The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA)

Countries around the world have adopted progressive and comprehensive sexuality education for their youth, parents and communities at large. Countries such as Canada, England, New Zealand and Cuba valuate sexuality education as one of the most important preventive factors against unintended pregnancies, sexually-transmitted diseases (STD’s), sexual exploitation and abuse, among many other issues that help perpetuate inequality and oppression. Surprisingly however, the United States, a country perceived as a superpower, has been providing conservative sexuality education strictly delineated under the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) passed by Congress in 1981 while generously funded by tax-payers’ money since then. (cite)

But, why choose a

It was the former however, more of a social and economic concern to the public that compelled conservative groups to quietly sign it into law in 1981 under Title XX of the Public Health Service Act without hearings or floor votes in Congress. The AFLA was established to provide funding to those public and private agencies that promoted chastity and self-discipline among adolescents before they became sexually active. To understand this policy, it is necessary to take in consideration the important link between such policy and the subsequent development of the “Title V Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage” and the “Community-Based Abstinence Education” programs, which will be further reviewed.

Kendrick, found that the AFLA was unconstitutional in that it violated the principle of separation of church and state, but three years after that the Supreme Court reversed the decision. In 1996, as part of the historical Title V of the Welfare Reform Act, a new system of grants was established to fully fund education programs that adhered to strict tenets of using only abstinence as the only method of sexual health until marriage. California was the only state to immediately reject this program, but for the rest of the nation, the program peaked in the George W. Bush administration, in which funding peaked as well between 1996 and 2006. (cite)

In 2000, Congress created the third, and the most restrictive so far, abstinence-only education program entitled “Community-Based Abstinence Education” (Title XI, §1110 of the Social Security Act), which bypassed the need for state approval and facilitated the funneling of monies to faith-based community organizations, which had to follow the strict regulations. (cite) Beyond the monetary support, this program also seemed to support heavily the very premise of the church involvement with the state argued in the lawsuit of