Sometimes I give anti-choicers too much credit. This week, when articles started cropping up on pro-fetus websites about how a government study showed comprehensive sex ed programs disseminate false information, I was actually kind of concerned. After all, the whole "false information about condoms" thing is the abstinence-only folks' area of expertise -- not ours.
So I wasn't exactly surprised when the Washington Post reported yesterday that the research was conducted by two right-wing organizations -- the Sagamore Institute (which has close ties to Bush's faith-based initiatives office and the Hudson Institute) and the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (remember them? they "train" med students to promote abstinence-only). It's shocking, I know, that Republicans would ask abstinence-only groups to evaluate the comprehensive sex-ed programs they oppose.
The analysis -- requested two years ago by Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), both conservative Republicans -- concluded that nine widely used curricula contained misleading statements about condom failure, focused too little on abstinence and were only marginally successful in persuading young people to use condoms or, better yet, to delay having sex.
Our pals Coburn and Santorum! No shocker there.
Let's say up front that, for all the anti-sex crowd's crowing over the findings, eight of the nine programs evaluated contained NO misinformation about condoms. So already we've got a better track record than the abstinence-only crowd. Doesn't mean the evaluated curricula were perfect, though. WaPo summarizes:
The HHS report said that eight of the curricula contained no inaccuracies about statistics related to condom effectiveness, but that the numbers sometimes lacked context. For example, programs that say latex condoms prevent pregnancy 97 percent of the time when used correctly (the figure actually is 98 percent, experts said) should also note that studies show that the probability of pregnancy during the first year of "typical" use is 15 percent. Not everyone uses condoms properly every time.
I think that most proponents of comprehensive sex ed would be very much in favor of correcting factual errors if these programs are going to be continued in schools. But wait, are these programs actually used in schools? Not necessarily. In the report's methodology section, it states that it chose the nine programs to evaluate not based on actual use, but on pro-comprehensive-sex-ed groups' recommendation of these curricula. Because federal funding for sex education can only be awarded to abstinence-only programs, it's safe to assume that these curricula are not supported by federal taxpayers. It's also worth noting that the HHS-contracted researchers acknowledge that many of these programs don't even claim to be "abstinence-plus" or "comprehensive". In other words, some are programs may in fact be primarily about condom use, but they don't claim to be anything different.
As for programs that do advertise themselves as "comprehensive sex ed" or "abstinence-plus," the research also claims that they barely mention abstinence. How do they arrive at this conclusion? By searching for certain terms, of course. (This is a classic way to skew research to produce the desired result.) Reports the Washington Post,
One curriculum, Safer Choices Level 1, mentioned condoms 383 times and abstinence only five, the report said. But Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, the California-based nonprofit organization that developed the curriculum, said the materials make the same point with different language, using phrases such as "choosing not to have sex" or "saying no to sex.""It's all about abstinence; it's just different words," Kirby said. "There's twice as much material in this curriculum on abstinence than on condoms and contraception."
I get the feeling that this was supposed to be the Waxman report for the abstinence-only movement... debunking their opponents' curricula as inaccurate and destructive. But I'm with James Trussell of Princeton University, who told the Post,
"These examples of medical inaccuracies pale in comparison to those in abstinence-only curricula," he said in an e-mail. "Many errors cited in the Waxman report are egregious, whereas many errors cited in the [HHS] report are not."
So let's recap. Biased researchers found minor errors in only one comprehensive sex ed curriculum -- which may not actually be used in any schools, gets no federal funding, and may not even claim to be "comprehensive" or "abstinence-plus" sex ed. Those minor errors pale in comparison to the rampant misinformation and gender stereotypes that the Waxman report found in several federally funded abstinence-only programs.
If the abstinence-only proponents are really concerned with accuracy, they best take a hard look at their own materials.
For more, head on over to RH Reality Check.
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Suddenly, the abstinence-only movement cares about facts?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5495
Here are some links for you. Go read some science, you goddamn kids. Read More
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Fuckers.
Great post, Ann.
Thanks for this really good post. Just one more example of right-wing standard procedure: make up "facts" to support a position, deliver them with a straight face, and many people will never be the wiser.
Awesome post. My heart dropped when I first heard of this report. But your post does a great job highlighting why this report is basically crap and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I think my favorite "medical inaccuracy" mentioned was that one curriculum “used the term "dental dam" instead of the FDA-approved "rubber dam." Egregious.
Also, whatever happened to discussing the limitations of your own study in the conclusion? I guess they forgot.
One day in the last year or so I woke up to see the Lubbock Avalanche Journal (This is the heart of the bible belt, people) with a headline that read "Study shoes abstinence only sex education may not be effective".
I nearly fell of my chair laughing. I wish I had kept a copy.
That should read "shows". Oopsie.
On the Focus on the Family press release yesterday, they also described the ABC policy as "Abstain, Be faithful, and use Condoms as a last resort." And I'm pretty sure there's no "as a last resort" in the policy.
The links are here: www.coalitionofthethrilling.blogspot.com
Somehow, I think they'd be pissed if we did the same thing to abstinence.
"As a last resort?"
HAHAHAHA. Oh man. That's really hilarious.
Well really, it's sad. But I find the phrasing to be incredibly amusing. It conjures up images in my mind of panic, and saying "I hoped that it wouldn't have to come to this," as super-fast lightning-speed condom application takes place at the very last possible second before penetration, and then everyone breathes a big sigh of relief.
"For example, programs that say latex condoms prevent pregnancy 97 percent of the time when used correctly (the figure actually is 98 percent, experts said) should also note that studies show that the probability of pregnancy during the first year of "typical" use is 15 percent. Not everyone uses condoms properly every time."
Not the point, I know, and I agree with you about the study overall--but I wish that there was more education around the above statistics. And then, as a result of knowledge about the above statistics, some extremely detailed information about how to use condoms--and, just for the hell of it, some information on other methods of contraception out there (with the caveat that a lot of those other methods prevent only pregnancy, not STDs). I feel like my high school's message was: "Don't have sex! If you do, use a condom." Which is fine advice as far as it goes, but it doesn't really cover even the basic options.
"Not the point, I know, and I agree with you about the study overall--but I wish that there was more education around the above statistics."
I wish there was more education about statistics at all! In my high school the math department pretty much every class was on the path to calculus and stats just got a brief mention here and there. I think one kid took AP Statistics as an independent study course.
Back to sex ed now - unfortunately, the stituation could be even worse:
"...Mieke van Kooten Niekerk of the Rutgers Foundation, which carries out research into sexual problems, says immigrants have different norms and standards from their Dutch counterparts.
"'Often they are very careless, especially the young ones, 13 and 14 years old. The men don't like using condoms. And there is not such a taboo surrounding teenage pregnancy.'
"Ms van Kooten says girls from Holland's ethnic minorities live in two cultures - the conservative one of their parents and the open one of Dutch society.
"'It is not easy to reach them with sex education. It is not even taught in schools where the population is overwhelmingly immigrant.'..."
Apparently some Dutch high schools are not only silent about condoms in case a 15-year-old's parents get offended but even silent about abstinence in case a 15-year-old's in-laws get offended.
damn...i just read an article on bbc about comprehensive sex ed in the UK and it being related to their low teen pregnancy rates, and how they are lower than ours...but i can't find it now. there was, of course, one from the US about how absitnence only is working...but their numbers don't back it up...has anyone seen these?
Actually the ABC approach that Ryan notes is rooted in the original HIV prevention strategy that US missionaries are using when attempting to curtail HIV in Africa, specifically Uganda and Sudan.
Similar in form, the campaign was worded differently.
Abstinence
Believe in god.
Condoms if you are not strong enough to do A or B.
No loaded messages there!
I spent six months working for an NGO in Sudan specializing in public health strategy. A similar campaign was underway using the ABC approach. Much was made of the fact that, initially, HIV rates seemed to decrease post policy implementation. In reality, as we're seeing now, that style of policy filters down as an oppressively negative dynamic to people accessing their options. Therefore numbers of people seeking testing, and numbers of people accessing condoms dramatically decreased, thus the initial appearance of a decrease in infection.
As of the 2006 numbers, HIV is at an over sixty per cent increase in Sudan, specifically in women who acquire it from the dynamics of non choiced sex, either rape or poverty driven sex as a means of survival.
One would think that the loaded messages behind an approach like ABC would show its clearly concerning cause and effect potential. I guess the "look" of an aggressively promoted abstinence campaign is more appealing to the sex shaming crowd than the reality that is likely to follow it.
"Actually the ABC approach that Ryan notes is rooted in the original HIV prevention strategy that US missionaries are using when attempting to curtail HIV in Africa, specifically Uganda and Sudan.
"Similar in form, the campaign was worded differently.
Abstinence
Believe in god.
Condoms if you are not strong enough to do A or B.
"No loaded messages there!"
I heard that it was pretty much
A: Abstain from sex
B: Be faithful
C: use Condoms
(in alphabetical order, not order of priority)
and started in Uganda instead of being exported to Uganda.
Maybe two different strategies, both with the ABC acronym, got promoted in Uganda at roughly the same time?
"Maybe two different strategies, both with the ABC acronym, got promoted in Uganda at roughly the same time"?
Could be. Though from experiencing first hand the motivations and methods of those who promoted and advocated for that style of prevention, I am hard pressed to see any measurable difference in how the net effect played out.
Your point that it started in Uganda is accurate.The same policy model was exported to Sudan a short time later. Though the origins of that particular approach were developed in the context of western faith based approaches to the crisis. More often than not, those approaches contain large amounts of sexual shaming references and themes.