Written by Scott Phelps

Bristol Palin is facing stiff criticism in the wake of her announcement that she is pregnant for a second time — and still unmarried. She is being called a hypocrite due to her work as an abstinence advocate for the Candie’s Foundation. Palin denies ever being paid as an “abstinence spokesperson.” Posting evidence online to the contrary, her detractors now say that she is not only a hypocrite but also a liar.

Bristol Palin is right. She is neither.

The Candie’s campaign was titled: “Pause Before You Play.” In one video, Palin tells her male suitor that she hopes he is “committed to safe-sex.” She later states, “I’m worried about you and you practicing safe-sex” to which he replies, “I practice a whole lot” as he pulls out a wad of condoms to prove he is “practicing safe-sex.” Palin then responds:  “Pause before you play.”

So Palin’s not lying. That’s not an abstinence message. It’s actually the “safer-sex” message promoted by her most strident critics. Calling this an “abstinence” campaign gives abstinence a bad name. It’s like someone buying a knock-off Coach purse on a New York sidewalk and then complaining about the poor quality. This is why we have trademark laws. Too bad we can’t trademark “abstinence” to combat the forgeries.  Palin was not an abstinence spokesperson.

In Candie’s defense, they don’t claim to promote “abstinence” or “marriage.”  Their low-bar threshold is simply “to delay pregnancy,” a standard which, by the way, Palin achieved.

In addressing her critics, Palin defends herself saying that Candie’s is  “a teen pregnancy prevention non-profit and I worked for them when I was 18 and 19… However, I’m not 17 anymore, I am 24. I’ve been employed at the same doctor’s office for over six years now; I own a home; I have a well-rounded, beautiful son.”

See. She did it. She’s not a teen anymore. She delayed her pregnancy, just as the Candie’s campaign said. She’s no hypocrite.  Seriously.

But this is the problem. Too many teens have received and followed Candie’s advice to delay pregnancy without being taught the value of waiting until marriage. Candie’s states:

“Each year millions of teens are exposed to the foundation’s message, which encourages them to delay pregnancy …  our goal is to influence teen culture.”

And they are.

Last year, 882,398 babies were born to women in Palin’s age group (20-24).  Of those, 579,653, or two-thirds of those babies, were born to unmarried mothers. But Candie’s isn’t the only group pushing the “delay-sex-safe-sex” message that has been so detrimental to our young adult culture. Candie’s is just a tiny part of the anti-abstinence groupthink that pervades the media and much of the educational establishment.

Abstinence education does not teach teens to “delay sex” but rather to save all sexual activity for marriage. These are two distinctly different messages, as this episode illustrates. Abstinence programs encourage teens to finish school, pursue their career goals, and to reserve all sexual activity and childbearing for marriage. This proven formula provides the best hope for future outcomes and is vital in seeking to restore a culture of marriage and family in America.

According to the CDC most high school students are abstinent and teen pregnancies are at an all-time recorded low. Parents, pastors, and school administrators can encourage this trend by avoiding gimmick campaigns and providing their students with true abstinence-until-marriage education.

Scott Phelps is executive director of the Abstinence & Marriage Education Partnership near Chicago and a co-founder of the National Abstinence Education Association in Washington D.C.

This article was first published by the Chicago Sun-Times.

Editor’s Note:  This bill could be called for a vote as early as this afternoon.
Please take a few minutes to contact your state senator today!

As noted in my last article on the comprehensive sex ed bill (HB 2675), no lawmakers in the Illinois House who supported the bill, including the sponsors, provided any research-based evidence during floor debates proving the superior effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed. In response to an inquiry from an Illinois citizen, State Representative Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) provided two articles and one study in defense of her support for this troubling and unnecessary bill (currently any school district is free to use comprehensive sex ed curricula). Her use of these particular pieces of evidence demonstrates exactly what’s wrong with both this bill and the sloppy way it’s been promoted in Springfield.

The bill’s supporters cited the high rates of teen pregnancy and STDs as the reasons this proposed law is necessary. If passed this bill would mandate the use of what are called “comprehensive sex ed” or contraceptive-based “Sexual Risk Reduction” (SRR) curricula, while banning the use of what are called “abstinence-centered,” or “Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA)” curricula in any school district that teaches about sexual health, which is virtually every school district in the state.

The two articles cited by Gabel are “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs: Ineffective, Unethical, and Poor Public Health,” and “Review of Key Findings of ‘Emerging Answers 2007’ Report on Sex Education Programs.” The one study is “Abstinence-Only Education and Teen Pregnancy Rates: Why We Need Comprehensive Sex Education in the U.S.”

In addition to making arguable claims about abstinence education, neither of the articles even claims that comprehensive sex ed is more effective at reducing rates of teen pregnancies and STDs.

And the one study Gabel cites is a deeply flawed study from the University of Georgia (UGA) that addresses only teen pregnancy.

Mary Anne Mosack, National Director for State Initiatives of the National Abstinence Education Association writes this about the UGA study:

This study is a weak attempt to correlate high birth rates in states to abstinence education. Even the most basic understanding of research protocols, cautions against claiming causation based on correlation.  This study draws a very simplistic conclusion to the complex problem of teen pregnancy. There are numerous factors contributing to high teen birth rates not the least of which are family structure, poverty and cultural environment.

However, this study attempts to draw conclusions for a subset of the population (only students in abstinence education classes) by looking at data for an entire state population to establish their findings. This showcases an extremely flawed study design that not only invalidates findings but calls into question the motivation behind a study that purports to seriously inform public policy based on scientific rigor.

By examining state sex education laws alone the researchers make the erroneous conclusion that these laws accurately reflect what is actually being taught in schools and make no mention of the percentage of students in a state who actually received abstinence classes, a serious research error on which to base such sweeping conclusions!

Vast field experience across the country shows that contraceptive-based programs have been implemented in every state regardless of the law. Even the very anti-abstinence Guttmacher Institute concluded that only 25% of schools across the country were receiving abstinence education during the decade examined in this study. In actual practice, no state can be categorized as “abstinence-only.”

Further considerations must note this study does not indicate how a state is trending. Are they moving in the right or wrong direction? It is clear that abstinence opponents would like to take all the credit for the recent positive drop in teen birth rates while disingenuously attacking abstinence education. Producing a flawed study to make that claim is sad commentary on what should be a sincere attempt to effectively reach the youth we are trying to serve.

Here are two lessons we should learn from this embarrassing attempt by Rep. Gabel to justify the legal banning of the use of abstinence-centered education:

1. If the Left introduces, for example, three studies that say something negative about abstinence education and/or positive about comprehensive sex ed, and the Right introduces three studies that say something negative about  comprehensive sex ed and/or positive about abstinence-centered education, it’s a wash. Lawmakers can’t rationally mandate the use of one type of curriculum unless they can provide proof that it is consistently more effective at achieving some particular goal.
   
   
2. The bill’s supporters have told us what their goals are, and they can’t change goals when their lack of evidence for their stated goals is exposed. The bill’s sponsors stated that their goals are to reduce the rates of STDs and teen pregnancies. Gabel produced only one flawed study that addresses only one of those problems [the bill’s House sponsor State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) produced none]. The other two articles didn’t even claim that comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence education at solving the problems of high rates of teen pregnancies and STDs. The articles make the arguable claims either that abstinence education hasn’t achieved its own goals or that it’s no more effective than comprehensive sex ed. Well, if the two types of curricula are roughly comparable, the Left can’t rationally ban only one of the two.

The Left continually misrepresents abstinence-centered (SRA) curricula and even created a term that embodies their misrepresentations: “abstinence-only education.” To those like State Representative Scott Drury (D-Highwood) who admitted he never even looked at an abstinence-centered curriculum before voting to ban them, this title suggests abstinence-centered education addresses only abstinence, which is false. Here is a description of the content of typical Sexual Risk Avoidance curricula:

SRA abstinence education teaches that “having sex” can potentially affect not only the physical aspect of a teen’s life but also, as research shows, can have emotional, psychological, social, economic, and educational consequences as well. That’s why topics frequently discussed in an SRA abstinence education class include how to develop a healthy relationship, how to avoid or get out of a dangerous, unhealthy, or abusive relationship, developing skills to make good decisions, setting goals for the future and taking realistic steps to reach them, understanding and avoiding STDs, information about contraceptives and their effectiveness against pregnancy and STDs, practical ways to avoid inappropriate sexual advances, and why saving sex for marriage is optimal.

Remember, if the evidence provided by our lawmakers doesn’t specifically address STD and teen pregnancy rates, it’s irrelevant. And if the evidence doesn’t prove conclusively that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence-centered education in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates, there is no justification for legally prohibiting the use of abstinence-centered curricula.

The evidence on the efficacy of abstinence-centered sex ed is certainly sufficient to allow school districts the right to choose it. For more clarification on the biased and inaccurate claims made about abstinence-centered sex education, click HERE.

Here are two articles of particular relevance on this website:

NAEA Report: Considerations for Protecting Teen Health: Part I will refute point by point the claims from the Guttmacher article on the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed that Rep. Gabel cites.

Correcting Misinformation.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.  You can also call the Capitol switchboard number at (217) 782-2000 and ask to be transferred to your state senator’s office or call IFI for their number.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Using the presumptuous title “National Sexuality Education Standards,” a group of anti-abstinence “experts” have offered a questionable version of what, when, and how, topics regarding sexuality should be taught in American schools. The National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) challenges these so-called “standards” that ignore the optimal health message for students, and instead place a priority on a simple risk reduction message. “When we set standards, we should communicate the ideal, the best message to achieve optimal health,” stated Valerie Huber, Executive Director of NAEA. “When a set of guidelines fails to provide any meaningful emphasis on optimal health but instead gives priority to ‘condom negotiation’ skills, we have not set standards; we have lowered them and put our children at increased risk” added Huber.

In addition, NAEA disputes the appropriateness of introducing sensitive and often controversial topics into the K-12 classroom, essentially using sex education guidelines as a vehicle for promoting ideological agendas rather than health and well-being. “Standards claiming national influence should maintain an objectivity that is devoid of special-interest agendas,” added Huber.

NAEA advocates for strong, clear Sexual Risk Avoidance programs as the best standard for educating youth regarding sexuality.

By Leigh Jones, World Magazine

Sexual activity and pregnancy among teens is declining

Two reports recently released by the Centers for Disease Control show teens are embracing abstinence, despite the prevalence of promiscuity portrayed in music, movies and on television.

Abstinence advocates say the new statistics on sexual activity and birth rates among teens are an encouraging sign that young people understand the risks associated with having sex, even though most of them have been taught that taking the right precautions makes it safe. The new numbers also disprove one of the main arguments used by advocates of sex education, said Cindy Hopkins, vice president for center services at Care Net, which operates pro-life pregnancy centers across the country.

“The message we hear from the other side is that teenagers cannot control their hormones, so they need to be taught about safe or safer sex,” she said. “It’s encouraging to know they can control themselves. When they hear the truth, they can assess it and make wise decisions.”

The increasing rates of abstinence also show teens are capable of making wise decisions even though many of the adults around them are sending them messages that normalize teen sex, said Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Association.

According to a report on teen sexual activity released in October, the number of girls having sex between the ages of 15 and 19 dropped 8 percent between 1988 and 2010, from 51 percent to 43 percent. The number of boys having sex dropped 18 percent, from 60 percent to 42 percent.

The rates of abstinence were highest among 15- to 17-year-olds, with only 27 percent of girls and 28 percent of boys reporting sexual activity. In 1988, 37 percent of girls and 50 percent of boys in the same age range told researchers they already had started having sex.

Huber called the declines good news, especially for parents and mentors who encourage teens to wait.

“Abstinence is a life choice that is resonating with teens,” she said. “They are not ashamed of it. They are embracing it.”

Another report released earlier this month showed birth rates for teens also are declining. In 2010, the number of babies born to mothers between 15 and 19 years old dropped to the lowest level ever recorded in the United States, a 9 percent decrease from the previous year. Births to teens younger than 20 declined 10 percent, reaching the lowest level recorded since 1946.

Statistics released by the liberal Guttmacher Institute show a corresponding decline in abortions.

According to a report released last year, the number of teens who chose to terminate their pregnancies dropped 55 percent between 1988 and 2006, from 45 to 20 abortions per 1,000 women. But Hopkins warned those numbers might not show the full picture. More women are choosing medical abortions in the early stages of pregnancy, taking a pill to induce an abortion instead of going to a clinic for a surgical procedure, she said. Because medical abortions are universally acknowledged to be underreported, it’s hard to know for sure how many pregnancies are being terminated, she said.

Huber, who will spend Friday briefing lawmakers on a bill that would bring renewed emphasis and funding to abstinence education efforts, said the government’s own research proves that the current messaging about safe sex isn’t working. And the choices teens are making prove the message isn’t even relevant, Huber said.

“The current messaging, culturally and in sex ed classes, is one that normalizes teen sex,” she said. “It’s communicating that if everyone isn’t doing it, everyone will soon. But that’s not necessarily the case.”

Abstinence education programs are being credited with the good news coming in a new report the CDC issued Thursday from the National Center for Health Statistics showing teen birth rates dropping.

The birth rate for U.S. teens aged 15-19 years hit a record low in 2010, according to the report, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2010,” from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. The report is based on an analysis of nearly 100 percent of birth records collected in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories.

The birth rate for teenagers aged 15-19 has declined for the last three years and 17 out of the past 19 years, falling to 34.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in 2010 – a 9 percent decline from 2009 and the lowest rate ever recorded in nearly seven decades of collecting data.  Birth rates for younger and older teenagers and for all race/ethnic groups reached historic lows in 2010.

Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association reacted to the report in an email to LifeNews, and the said the good news on teen birth rates is tempered by news on teen rates of sexual diseases.

“While we want to celebrate good news, we may also want to hold our applause while we review the two new reports coming from the CDC,” she said. “Admittedly, good news is not easy to come by in the world of teen sexual activity. So, the new CDC report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) on the decline in teen births hitting a new low is to be cheered.”

“The 9% drop is impressive but not entirely surprising. This news follows another recent report from the CDC showing that nearly 75% of 15-17 year olds are not having sex,” Huber added. “When data shows the majority of teens are choosing to be abstinent, a decrease in pregnancy rates is to be expected and we are very encouraged by the positive choices teens are making.”

“However, our congratulatory spirit may be given pause when we consider the soaring rates of certain STD’s among all groups including teens.  NAEA has long held the view that teen pregnancy prevention programs are not enough,” she said. “Simply curbing teen pregnancy is a short-sighted goal that ignores the larger issue of teen sexual activity that must be addressed. Just because pregnancy is prevented does not mean that STDs are prevented, as these reports illustrate. The myth of ‘protected sex’ is clearly exposed by the high prevalence of STDs in teens and falls tragically short of what is the healthiest message.”

NAEA believes the proven programs of Sexual Risk Avoidance abstinence education have contributed greatly to this positive decline. Against a barrage of disingenuous claims that the abstinence message is unrealistic for teens, NAEA has continued to promote programs that empower teens to make the healthy choice of abstinence. The 22-peer reviewed studies showing the effectiveness of such programs are now being validated in the recent decline in teen birth rates.

But Huber is concerned by numbers showing chlamydia rates are the highest they have been in twenty years and have increased 24% since 2006, with African American teen girls bearing the greatest burden. And while Gonorrhea rates are down, the CDC warns that strains are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment, showing that sexual risk avoidance should be given priority.

“Teen pregnancy prevention efforts are insufficient. This is a simplistic response to a complex problem. Only an approach that helps teens avoid all the risk associated with sexual decision-making will adequately address the myriad of potential consequences related to teen sexual activity,” she concluded.

Help expand our reach
by forwarding this email to like-minded family and friends.

Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

Supporters for abstinence-based education are applauding a new report that sexual activity among teens is decreasing.

Nearly 70 percent of boys (68%) and girls (67%), ages 15-17, have never had sexual intercourse, according to a survey (2006-2008) released last week by the National Center for Health Statistics. In addition, 53 percent of boys and 58 percent of girls in the same age bracket have never had any type of sexual contact — up from 46 percent of boys and 49 percent of girls in 2002. The new study also shows that more young adults are choosing abstinence.

“It looks like truth is beginning to win the day when it comes to teens and sex,” responds ,Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association. “…I think [they] are beginning to learn that they need more than latex to protect themselves and they’re choosing to wait — [that’s] very good news.” And that data, she argues, renders “null and void” the typical claims by anti-abstinence advocacy groups that abstinence is unrealistic.

She tells OneNewsNow while trends are encouraging, she remains concerned. “…With Congress zeroing out all funds for community-based abstinence education programs, per the president’s request, I think we have to ask the question: who is supporting young people and these good decisions?” she wonders.

“With 170 programs around the country no longer able to provide the skills and the encouragement to those young people, it’s definitely time for us to take this data and make some policy corrections.”

Benefit being lost
Toward that end, young people from across America are meeting today with House and Senate members on Capital Hill, sharing how abstinence education has made a difference in their lives and urging lawmakers to reinstate federal funding for abstinence education. Huber contends that members of Congress are sending the wrong message to students by not giving federal priority to abstinence education.

“Are we encouraging them to engage in behaviors that are going to help them now and later? Or are we sending them messages that are detrimental on a number of different levels?” she asks. “…Right now we are using our federal dollars and our federal priorities in ways that are not helpful to them and, in fact, [are] counterproductive and harmful.”

The students are on Capitol Hill to make their message personal, says the abstinence advocate. “Here in Washington it can often become just a bantering of talking points over policy initiatives,” Huber acknowledges. “…What gets lost is the benefit of this program for young people. So they can put a real face and a real life story behind the need to change the priorities in the arena of sex education as a nation.”

She says while Congress is looking to tighten its fiscal belt, an investment in abstinence education could reap great economic, social, and personal rewards.

The federal government’s latest survey on sexual behavior in the United States contains evidence that more teenagers are choosing abstinence over sex. In the 15 to 24 age group, 29 percent of females and 27 percent of males report never having sexual contact with another person-higher percentages in both cases than in 2002.

“The public’s general perception is that when it comes to young people and sex, the news is bad and likely to get worse,” said Bill Albert, chief program officer of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. The new report, however, provides at least indirect evidence that “many, many young people have been very receptive to the message of delaying sexual activity.”

The study also found that across the entire age-span surveyed — age 15 through age 44 — thirteen percent of women reported some same-sex sexual behavior in their lifetime, compared to 5 percent of men.

The study’s findings came from interviews with 13,495 men and women in the latest round of the National Survey of Family Growth, conducted from 2006 to 2008. The survey has been conducted 7 times since 1973.

Read more:

Sex survey sheds some light (Boston Globe)