms and contraceptives don't work in preventing AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, or pregnancy.
Several programs talk about two failure rates for condoms; a high failure rate for pregnancy typically seen among adult condom users and an even higher rate (sometimes more than twice as high), typically seen among teen users. I have yet to see, however, an abstinence curriculum that offers an explanation for these differences. It might be of value to explain the concept of method failure versus user failure. After all, it is important for those who use condoms to know that if they expect condoms to work they must use them correctly, and use them every time. Curriculum authors could explain that failure rates are typically higher among teens, because teens are less likely to use condoms consistently and correctly. Instead, the authors give condoms a high failure rate, and often indicate higher rates for teens, and offer no explanation.
When Contraceptive Technology (Hatcher et al., 1998) states that condoms have a three percent failure rate for preventing pregnancy, the authors clearly explain that by this they mean that three percent of the couples who consistently and correctly use condoms to prevent pregnancy have a pregnancy at the end of a year of use. If one conservatively figures an average coital frequency of 83 acts per year, this is a failure rate due to failure of the method on an order of 0.04 percent of the times a condom is used. When abstinence curricula indicate a failure rate, they simply indicate a percentage figure, leaving students to possibly interpret a 36 percent failure rate to mean that of every 100 acts of intercourse using a condom, 36 will result in a pregnancy.
Michael Young: American Journal of Health Studies
