News » February 10, 2005

Distortion 101

In spite of the facts, Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services keeps pushing abstinence

By Steve Yoder

Just as children take cues from their parents, community programs look to the examples set by their funders. At the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a key lesson being taught is that manipulation and distortion of science is fine as long as it promotes chastity.

The creators of the abstinence-only programs that HHS funds have learned the lesson well. In December, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) released a House committee analysis showing that 11 of the 13 abstinence-only curricula that the committee reviewed contained “false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.” For example, some of the curricula teach that mental health problems are a consequence of sexual activity and that touching another person’s genitals can result in pregnancy. Another incorrectly claims that it is unknown whether using condoms prevents HIV.

Those distortions mirror HHS’ own approach to studying whether taxpayer-funded efforts to promote virginity until marriage actually achieve anything. In 1998, the agency funded a large, rigorous study of abstinence-only programs. The study’s first report, published in February 2002, provided information on the programs’ delivery of promised services and reached a positive verdict. That first report stated that a second report in spring 2003 would provide the initial information about what really matters: the programs’ effectiveness in changing teen behavior.

That second report is almost two years overdue, and the HHS press office will not comment on its status. An agency official closely involved in the study, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that the report was completed and delivered to the department by the contractor responsible for preparing it, but would not say how long it has been under review at HHS.

More importantly, the official confirms what has long been suspected by reproductive health experts: HHS is changing the study measures midway through the project. “Information on behavioral outcomes will not be included in this [second] report,” says the official. Instead, it will report on changes in “attitudes, values, knowledge, and relationship kinds of things.” Asked about the first report’s promise that the second report would include data on “near-term behavioral choices,” the official could not provide an explanation: “I’m really not positive about [what’s meant by] ‘near-term behavioral choices’ … you know what—I’m not actually sure.”

But the meaning seems plain enough. “I would be curious about why they are leaving out the most important point of the evaluation,” says David Landry, senior research associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which conducts reproductive health research. “One can only speculate that the evaluation shows that the effects [of these programs] are moderate.”

The change in the focus of the study suggests the agency applies a different standard to abstinence-only programs than it does to its others. In its 2004 budget, for example, the Bush administration cut 40 percent of the funding for a Clinton-era after-school program after a single study indicated that the participants’ grades did not improve.

Reproductive health advocates are concerned about the pass being given to abstinence-only programs. “Our take on it is that they’re changing the measures so that they have more of the outcomes that the administration is looking for,” says Tamara Kreinin, head of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. “We think if you ask a fifth-grader if they intend to delay sexual activity, they’re going to say yes. We would frankly hope they’re going to say yes. What we’re really interested in is, ‘Does a program delay initiation of sex?’ ”

The most recent studies indicate that, for abstinence-only programs, the answer is no. In September 2004, Advocates for Youth, which supports access to sex education, issued a report on 10 states’ recent evaluations of their own abstinence-only programs. Of the 10 evaluations, five measured changes in teens’ long-term sexual behavior (three to 17 months after the program ended). None of the five showed any impact on reducing long-term behavior. Of the six evaluations that reported on short-term changes in behavior, three showed no impact, two showed increases in sexual behavior, and one showed mixed results.

Ironically, if the administration was serious about keeping kids abstinent longer, research has already shown a proven way: investment in sex education. In 2001, for example, the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy looked at the evaluation results of 250 teen pregnancy prevention programs and found that none of the scientifically evaluated abstinence-only programs had delayed teens’ initiation of sex. By contrast, almost a third of the scientifically evaluated sex education programs showed that those programs had delayed initiation. Keep in mind that delaying initiation is only one goal of sex education programs; they are equally focused on keeping kids safe if they choose to have sex (a task that abstinence-only programs decline to address entirely).

Curiously, President George W. Bush’s support for the abstinence-only approach dissolves when he visits countries where chastity promotion alone would be catastrophic. In June 2003, on a visit to Uganda, he congratulated the government for its successful AIDS prevention effort, specifically mentioning its promotion of condom use as an effective strategy.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  This administration would seem to prefer only the science that supports it’s view. What a surprise!
  As with foreign intelligence, environmental policy, effects of the tax cuts, drug benefit costs, size of the deficit, and progress in Iraq.

  Posted by Kenneth D. Brown on Feb 11, 2005 at 3:20 AM

  Parents at home can get around the blindspots of abstinence-only curricula by informing their own kids about sex from an informed, scientific angle, starting by referring to genitals by their ordinary names when they’re very little and giving them age-appropriate books, health-oriented website URLs, and informative videos (the public library might have stuff like this). There’s so much accurate, interesting information around, if the local school or community program is hamstrung by federal restrictions tied to funding, there’s no need to waste time waiting for the bureaucracy to change its tune. It does need to change its tune, of course, but kids are only young for a little while, so it makes a lot more sense to help your kids get educated with your involvement and lobby for policy change as separate needed emphasis. Better for the kids to have good reasons taught to them about why it’s smart to wait until they’re a bit older, and also how to be smart about it when they decide they’re ready to go for it. Religious families will likely advocate abstinence before marriage, but even their kids would benefit from accurate health information, whether HHS offers it or not.

  Posted by Kuya on Feb 11, 2005 at 2:04 PM

  Putting politics aside…and that includes putting out a cry for a re-establishment of programs to address the problem which WILL occur.

  The outgrowth of all this is going to be the same as it was before, when sexuality wasn’t discussed openly.

  We will see an outbreak of teen pregnancy, increased abortion, new outbreaks of teen venereal disease…and some of this is already beginning to be manifested today.

  And whether or not people will OPENLY show their desire for services they NEED (even though politically or religiously disagree with them)...they WILL be seeking them. And we will be right back where we started.

  Affluent families will send their pregnant teen age daughters on “long” vacations, the poor will have to seek “other methods” to obtain care for their children.

  Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 11, 2005 at 2:43 PM

  I received excellent sex education in my convent (yes, convent) school (a free education public school in small-town Ireland, not an expensive boarding school), commencing with an optional afternoon of sex education by parental consent (everyone in my class attended) in the final year of primary school (ie, age 12) and continuing throughout second level education - linked in with civics lessons, religion lessons and biology lessons - including the video that made most of my all-female class swear themselves to chastity: child-birth in all its gorey detail!

  In any case, this holistic approach, rather than dealing with it in isolation, put sex in context (societal/political, moral/emotional & practical/mechanical) and made us think of the ‘big picture’ consequences of our actions. It meant that sex just became another quality of life issue: not drinking when driving, choosing not to do Class A drugs, applying for third level education or an apprenticeship, flossing regularly and taking responsibility for your own sexuality, whether you choose abstinence or safe sex.

  Education is power.

  Posted by Tel on Feb 11, 2005 at 3:44 PM

  “Education” can be corrupting too.

  That is the point of this article. You can teach falsehoods and half truths issue a diploma and call someone educated.

  Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Feb 11, 2005 at 4:39 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 11 posts.

Also featured Blind Faith
Freedom from Reality
Cashing in on Cons

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Steve Yoder

• Real Sex Ed Returns
  But will Democrats axe abstinence-only?Posted on March 7, 2009
• Unlocking Bush’s Chastity Belt
  For all its fumbling, the Bush administration has one achievement of note: it… morePosted on April 30, 2008