Missoula Notebook

Did Bristol Palin Get Abstinence-Only Sex Education?

By Sutton Stokes, 9-02-08

	This is not a photo of Bristol Palin. (Photo by Flickr user Alana Elliot.)

First, let me make clear that I could care less about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy vis a vis the election.  Good luck to her, and may she beat the odds where teen pregnancy is concerned.

However, there are some arguments going back and forth in various places on the ‘nets, including in the comments to Jonathan’s piece, concerning the case’s relevance to ongoing debates over so-called abstinence-only sex education, and I became curious as to just what Alaska’s policy is.

Abstinence-only sex education teaches that sex before marriage is inappropriate and/or unhealthy, as opposed to “comprehensive” sex education, which includes but does not necessarily emphasize contraceptive use.

Some people, including frequent New West commenter Marion, are under the mistaken impression that comprehensive sex education is available throughout the country, so I’d better start with some background. (I’m no expert on this, and I’ve cobbled this together in an hour of internet searches, so any corrections would be welcome in the comments.)

Beginning in 1995, Title V of the Social Security Act has provided funds for states willing to implement abstinence-only sex-education classes. Among other things, qualifying curricula are required to instruct students that there are “social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity,” that “sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects,” and that “abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems.” (Guess they’ve never heard of hand jobs.)

From 1996-2001, 49 states received funds under Title V, the holdout being California, which already had its own abstinence-only curriculum. In 2002, a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation (available as a PDF here ) found that about a third of secondary schools in the U.S. were then practicing abstinence-only sex education.

Starting in 2002, many states began dropping out of the program, citing research (abstract here ) showing that — compared to comprehensive sex education — abstinence-only programs do not delay first sexual experience in most students and have little to no long-term effects on sexual intentions and activity, other than a slightly increased tolerance for teen pregnancy. (But presumably only after a nice teen wedding, just like it used to work back in the good old 1950s!)

Furthermore, some critics accused the federally funded programs of spreading misinformation and lies, such as that “condoms fail in 31% of cases of heterosexual sex,” “touching someone’s genitals can make you pregnant,” “50% of all American teenage gay men are HIV positive,” and “HIV can pass through condoms because the latex used in condoms is porous” (which, come to think of it, is what the chaplain told us in boot camp).

Currently, only 28 states are receiving Title V funds, with two more (Iowa and Arizona) planning to drop out after this fiscal year. Says a spokesman for the governor of Ohio, which dropped out in 2007: “We’ve spent millions of dollars on such education since Ohio first started getting grant money in 1998. If the state is going to spend money on teaching and protecting kids, the governor believes it’s better to spend it in a smarter, more comprehensive approach.”

Given all of this, the irony would be hair-curling indeed if it turned out that Alaska practices abstinence-only sex education, but I can find no definite evidence that it does — although it’s going to, as discussed below.

Alaska does not currently receive federal Title V funds. As of 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation publication that I mentioned earlier reported that Alaska was in a category of states requiring only that abstinence be “stressed,” but not necessarily to the exclusion of so-called “comprehensive” sex education. On the other hand, Alaska also did not require contraception information in sex ed classes at that time. (PDF here.)

Of course, just because Alaska is not receiving federal Title V funding does not mean the state is not practicing abstinence-only sex education, but I can’t prove it one way or the other on line. Alaska curriculum standards (available as a PDF here) contain nothing more specific than the requirement that students “understand the physical and behavioral characteristics of human sexual development and maturity” and “understand the ongoing life changes throughout the life span and healthful responses to these changes.” (As a side note that everyone should keep in mind when we talk about curriculum standards, it is often a stretch to assume that there is any connection between what the bureaucrats dream up and what teachers actually do behind their closed classroom doors, although one might reasonably assume that, the more potentially controversial a subject, the more likely most teachers would be to follow district policy.)

However, Governor Palin — apparently undaunted by mere research (just the kind of new leadership we need!) recently announced that Alaska would be applying for federal abstinence-only sex-education funds for next fiscal year, saying “the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.” That quote is from a survey given in 2006; I can find no word on whether recent events have changed her mind or strengthened her resolve.

For more like this, read the rest of the Missoula Notebook.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.