Many youngsters participating in federally financed, abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half of gay male teenagers have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional analysis found. Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen popular projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
The Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., an administration critic who long has argued for comprehensive sex education.
=========================
Here's the actual report. While I've made it clear in the past that I think abstinence-only programs (as opposed to comprehensive sex ed programs that place heavy emphasis on abstinence but provide other information as well) are dangerous, this kind of outright lying is just wrong.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Not only is the misinformation bad in and of itself, but a quick kid that see's through it is more likely to question whether or not it's all smokescreen.
I think that this could lead to risky behaviour.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, Chris. This is the kind of thing that makes kids not trust adults. Why do so many adults think they need to stretch the truth or lie to kids to make a point?
(I have seen abortion linked to depression, but I don't know about the suicide. The sterility can be for real if the woman gets an infection. Touching potentially could end in pregnancy if sperm was transfered to the skin around a woman's vagina. Those suckers are amazing little swimmers.)
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because if there's anything that motivates teenagers to trust and follow the advice of authorities, it's lying to them in outrageous and easily-disproven ways.
I'm feeling very cynical today.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If abstinence-only education becomes the law of the land, which wouldn't surprise me a bit 0although it would sadden me deeply), it won't affect my family. My kids will get the facts, as clearly as I can present them. And maybe that's how it should be, although it's a disservice to all those children whose parents won't or can't teach them what they need to know.
But putting inaccurate information in any textbook to meet an ideological agenda is reprehensible.
[ December 02, 2004, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the approach of my High School sex-ed teacher. He taught the basics as far as contraceptive methods are concerned, but he also stressed that abstinence was the only truly fail-safe way to avoid the problems associated with risky sexual behavior, including the negative emotional consequences (not just pregnancy.) He also showed us a quite graphic video of a live birth. If there's any better incentive for guys to not get a girl pregnant, I don't know what is. Our school also had the wisdom to not make us sign any incredibly worthless and counter-productive pledge cards, for which I am grateful.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a similar sex-ed program as Brian. It was very comprehensive, with a lot of stress on abstinance. Since I had only one girlfriend in high school, and only for a very brief time, I don't know how effective the class was for more-average members of my class.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, I misspoke. It is extremely unlikely it would become federal law.
It could get awfully close, though. Remember the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984? It required all states to raise their purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21, or risk losing federal highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. By 1987, all 50 states had complied. The federal government never passed a specific law, but they did pass along a suggestion with a lot of teeth in it.
Can I see such a thing happening here? Oh, yes.
Granted, it doesn't always work. The anti-porn filter measures that were forced on libraries a few years back carried similar funding provisions but many libraries actually refused the funding because they disagreed with the restriction.
[ December 02, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's because you believe that education is an important thing, worthy of support even if it causes personal inconvenience. Judging by the voting records, I'm afraid you're in danger of becoming a minority.
I wouldn't be nearly as bothered by this -- bending textbooks to meet an agenda is as old as textbooks, and maybe older -- if the current administration wasn't so clearly in favor of it and already known for using pressure to get its way.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
