Yesterday the House approved a bill to renew funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Rather than axe abstinence-only funding altogether, Democrats decided to expand funding so it can also be awarded to programs that teach comprehensive sex ed (sometimes called "abstinence plus") -- which is actually what a vast majority of parents say they want their children to be getting in school. Kaiser reports,
Under the bill, states would have the option to accept funds for abstinence-only sex education programs or for programs that promote abstinence and also teach "those who are currently sexually active or at risk of sexual activity about additional methods to prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce health risks." The bill also would require all programs that receive funding to provide medically accurate information and demonstrate effectiveness in reducing rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections such as HIV.
Of course, Bush is going to veto the bill. And even under this legislation, we'd still be spending federal dollars on programs that contain medical inaccuracies, gender stereotypes, and assorted misinformation. But this also marks the closest we've come to having a federal funding stream for any type of sex ed that isn't abstinence-only. And that alone is encouraging.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A minor victory for comprehensive sex ed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5745
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
It would seem that since everyone is at risk for sexual activity, considering the prevalence of rape and molestation, that sexual education would be a top priority because it would arm young people with the knowledge of what to do after being attacked, like getting tested for STDS and pregnancy, and perhaps even just helping them understand what just happened.
Just a thought.
"It would seem that since everyone is at risk for sexual activity, considering the prevalence of rape and molestation, that sexual education would be a top priority because it would arm young people with the knowledge of what to do after being attacked, like getting tested for STDS and pregnancy, and perhaps even just helping them understand what just happened."
Good point. Meanwhile, what if the "those who are currently sexually active or at risk of sexual activity about additional methods to prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce health risks" part had been rephrased "those who are currently sexually active or at risk of sexual activity (for example, at risk of marrying in the future) about additional methods to prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce health risks."
?
High school sex ed isn't just useful preparation for premarital sex in one's teens, and even some rightwingers promote marital sex...
My high school started implementing abstinence-only education the year after I graduated (the teachers have been teaching safe-sex anyway, much to the dismay of the administration on campus. Yay for cool, compassionate teachers!). Up until then, we had abstinence-plus, which was fine with me because they still gave the students the information they needed. But alas, I think Ann may be right. Bush would rather watch teenagers have babies than recieve comprehensive sex-education. And rape doesn't exist in his Universe, ever.
BBC has a decent article about the effectiveness of abstinence only programs on the prevention of pregnancy and the spread of HIV.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6927733.stm
But this also marks the closest we've come to having a federal funding stream for any type of sex ed that isn't abstinence-only. And that alone is encouraging.
I understand the sentiment, but I think we must be vigilant and guard against lowering our standards so much that we characterize getting no results as "encouraging."