Abstinence programs often have to struggle for government
funding, while teenage sex education programs promoting condom
use are offered in all public schools, and no one thinks twice
about which programs actually work best for our children. A
recently released federal study shows that the condom programs
are misleading in their content and ineffective in reducing
sexual activity and in protecting teenage sexual activity. That
news won't be on the news or discussed at PTA meetings, but
alarms should be going off in the heads of all parents. Their
teenage children are in danger.
More and more sexually active teenagers are coming down with
sexually transmitted diseases in spite of sex education, and that
study, sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services'
Administration for Children and Families, might offer an
explanation. The study offered a rare look into the actual
content of nine popular "comprehensive sex education"
curricula, showing them to be filled with sexual references,
condom illustrations, and shoppingfor-condoms exercises. These
programs are supposed to teach both abstinence and safe sex
through condoms, but the study shows that condoms were discussed
seven times more than abstinence. One curriculum teaches
teenagers "that the surest way not to get HIV is to practice
safer sex," ignoring the 100% effectiveness of abstinence.
I spoke with the CEO of Healthy Respect (www.healthyrespect.org),
John Marquand, about the study results. He leads a nonprofit
organization that offers an abstinence curriculum for students in
grades 7 through 12. He said that in the past only two sexually
transmitted diseases were a risk - syphilis and gonorrhea. There
are now more than 28. He also said, "I am very concerned
about the gap in media coverage of this issue as it relates to
our children's health and future. The media seems to embrace
anti-abstinence news while ignoring evidence showing that
abstinence education works. This is surprising, given that ‘comprehensive'
sex-ed programs receive nearly 10 times more federal funding than
do authentic abstinence programs."
Mr. Marquand also sent me a chart with the failure rates of the
various safe sex contraceptives versus abstinence in preventing
sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Yet misguided
parents have a lame excuse that "they're going to do it
anyway, so why not teach them safe sex?" Rush Limbaugh once
made the astute analogy of comparing the use of condoms to
boarding an airplane that one knew would crash but 95% of the
passengers would survive. Would you let your child board that
plane?
Healthy Respect operates in the inner city and its abstinence
program has been enthusiastically received by teenagers there.
This week, Congress will be deciding on extending funding for
these abstinence programs that work. It should be a no-brainer
decision, but left-wingers run this Congress, so anything goes.
Evan Sayet, a writer and producer of several popular television
shows like the "Arsenio Hall Show," "Politically
Incorrect With Bill Maher," and others, calls himself a
former liberal New York Jew. He became a 9/13 Republican when he
realized after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that
his Liberal friends with a capital "L" really did hate
America and said the coutnry deserved it. He says that Liberals
are not only wrong on foreign policy but every policy.
In a speech at the Heritage Foundation, he said, "Given the
choice between promoting teenage abstinence and teenage
promiscuity - they will use their movies, their TV shows, their
songs, even the schools to promote teenage promiscuity as if it's
cool: like the movie ‘American Pie,' in which you are a
loser unless you've had sex with your best friend's mother while
you're still a child. Conversely, NARAL, a pro-abortion group
masquerading as a pro-choice group, will hold a fundraiser called
‘"F" Abstinence.' And it's not just ‘F.' It's
the entire word, because promoting vulgarity is part of their
agenda."
Ironically, I thought of his remarks watching the latest version
of "Charlotte's Web." I can't say that I'm overly
familiar with the original story or film but this one has its
star, Dakota Fanning, making googly eyes at a young boy with whom
she ends up riding on a Ferris wheel. Why unnecessarily interject
a romance between children in a classic juvenile story? Why
wasn't everyone outraged at young Ms. Fanning playing in another
film depicting her violent rape? Why are prepubescent actors even
allowed in R–rated films? Where are their parents?
Mr. Sayet says, "If we're going to save America, we must
take back the schools, the universities, the media, [and] the
entertainment industry." That's a pretty tall order but one
thing is sure: To keep them safe, parents have to teach their
teenage children to say "No."