Reply
Thu 2 Dec, 2004 06:03 am
The original name of this article is "Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says" When I read the piece I became more and more angry. Apparently the current "p.c. police", who develop sex education curricula, have decided that it is ok to teach not only slanted information (which the schools have always taught) but outright lies.
Mislead, my Aunt Tallulah. These kids are being told gross untruths, in the vain attempt to scare them out of having sex. This approach, IMO is not only academically dishonest, but potentially destructive. The youngsters, of whom many WILL have sex, no matter what the teacher says, is not learning how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases.
Quote:Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has 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 projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
Quote:Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.
One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26623-2004Dec1.html
The more I think about this article, the angrier I get. Personally, I would rather the schools teach nothing about sex, than to teach lies. What is YOUR reaction, and what do you think should be done about it, if anything?
I agree with you on that one. The last thing we need is a generation of young people who don't know how babies are made.
What really bothers me, is that I perceive a definite political agenda trumping academic honesty.
I happen to believe that abstinence needs to be taught as PART of a comprehensive sex education program. It is better for teenagers to learn that it is ok to wait until one is ready emotionally for sex, and not to be swayed by peer pressure into having sex. Young girls need to understand that boys will pressure them, and how to develop coping skills to fend off seductive adolescent swains.
That being said, the young people need to know the truth about matters of sex, and learn ways of protection, if one chooses to have sex.
Oh, and by the way, no matter what any national figure believes, IMO oral sex IS sex.
Phoenix32890 wrote:What really bothers me, is that I perceive a definite political agenda trumping academic honesty.
Definitely true. I would prefer it were taught as part of biology. You can cover everything there -- reproductive health, communicable diseases, etc...
I definitely agree that kids need to be taught that they have options and that abstinence is a valid one. And I understand that not all kids will get that at home.
Agreed, Phoenix. My parents taught me absolutely nothing. Somehow sex was just something not to be discussed, and like you, I would rather they have no sex education than teach lies.
Tax money supporting the notion that ignorance is bliss....
My mind boggles.
And - pushing this twaddle overseas - while forcing clinics funded by US dollars to stop doing lots of things that DO help - like handing out condoms.
Nobody is objecting to ACCURATE information being given to support abstinence/faithfulness - but this fundamentalist Bush administration stuff has been making my blood boil for a while now...
That is akin to contributing to people's deaths, in places where AIDS is way more out of control than in the US.
To be fair - abortion CAN lead to infertility - but it is rare - it can also lead to death (a percentage of people will die under any anaesthetic - surgery is inherently dangerous and ANY surgery carries risk) it can lead to perforated uteruii, and various other risks.
I do wonder about the suicide data - I have certainly worked with women who cannot forgive themselves for abortions - usually where they gave in to some sort of pressure - but young girls with unwanted pregnancies suicide, too.
I do think that many women expreience grief - that may last for years - (or turn up much later - when they DO have a baby - and the impact of what an abortion means becomes apparent to them) about abortions - and that this needs to discussed prior to the termination - and support offered after.
Unfortunately, these decisions often have to be made very quickly - as the first trimester is often nearly up by the time a pregnancy is confirmed - especially where it is a thing dreaded by the womam.
I have, in the past, when I worked where there was an abortion clinic, felt that too little was made of risks etc - I can recall a very heated response from a counsellor in another clinic when the counsellor in ours (who was both a social worker and an RN) commented on the fact that she, as well as the doctors, gave info on medical risks (working on the well-founded assumption that stressed people only hear a tiny portion of what is said to them when being given information). The other person proclaimed that there ARE no risks - which is sheer crap - and an occasion where I actually agreed that PC was in operation, and harmful.
I can no longer comment - having not worked anywhere near an abortion clinic since 1989!!
Australian law says that ALL risks - no matter how small - must be explained to people prior to any precedure - so I know that all medical risks are being explained.
I was reading just today about the risk of driving to the grocery market. I'm never going grocery shopping again!
I don't know if any of you saw the thread I started the other day about a similiar topic. There was an interesting editiorial the other day by Nicholas Kristof about the problems with abstince only education. I asked parents how they supplemented the information their kids get in sex ed. It has been very enlightening.
I'm not trolling for participants but I would love to hear everyone here's comments:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=45882&highlight=
If you go to the website of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, the source of the misinformation that Sen. Waxman notes, you will see that 1) there is no way to find the names of any physicians involved in this dissemination of false information and 2) the search window at the site has a default setting of "Abstinence." Hmmmm. By the way, numerous government health agencies link directly to MISH.
Legitimate medical articles go through peer review. I can't help but wonder whether some of the idealogues who contribute to the publication online of this false and misleading information are, indeed, medical doctors. If they are, why don't they post their names with the detailed articles they have supposedly written, as is traditional? Perhaps, any physicians involved realize that their "scientific research" would not stand up to review. Or, it may be that the researchers are not physicians or FNPs or registered nurses, or medical personnel of any kind--but are merely trumpeters of a certain species of political view.
And we, the public, are paying for the distribution of bad science to our own children. Phoenix, you are right to be upset!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace