FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Just Say

The influence of the hard-line religious right on Bush Administration decisions and policies is everywhere apparent. (One need only think of the choice of John Ashcroft for attorney general, the nomination of anti-abortion judges to the federal courts, or the Administration’s uncritical sponsorship of Israel.) But nowhere is it more damaging than in federally-funded “abstinence-only” programs. These programs, meant to convince teenagers to abstain from sex until marriage, also censor basic information about how to protect against HIV/AIDS.

Federal health agencies and other expert bodies uniformly recognize that condoms, when used correctly, are a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV. Yet, by law, “abstinence-only-until-marriage” education programs cannot “promote or endorse” condoms or provide any instruction regarding their use.

In Texas, one of the epicenters of the abstinence-only movement, program administrators not only censor information about condoms, they actually promote misinformation. “We don’t discuss condom use,” a Texas school official acknowledged in an interview with Human Rights Watch, “except to say that condoms don’t work.”

Federal funding for abstinence-only education runs to over $100 million per year. The Bush Administration is currently pressing Congress to authorize an increase of many millions more. As it did with regulations that forbade federally-funded clinics from discussing abortion–another pet cause of the religious right–the Administration has also been trying to promote its abstinence-only agenda internationally.

Adolescents, Condoms, and HIV/AIDS

Every year, hundreds of American adolescents contract HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The disease has a relatively high incidence among young adults, with the median age of HIV infection having dropped steadily over the years.

Experts note that even though the overall incidence of AIDS declined during the 1990s, its prevalence among American youth did not. According to one authoritative estimate, at least half of all new HIV cases occur among people under age twenty-five, with most of them being infected via sexual activity.

Because of condoms’ effectiveness, when used correctly, in preventing the transmission of HIV, federal health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all agree that adolescents should be provided information about the proper use of condoms. Like the American Medical Association and other professional organizations, they recommend reliance on comprehensive sex education programs, ones that include information on how sexually active young people can protect themselves.

Abstinence-Only

But sex education has never fit comfortably within the American moral agenda. To the Christian right, it is a frightful hobgoblin, one of the root causes of adolescent sexual “irresponsibility.”

The moral alternative to knowledge (both carnal and intellectual) is apparently ignorance. In 1981, just predating public awareness of the HIV/AIDS crisis, federal funding of abstinence-only programs began. The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), passed under the Reagan Administration’s auspices, provides financial assistance to programs to “promote self discipline and other prudent approaches to the problem of adolescent premarital sexual relations.”

Congress greatly increased funding for abstinence-only programs in 1996, under Clinton, when it passed the Welfare Reform Act. To qualify for funding under the law, programs must portray abstention from sexual activity until marriage as the only acceptable behavior for youth.

With a presumably unintended nod to Gandhi, the law defines abstinence education programs as those whose “exclusive purpose” is to teach “the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity.” This narrow focus on abstinence means, according to the director of the federal agency charged with administering the law, that such programs cannot “promote or endorse” condoms, or otherwise discuss them–except to provide “factual information, such as failure rates.”

A third federal program, established in 2000, is even more restrictive. Its grantees cannot even use their own separate funds to provide “other education regarding sexual conduct”–including, of course, education regarding condom use–to teenagers who are receiving abstinence-only services.

Notably, the continued expansion in abstinence-only programs has taken place despite a singular absence of evidence that such programs are effective. A study commissioned by Congress, whose interim findings were issued this year, found no proof that these programs worked to reduce the incidence of teen sex, pregnancy, or the transmission of disease.

Case Study in Abstinence: Texas

Human Rights Watch recently examined the impact of abstinence-only programs in Texas, a state that receives a substantial share of federal abstinence-only funding. It found that such programs either “omit any discussion of condoms and contraception,” or “provide inaccurate or misleading information about condoms as a method of HIV/AIDS prevention.”

Nor can it be said, in defense of such programs, that they simply provide one perspective that is supplemented by others. To the contrary, Human Rights Watch found that Texas’ abstinence-only programs were crowding out other sources of HIV/AIDS prevention information. In Laredo, for example, HIV/AIDS experts from the local health department were barred from city schools because they were not teaching abstinence but prevention.

Challenging the Censorship of HIV/AIDS Prevention Information

In restricting students’ access to important HIV/AIDS prevention information, these programs implement a potentially lethal form of censorship. Yet, notwithstanding their pernicious impact, the viewpoint-based restrictions on speech imposed by federal abstinence-only legislation would likely survive a legal challenge on First Amendment grounds.

Defenders of these laws would rely on the Supreme Court’s regrettable opinion in the 1991 case of Rust v. Sullivan, which upheld the abortion “gag rule.” In Rust, the Court ruled that federal regulations denying funding to organizations that counseled people about abortion, engaged in pro-choice lobbying, or provided abortion referrals, even if those activities were paid for out of entirely separate sources of financing.

From Texas to the World

As it previously did with the abortion gag rule, the Bush Administration has taken recent steps toward imposing its restrictive abstinence-only views on a global audience. (In January 2001, during his very first week in office, President Bush issued an executive order barring U.S. financial assistance to international nongovernmental organizations that, using separate funds, engage in such activities as talking with clients about abortion, disseminating information about abortion, or advocating for the repeal of laws that restrict abortion.)

Last May, at the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Children, the U.S. delegation joined with Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan and the Holy See (the axis of fundamentalism?) to press summit participants to endorse sexual abstinence “both before and during marriage” as the only way to prevent HIV/AIDS transmission.

The Child Rights Caucus, a coalition of hundreds of nongovernmental organizations from around the world, condemned the U.S. emphasis on abstinence as “both naive and inappropriate.” As the caucus pointed out, “for the millions of girls who marry before age 18 or who are forced into sexual relationships, abstinence is not an option, and lack of access to appropriate education and services can be life-threatening.”

The Price of Ignorance

The Bush Administration is currently seeking to expand reliance on abstinence-only education programs, which are already found in all fifty states. From the current $100 million annually that goes to support such programs, the Administration is pressing Congress to increase federal funding to $135 million.

But the true cost of abstinence-only programs is not measurable in dollars. The ignorance purveyed by these programs puts young people at risk of HIV infection and premature death.

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights attorney.

Mariner directs readers seeking more information on this topic to Human Rights Watch’s just-released report, Ignorance Only: HIV/AIDS, Human Rights, and Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Programs in the United States, which was researched and written by Rebecca Schleifer.

 

More articles by:

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York and Paris.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail