April 25, 2008
COLD SHOWER
 |
Reps. Davis and Waxman |
At the first-ever Congressional hearing about the use of federal funds to support abstinence-only-until marriage sex education on Wednesday, nine of 11 witnesses advocated for comprehensive sex education programs. The testimony came on the heels of studies—including one by the Bush administration—that ab-only education doesn't prevent teen pregnancies or STIs and increasing national talk of "block grants" and "local control" of funding that would let states shift ab-only dollars to comprehensive sex ed.
No piece of testimony during the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was more compelling than that given by Max Siegel, an HIV-positive policy associate at AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families.
"When I was 17, I began seeing someone six years older than me. The first time we had sex, I took out a condom, but he ignored it. I did not know how to assert myself further. I knew enough to suggest a condom, but I didn't adequately understand the importance of using one, and even if I did, I had no idea how to discuss condoms with my partner. The abstinence-only message did not prepare me for life, and I contracted HIV from the first person with whom I consented to having unprotected sex. I was still in high school," Siegel told Congress during the three panel, four hour hearing. He also noted that as a gay man, his ab-only education didn't address the fact that it is not legally possible for him to wait until marriage to have sex.
Siegel's testimony clearly moved Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT). Shays admonished Stanley Mooney, director of the Institute for Research and Evaluation, who provided unconfirmed evidence in defense of what Mooney described as "abstinence-centered education" that does not teach about contraceptives.
"You object to young people having the armor they need. If you abstain, you're protected. If you do anything else you're on your own," Shays said. "The young man on your left [Siegel] dealing with HIV is one of the outcomes, and that's tragic. I just don't get it." According to one expert witness, Harvey Feinberg, president of the Institute of Medicine, out of 13 studies examining abstinence-only programs, none showed "an enduring effect" on teens' sexual behavior.
But it's not all about science...
While this politically charged issue isn't likely to be resolved any time soon, there is increasing talk of letting states have more control over sex-ed funding. The committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) favors block grants that would allow individual jurisdictions more flexibility in spending their dollars. Seventeen states have rejected federal funding for abstinence-only education.
"If communities are deciding for themselves, many of those communities will choose comprehensive sex education," Diana Bruce, Director of Policy and Government Affairs for the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families told the Update.
During the last ten years, the federal government has provided $1.3 billion for abstinence-only education and no funding for comprehensive sex education, despite the fact that 95 percent of Americans have sex before marriage. The Democrat-controlled Congress has continued to fund abstinence-only education, and even increased funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), in hopes of scaring up enough Republican votes to avoid a presidential veto on the House Appropriations budget. Their master plan failed, and Bush still vetoed the budget.
Funding for the Title V Abstinence Education Grant program, created in the 1996 welfare reform law, is the second largest source of ab-only funding. At $50 million a year, Title V is tied to the Temporary Medical Assistance program that allows those leaving welfare to qualify for Medicaid. When Democrats tried to delink the funding last year, Republicans balked. The ongoing, uncomfortable marriage makes it unlikely that Title V will be completely gutted in the near future. Both programs are up for review on June 30.