Monday, December 29, 2008

Surprise: Abstinence Pledges Do Not Result in Abstinence

From this morning's Post:
Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking." Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds

Okay, I'll admit, there's something going on here that I don't get. I think a lot of people like me were kind of surprised to see the reaction that Sarah Palin's pregnant teenage daughter got. Conservatives, the religious right, the puritans -- they loved it. They were overjoyed that that child had gotten knocked up, and I don't get that.

So here we learn that abstinence pledges don't ... I was going to say "don't work," but I might be missing something. Maybe they do work. Maybe it is a smashing success when teenagers have unprotected sex and make wonderful babies. Maybe that's the point. Some of us on the liberal side think that a person should reach a certain stage of maturity before they become a parent, maybe it's a good idea to marry first. Weird thought, I know.

Does anybody really think that you can get teenagers to put off having sex by getting them to promise not to do it?
The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges," Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active -- and most do well before marriage -- they don't protect themselves or their partners?"

James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get real about sex education in America."

I'll bet he didn't really say "head out of the sand." The fact that our federal government puts money into these programs is just insane. Teenagers -- more than ever now, with the Internet streaming sexual fantasies at them -- need to get accurate information about sex.

This is one thing that I really hope turns sharply around after January 20th.
Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins.

"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Woo hoo, them's some strong words, lady! "Wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate--" oh, never mind.
Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.

Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use a more stringent method to account for other factors that could influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before they took the pledge.

Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends' attitudes about sex and birth control.

"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense."

What would you do if you were fifteen or sixteen years old and they came around trying to get you to sign some kind of thing like this? Yes, I would say the pledgers are different from other kids.
By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.

"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge," Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program."

Our county's schools are well on the way toward a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum. Students learn a lot in middle and high school about sex and the risks involved. But it's all such a political game.

I remember when the MCPS citizens advisory committee, which I am a member of, was discussing a new curriculum. Somebody said, shouldn't there be something in here about what to do if you get pregnant? Really, there are three choices: abort, put the baby up for adoption, or raise the child. I think that just about sums it up, three choices, with legal systems to support them and the support of society. You could feel a chill in the room as we discussed this, knowing full well our county's schools would never be allowed to address such an obvious topic.

And here's something else you might discuss among yourselves, another politically charged topic. Do you think our county's sex-ed classes teach about the clitoris? It appears on some illustrations of the female reproductive system, I know, but do you think any teacher tells students what the clitoris is for? And why do you think that is?

As long as we're on the topic, look at this. Another article in The Post this morning talks about the clitoris and won't even say the word. Speaking of a little Kurdish girl named Sheelan, they say "part of Sheelan's genitals." Maybe somebody can tell me, what's the big secret? It's an anatomical structure, a body part with a proper medical name, how is it that one of the nation's leading newspapers can't even say the word? This whole article is about the way the clitoris is treated in Kurdish society, and they cannot bring themselves to tell the reader what it is they're talking about. In Kurdistan they cut it off, in America we just pretend it doesn't exist.

Okay, back to the related subject of abstinence pledges.
While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of those who had not.

Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms in abstinence-focused programs.

"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control."

But Huber disputed that charge.

"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the risk."

It is time for the government to stop supporting these stupid abstinence programs. I know there are people who think it's important to preserve ignorance but if there is any lesson we have learned over the last eight years it is this: don't let those people make decisions that affect the rest of us. They may be nice folks, their intentions might be good, but we don't want them running things. Let's use our educational system to educate.

44 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing to remember about this study is that it took place mainly in the Clinton years. During this time, Clinton had begun to provide funding for abstinence programs and the more widespread these programs were, the lower the teen pregnancy rate fell. Indeed, teen pregnancy rates had reached historically low levels until the last two or three years when they've begun to inch up.

What changed? Well, groups like TTF launched an attack on such programs and the general societal milieu changed. School education is only a part of this milieu. Suddenly, these kids were hearing their parents getting up in public and saying, "these kids are going to have sex anyway, we can't stop them". A PR campaign against the whole idea of abstinence is taking a toll.

And how about the sexually transmitted diseases?:

"there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the two groups"

Read that again. Chastity pledgers have the same rate of STDs despite significantly less use of protection.

What does that tell you?

Obviously, the programs at least promote better choices in partners and type of promiscuity. Apparently, that's a better form of protection than something you get at the drug store.

To sum up:

The rise of abstinence programs caused teen pregancy rates to plummet.

This study indicates that comp sex ed doesn't reduce the incidence of STDs. Participants have the same rates as participants in ab-only programs.

How is that an argument for comp sex ed?

December 29, 2008 10:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very interesting data, however, it´s not surprising. I have always found that it´s better to empower our children with science-based information in order to protect themselves and others.

I bet the CRC is going to be up-in- arms about this!! Let´s see what kind of hateful mass emails they will send out this time...I always love a good chuckle.

December 29, 2008 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I have always found that it´s better to empower our children with science-based information in order to protect themselves and others."

Sure, like failure rates of condoms and birth control and statistics about the dangers of promiscuity and extra-marital sexual activity.

And Jim's right, options for dealing with pregancy should be included with the latest scientific data about the viability of fetuses and what the development of fetuses is like at different stages. Films of late term abortions being performed would also be helpful in combatting the evil of abortion.

December 29, 2008 11:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

teen pregnancy rates had reached historically low levels until the last two or three years when they've begun to inch up.

What changed? Well, groups like TTF launched an attack on such programs and the general societal milieu changed.


Let's see some links to news reports of TTF's "attack on such [abstinence-only] programs" and the "general societal milieu change" that occurred in 2005-2008. (No one should hold his/her breath waiting for Anon to deliver these!)

Long term readers of this Vigilance blog are well aware that TTF supports comprehensive sex education programs in MCPS and that it was the CRC who "attacked" because MCPS revised its comprehensive sex education curriculum. CRC leaders thought they had a mandate because Bush was reelected in 2004 and with the GOP guidance they sought and received, planned to "INFLAME" county residents and file a lawsuit "merit or no merit" to try to force the unanimous BOE to change its plans to update the outdated curriculum. TTF didn't even begin to form until several of its founders attended the first public CRC meeting, where CRC began to plan their attack on MCPS. TTF formed to defend science and MCPS, not attack them.

And what was happening to funding levels for abstinence-only education during the years you question? It nearly tripled from $60 million in 2000 to $173 million in 2006 and again in 2007. In truth, teen pregnancy rates rose during the time our tax dollars were used to pay for more of these ineffective abstinence-only programs than ever before. During the Reagan years, only $4 million a year was spent teaching abstinence-only programs.

Chastity pledgers have the same rate of STDs despite significantly less use of protection.

What does that tell you?


It tells me that MCPS was right to include a full lesson on a very clear and accurate demonstration of the proper use of condoms, which the CDC states should be used correctly and consistently for each instance of sexual contact. "Typical usage" of condoms, which an uneducated abstinence pledger might be able to do, results in condoms being only 85% effective at preventing STD transmission and unplanned pregnancies, however, "correct and consistent usage" of condoms results in an effectiveness rate of 98%. All comprehensive sex ed programs should include the film and lesson plan MCPS developed. It would be even better if all comprehensive sex ed programs included the hands-on condom use lessons taught in the OWL (Our Whole Lives) sex ed program of the Unitarian Church.

December 29, 2008 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sure, like failure rates of condoms and birth control and statistics about the dangers of promiscuity and extra-marital sexual activity.

And Jim's right, options for dealing with pregancy should be included with the latest scientific data about the viability of fetuses and what the development of fetuses is like at different stages. Films of late term abortions being performed would also be helpful in combatting the evil of abortion."

Sure and then don't forget to include the failure rate for abstinence pledges and a film of the most common abortion procedure (during the first trimester) and the tablespoon of tissue it produces. The more truthful information provided in class, the more informed our teens will be.

MCPS Mom

December 30, 2008 5:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Bea, for the info. Anon's deliberate misinterpretation of information gets boring, but one of the most useful things about this blog for me is the information given by the well-informed correspondents. Yay for TTF.

rrjr

December 30, 2008 10:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't responded to Bea's misleading statements yet, Robert, but tell me one thing I misinterpretted.

I know it's boring for you but remember, this is for posterity.

December 30, 2008 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're welcome, Robert.

Happy New Year's Eve Eve to all of TTF's readers!

December 30, 2008 11:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see that five hours later, Robert hasn't the guts to back up his statement.

Just goes to show, those who can join the conversation, do; those who can't...well, let's just say they don't.

On to Bea:

"Let's see some links to news reports of TTF's "attack on such [abstinence-only] programs" and the "general societal milieu change" that occurred in 2005-2008. (No one should hold his/her breath waiting for Anon to deliver these!)"

This is an odd comment. Is Bea saying that reality only happens when documented by news reports?

TTF's attacks on abstinence programs is amply documented on this site.

The general societal shift has been argued for by TTFers here regularly. Are they now denying it?

What happened is the lunatic left became enraged when they lost the 2004 election after being lead to believe they would win by the media. At that time, teen pregnancy rates were at historic lows. The newly motivated sex ed advocacy groups began aggressively pushing promiscuity assumption approaches and kids took notice. When liberals start getting up at PTA meetings and school boards nationwide and saying kids are all going to be sexually active anyway so we've got to show them how to do that safely, kids are listening.

"Long term readers of this Vigilance blog are well aware that TTF supports comprehensive sex education programs in MCPS and that it was the CRC who "attacked" because MCPS revised its comprehensive sex education curriculum."

fact check: CRC really has no relevance to this discussion because they've always supported comp sex ed. The 2004 controversy was about certain different approaches to comp sex ed. CRC wasn't arguing for ab-only sex ed.

"CRC leaders thought they had a mandate because Bush was reelected in 2004 and with the GOP guidance they sought and received, planned to "INFLAME" county residents and file a lawsuit "merit or no merit" to try to force the unanimous BOE to change its plans to update the outdated curriculum."

This is a fantasy that has been repeated by TTFers. Those who would form CRC were working to shape the new curriculum before the election. Instead, it was the school board who delayed implementation until after the election, fearing a public backlash at the polls. CRC didn't presume liberal Kerry-supporting Montgomery County had suddenly become coservative because of the 2004 eklection.

"TTF didn't even begin to form until several of its founders attended the first public CRC meeting, where CRC began to plan their attack on MCPS. TTF formed to defend science and MCPS, not attack them."

This is incorrect. TTF was planning it's web site weeks before CRC's public meeting which many TTFers attended. Check out Einstein High's listserv logs where they discussed it.

Yes, they formed to defend poor, meager and defenseless MCPS, one of the richest school districts in the country. Their defense of science, however, is conditional on what the science says about their agenda.

"And what was happening to funding levels for abstinence-only education during the years you question? It nearly tripled from $60 million in 2000 to $173 million in 2006 and again in 2007. In truth, teen pregnancy rates rose during the time our tax dollars were used to pay for more of these ineffective abstinence-only programs than ever before. During the Reagan years, only $4 million a year was spent teaching abstinence-only programs."

Spending by the Federal government is irrelevant. It's the societal milieu that is important. Bush increased the amount of money going to ab programs right away. The increase in teen pregnancy has only happened since the formation of TTF, which was part of an aggressive push by these groups nationwide.

"Chastity pledgers have the same rate of STDs despite significantly less use of protection.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that MCPS was right to include a full lesson on a very clear and accurate demonstration of the proper use of condoms, which the CDC states should be used correctly and consistently for each instance of sexual contact. "Typical usage" of condoms, which an uneducated abstinence pledger might be able to do, results in condoms being only 85% effective at preventing STD transmission and unplanned pregnancies, however, "correct and consistent usage" of condoms results in an effectiveness rate of 98%. All comprehensive sex ed programs should include the film and lesson plan MCPS developed."

The study shows that "ab only" and "comp sex ed" have similar results on the rate of STDs. To TTFers that means we just need to refine "comp sex ed" further. Why aren't "ab only" advocates similarly justified in saying "ab only" just needs to be refined further.

"It would be even better if all comprehensive sex ed programs included the hands-on condom use lessons taught in the OWL (Our Whole Lives) sex ed program of the Unitarian Church."

Well, the Unitarian Churches are happy to put on these programs. If you want your kids to go, send them there and stop trying to tell other people what to teach their kids. There is no need for governmental involvement.

December 30, 2008 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous says "this is for posterity", then spews forth with a whole slew of untruths and misrepresentations about the curriculum, CRC and TTF's formation.

Huh?

Maybe he's creating an electronic trail that he and his buddies can quote later, much as FOF, AFTAH, PFOX, CWFA, and those 'news' blogs quote one another.

It's like the propaganda that Ernst Roehm was a notorious homosexual and gays were the founders of the Nazi party. There's no original sources for that, just quoting of propaganda.

As for an example of boring misinterpretation: something about my not having the guts to respond because I was busy for 5 hours.

Hee hee.

LOL.

I'll admit, I got up this morning, wrote a Gay Agenda, and then spent most of the rest of the day taking care of it:

1)Shower and shave
2)Gym
3)Tutoring
4)Grocery shopping
5)Lunch
6)Laundry
7)Pay bills
8)Get car inspected
9)Photocopy W-2 and mail it to department of taxation yet again
10)Clean car
11)Dishes
12)Supper
13)Make bed
14)Go on Vigilance blog to see if there is anything interesting or funny to read

A very busy day for everyone's favorite homosexual activist.

December 30, 2008 6:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous says "this is for posterity", then spews forth with a whole slew of untruths and misrepresentations about the curriculum, CRC and TTF's formation.

Huh?"

Still lacking the guts to mention one of this "whole slew of untruths and misrepresentations about the curriculum, CRC and TTF's formation"

Huh?

"It's like the propaganda that Ernst Roehm was a notorious homosexual and gays were the founders of the Nazi party. There's no original sources for that, just quoting of propaganda."

Every history book with this gay guy says the same thing.

Not that we don't have our own current batch of gay villains. We are currently suffering a economic meltdown set off by Barney Frank's "rolling the dice" with our banking system.

"A very busy day for everyone's favorite homosexual activist."

I never said you were much of a mover and shaker in the lunatic fringe gay advocacy movement.

Can we see some news reports confirming your activities?

We won't hold our breath!

December 30, 2008 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Troll: I loved your statement: "stop trying to tell other people what to teach their kids." The irony of that is just too funny!! How about "practice what you preach"? And you try to convince people that you have no interest in teaching their kids your own particular strange ideas about human sexuality education? That is laughable!
Diogenes

December 30, 2008 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, believe it or not, Dio, I think everyone should take their kids to the institution of their choice or none, if they so desire

think about it, Dio

ask yourself this:

let's say Mr Big Bad Anon is telling the truth and wants everyone to handle educating their kids about sex as they see fit

do you have a problem with that?

if so, why do you mock me?

here's another question:

if evangelicals believe in abstinence education, you say they are forcing their religion on everyone else to propose teaching that at school

if Unitarians believe in comp sex ed, you don't say they are forcing their religion on everyone else if they propose teaching that at school

does that make any sense?

December 30, 2008 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cha-ching!

People magazine is said to be paying the unwed high school drop-out duo Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston a cool $300,000 for pics of their new baby boy, Tripp.

People beat out Us Weekly, InTouch, and OK! for the snapshots of the little guy.

Congratulations to the proud parents.

The governor's office said it would not release information because it considers the baby's birth a private, family matter.

December 30, 2008 11:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well, believe it or not, Dio, I think everyone should take their kids to the institution of their choice or none, if they so desire

Then you have no complaint with MCPS since their classes on human sexuality are optional and only teens who receive parental permission to take them may enroll. You are free to decline to grant your teens permission to take these classes and are free to take them to the program of your choice.

Vigilance is full of news accounts of CRC's multiple attacks on MCPS, which were funded by out of state far right legal think tanks, and ended up costing both the county and state thousands of tax payer dollars to defend against. Anyone can easily search Vigilance and find news accounts that disprove your cockamamie stories, attempts to rewrite history as Robert points out. We've seen it time and time again.

Maybe you remember this little diddy, a cache of the CRC's internal email that a commenter posted on Vigilance on July 15, 2005. Here's an excerpt for you.

[Date=01-13-2005] Name:Mary Healy maryhealy@ix.netcom.com, [Msgid=763493]

CIVIL - NOT CONCILLIATORY
I agree Mary. There is a place for focused anger here. Lets not forget that this "quasi" elected board, immediately after the nationwide election which trounced the homosexual agenda, instituted a profoundly pro-gay curriculum. What they did was, and still is, outrageous.

This board is NOT going to recant anything because of "supplicant" appeals to listen to our position. The only thing that is going to get their complete attention is:

1. Continuing outrage streaming in to their castle headquarters
2. John Garza proceeding immediatley [sic] with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)
3. 50,000 plus signatures between the paper petition and the on-line petition.
4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites.
5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.

In other words, aggressive tactics.

[Date=01-13-2005] Name:ADMINISTRATOR support@recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, [Msgid=763679]

Msg Topic [No Replies]
Gazette article 1/12/05 Gaithersburg edition
Here's the full story from the online paper, but if you REALLY want to enjoy it you must go the the teach the facts.org website and see how they twist everything. It is there that you will read what we are really up against.

--Laura

"School board
member was going to discuss sex ed curriculum

Members of the Board of Education canceled their appearance at Monday's Germantown Citizens Association meeting on the proposed sex education curriculum after receiving threats and slanderous comments on an anti-curriculum Web site.

"The postings started having some direct threats to school board members," GCA board member Sheila Myers said. "Evidently Sharon [Cox] got some very specific ones. ... She became concerned about coming into a public meeting" where someone might threaten her physically.

"Prior to [the postings] she had said 'yes' on coming," Myers said. "She seemed very open minded about having that discussion on a community forum."

Cox and fellow school board member Patricia O'Neill were originally invited to attend. Cox and O'Neill could not be reached Tuesday for comment...."

[Date=01-12-2005] Name:Laura quigley5@msn.com, [Msgid=763129]


Comprehensive sex ed has been around since the 1970's. It didn't start when TTF formed or when MCPS voted unanimously in 2004 to adopt the revised sex ed curriculum they'd worked on for a couple of years. The advancement of civil rights for LGBT people is the milieu that's finally changing these days. How many same sex couples do you imagine consist of teenagers facing unplanned pregnancies? Members of CRC and their lawsuit partners have addressed the BOE at many public meetings and called for "Abstinence Until Marriage" to be taught and for information about homosexuality to remain banned. Some even argued there should be no sex ed at all, it should be left up to all parents entirely. Those public comments are a matter of public record and easily obtainable at the BOE in Rockville. I don't have access to any high school listservs - if you have documentation from one proving your case, provide it.

Facts can be documented, fantasies can not.

The governor's office said it would not release information because it considers the baby's birth a private, family matter.

What a great way for you show your respect for that office, by further publicizing their "private matter." Congrats to the Palin family on their latest addition.

December 31, 2008 8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Then you have no complaint with MCPS since their classes on human sexuality are optional and only teens who receive parental permission to take them may enroll.
You are free to decline to grant your teens permission to take these classes and are free to take them to the program of your choice."

The government shouldn't be involved. There are plenty of private groups which are willing to provide this type of social manipulation, if that's what parents want their kids involved in.

"Vigilance is full of news accounts of CRC's multiple attacks on MCPS, which were funded by out of state far right legal think tanks,"

Really? Any numbers?

btw, why are we talking about CRC? This post was about abstinence education, which was never suggested or supported by CRC. Your dispute with CRC was about the content of a comp sex ed program not whether to have one.

The "attacks" that TTF has made are on abstinence programs. TTF is part of a larger movement that aggressively pushed a rejection of abstinence education and shifted the social milieu. The result has been that since the 2004 election, teen pregnancy rates have begun to rise after a long decline.

"and ended up costing both the county and state thousands of tax payer dollars to defend against."

That money was spent to defend a curriculum that was unconstitutional and had to be rewritten. Are you arguing that citizens shouldn't defend the constitution in court because that would cost the state too much.

We wouldn't have a Constitution very long if that was how everyone felt.

"Anyone can easily search Vigilance and find news accounts that disprove your cockamamie stories,"

That's interesting because despite your apparent anger over my comments, you haven't done any of that "easy" disproving yet.

That's very interesting.

"attempts to rewrite history as Robert points out."

The gutless wonder named Robert has not stepped up to the plate with any substantiation of his comments.

"We've seen it time and time again."

Seen what?

"Comprehensive sex ed has been around since the 1970's."

Yes, it has. And it's implementation was immediately followed by an explosion of teen pregancy that didn't abate until churches and youth groups nationwide began developing abstinence programs in the 90s.

"It didn't start when TTF formed or when MCPS voted unanimously in 2004 to adopt the revised sex ed curriculum they'd worked on for a couple of years."

No, it didn't. But that's when the momentum toward replacing valueless comp sex ed programs with ab programs began. And, again, TTF was part of a larger movement being pushed by certain advocacy groups, who provided training for TTF. The result of this push, which shifted the social milieu, is already apparent. The progress toward reducing teen pregancy made by the ab movement is being squandered.

"The advancement of civil rights for LGBT people is the milieu that's finally changing these days."

LGBT already had all the rights everyone else had. There is no right to have public schools argue your case for you.

"How many same sex couples do you imagine consist of teenagers facing unplanned pregnancies?"

Are you saying homosexuality is a form of birth control that should be encouraged by the public schools?

Please give us a quote here.

"Members of CRC and their lawsuit partners have addressed the BOE at many public meetings and called for "Abstinence Until Marriage" to be taught and for information about homosexuality to remain banned."

There you go again. CRC supported maintaining the status quo, which was a comp sex ed program.

"Some even argued there should be no sex ed at all, it should be left up to all parents entirely."

Well, that's what I think but it wasn't CRC's position.

"Those public comments are a matter of public record and easily obtainable at the BOE in Rockville."

If anyone suggested ab education, it was another concerned party, not TTF.

"I don't have access to any high school listservs - if you have documentation from one proving your case, provide it."

This point came up here once before and Jim agreed that the site was publicly planned and discussed before CRC's initial public meeting.

"Facts can be documented, fantasies can not."

I guess you're conceding that you are being factual then since you haven't documented anything.

December 31, 2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you're conceding that you are being factual then

**eye roll**

Yes, I'm conceding that I AM BEING FACTUAL.

Everyone can see that you have documented nothing. Vigilance and BOE public records document everything I said. Some TTF-members-to-be might have discussed Michelle Turner's public announcement of her planned December 4, 2004 meeting of the CRC-to-be on the RECALLMONTGOMERYSCHOOLBOARD.com website, but there was no meeting of people who would create TTF until after Dec. 4, 2004.

I noticed you didn't argue with my documentation of the CRC's tactics of filing lawsuits regardless of merit and their intent to INFLAME, which you continue attempt to do to this day. Jim's blog above that cache deserves repeating:

This web site is not here just to make sure that kids in our county learn about sexual orientation in class. It's not really here to defend the curriculum, which was just fine, a health class, nothing you'd drop everything to go defend. I mean, of course, we address the issues that come up. This is all interesting, this stuff about gay people and condoms and everything, the culture wars and all that. But we wouldn't be here if there was just a new curriculum, any more than web sites spring up when there's a new math curriculum, or a new textbook in a biology class, or a new teacher is hired.

We are here to stand up for common sense, which is under attack in an otherwise sensible county.


CRC sued over both curricular revisions, neither of which was found to be unconstitutional, and costing county and state residents tens of thousands of dollars in tax-payer money. If one of the curricula had been found to be unconstitutional, Liberty Council would have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court instead of dropping CRC like a hot potato.

December 31, 2008 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes...a "hot potato"...actually a very cold, rotten potato - filled with writhing, screeching, odiferous maggots!

December 31, 2008 10:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DOCUMENTATION:

Domain Name: MCPSCURRICULUM.COM
Creation Date: 28-nov-2004

Domain Name:TEACHTHEFACTS.ORG
Created On:13-Dec-2004

December 31, 2008 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And one more:

Domain Name: RECALLMONTGOMERYSCHOOLBOARD.COM
Creation Date: 10-nov-2004

December 31, 2008 11:00 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Way to spank bad anonymous Aunt Bea!

December 31, 2008 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous needs a time out. He's escalating and his unconctrolled emotions are starting to drift to any target available. A few minutes in which to calm down, think about what others are saying, and to think about what he himself is saying, would do him some good.

How 'bout it, Anon? A two-day self-monitored timout? It will help you, I promise.

rrjr

December 31, 2008 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea

here are the points you made which are wrong:

1. TTF was formed as a reaction to its founders attending CRC initial public meeting

truth: TTF's founders not only were publicly planning the website prior to Thanksgiving 2004 on a local PTA listserv, they were also encouraging their supporters to attend CRC's intitial meeting in December 2004 to protest

2. CRC was advocating an abstinence only curriculum in MCPS

CRC has always maintained a position that they supported the comp sex ed program MCPS was using before the Fishback proposals

3. That I made up "cockamamie" stories

Number 3 is what I refer to when I say you haven't backed anything up.

All this tangential discussion, however, is typical of TTF efforts to obscure basic facts.

Let's recap:

Jim posted a news report on a new study showing that participants in ab programs have the same rate of sexual activity as those in comp sex ed programs.

As usual, TTFers only grasp what the writer emphasizes and don't read anything critically. Buried in the story is the fact that the study reveals that those who participate in comp sex ed programs have the same rate of STDs as those who participate in ab programs despite the fact that comp sex ed participants are more likely to use protection. That's startingly and unexpected and doesn't support further commitment to comp sex ed programs as they now are taught.

Furthermore, our country conducted a massive experiment with comp sex ed in the 70s and 80s and the result was an explosion of teen pregancy. This began to abate with the development of abstinence programs in the 90s, not mainly with involvement by the federal government. This abatement has begun to reverse as a PR campaign, of which TTF is a participant, has attacked the validity of ab programs.

Meanwhile, we hear again and again that ab programs are worthless because they don't reduce sexual activity. Yet, comp sex ed programs don't seem to reduce rates of STDs among teens and actually seem to increase teen pregnancy.

Our society would be better off if sex ed was dealt with by families and churches.

December 31, 2008 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert,

You never have any content to your comments but you do like to cheerlead for TTF.

Why don't you make a New's Year resolution to actually say something?

You decided to chime in with this yesterday:

"Anon's deliberate misinterpretation of information gets boring"

Why don't you really act up and explain what you're talking about?

December 31, 2008 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

silly anon

The long collection of things with very serious content to and on behalf of TTF are a matter of record. My original testimony held more content than anthing Ruth, Theresa,Rheta, Regina, or you have said since.

My point, if you've missed it, is that I think what you say is of little interest to yourself, and none to your audience; that you are here simply to harass and disturb others.

My interactions with you have centered around that crucial essence of how I see your behavior here: i.e. I respond to your lack of content in similar way.

My interactions with others is different, and I have many times expressed well-thought out editorials on issues, provided studies to make points, given my "average" citizen's or teacher's viewpoint, etc.

This is a serious blog, on a serious subject, with many competent people involved. You're just the little boy who's been allowed to play in the house unless he becomes too obnoxious, and is good for some comic relief.

December 31, 2008 6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is interesting although they investigators reported a 10% difference condom use between pledgers and non-pledgers. It would be worth finding out if this study simply wasn't powerful to pull that out, or if there are other factors involved.

It's common sense to me and the experience of myself and my friends that people who always use condoms significantly reduce the risk of sharing STDs, all other factors aside. DOes anoyone have links to those studies readily available?

This result is anomalous, and thus worth discussing and looking into.

December 31, 2008 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mean t to say that it is interested that they found no difference in STD despite differences in birth-control methods.

December 31, 2008 7:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

three in a row by Robert

seems he's come down with Priya syndrome

"I meant to say that it is interesting that they found no difference in STD despite differences in birth-control methods."

Also interesting that after attacking me for making a point, he now makes the same one.

Maybe these various posts by Robert were made by different personalities residing in the same individual.

December 31, 2008 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert's right. Anon's just here to harass.

First he complains that Robert won't answer the question, and then when Robert replies in three separate thoughts, he complains that "three in a row" replies were issued. Anon does that to annoy like Lucy and the football. Anon has posted much more text in some of his long winded fantasy comments than Robert posted in his three part reply. Anon's commments are nasty and laced with personal insults.

It's easy to see how it works: Anon comes here every day like a bully comes to the playground at recess. Instead of kids, he's looking specifically for gay "agendasists" to kick around and isn't out on the playground but safe at home, sitting at his PC wielding verbal assaults on lgbt folk on New Years. How sad. Reminds me of Revered Lowery's words about homophobes protesting too much.

I'm glad to be leaving 2008 behind and look forward to the changes that 2009 will bring.

Happy New Year

January 01, 2009 9:06 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You're right Aunt Bea. They don't come much more pathetic than bad anonymous. It takes a major loser to devote his life to harrassing those who harm no one.

January 01, 2009 11:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea

here are the points you made which are wrong:

1. TTF was formed as a reaction to its founders attending CRC initial public meeting

truth: TTF's founders not only were publicly planning the website prior to Thanksgiving 2004 on a local PTA listserv, they were also encouraging their supporters to attend CRC's intitial meeting in December 2004 to protest


So you say. So prove it, show us copy and pastes of listserv logs of this planning and encouragement to attend and protest Michelle Turner's Dec. 4, 2004 meeting.

2. CRC was advocating an abstinence only curriculum in MCPS

CRC has always maintained a position that they supported the comp sex ed program MCPS was using before the Fishback proposals


No they haven't, not always. For example, in his June 27, 2005 public comment before the MCPS BOE, John Garza, who introduced himself "as Vice President of the CRC and attorney for both the CRC and PFOX, and on behalf of the Board of Directors of the CRC and the Board of Directors of PFOX," (both parties to every lawsuit CRW's filed) didn't express any such support for the existing curriculum. Instead, he made this request of the BOE, "Send us a curriculum that's not offensive." And on August 25, 2005, RoseMarie Briggs, Executive Director of the Family Leader Network, party to the 2007 Appeal to the State Board of Education and to the 2007 lawsuit brought before the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, never expressed any support for comprehensive sex ed during her public comment at the BOE. She said, "Marriage is a legal union between a man and a woman that requires a license...The state of Maryland recognized the wisdom of marriage instruction with the passage of a marriage law in 2001 that provides a reduced marriage license fee for couples receiving 4 hours of instruction. Let’s start this valuable instruction in high school and teach youth relationship skills to prepare them for a marriage." She seems to be saying instead of weeks of classes studying human sexuality, 4 hours of instruction on marriage should be offered, even for gay and lesbian kids who may not legally marry the person they love. That same day, Ruth Jacobs, who represents CRC on the CAC and leads CRG, expressed no support for comprehensive sex ed either. She said "It is wrong to promote the use of steroids and mutilating surgery to change sex as normal to our youth." as if the scripted human sexuality curriculum mentioned any of that. On March 27, 2006, Michelle Turner, CRC founder and President, never mentioned any support for comprehensive sex ed in her public comments before the BOE. She mentioned two items about marriage in the draft form of the Voluntary State Curriculum and asked, "Why is none of this included in the MCPS draft framework?"

..."cockamamie" stories...[here they come]

Let's recap:

Jim posted a news report on a new study showing that participants in ab programs have the same rate of sexual activity as those in comp sex ed programs.

As usual, TTFers only grasp what the writer emphasizes and don't read anything critically. Buried in the story is the fact that the study reveals that those who participate in comp sex ed programs have the same rate of STDs as those who participate in ab programs despite the fact that comp sex ed participants are more likely to use protection. That's startingly and unexpected and doesn't support further commitment to comp sex ed programs as they now are taught.


No it illustrates one of the problems with most "comp sex ed programs as they are now taught." Very few comprehensive sex ed programs include a hands-on demonstration or clear and concise video to demonstrate the proper use of condoms. All comprehensive sex ed programs should include these demonstrations because the CDC has determined that correct and consistent use of condoms for every sexual act has an effectiveness rate of 98%, which is much higher than the "typical usage" effectiveness rate teens who are not taught these lessons can expect.

Furthermore, our country conducted a massive experiment with comp sex ed in the 70s and 80s and the result was an explosion of teen pregancy. This began to abate with the development of abstinence programs in the 90s, not mainly with involvement by the federal government. This abatement has begun to reverse as a PR campaign, of which TTF is a participant, has attacked the validity of ab programs.

I seem to recall AIDs becoming a big scare in the 80's, don't you? It seems reaasonable that fear of AIDS and Koop's recommended HIV/AIDS education efforts had an effect of lowering both teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates.

In 2004, Representative Waxman released his study on federally funded abstinence only education programs, and the Bearman and Bruckner study came out around the same time. The scientific findings showed that 1. medically inaccurate information was spread by some of the federally funded abstinence-only programs and that 2. abstinence-pledge programs had extremely high failure rates. It wasn't that the social milieu had changed, it was the fact that these scientific discoveries were found that has now lead 17 states to refuse a share of the $200 million available to provide abstinence-only programs in their public schools. Let's track changes in the teen pregnancy rates in the comprehensive sex ed states vs. the abstinence-only sex ed states for a couple of years to see which programs provide better outcomes for our society's teens. And let's add clear and correct lesson plans on proper condom usage to all comprehensive sex ed program to improve the effectiveness rates of condoms for sexually active teens.

Meanwhile, we hear again and again that ab programs are worthless because they don't reduce sexual activity. Yet, comp sex ed programs don't seem to reduce rates of STDs among teens and actually seem to increase teen pregnancy.

Show us the data supporting your claim that comprehensive sex ed increases teen pregnancy. As to the similar rates of STDs, again, most public school comprehensive sex ed programs do not contain either the informative MCPS-type video or the OWL-type hands-on condom use lessons, which should be added so that "correct and consistent condom use" when pregnancy is not intended becomes the norm. It doesn't matter if you received an abstinence-only or comprehensive sex ed program -- in either case, if you are not carefully and directly taught proper condom usage, your protection will most likely be "typical" rather than "correct and consistent."

Our society would be better off if sex ed was dealt with by families and churches.

Well maybe, if you like shotgun weddings, that's the way to go, but since we all have a stake in improving public health and reducing unnecessary costs, and especially since AIDS is a life sentence, it is imperative that our teenagers be educated on the proper way to protect themselves from risk. A, B, C, abstinence, be faithful, and contraceptives, specifically condoms are the all included in comprehensive sex education. These lessons on contraception should include a clear and correct lesson instructed teens in the proper use of condoms. Skipping any part of that ABC message is unfathomable.

January 01, 2009 12:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Our society would be better off if sex ed was dealt with by families and churches.".

You couldn't be more wrong. Most parents have so many sexual hangups that they refuse to discuss sex with their children. Churches are no better and most of them ommit critical information on preventing pregnancy and disease. With families and churches doing sex ed there are no standards and most children will receive no sex education whatsoever. The only way to ensure all children get a critical understanding of sex, birth control and disease prevention is to provide it universally in schools.

January 01, 2009 1:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea

Your analysis on Anon's posts and 'dialogue' is concise and accurate. I know Jim believes in having an open forum, but I think Anon limits thoughtful interchange with his harassment. It's like trying to have a debate with Regina Griggs.

January 01, 2009 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon's blatherings aside, it is worth our considering why STD rates are not different between the two groups, although they report different use of birth-control methods. Were the STD rates self-reported?

January 01, 2009 9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's the link to the study in question, in the Journal "Pediatrics" Patient Teenagers? A comparison of sexual activities between virginity pledgers and non-pledgers

The study's authors give no reason for the similarity of Trichomonas and Chlamydia results in the two groups, despite the difference in reported condom use. It's worth noting that condom use was determined by self-report, while STD rates were determined by urine test.

An interesting datum that I noted was that both the pledgers and the matched non-pledgers reported having been attracted to the same sex at least once at about an 8-9% rate, while 3-4% of both groups reported as identifying as gay or bisexual.

January 01, 2009 10:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we hear again and again that ab programs are worthless because they don't reduce sexual activity.

You hear about it again and again because every time another researcher conducts another study, the results indicate the worthlessness of abstinence-ony education.

January 01, 2009 11:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

apparently correct anon said:

"the study reveals that those who participate in comp sex ed programs have the same rate of STDs as those who participate in ab programs despite the fact that comp sex ed participants are more likely to use protection. That's startingly and unexpected and doesn't support further commitment to comp sex ed programs as they now are taught."

increasingly desperate Bea said:

"No it illustrates one of the problems with most "comp sex ed programs as they are now taught." Very few comprehensive sex ed programs include a hands-on demonstration or clear and concise video to demonstrate the proper use of condoms."

Bea, there is no data verifying what you say. That's the standard you want to apply to ab programs. Why shouldn't comp sex ed programs have to prove their efficacy? There is no data supporting the notion that comp sex ed either reduces the rate of STDs or teen pregnancy. None.

Furthermore, it is unknown how many comp sex ed classes nationwide already have a demo video. You imply that none do but MC already had one before the current revision. TTF and gang just didn't like it because the people in the video wore clothes that were out of date.

apparently correct anon says:

"our country conducted a massive experiment with comp sex ed in the 70s and 80s and the result was an explosion of teen pregancy. This began to abate with the development of abstinence programs in the 90s, not mainly with involvement by the federal government. This abatement has begun to reverse as a PR campaign, of which TTF is a participant, has attacked the validity of ab programs."

increasingly desperate Bea said:

"I seem to recall AIDs becoming a big scare in the 80's, don't you? It seems reaasonable that fear of AIDS and Koop's recommended HIV/AIDS education efforts had an effect of lowering both teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates."

Not really, Bea. The decline in teen pregnancy began a decade later. In addition, especially back then, the public perceived AIDS as a gay problem. Heteros weren't really worried about it.

increasingly desperate Bea goes on:

"In 2004, Representative Waxman released his study on federally funded abstinence only education programs, and the Bearman and Bruckner study came out around the same time. The scientific findings showed that 1. medically inaccurate information was spread by some of the federally funded abstinence-only programs and that 2. abstinence-pledge programs had extremely high failure rates. It wasn't that the social milieu had changed,"

Well, the alleged "medically inaccurate information" was not that significant and erred on the side of encouraging abstinence. But the more important point is that the "extremely high failure rates" were measures of sexual activity not STD rates and teen pregnancies rates. Why hasn't Waxman done a similar study on comp sex ed? Because there is currently no data confirming any beneficial effect of comp sex ed on either STD rates or teen pregnancy rates. Even if one concedes that abstinence programs have not been wildly successful, that still doesn't demonstrate that comp sex ed programs are.

Yet, the PR campaigns that groups like TTF have conducted suggest otherwise and part of their argument, that teens are to be expected to be promiscuous, is being publicly repeated and heard by teens. This has changed the social milieu.

apparently correct anon said:

"Meanwhile, we hear again and again that ab programs are worthless because they don't reduce sexual activity. Yet, comp sex ed programs don't seem to reduce rates of STDs among teens and actually seem to increase teen pregnancy."

increasingly desperate Bea said:

"Show us the data supporting your claim that comprehensive sex ed increases teen pregnancy."

Bea, the data is the nationwide explosion in teen pregnancy at the very moment when comp sex ed programs were introduced in this country. Further, almost like clockwork, the rate has begun to creep up again as a PR assault against ab programs has taken hold.

increasingly desperate Bea went on:

"As to the similar rates of STDs, again, most public school comprehensive sex ed programs do not contain either the informative MCPS-type video or the OWL-type hands-on condom use lessons, which should be added so that "correct and consistent condom use" when pregnancy is not intended becomes the norm. It doesn't matter if you received an abstinence-only or comprehensive sex ed program -- in either case, if you are not carefully and directly taught proper condom usage, your protection will most likely be "typical" rather than "correct and consistent.""

Again, this unproven conjecture. It is just as likely that ab programs with a different focus could be more effective.

apparently correct anon said:

"Our society would be better off if sex ed was dealt with by families and churches."

increasingly desperate Bea said:

"Well maybe, if you like shotgun weddings, that's the way to go,"

There you go again, Bea. Teen pregancy went up when when comp sex ed was implemented.

"but since we all have a stake in improving public health and reducing unnecessary costs, and especially since AIDS is a life sentence, it is imperative that our teenagers be educated on the proper way to protect themselves from risk."

Which is to abstain from extramarital sexual activity.

"A, B, C, abstinence, be faithful, and contraceptives, specifically condoms are the all included in comprehensive sex education. These lessons on contraception should include a clear and correct lesson instructed teens in the proper use of condoms. Skipping any part of that ABC message is unfathomable."

Well, according to the study Jim posted a story about, skipping C doesn't have any effect of STD rates so why include it?

Robert, who is giving content a shot, said:

"It's worth noting that condom use was determined by self-report"

news flash, Robert: That's the dirty little secret about all these sexuality studies.

apparently correct anon said:

"we hear again and again that ab programs are worthless because they don't reduce sexual activity."

an ignorant anon said:

"You hear about it again and again because every time another researcher conducts another study, the results indicate the worthlessness of abstinence-ony education."

Well, this study didn't show ab education to be worthless. It showed that those who participated in ab programs had the same protection against STDs that those who took comp sex ed and learned all about condoms had.

Sounds like ab education is very worthwhile.

January 02, 2009 7:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point of the study, of course, was that self-reported taking of pledges was not a good measure of success of the program, given that it had no impact on the behavior or STD rates of those who took the pledges, when compared with youth of similar backgrounds. It says nothing about the general efficacy of comp sex ed in the general population.

Here's what the CDC says: "Overall, the preponderance of available epidemiologic studies have found that when used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV infection and reduce the risk of other STDs."

Here's the link to the CDC page. You can follow it to the various studies. The google is your friend. CDC Reports Condoms Effective in Reducing STD rate

The only thing I can gather from this is that among youth with the most conservative religious views and the most negative views about sex, STD rates are not affected by reported rates of condom use. What do we do with that fact (keeping in mind that it is just one study).

January 02, 2009 2:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To this very strange and loquacious "Anonymous" person who seems to love to dominate this blog site (and apparently refuses to get his/her own): What do you do for a living? If you are gainfully employed, does your employer know how much time you fritter away from the work time for which you are paid to write the gazillions of words you spout here? If you are not employed, just exactly who is paying you to come into this site and write such outrageous, supercilious, and bigoted stuff? Is it one of those looney right-wing, crypto-fascist groups whose agenda was soundly trounced in the recent election?
C'mon...be honest and moral and ethical for once in your existence. Fess up - tell us who you are.
RT

January 02, 2009 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon is nobody, RT.

Bea, there is no data verifying what you say. That's the standard you want to apply to ab programs

Personally I would prefer ab-only programs say nothing about condoms. I mean if they're going to lie, it's better to say nothing IMHO. What I said was that whether a teen took ab-only or comp sex ed, if there was not a clear and correct demonstration of the proper way to use a condom, or better yet, a hands-on lesson, the best we can expect is "typical" use by those who took the course. I also said the CDC strongly recommends "correct and consistent" use of condoms (rather than "typical" use) because it increases their effectiveness to prevent the spread of STDs and unplanned pregnancies. Knowing the correct way to use condoms is a lifeskill we should impart to our teens so they will be better able to protect themselves.

it is unknown how many comp sex ed classes nationwide already have a demo video. You imply that none do but MC already had one before the current revision. TTF and gang just didn't like it because the people in the video wore clothes that were out of date.

Have you seen the film you're talking about? I have. The 1992 condom demonstration that MCPS has in its resources, "Hope Is Not A Method," became medically inaccurate years ago because it included statements like "Condoms not only prevent pregnancies but they are the only method that prevents the spread of sexually transmissible diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, condyloma, and of course, HIV, the virus that causes AIDS" and included birth control methods like "Foam containing nonoxynol-9."

I must say I'm surprised you're completely in favor of it since it advises teens to visit Planned Parenthood if they are facing an unintended pregnancy. The film also depicts vaginal intercourse via animation, which I believe violates the Maryland State proscription against teaching "erotic techniques." But hey, CRC has always been fully in favor of that film, just like you, huh Anon?

Not really, Bea. The decline in teen pregnancy began a decade later.

Here's some data to consider. In February 1986, Reagan directed then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to prepare a report on the AIDS epidemic. The Los Angeles Times reported that the study, released Oct. 22, 1986, was "unusually explicit" for a government report, as it described the methods of transmitting the disease. The report called for increased federal action on HIV/AIDS, including condom distribution and education campaigns, as well as comprehensive sex education in schools. In addition, Koop opposed mandatory HIV/AIDS testing for immigrants, saying such a policy would be "unmanageable and cost prohibitive." The Times reported that the Reagan White House had reviewed and approved the report (Cimons, Los Angeles Times, 10/22/86). But in a 1987 speech at the Third International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C. -- notable also for being the first time Reagan publicly said the word "AIDS" -- the president "reject[ed]" Koop's advice and endorsed mandatory testing for federal prisoners and immigrants, announcing he had ordered HHS to add AIDS to a list of diseases used to deny entry into the United States for immigrants and undocumented aliens. Reagan did call for increased education campaigns, saying that "education is critical to clearing up the fears" surrounding AIDS, and issued a "denunciation of discrimination," saying, "This is a battle against disease, not against our fellow Americans." But he added that "AIDS education, or any aspect of sex education, will not be value-neutral," and drew "hissing" when he said, "Final judgement is up to God." (Condon, San Diego Union Tribune, 6/1/87). In all, Reagan's proposals were criticized as doing "almost nothing to stop AIDS" (Pike, Newsday, 6/10/87)

So when do you think the first US funded HIV/AIDS education programs got underway? First authorized in 1990, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program is currently funded... Oh! It was 1990! Now when did those teen pregnancy rates start to fall, oh yeah, 1990, precisely when HIV/AIDS prevention education began.

Funding for ab-only sex ed programs remained rather flat during Clinton's 2 terms in the 1990s, but part way through Bush's second term, after several years of large increases in funding for ab-only programs, all of a sudden the teen pregnancy rate turned upward.

the alleged "medically inaccurate information" was not that significant

I guess that depends on your perspective. The article linked to the Waxman's study above reports the medically inaccurate information in some federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs included lying to teens that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," I think lies like that, told to teenagers in high school health classes who come to learn facts to keep themselves healthy, are horribly significant.

comp sex ed programs don't seem to reduce rates of STDs among teens and actually seem to increase teen pregnancy.

So you still have found no data to back up your bulloney? I had no trouble finding data to back up my assertion that teaching kids about condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention can reduce teen pregnancy and does not increase it. Check it out:

The Cochrane reviews included only those studies that explicitly listed HIV prevention as a goal—programs focusing exclusively on pregnancy prevention were not included. Studies in the reviews measured self-reported occurrence of pregnancy (females) or causing a pregnancy (males) rather than actual pregnancy incidence among teens (Underhill et al., 2007a,b).

In the Cochrane review of abstinence-only programs, 8 of 13 studies measured the impact of the programs on self-reported pregnancy rates (Underhill et al., 2007a).. None found a significant benefit compared to either usual care or no treatment. One trial of a peer-led program found harm when compared to usual care at a 17-month follow up, but this result was isolated to a subset of males at a particular school and was not reflected in long-term behavioral measures.

In the Cochrane review of comprehensive programs, 7 of 39 trials measured the impact of programs on self-reports of becoming pregnant (females) or getting someone pregnant (males) (Underhill et al., 2007b). One unpublished study found a significantly protective effect of the program on female participants. Three studies suggested a positive outcome, but the studies had methodological flaws (e.g., limited statistical analyses or high rate of participant attrition) that limit their utility.
-testimony of Harvey V. Fineberg, M.D., Ph.D., President, Institute of Medicine of The National Academies before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives on April 23, 2008


Be sure to notice that education programs that were "exclusively" intended to reduce teen pregnancy were not included in these studies. Only education programs "explicitly" intended to reduce HIV/AIDS were included. And the results showed that abstinence-only programs either had no beneficial effect at all or actually caused harm while comprehensive programs reduced teen pregnancy. Just like I said, comprehensive sex education to reduce incidence of HIV/AIDS lowers the teen pregnancy rate while abstinence-only education does not. Now we know why teen pregnancy rates dropped starting in the 90's, so did HIV/AIDS prevention education.

Why hasn't Waxman done a similar study on comp sex ed?

You'll have to ask Waxman. Why haven't any GOP members of the House Government and Oversight Committee commissioned any studies on sex ed programs of any type? Do they, like you, prefer spin to the scientific method?

Bea, the data is the nationwide explosion in teen pregnancy at the very moment when comp sex ed programs were introduced in this country. Further, almost like clockwork, the rate has begun to creep up again as a PR assault against ab programs has taken hold.

The explosion in teen pregnancy followed the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Show us the data that proves your assertion that the recent rise in the teen pregnancy rate is in any way related to any "PR" by any groups -- you won't find any. The fact is the teen pregnancy rate didn't begin to creep upward recently, after 15 years of decline, until Bush's medically inaccurate version of abstinence-only sex ed was well funded and widespread. The data reported by Bearman and Bruckner and by Janet E. Rosenbaum indicate that sexually active teens who receive abstinence-only sex ed use condoms 10% less often than sexually active teens who receive comprehensive sex ed (24% vs. 34%). Sexually active teens using condoms less often increases the chance for unplanned pregnancy. Any sex education program for teens that decreases their use of condoms should be banned IMHO.

Which is to abstain from extramarital sexual activity.

Bearman and Bruckner found that teenagers pledging to remain abstinent has a failure rate of over 80%.

there is currently no data confirming any beneficial effect of comp sex ed on either STD rates or teen pregnancy rates

Bulloney. Refer to Dr. Fineberg's report above. The Cochrane reviews he reported on found that teen pregnancy rates were lowered only by comprehensive sex education programs explicitly intended to reduce HIV/AIDS. And don't forget, "One trial of a peer-led [ab-only] program found harm when compared to usual care..." There is evidence of harm from abstinence-only education.

"It's worth noting that condom use was determined by self-report"

news flash, Robert: That's the dirty little secret about all these sexuality studies.


It's no secret, it's pretty widely known, actually. That's why the Bearman and Bruckner (B&B) study was so important. The data that both the B&B study and the Rosenbaum study used included actual urinalysis to determine STDs rather than the usual self-reports of STDs. As Jim previously reported, it was the Heritage Foundation that preferred self-report data to empirical data. B&B used the urinalysis data but the Heritage Foundation "researchers" ("lobbyists" is more like it) reanalyzed B&B's data but switched from the (truthful and higher) urinalysis reports of STDs to (less truthful and lower) self-reports of STDs. It's good to know you now understand why the Heritage boys "found" fewer STDs. Self-report data is the least reliable of all.

Sounds like ab education is very worthwhile.

Not if it means a lower percentage of sexually active teens will use condoms for every sexual contact. The fewer teens who protect themselves and their lovers, the higher the cost to our society will be and that is anything but worthwhile.

January 02, 2009 9:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here's what the CDC says: "Overall, the preponderance of available epidemiologic studies have found that when used consistently and correctly, condoms are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV infection and reduce the risk of other STDs.""

Robert, don't you see that you could say the same thing about abstinence outside of marriage?

If used "consistently and correctly" it is highly effective.

The bottom line is TTFers want to promote promiscuity. Actual results on STD rates are the same but they want to argue that the comp sex ed should be refined rather than the ab program because that is their bias, not because of any scientific data.

It's scary that they read a news report like one cited and jump to the conclusion the writer wanted rather than read critically and see that the data doesn't support comp sex ed at all.

January 02, 2009 11:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Troll: Ho, hum....Yawn!

January 03, 2009 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't see any facts supporting your spin. Typical.

The bottom line is TTFers want to promote promiscuity.

Bulloney! More spin from the nameless one. OK Anon, put your money where your mouth is and show us some quotes from public comments or press releases/reports of TTF promoting that.

If what you say is true -- that the CRC fully support MCPS's 1992 film "Hope is Not a Method," then the CRC promotes abortion because that film advises pregnant teens to visit Planned Parenthood.

January 03, 2009 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bea, thanks again for the thoughtful, well-researched information.

rrjr

January 03, 2009 2:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home