Spin Doctors: Abstinence-Only Sex Education Doesn’t Work. So Why Is Anyone Still Teaching It?

It’s easy to show the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex education — when it comes to preventing STIs and unintended pregnancies among teens, the research shows that it just doesn’t work. But one thing we often overlook is the motives behind abstinence-only education, and why it’s wrong to advocate abstinence to begin with.

Abstinence education is based on the idea that young people should choose not to have sex until marriage, and that the only way to prevent the spread of STIs and unintended pregnancy is to not have sex. We often make the assumption that when it comes to sex education, both sides base their advocacy on the importance of promoting sexual health. However, I do not believe that is what is truly at the heart of the abstinence movement.

Abstinence educator Pam Stenzel. Image via.

When I took a “sex education” class in junior high school in the great red State of Utah, I was shown a video featuring an abstinence advocate named Pam Stenzel. Stenzel’s program, called “Sex Has a Price Tag,” was, admittedly, quite compelling. Not only was she charismatic as she spoke and shared a great deal of humorous anecdotes, she also seemed grounded in her justification for advocating abstinence. She cited various facts about STIs and the effectiveness of contraceptives. However, looking back on it now, I can see that Stenzel failed to answer one question above all: is abstinence truly more effective than comprehensive sex education?

Of course not. Look at the research. Not only are we able to back up the effectiveness of contraceptive use, we are also able to show why abstinence has no long term benefits. In fact, research has shown that abstinence-only education actually makes young people less likely to use contraceptives when they do have sex.

During her talk, Stenzel claimed that her motivation for going around the country speaking about abstinence was that she didn’t want to see another young person say that they didn’t know about the potential consequences of sex. But Stenzel was also featured in the 2006 book by the esteemed Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. And in that book, she was quoted as giving a very different reason for teaching abstinence in a speech at a she gave at a conference for fundamentalist Christians. Here’s what she said (emphasis mine):

People of God, can I beg you, to commit yourself to truth, not what works… I don’t care if it works, because at the end of the day I’m not answering to you, I’m answering to God! Let me tell you something, people of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here. AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at 20 is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their first in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy. I will not teach my child that they can sin safely.

Really.

Stenzel’s comment highlights the true motivation behind abstinence education, and it isn’t public health. The opposite appears to be true: the abstinence movement is pushing an agenda that actually supports increased rates of unintended pregnancies and STIs among teens. The folks behind abstinence education would rather put an extreme ideology first — one that advocates for traditional gender roles, bans sexual activity outside of marriage, and ignores LGBT folks altogether — than do what’s best for the health of America’s youth.

A result of abstinence education: high teen pregnancy rates. Image via.

Why am I so sure about this? Because states where abstinence-only sex ed is taught have the highest rates of STI infection and teen pregnancy. The states with the lowest rates are the ones where comprehensive sex education is available to young people.

It’s pretty simple. We know abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work, and yet the abstinence movement continues to teach it. Stenzel’s religious motivation for abstinence is actually quite common among abstinence speakers. Sometimes I get the sense that the abstinence crowd doesn’t even actually care whether or not it works.  They seem much more preoccupied with policing other’s sex lives.

Abstinence advocates care more about policing others’ sex lives than promoting public health. Image via.

This idea that sex is immoral is based entirely on one particular ideology. But no one religious group should have the right to force their beliefs upon the majority — who may not share their views. Everyone deserves access to sexual health and wellbeing. This is something that abstinence education doesn’t teach, and our communities are suffering as a result.

Further reading: Interested in reading more about the motivations and practices of the abstinence movement? Check out Jessica Valenti’s The Purity Myth, our Millennial Advisory Council’s latest pick for their feminist book club.

 

The Flaw In Roe: The Landmark Decision Made Abortion Legal. Here’s What It Left Out.

Roe v. Wade is seen as a landmark decision which made choice possible for women in the United States. Yet 40 years after its inception, it’s as difficult as ever for many women to procure access to safe and legal abortion. While Roe v. Wade did more than any other court decision or piece of legislation to legalize abortion, it also spawned a backlash that has continued to see success decades after the decision was made. A flaw in the decision is what has ultimately helped to undermine it.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has spent her career advocating for the right to choose. Image via.

What was Roe’s primary flaw? In order to answer that question, we turn to a somewhat surprising source: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

During a talk last year at the University of Chicago Law School, Ginsburg stated that she felt that Roe was ultimately a faulty decision.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said during her lecture, “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice.”

Spin Doctors: Anti-Choice Laws Would Deny Abortion Care To Rape Victims. And Their Justifications Are As Terrible As You’d Think.

[Ed. Note: Trigger warning for rape.]

When fighting the barrage of anti-choice legislation sweeping American legislatures, pro-choice activists have often succeeded in keeping abortion access available only to women in the most horrific of circumstances. Exceptions for rape and incest are typical in anti-abortion legislation. Even the most vocal anti-choice politician has a hard time publicly defending the idea that women should be forced to bear the children of their rapists. However, in recent years, extreme anti-choice lawmakers in the United States have become more emboldened when it comes to taking abortion rights away from all women without exception.

A common theme  in arguments against exceptions for rape and incest is the “percentage” argument – or the claim that pregnancies resulting from rape or incest are rare. The specific figure of “less than 1%” is often used. The fact is, however, that the exact number of pregnancies resulting from rape is hard to determine. Some put the number of pregnancies at 5% of all rapes. Still others have pointed out that many rapes go unreported or are covered up, which also complicates the data. Whatever the case, it appears likely from the studies cited that there are at least tens of thousands of pregnancies resulting from rape in the United States every year. That less than one 1% argument doesn’t seem so benign when you actually think about the number of women “less than 1%” encompasses.

Lila Rose would deny this woman an abortion. Image via.

The basic idea that this anti-choice stance espouses is that if the number of people who would be negatively affected by a piece of legislation is small enough, then those people can be overlooked. Essentially, extreme anti-choicers are attempting to dismiss the suffering of a minority while in pursuit of their agenda. Regardless of how many women become pregnant as a result of rape, one thing is always true: a single woman is one woman too many.

Other tactics that the opposition uses are also familiar. Emotional manipulation of the audience voting on the issue is also common, as is the bizarre logic that a woman giving birth to a rapist’s child is somehow a victory for her. Anti-choice activist Lila Rose has stated on CNN that “abortion doesn’t ‘unrape’ a woman.” That’s true insofar as nothing ‘unrapes’ someone who has been raped. But access to abortion protects a rape survivor’s dignity and freedom in the face of rape. It protects her right to self-determination. Also worth noting? In the interview above, Rose doesn’t attempt to clarify her position when asked about, and instead changes the subject – a sign, perhaps, that even she knows her statement is indefensible.

Lila Rose isn’t the only one talking about rape. The anti-choice movement has several token figures who were themselves allegedly conceived during acts of rape. One of whom is named Rebecca Kiessling, who claims that abortion exceptions for rape and incest are insulting to her as someone who was conceived out of rape. The problem with her argument – to say nothing of the fact that it’s beyond presumptuous to assume that what was right for one woman is right for all women – is that as a fetus, she would not have been insulted. She wouldn’t have suffered. It was the woman who had been raped who was suffering.

Anti-choice activists like Kiessling have been used to influence the policies of Republican politicians, such as Texas governor Rick Perry. Image via.

The opposition also has speakers and activists, who themselves have been impregnated by rape but chose not to have an abortion or who state they regret the abortion that they had. While they certainly have a right to feel the way that they do, that should not have a legislative effect on other women who have a right to make different choices under those circumstances. Again, it is irresponsible and prescriptive to suggest that what is right for one woman is magically right for all women. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that all of these activists who argue against rape and incest exceptions also have one thing in common: they are all a part of the same conservative religious movement and their religion is their primary motivator.

Universally offensive and medically inaccurate quote by Republican candidate Todd Akin. Image via.

Certain GOP lawmakers, (Todd Akin comes to mind) emboldened by the anti-choice movement’s successes on this front, have begun speaking out against abortion exceptions for rape and incest. Appalling, yes – but there’s a silver lining. Predictably (and delightfully) there has been massive public backlash against extreme anti-choice efforts to redefine rape or dismiss victims of rape who seek abortion care.  In conclusion, rape is rape. And women who become pregnant as a result of a rape are the only ones who should decide whether abortion is right for them. To suggest anything else is simply inhumane.

Spin Doctors: No, Emergency Contraception Is Not Abortion

While abortion may be the primary topic that the anti-choice movement talks about, their policy agenda extends to birth control. Limiting access to abortion is just one piece of a broader effort to curb women’s reproductive freedoms. How do we know this? Because anti-choice extremists have said on the record that the birth control pill is a threat to “God” and “the family.” But there’s one pill in particular that anti-choice extremists have worked tirelessly to equate — erroneously — with abortion: emergency contraception, or the morning-after pill.

Spin Doctors: The One Thing Anti-Choice Politicians Don’t Want You To Know

[Ed. Note: Spin Doctors is a new column at AFCW, where we’ll delve into the junk science behind anti-choice legislation. This week, Thomas Alberts debunks fetal pain laws.]

So-called fetal pain laws are the latest anti-choice craze — they’ve passed state legislatures throughout the nation,  most notably in Texas, where HB 2 has forced 16 abortion clinics to shut down since September. The claim behind these laws — that fetuses in utero begin feeling “pain” at 20 weeks’ gestation, and so abortion should be illegal after 20 weeks — might seem scientific. After all, if someone is running legislation based on this idea being true, it must be proven somewhere, right?

Well, not exactly.