Washington Post: “Abstinence-Only Suddenly Works?” Reality: Absolutely Not

Crossposted from Amplify

By James Wagoner, Advocates for Youth

It seems that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have been all over progressive blogs in the past few days – from Angry Mouse’s in-depth and much-needed analysis of Bristol Palin’s somewhat surreal role as a teen mom abstinence spokesmodel to Tristero’s rebuttle of Russ Douthat’s inane column in Sunday’s NYT in which he defends Alabama’s right to teach that masturbation is unhealthy.

All this discussion seems remarkably prescient given this morning’s Washington Post article trumpeting “Abstinence-only programs might work, study says.” But as usual, the reality is much more complicated than newspaper headlines or the abstinence-only industry would have us believe.

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that’s approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

Let’s take a look at the details of this particular study – and how it may or may not connect (Spoiler Alert: No connection whatsoever!) to the ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that received more than $1 billion in funding under the Bush administration.

The recent study by respected researchers John B. and Loretta S. Jemmott compared results for young people receiving three kinds of programs: an “abstinence-only” intervention, designed to help teens wait until they are ready; a “combined intervention” which included information about abstinence as well as contraception and condoms; and a safer-sex-only intervention with no information about abstinence. ??

The study focused on young African American preteens in an urban area and found that this new type of abstinence-only program can help some very young adolescents (average age 12) delay sexual initiation for up to 24 months.

It is important to note that the study provides no data in support of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs of the Bush era. The abstinence-only program in this study would not have been eligible for federal funding during the Bush years because it did not fit the “8 point definition”. The program goal was to help early teens avoid sex until they are ready–a totally different objective than the federally funded abstinence programs already proven ineffective by the long-term Mathematica study “which showed no impact on teen behavior”.

In the Jemmotts’ own words: “It [the abstinence-only intervention] was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected.”

Public Policy Implications: Six Points to Keep in Mind

1. Almost one-quarter of the young people in the study were already sexually active when the study began. This is the problem with the “only” component of any “only-type” program. An abstinence-only program provides no information about condoms and contraception even though, in this case, approximately one-quarter of the young people in the intervention already had had sex.

2. Previous research on virginity pledges (Bearman and Bruckner), demonstrated that initial delays in sexual activity wore off in the later teen years. Half of all teens are sexually active by the age of 17 and 70 percent of youth have had sexual intercourse by age 19. These teens need information about both abstinence and contraception.

3. There is good research showing that many comprehensive sex education programs — programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception/condoms — are effective at helping young people delay sexual initiation as well as at using contraception/condoms when they do become sexually active.

Thirty years of public health studies have clearly determined that the provision of information about condoms and contraception does not increase sexual activity among teens or lower the age of sexual initiation.

4. Given limited resources, shouldn’t we invest tax payer dollars in programs that can deliver both delay in sexual initiation and increased contraceptive and condom use by those who are sexually active?

5. Further, shouldn’t we respect young people enough to provide them with all of the information they need to take personal responsibility for their sexual health?

6. The Obama administration is on the right track in funding only science-based programs with evidence of effectiveness. The administration should also consider how scarce resources are best invested and recognize the rights of all young people to complete, accurate and honest information about their sexual health.
The National Abstinence Education Association has already started its victory lap , claiming that the study in question “validates effectiveness of abstinence education” and calling on Congress to immediately reinstate large-scale funding for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that are entirely unrelated to those in the study.

But, as has always been the case with ideologically-driven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, reality just isn’t on their side.