> "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 02:09 PM 3/12/2004 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
> >I am likewise incensed that *my* tax dollars go to > >fund abstinence-only programs (which in MN at least > >have failed to prevent teen pregnancy - see my post > >on the ENABL report), and faith-based anything, as > these violate 'separation of church and state.' > First, the is no a priori religious connection to > abstinence. There are a > number of very sound reasons for strongly advising > high school students - and younger, to not have sex. As I have clearly advocated in various posts. But there certainly _is_ a connection to *abstinence only* programs -- which are the ones I referred to. As I clearly stated in my posts. > Secondly, even the recent study of "virginity > pledges" found that > abstinence-only education was successful in > prolonging the first incident > of intercourse and had fewer sexual partners - which > may well both be worthy goals. Cite? Please not a partisan organization, as I do not cite from, frex, Planned Parenthood on contraception issues, except to point out their bias. http://www.jamwa.org/vol57/sec1/pdf/57_1_9.pdf "Three high-quality studies focused on abstinence-only approaches, and none found that an abstinence-only program had any significant impact on participants� initiation of intercourse, frequency of intercourse, or number of sex partners. Thus, there is currently no evidence that any of these programs actually achieves its intended purposes." [2002 article; the ENABL report is from 2003] http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=9641 "After five years, 45,500 Minnesota students and $5 million, it appears the state�s abstinence-only sex education program has not reduced sexual activity among teens. In fact, sexual activity actually doubled between 2001 and 2002 among teens at three schools that used the curriculum. "ENABL (Education Now and Babies Later) teaches that the only way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is through abstinence. Because it is supported in part by federal funds, ENABL is forbidden from mentioning effectiveness rates of different types of contraception or methods that reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. "In late December, the Minnesota Health Department posted the results of an independent study on the ENABL Web site, although the report was completed last June. Researchers surveyed 413 students who received the ENABL curriculum at one school in each of three counties. "The findings: Despite reaching more than 45,500 students and implementation via thousands of community and media activities, the program had little impact on teens� attitudes or behaviors regarding sexual activity..." > In addition, it is worth noting that > non-abstinence programs > tend to overlook the fact that condoms are not > effective at preventing a number of serious STD's. Cite? [Of course, _incorrect_ use of condoms fails not only at pregnancy prevention but STD prevention as well, and engaging in oral sex without some kind of barrier will allow transmission of various diseases like syphilis.] I fully support educating teens on why they should wait until they are more mature to have sex, but to withhold crucial information about prevention of HIV transmission and pregnancy prevention is actually counterproductive -- as the ENABL results show. Debbi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
