Sex education versus abstinence only programs in public schools here in the United States, has for many years, been a hot controversial topic among both parents and educational authorities. Many questions have risen from this this controversial topic of whether or not abstinence-only programs actually help decrease teen pregnancy; prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases; or are giving teenagers the health background that they must know about their sex life for the future. Sex education seems, after studies and debates, to be the most effective method in aiding these issues. In the fall of 2016, if democrats are in office then it will result in, passing the bill to amend title V of the Social Security Act to eliminate the abstinence-only education programs. Therefore, the billions of dollars of funding for abstinence- only programs currently could be used to improve sex education in public schools in the United States. The bill to amend title V of the social security act to eliminate the abstinence-only education program is also referred as “ Repealing ineffective and incomplete abstinence only program funding act of 2011”. This act is up for evaluation by the committee on energy and commerce, and to the committee on appropriations. ("H.R.1085 to amend title V of the Social Security Act to eliminate the abstinence-only education program" 1-7). If Pg2 Democrats are in office during the duration of fall 2016 then this bill will be passed. Therefore, abstinence only programs will be banned and replaced by sex education programs in public schools all over the United States. Resulting in a positive way by decreasing teen pregnancy as well as helping to inform teenagers of risks they could be taking in their sexual lif... ... middle of paper ... ...orts/abstinence.pdf>. “Dan Abrams-Abstinence-Only Education Doesn’t work.” MSNBC. New york.18 Nov. 2011.Television. Howell, Marcela. "The History of Federal Abstinence-Only Funding." Advocates for Youth. (2007): 1-4. Web. 18 Nov. 2011.. "H.R.1085 to amend title V of the Social Security Act to eliminate the abstinence-only education program." H.R.1085 to amend title V of the Social Security Act to eliminate the abstinence-only education program. 15 Mar 2011. Ed. House of Representatives2011. 1-7. Print. Pg8 United States. 112th Congress. S.178. the Library of Congress, 2011. Web. . Wiley, DC. "The ethics of abstinence-only and Sex Education." CINAHL. (2007): 1-10. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. .
" Almanac of Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service, 28 Aug. 2002. Web. The Web. The Web. 09
It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have “Safe Sex” (“Sex Education,” 2010).
Reflective of the predominantly conservative mindset of the early to mid 1900s, the sex education programs in the Florida education system seem to focus primarily on “abstinence-only-until-marriage” (Support SIECUS). In other words, these programs preach that completely abstaining from any sexual activity is the only way to avoid potentially devastating consequences, such as teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Although this idea may be true, it is based on the faulty premise that all teens will adhere to such a policy, therefore, eliminating the need to educate them on other precautionary measures, such as contraceptives. Unfortunately, such hopes have proven to be unrealistic, resulting in the need for these programs to be readdressed.
"Senate Joint Resolution No. 232." Legislative Information System. Legislative Information System, 08 Mar. 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2013.
"US Government Should Stop Funding Abstinence-Only Education: Virginity Pledge Ineffective." Reproductive Health Matters Nov. 2009: 223. Academic OneFile. Web. 4 Apr. 2012.
Today’s young Americans face strong peer pressure to be sexually active and engage themselves in risky behaviors (Merino 100-109). Anyone deciding to have sex must first think about all the risks involved. Kekla Magoon, author of Sex Education in Schools, says that “half of all teens aged 15 to 19 years old in the United States have had sex” (Magoon 64-65). It is currently not required by federal law for schools to teach Sex education and those few schools that do teach Sex education have the decision to determine how much information is allowed. Advocates from both sides of the Sex education debate agree that teens need positive influences in order to make practical decisions (Magoon 88-89). Opponents of Abstinence-only education believe it fails because it does not prepare teens for all the risks of sex (Magoon 64-65).
In the article, “More Schools to Teach Abstinence-Plus,” as seen on page A21A of the September 16, 2011 issue, author Morgan Smith tells her readers about new programs being introduced in West Texas to tech teenagers about not only abstinence, but additional how to practice safe sex. The article explains how teenage pregnancy rates in West Texas continue to spike despite the effort to push abstinence on teens. It explains in detail of a new sexual education program where teens are encouraged to choose abstinence but are educated in effective contraception as well. It covers schools in Midland, Texas and how endeavor to switch policy’s is embraced by the majority of community members as an active approach to decrease teen pregnancy. (Smith 1)
Sex is a natural, healthy part of our lives and we have the right to a proper sex education in schools. Sex education in schools have been a controversial topic since 1912, which is when teachers began to be trained on how to teach sex education. The main debate today is whether the sex education should focus on abstinence-only programs or comprehensive programs. Abstinence-only programs focus on teaching students that the only socially acceptable time to have sex is during marriage and abstinence is the only way to protect yourself from contracting STD’s and from becoming pregnant. Comprehensive sex education focuses on reducing the spread of STD’s and teen pregnancies by giving you the facts and information of the different forms of contraceptives that are available. Although America’s various cultures have different views of sex education, it’s important to teach students proper sex education in schools because there is hardly any
Federal Register Notice, January 20, 2011 — Full text ] [Federal Register: January 20, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 13)] [Notices] [Page 3637-3638] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr20ja11-76]
Multiple groups across the United Stated advocate for abstinence-only sexual education including: “Concerned Women for America, the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, the National Coalition for Abstinence education, and STOP Planned Parenthood International” (Collins). These groups principally argue that involvement in sexual activities before marriage “is inappropriate or immoral and that abstinence is the only method which is [a hundred percent] effective in preventing pregnancy or STIs” (Collins). Such groups emphasize that all contraception techniques have a risk of failure and believe that comprehensive sex education programs provide misleading information that safe sex techniques provide “foolproof pregnancy and d...
... Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service. Marosi, Richard. A. (2011, July 26)
Malone, Patrick, and Monica Rodriguez. "Comprehensive Sex Education vs. Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs." Human Rights Magazine 38 (2011). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Nov. 2013. .
The rise of the teen pregnancy rate has caused us to question the effectiveness of the prevention programs that are offered to adolescents. There have been several programs focused on preventing teen pregnancy from abstinence-only to more comprehensive sexual education programs. Abstinent-only advocates believe that abstaining from having intercourse is the only way to prevent unwanted teen pregnancy. While practicing abstinence is the only 100% secure method of reducing this rate, it is not a logical view. Adolescents will continue to have sexual behavior, and it is important in teaching them more precise education when it comes to sex education. With-holding important information and facts about sexual behavior can change an adolescents’ life forever. Whether it be from teen pregnancy or from a life threatening STD.
Light, Paul C., and Christine L. Nemacheck. "Chapter 7 Congress." Government by the People, Brief 2012 Election Edition, Books a La Carte New Mypoliscilab With Etext Access Card Package. By David B. Magleby. 2012 Election Edition ed. N.p.: Pearson College Div, 2013. N. pag. Print.
The government likes to pretend that if high school students get taught the “abstinence-only” method they would never think of taking part in sexual activities. Statistically this is incorrect. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “56 percent of high school students are virgins”(Martin). For the 56 percent abstinence only is doing them well, but there are still 44 percent of high school students engaging in sex without knowing the precau...