Skip to main content

Types of Inaccurate Information in Abstinence Only Education


The state of Utah, in which I reside, staunchly promotes abstinence only education. Recently, a Bill was introduced, H.B 215, that would enact provisions related to reproductive health education. The Bill emphasized providing evidence based, age appropriate, information that have been shown to be effective in changing negative behaviors that contribute to teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Last year, a similar Bill was introduced but was not passed, which seems to be the fate of H.B 215, as the last action taken on March 9, 2017 was to file it in ‘bills not passed.’

I thought of Abstinence only Education within the context of types of inaccurate information (i.e.  Honest Mistakes, Out-of-Date Information, Disinformation, biased information, misleading information, bullshit and withholding or removing information) and considered how this type of curricula falls into many of the previously listed categories of inaccurate information. 

First, let’s start with some facts.

The United States takes first place amongst other developed nations as far as the rates of both teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are concerned. Studies have found that an increasing emphasis on abstinence only education is positively correlated with teen pregnancy and birth rates, indicating that the enforcement of abstinence only education increases teen pregnancy. 



In poorer states there was also a correlation between high teen pregnancy rates and a higher degree of religiosity. Unlike abstinence only education, comprehensive sex education has been proven to be effective in the following areas:

-       It can help delay onset of sexual activity in youth
-       Reduce the frequency of sexual activity
-       Reduce the number of sexual partners
-       Increase condom and contraceptive use

A common argument that is made by conservatives that are against comprehensive education is that it will both increase the likelihood of teens becoming more sexually active and increase sexual activity altogether. Basically, “If you teach teens the benefits of birth control and condoms, they will have sex will-nilly.” As I stated above, this has not been shown to be the case. Teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50% less likely to experience pregnancy than those who received abstinence only education. 

So, how does Abstinence Only education tie into the various types of inaccurate information?

For starters, abstinence only education is characterized by the withholding of information. These types of curricula also “distort information about the effectiveness of contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, treat stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact, and contain basic scientific errors." These programs are inaccurate, ineffective, and can cause harm. One study, conducted in 2004 by the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Government Reform highlighted specific lessons from 11 of the 13 most popular federally funded abstinence only education programs that convey misinformation. Along with the descriptions of some of the points that were highlighted in this study, I include what I believe to be the appropriate category of inaccurate information:

One program taught students that HIV/AIDS can be transmitted through tears and sweat. Now, depending on the program and who is actually teaching the program, I think this falls into 3 categories. 1- Disinformation. The information is intentionally misleading and instills fear in students who don’t know any better. 2-Information that is known to be misleading. A lot of people who teach abstinence only education genuinely believe that it is the best, and only, option. They may know that tears and sweat don’t transmit HIV/AIDS, but they could be willing to pass on the information because they think the lie is ultimately outweighed by the desired goal of abstinence. 3- Bullshit. The individual or program may not care what’s true or false and are only looking to capitalize on the willingness of others to believe the rhetoric.
One issue that is common in the majority of abstinence only curricula is that they assume that all students share the same beliefs (Christian). As an example, “all life begins as soon as a sperm and an egg unite.”  Again, this could fall into multiple categories, but for the sake of brevity, let’s stick with one: the Biased Information category.
Some programs discourage condom use by distorting information about their efficacy, despite the FDA and CDC discounting their various ‘statistics’. This could potentially fall under the category of ‘out-of-date’ information. It’s quite possible that condoms weren’t as effective as they are now. I don’t have any evidence of that though, so don’t quote me. This can also be considered Information that is known to be misleading, as quite often teachers and program creators/directors will be aware of the actual statistics on condoms effectiveness but are more afraid of the ill-conceived notion that condom use will only encourage and increase sexual activity to care about conveying the correct information. I’d also consider Bullshit as another category, but that’s because when I hear a statistic like, “condoms are only 69% effective”, I think “Bullshit”. Also, could they have come up with a more ironic number for that statistic?
Ultimately, I think one could reasonably argue that abstinence only education, in some way or another, falls under all of the inaccurate types of information. With that said though, I do think that I could potentially make an argument that at this point in time, with all of the resources available to the vast majority of the general population, abstinence only education cannot be considered an honest mistake. But that’s a post for another time.

As an aside, I’ve provided a link to an opinion piece in an article from Deseret News (a popular news source in Utah) that, I think, illustrates the type of passive-aggressive, white-washing rhetoric of conservative Mormons.

Questions:

1. In what other ways do you think abstinence only education is misleading and inaccurate? What inaccurate      information categories would the fall under?
2. What experiences do you recall from your own sexual education in school? Or your children's? 
3. Why do you think abstinence only education is still so popular in schools when many studies have shown that 80% of Americans actually support teaching comprehensive sex education in high schools and middle and junior high schools? 

References:

Comprehensive Sex Education: Research and Results. Advocates for Youth. September 2009. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/1487

Erickson, Jenet. The heart of the sex-education debate. Deseret New.February 5,2017. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865672607/The-heart-of-the-sex-education-debate.html

Haring, Curtis. Flagged Bill-HB-215- Reproductive Health Education and Services Amendments-Rep. Brian King. Utah Political Capitol. January 31,2017.

H.B. 215 Reproductive Health Education and Services. 2017 General Session. Utah.

Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. (2011). Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e24658. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024658


U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman. Washington, DC: The House, 2004.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In Response to Mr. Greg Trimble

(Apologies for another long post) In a perusal of my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across a lovely article that a neighbor of my parents shared entitled “So…You Think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud” . Mr. Trimble, who authored this lovely article, uses the typical Mormon circular reasoning that states that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet; and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same Church that Christ established while he was on Earth. So in the Mormon mind, it all comes down to whether the BOM is true or not, and for this, they rely on warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that the Book is in fact, true. Mr. Trimble states that he noticed that most of the people who criticize the Book of Mormon the loudest, have not actually read it. While this may be true, I don’t think a person needs to read a book fully to understand whether it’s true or not. That’s what research is for. Reading the Book of Morm

I'm Not a Fan of Matt Walsh: Part 2

Matt Walsh is an Idiot: Why “Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally” is not effective. I am a glutton for punishment where Matt Walsh is concerned. He is a pompous ass, and reading his articles makes my blood boil, and not just because he writes for Glen Beck’s network and we don’t share the same opinions. Bottom line is that he is not a great writer. If he were to turn one of his articles into any of my University English professors, he would not have fared well. Even my 11 th grade English teacher would have ripped him a new one. Why: Because he cannot write an argumentative paper. Not a single one of his articles I have read has contained any semblance of argumentation. He likes to say things like, first and second, as if he’s actually introducing solid reasons to support his opinion, but they end up being wordy and condescending with an overabundance of analogies that don’t actually provide support. The article listed in the title of my post is one of Walsh’s more recent