Background | Joint Statement | Endorsing Organizations | Fact Sheet | Timeline | Links | News | ACTION

Abstinence-Only Education: Why First Amendment Supporters Should Oppose It

Introduction. Abstinence-only education is one of the religious right's greatest victories. But it is only one tactic in a broader, longer-term strategy. Since the early 1980s, the "family values" movement has won the collaboration of governments and public institutions, from Congress to local school boards, in abridging students' constitutional rights. Schools now block student access to sexual information in class, at the school library, and through the public library's Internet portals. They violate students' free speech rights by censoring student publications of articles referring to sexuality. In abstinence-only classes, instructors force-feed students religious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and sometimes even contraception.

Background. In 1981, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act, also known as the "chastity law," which funded educational programs to "promote self-discipline and other prudent approaches" to adolescent sex, or "chastity education." Grant applications to create such programs poured in, and the dollars poured out--to churches and religious conservatives nationwide. The ACLU challenged AFLA in court, calling it a Trojan horse smuggling the values of the Christian Right--particularly its opposition to abortion--to public-school children at public expense: a classic affront to the principle of separation of church and state. (1)

A dozen years later, the Supreme Court held that funded programs must delete direct references to religion (for instance, the suggestion that students take Christ on a date as chaperone), and the granting process was reined in. But it was too late. Some of the biggest federal grant recipients, including Sex Respect and Teen-Aid, had already turned their curricula into robust for-profit businesses. Christian fundamentalist groups, which built much of that infrastructure, remain among the most vehement opponents of comprehensive sexuality education today.

In 1996, Congress struck again, attaching a provision to welfare legislation that established a federal program to fund programs teaching abstinence-until-marriage exclusively. Approximately $100 million, including matching state funds, is spent annually on state programs that have as their "exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity."

Congress is poised to re-authorize funding for abstinence-only education, and a similar trend is also apparent at the state level, where legislatures are copying the federal abstinence-only statute, often adding explicit prior-restraint provisions. A recent proposal in New Jersey, for instance, would impose close surveillance on teaching materials--and teachers. Even if they don't pass, these bills have a censorial and chilling effect. Utah's governor vetoed a similar bill in that state, but directed state agencies to monitor sex-ed programs for "inappropriate" language and subject matter.

Here are a few examples of the problems created by the abstinence-only approach to sex "education":

• Public funds go to religious institutions for anti-sex education. In Montana, the Catholic diocese of Helena received $14,000 from the state's Department of Health & Human Services for classes in the "Assets for Abstinence." In Louisiana, a network of pastors is bringing the abstinence-only message to religious congregations with public funds, and the Governor's Program on Abstinence is appointing regional coordinators and other staff members from such religious organizations as the Baptist Collegiate Ministries, Rapides Station Community Ministries, Diocese of Lafayette, Revolution Ministries, Caring to Love Ministries, All Saints Crusade Foundation, Concerned Christian Women of Livingston, Catholic Charities, Christian Counseling Center, and Community Christian Concern. (2)

• Public schools host "chastity" events. In California, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and many other states, schools regularly host chastity pledges and rallies on school premises during school hours. During these rituals, students often pledge "to God" that they will remain abstinent until they marry. (3)

• Textbooks are censored. The school board in Franklin County, North Carolina, ordered three chapters literally sliced out of a ninth-grade health textbook because the material did not adhere to state law mandating abstinence-only education. The chapters covered AIDS and other STDs, marriage and partnering, and contraception. In Lynchburg, Virginia, school board members refused to approve a high-school science textbook unless an illustration of a vagina was covered or cut out. (4)

• Crucial health programs are canceled. In response to a petition from 28 parents, a highly regarded comprehensive AIDS-prevention presentation for high-school students in the Syracuse, New York, area, given by the local AIDS Task Force, was canceled for future students. In Illinois, critics blasted Centers for Disease Control program, called "Reducing the Risk," because they claim it is inconsistent with an abstinence-only message.(5)

• Sex-ed teachers are disciplined for doing their jobs. In Belton, Missouri, a seventh-grade health teacher was suspended when a parent complained that she had discussed "inappropriate"sexual matters in class. The teacher had answered a student's query about oral sex. In Orlando, Florida, a teacher was suspended when he showed a student-made videotape called Condom Man and his K-Y Commandos, about preventing AIDS transmission. (6)

• Teachers are threatened with lawsuits; student journalists intimidated. In Granite Bay, California, an article in the student paper prompted charges that a sex-ed teacher engaged in "sexual misconduct"and threats of a lawsuit against the teacher and the paper's faculty adviser. The article took the position that newly mandated abstinence-only education was doing nothing to stop either sexual activity or widespread sexual ignorance among students. In Santa Clarita, California, a high school principal censored the student paper from printing an article entitled "Sex: Raw and Uncensored." The article was actually about the benefits of abstinence and methods of safe sex. (7)

• Students suffer from ignorance. Comprehensive sex education is becoming the exception rather than the rule; as a result, more students lack basic information. In Granite Bay, one student asked where his cervix was, and another inquired if she could become pregnant from oral sex. Students in New York City protested that the increased focus on abstinence-only has curtailed access to education about HIV/AIDS. The Colorado Council of Black Nurses decided to return $16,000 in abstinence-only funding, because the program "was just too restrictive. It did not teach responsible sexual behavior."

Click Here for footnote citations ...