EDITORIAL – Abstinence-only education not way to go

A recent study found that the birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose… A recent study found that the birth rate among teenagers 15 to 19 in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, the first increase since 1991. The findings suggest that despite – and possibly because of – the president’s push for abstinence-only education, teenagers are continuing to have unprotected, premarital sex.

While some scholars, such as Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, say that most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraception but wanted to have babies, according to The New York Times, we’re betting that a large proportion of the teenage births in 2006 were a result of unplanned pregnancies.

And unplanned pregnancies are at least partially driven by a lack of education about contraception.

Our president and many other politicians continue to push abstinence-only education as the only means of educating teens about sex, even when studies like this fly in the face of the notion that teaching teens that not having sex at all is the only way to go.

Our government is spending millions – $176 million, to be exact – of tax dollars every year on abstinence-only education, money that could be better spent on programs educating teens on the importance of having safe sex to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

As long as our public schools hang the “no sex before you’re married” sign at the front of the classroom and ignore the fact that premarital sex is a reality in almost every high school in our country, we will be continually adding to the problem of unplanned teenage pregnancies.

We need to teach teens that, while there isn’t anything wrong with abstinence, if they choose not to go that path, there are ways to be safe and prevent pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

A critical aspect of sex education is also informing teens of the costs of choosing to be a parent at a young age. If Rector’s suggestions – that many women want to have babies at a young age – are true, maybe it’s because they weren’t taught about the financial ramifications of having children when they are, in many ways, still children themselves.

To be fair, abstinence-only education can only be attributed as a partial factor in the jump in teenage pregnancies. Studies have found that the fear of contracting HIV caused teenage sex rates to drop and condom use to rise in the 1990s. Within the last decade, there have been vast advancements in AIDS treatments, which have lowered concerns about the disease.

Additionally, the media might have played a role in the increase in teenage pregnancies. Take the TV show “Sex and the City,” for example. The show, which chronicles the sex lives of four 30-something New York women, welcomed the notion that women can have promiscuous sex. While the idea itself can be liberating for many women, for young women who haven’t had sex education in school, the combination of the two could lead to unprotected sex, and ultimately, unplanned pregnancies.

Movements toward sex education in public schools have to start on a local scale, as well.

President Bush can give as many “family values” rhetoric-charged speeches as he wants, but ultimately, it is the schools themselves that decide what type of sex education to include in their curriculums.