New studies show (yet again) that abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work

Don’t worry, the blank slates over at Concerned Women for America will find some way to spin this as “lib’rul bias”:

Studies published in a special issue of the journal Sexuality Research and Social Policy, which we edited, conclude that abstinence-only-until-marriage sex education programs fail to change sexual behavior in teenagers, provide inaccurate information about condoms, and violate human rights principles. The articles make clear that abstinence-only programs are based on ideology and politics — and go against the consensus of public health science.

Perhaps most relevant for federal and state policymakers is a review of the impact of 56 adolescent sexual behavior programs, comparing abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs. It finds that most abstinence-only programs of the type that have received $1.5 billion in federal funding do not help teens delay initiation of sex and that there is no scientific evidence to warrant their widespread use. In contrast, the review finds that most comprehensive sex education programs, which emphasize both abstinence and the use of protection for those who do have sex, were found to have a positive impact and should be replicated more widely. It concludes that a comprehensive approach to sex education is effective and does not send a confusing message to young people.

Because it’s actually not confusing for teenagers when you teach them that sex is a mature subject, and that it’s a good idea to wait until you’re emotionally ready to engage in it, while simultaneously equipping them with correct information in case they decide, as teenagers often do, to disregard sage advice in the heat of the moment.  Teenagers actually have an amazing capacity for learning when they feel people are being straight with them.

Another article in the special issue finds that three commonly used, abstinence-only curricula often provide inaccurate medical information to adolescents, including false or misleading statements about the effectiveness and safety of condoms. These abstinence-only curricula inflate the actual failure rate of condoms, suggesting that using condoms is somewhat like playing “Russian roulette” with HIV. These study results are consistent with earlier reviews that found medical inaccuracies throughout a wide sample of abstinence-only program curricula.

Isn’t that awesome?  These motherfuckers, in an effort to keep girls’ hymens intact until their groom can wave the bloody sheet out the window (but fundamentalist Christians aren’t just like fundamentalist Muslims, noooooo…), actually advocate lying to teens, telling them that condoms are ineffective.  So what happens?  Teenagers still do Teh Fucking, because they’re hormonal teenagers, but they get pregnant, or they get STDs.

Lastly, abstinence-only programs violate key human rights principles, as their silence or misinformation on condom effectiveness violates young people’s right to information and to the means with which to protect their health. Abstinence-only approaches also impinge on the rights and responsibilities of teachers and health educators to provide accurate and complete information. The authors of this article examine both Texas and Uganda in their demonstration of the ways that human rights approaches can help to illustrate limitations on programs that restrict access to information.

To anyone who hasn’t surrendered his/her brain to Christianist political orthodoxy, the reaction is probably something akin to “no fucking shit, Sherlock.”

But don’t worry.  The Christianists will continue to advocate for policies that hurt teenagers and cause more teens to get sexually transmitted diseases and face abortion.  Because those dumb retards don’t care about unborn babies, and they definitely don’t care about the already-born.  All they care about is their tight-assed moralistic crusade against sex.

Ugh.