HEALTH ARTICLE NEWSLETTER ONLINE

Article 1: http://www.oocities.org/mrhealthnutcoceo/ziftyarticle1.html Article 7: http://www.oocities.org/mrhealthnutcoceo/Zzicka_article7.html Home Page of Articles: http://www.oocities.org/mrhealthnutcoceo/ziftyindex.html Home Page: http://www.oocities.org/mrhealthnutcoceo/

Federal funds are being diverted into so-called "abstinence education". This paper looks at where the funds are being diverted, how the education is happening, and to what extent this education works. Less than half of the money put into this program is actually being spent in the public domain with roughly 51% going to private organizations, of which roughly a fifth or 11% of the total money is going to faith-based organizations (Sonfield). New York was the biggest offender diverting almost 50% of monies into these faith-based organizations. The fact that this amount of money is being spent in the private (and faith-based) sector suggests that this law is not for the public education but more for special interests. It is telling that this money was funded around the same time that we were considering war with Afghanistan which was going to require fancy monetary budgeting. Despite that, this plan of pointless education methods was pushed through. Some states are using the money to talk about the threat of HIV/AIDS and about ways to use contraception which are not against the letter of the law. However, only 1/5 of states offer information about contraceptives along with their abstinence information and only 3/5 offer information about AIDS. If 40% of states are not offering information about HIV/AIDS along with abstinence, one wonders what the educational value of these programs is. One of the things that sex education should do is at least mention why safe sex is important, besides the threat of AIDS could even be argued to be about abstinence education. It is galling that this program has been construed as narrow as it has, the money must be used for abstinence education and abstinence education only. It seems to me that the requirement is a content-based restriction of free speech for whoever teaches the program. A 1996 report revealed "are aware of no methodologically sound studies that demonstrate the effectiveness" (Dailard). Yet, this seems to be a continually pushed agenda in politics today. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy published a report in October 2002 where it looked at ten different studies that claimed to have credible evidence that abstinence education worked and only one of the ten studies showed any real evidence in changing attitudes. It is interesting to note that an organization such as this was able to be so unbiased about their programs; they admit how little effect the abstinence education has had. In essence these programs have had absolutely no effect on teen pregnancy or rates of sexual activity. It is amazing that abstinence education is still being purported when teaching about safe-sex has proven to be more effective. I firmly believe that it is the private, special interests that ended up receiving more than half of this money that pushed the bill through Congress. It is amazing to me that no one has challenged the constitutionality of anything that requires one type of education about sex, when it is so obviously a content-based restriction of our basic freedoms. Resources Used: States' Implementation of the Section 510 Abstinence Education Program, FY 1999 Adam Sonfield; Rachel Benson Gold Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 33, No. 4. (Jul. - Aug., 2001), pp. 166-171. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-7354%28200107%2F08%2933%3A4%3C166%3ASIOTS5%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A Dailard, Cynthia. Guttmacher Report. April 2000. https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/2/gr030201.html Kirby, Douglas. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen. October 2002. https://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence Kirby, Douglas.<span> </span>The National Campaign to Prevent Teen. October 2002. https://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence_eval.pdf