Burnt Orange Report

The compelling point that continues to elude them is that sex-ed is a form of DAMAGE CONTROL: the one thing you can count on from teenagers is bad judgement; the entire purpose of sex-ed is to minimize the long-term consequences thereof.

The ideological equivalent of what they are proposing would be driver education that fails to address the headlights in a car because they would rather the teenagers in question not drive at night!

Sure, kids who take an abstinence based "sex-ed" class may be somewhat less likely to have sex, but those that do are much less likely to have safe sex.

To date, six studies of abstinence-only programs have been published. None of these studies has found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, and at least one study provided strong evidence that the program did not delay the onset of intercourse. Thus, the weight of the current evidence indicates that these abstinence programs do not delay the onset of intercourse.Link.

Damn, I hate that "pro-condom bias," whatever happened to fair and balanced?

Jeff -- excellent point about "Damage Control" and teenagers making bad choices. We've all been there - we've all done it.

As I point out frequently - no matter what "immoral act" that my child or your child might do - the bottom line is should they have to die for it? We aren't talking about preventing pregnancies anymore, we are talking about preventing deaths.

Just a note on what the state law actually says about abstinence education in the public schools (section 28.004 of the Education Code):

e) Any course materials and instruction relating to human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, or human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome
shall be selected by the board of trustees with the advice of the local school health advisory council and must:
(1) present abstinence from sexual activity as the preferred choice of behavior in relationship to all sexual activity
for unmarried persons of school age;
(2) devote more attention to abstinence from sexual activity than to any other behavior;
(3) emphasize that abstinence from sexual activity, if used consistently and correctly, is the only method that is 100
percent effective in preventing pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, infection with human immunodeficiency virus or acquired
immune deficiency syndrome, and the emotional trauma associated with adolescent sexual activity;
(4) direct adolescents to a standard of behavior in which abstinence from sexual activity before marriage is the most
effective way to prevent pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and infection with human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune
deficiency syndrome; and
(5) teach contraception and condom use in terms of human use reality rates instead of theoretical laboratory rates, if
instruction on contraception and condoms is included in curriculum content.
(f) A school district may not distribute condoms in connection with instruction relating to human sexuality.
(g) A school district that provides human sexuality instruction may separate students according to sex for instructional purposes.

There may be some room for interpretation of the statute, but it does not require that the curriculum be abstinence ONLY, just that it be pro-abstinence. The sneaky thing (which I rather like, since I take credit for the language) is that it says that abstinence has to be used "consistently and correctly." You may recognize this from every discussion of condom use that you ever heard. But it also applies to abstinence, since it's a fair bet that some young'uns don't quite have a clear notion of just exactly what all is involved in full time abstinence, especially at prom time or when they are told that certain non-missionary-position-like activities are "not really" sex.

While condom distribution is disallowed "in connection with instruction relating to human sexuality," there is no outright prohibition of condom distribution. And, while "human use reality rates" was probably supposed to be some legislator's code for the Mariposa study, the FDA soundly debunked that and the CDC (before the Bush administration seemed to be having everything pulled from their website) had a fair amount of good information that supported the efficacy of condoms for disease prevention. You can still find some good information on the TDH HIV Bureau site (http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/hivstd) in the educational materials there.

There is a fair amount of "hidden pearls" hokum in the statute, but this is Texas and it fits the culture. There is still plenty of room for science in the sex ed curriculum under the current state law. The proposed health textbooks are a pitiful excuse for fulfilling that curriculum.

The next State Board of Education meeting is September 9-10. My understanding is that they will again hear testimony about the health textbooks. You can write them between now and then. Go to http://www.tea.state.tx.us for contact information (sorry this interface is tough for me to handle).

Good points, cp. Texas law may be "abstinence-first," but it is definitely not "abstinence-only," as the AFA wrongly claims. Also, the TEKS standards require students to know about other methods.

There are some problems with the law itself. I guess this is what you meant by "hidden pearls" hokum:

First, subsection 4 conflates "marriage" with "monogamy," i.e., faithfulness to one partner. Abstinence until monogamy, if practiced by both partners, will indeed protect both from STDs (although not "pregnancy," as the law idiotically asserts), but abstinence until "marriage" is no protection at all if either partner is unfaithful. The Texas Legislature may think it can set the laws of nature, but bacteria and viruses do not check the courthouse records before deciding whether to infect you or your partner.

More importantly, subsections 3 and 5 are unfair when taken together. (3) essentially requires teaching abstinence in terms of its "theoretical laboratory" efficacy (100%), while (5) prohibits the same for "contraception and condom use" (a weird enough phrase in itself - as if you could use condoms "consistently and correctly" without contraception! Quick! call the Pope with this scientific breakthrough!) Since the aforementioned studies suggest that people attemping abstinence "fail" about as frequently as people even attempt other methods, "human use reality rates" for abstinence would make it the worst method for preventing unwanted pregnancy or STDs!

But, that's Texas law and we're stuck arguing within that framework. Pity the textbook publishers found even that too controversial.