PSA: Time to Kill Abstinence-Only Sex "Education"

With the Obama administration already waffling, it's time to start a serious push to get the Federal government to fund only sex education that actually works, that meets the actual needs of our young people rather than the needs of religious fanatics and is appropriate to the separation of Church and State as clarified by the First Amendment.

If you feel that abstinence-only sex education is appropriate, then it's time for you to start talking to your kids at home and developing community programs funded by something other than taxes to push your message.

Promoting Abstinence = Promoting Teen Pregnancy

Please don't let your religious beliefs continue to ruin the lives of our youth and violate the basic tenets of a relatively free society.

This Public Service Announcement brought to you by Clyde Smith, a man sick of oppression in all forms and manifestations.

Comments

[Janaya]

I agree. I believe that abstinence-only sex education is wrong. I believe that young people need to be educated about sex properly. Like what it is, the results from it, and more. It should include options for if someone decides to have sex or not. That means abstinence AS WELL AS contraceptives. I think this post is on point. We don't live in a perfect, religious world. I believe that sex education should come from home, too, if some parents don't like the sex education that is funded by the government. Cool post!

[Clyde Smith]

Thanks a lot.

And I agree that kids should be educated about all aspects, especially today when they're so inundated with sexually oriented media, have easy access to the web and are dealing with peers who want action.

Knowledge is power and they need it. Like we all do.

[Courtney]

I think you are misinformed about what abstinence education actually teaches. Good abstinence programs teach teens about goal setting, decision making skills, stds, teen pregnancy, contraceptives and their limitations, healthy relationships, etc. The truth is that condoms have a 15% failure rate for pregnacy, 15% failure rate for HIV, 50% failure for chalmydia and gonnorhea, and virtually no protection at all for herpes and HPV b/c those are passed via skin-to-skin contact. How can you call that safe sex? How can you justify spending federal funds on pieces of latex that don't provide 100% protection like abstinence does? It's not a religious message, it's a health message. You wouldn't promote drinking and driving as long as teens wore seatbelts- what's the difference?

[Clyde Smith]

Abstinence-only programs have a much higher failure rate than condoms.

The push for such programs did come from religious organizations. That's historical fact. I remember when all this came down the line but I can well believe that hybrid programs now exist.

I'm saying that kids should be taught the whole deal.

What's wrong with that?

[Clyde Smith]

Wikipedia's never the final word but this entry is worth considering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education

Can you cite sources for your claims?