Sex-ed funds N.C. should abstain from

CHAPEL HILL -- In the past decade alone, the federal government has wasted more than $1 billion on wishful thinking.

What's the wish? That if we tell today's teenagers to wait to have sex until they are married, we will be able to protect them from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Just two weeks ago, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia became the 14th governor to reject federal abstinence-only funding. Gov. Mike Easley should join him. North Carolina received more than $1.6 million in federal funds for abstinence-until-marriage programs in fiscal year 2006. Meanwhile, every year more than 14,000 North Carolina teens contract a sexually transmitted disease and more than 18,000 become pregnant.

These programs are a waste of money. Abstinence-only is inadequate to prepare teens for the complexities of sex in the 21st century.

As the mother of a 15-year-old son, I understand the wish to protect our children from the dangers of sex. But these programs don't help. Study after study has found that abstinence-until-marriage programs are ineffective. They do not increase abstinence. They do not delay age of first sex. They do not reduce the number of sex partners teens have. They do not reduce pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

That's what the nonpartisan group National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy says in a study ("Emerging Answers 2007") that evaluated 115 sex education programs. Researcher Douglas Kirby found that there is no strong evidence "that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of partners." Furthermore, there is "strong evidence" that some programs "actually had no impact on teen sexual behavior."

Kirby also studied 48 real sex education programs -- programs that teach about abstinence and about condoms and contraception. Two-thirds of them "had positive behavior effect." And 15 of those programs had "strong evidence of success" in persuading teens to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The vast majority of Americans support real sex education for teens. A 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation poll (www.siecus.org/policy/public_support.pdf) showed that more than 93 percent of parents of junior high and high school students believe contraception is an appropriate topic for school sex-ed programs. Real sex education -- "abstinence plus" programs that talk about abstinence and contraception -- is supported by the American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association.

Two-thirds of high school seniors have had sex by the spring of their senior year. How can we deny them the information they need to make responsible decisions? How can we deny them the information they need to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections?

It's time for Congress to end the wasteful spending on ineffective and inaccurate abstinence-only programs and to provide funding for educational programs that help teens make responsible decisions about their health.

And, in the meantime, Easley should join the governors of Virginia, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Wyoming in doing the right thing for our teenagers: just say "no" and reject federal abstinence-only funds.

(Janet Colm is president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central N.C. and of the group's Action Fund.)