Study shows abstinence education works. Washington Post describes it as a "landmark study".

A study demonstrates that common sense still works. Abstinence education actually works according to a study by a University of Pennsylvania professor. A Washington Post story titled, "Study finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity" says the study is a "landmark study"."

It's pretty significant if the Washington Post is describing an abstinence study as landmark.

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can convince a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for the nation's embattled efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

In the first carefully designed study to evaluate the controversial approach to sex ed, researchers found that only about a third of 6th and 7th graders who went through sessions focused on abstinence started having sex in the next two years. In contrast, nearly half of students who got other classes, including those that included information about contraception, became sexually active.

"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After declining for more than a decade, births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing again.

Others are describing it as a game changer.

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well."

The new study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully "controlled" design that compared it directly to alternative strategies -- considered the highest level of scientific evidence.

"This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. "I've always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap."

It looks like some traditional opponents of abstinence are playing a bit of the spin game.

Even long-time critics of the approach praised the new study, saying it provided strong evidence that such programs can work and may deserve taxpayer support.

"One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire," said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

While others are attacking the study.

Several critics of abstinence-only approach argued that the curriculum tested was not representative of most abstinence programs. It did not take on a moralistic tone as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until they were married, did not portray sex outside of marriage as never appropriate or disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain-until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program was essentially the same as other good abstinence programs.

"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," Jemmott said. "There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms. This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer."

I think what condom proponents fear, and rightfully so, is the success of a true abstinence education curricula. Certainly that's what most parents want and establishing it's success will draw people away from the condom approach. Facts are the facts. Sex is intended for the marriage relationship. It's the healthiest and happiest approach to take. The devastating, rotten fruit of the sexual revolution are increasingly evident for all to see.

Because it's unhealthy: 2

From Gary Bauer

Liberalism Is Hazardous To Your Health
After decades of the sexual revolution, the feminist movement, Planned Parenthood and “values free” education telling our kids to “explore their sexuality” and “if it feels good do it,” the adverse health effects of liberal moral values are becoming painfully clear. Yesterday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the results of a study on teen sexual activity. The findings were shocking. “At least one in four teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease,” reported the Associated Press.

Some of these diseases will stay with them for a lifetime. Some may cause cancer and infertility. Predictably, the Left used the report to condemn abstinence-based education and to demand more public tax money for condoms and birth control pills. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, told the Associated Press, “The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price.” But I have to wonder how many teenage girls had sexually transmitted diseases before American taxpayers were forced to subsidize Planned Parenthood?

But wait there’s more. Reuters reports today on another CDC release noting that syphilis rates are up for the seventh straight year. According to the Reuters story, “Homosexual and bisexual men accounted for 64 percent of syphilis cases in 2007,” and “Syphilis rates have been surging in homosexual and bisexual men in the past decade…” This is a major health concern because, according to one CDC epidemiologist, “Syphilis can increase the likelihood of HIV transmission two to fivefold.”

The problems with cohabitation and lack of biological parents in their kids' lives

There's an interesting AP story on the problems children experience when their living arrangements aren't comprised of their biological parents which is usually the case in cohabitation situations.

Cohabitation is a growing problem with people cohabiting in record numbers. Not only are there greater problems for the adults who cohabit but also for the children living in these cohabiting households.

I think a key factor is the self-centered focus of these relationships. Cohabiting provides many with what they view as an escape hatch. It's the "Things may change" or "I'll have to see how it works out" approach. The lack of commitment means less stable relationships and when children are present they can easily be viewed as an irritant to getting what "I want" which means the likelihood of child abuse increases.

As one person noted:

"I've seen many cases of physical and sexual abuse that come up with boyfriends, stepparents," said Eliana Gil, clinical director for the national abuse-prevention group Childhelp.

"It comes down to the fact they don't have a relationship established with these kids," she said. "Their primary interest is really the adult partner, and they may find themselves more irritated when there's a problem with the children."

Ultimately, many of the sexuality and reproductive issues, e.g. surrogacy, egg selling, type of sex education taught, marriage definition, etc., tie into the problems children are having in unstable family arrangements. The ideal is a child raised by both biological children in a lifelong relationship, e.g. marriage. Any policies which encourage deviation from the ideal shouldn't be promoted.

Of course, some will say "But that's not reality. " "We can't roll back the clock." That doesn't make sense. Of course we can't roll back the clock but we also don't have to accept the status quo if the status quo isn't good. What are the strategies for insuring more children are raised by their biological parents in a marriage relationship is the question we need to be asking.

Ideology 101: "Kids are going to do it anyway."

By Tom Prichard

Last session, Rep. Mindy Greiling and others tried to mandate that all Minnesota public schools teach a pro-contraceptive message to kids ages 12 to 17. They have accepted the ideology that kids are going to have sex whatever we say, so they better be prepared. Is this accurate or more ideology?

When I talked with several state legislators about our opposition on condom promotion in sex education courses, they invariably came back with "Well, I think abstinence is important but kids are going to have sex whatever you tell them so we better teach them how to use a condom."

This ideology invariably does our children a serious disservice. For one, it sends them mixed a message; abstinence is good, but if you have sex use a condom. It’s like telling kids not to smoke but if they do use filtered cigarettes.

It also gives kids a false sense of security. They can have safe sex by using a condom. They’ll be protected from diseases. In fact, there are sexually transmitted diseases which are spread through non-sexual intercourse contact. And condoms often fail. Some studies show condom failure rates for pregnancy prevention are 15%.

But beyond the physical risks of pregnancy and disease, they fail to tell kids there is an unhealthy emotional cost to sex outside of marriage. Low self esteem and guilt are too often accompanied by depression, suicidal thoughts, and engagement in other destructive behaviors like smoking, drinking and drugs.

Not surprisingly, most kids regret not waiting. One survey found two thirds of teens wished they’d waited to have sex.

Unfortunately, too many adults fail our kids when they advocate a pro-condom ideology to kids.

MFC Salutes Rep. Marty Seifert

MFC thanks House Minority Leader Rep. Marty Seifert (Dist 21A) for his influential defense of pro-family values in the closing days of the session. Rep. Seifert played a key role in protecting children from a state mandate to teach unhealthy sex education curricula in grades 7-12.

A study of several MN public school sex education curricula exposed unhealthy sex activities including anal and anal-oral sex.

Rep. Marty heard the voices of thousands of concerned parents and fought to protect their children's sexual health from an ideological agenda that has been a colossal failure.

Call Rep. Seifert at 651-296- 5374 and thank him for his leadership.

Sex ed teaching 8,000 metro students "there is no right or wrong, and no good or bad choices"

By Barb Anderson

Once again the Minnesota School Health Education Conference rates an "F" in its advice to teens about sex education.

The Birds & Bees Project presenter, Amanda Danzeisen, led the session entitled "Teaching Teens about Pregnancy Options." Danzeisen stated that when speaking to teens you must tell them, "there is no right or wrong, and no good or bad choices." Students must make "the decision that is best for them."

The 187-page "Educator's Guide to Reproductive Health" was available to educators. This educator;'s guide is nothing more than a how-to manual for teaching homosexual sex and a range of sexual options to teens.

The "Educator's Guide to Reproductive Health" emphasizes the importance of using "inclusive language when discussing abstinence," and says to define sex as "oral, anal, and vaginal rather that just vaginal." This "...Will help to create a respectful and inclusive classroom environment." According to the educator's guide, defining sex only as "penile-vaginal" excludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (GLBTQ) youth and will "reinforce stereotypes about gender and sexual orientation."

Moral relativism is paramount in this guidebook as all decisions for teens are to be respected about whether "to be, or not to be, sexually active." Students must figure it out on their own as they learn to "develop their own values" apart from their parents.

Lesson one instructs students to discuss what they feel is OK for them to do as they learn the importance of "defining 'abstinence' for themselves." The behaviors that are listed include: cuddling without clothes on, giving oral sex, having anal intercourse, having vaginal intercourse, rubbing bodies together with clothes on, masturbating with a partner, touching a partner's genitals etc.

Lesson plans for this same age group include how to make a dental dam in case your child should choose to participate in "cunnilingus, analingus or rimming."

After all, the guide states, "People who are questioning their sexual orientation many experiment in an effort to determine their sexual identity."

Amanda assured attendees that all of their information is presented in a "non-biased format." When questioned from the audience as to why one classroom scenario refers to pregnant Kendra as pro-choice, but does not describe her boyfriend (who does not want her to have an abortion) as pro-life, Ms. Danzeisen replied, "The Birds & Bees Project uses the term anti-choice - not pro-life." So much for being non-biased!

Amanda also claimed that The Birds & Bees Project was not political. Students, however, are asked to discuss the following:"Why do you think people protest outside of abortion clinics? Do people protest other surgical procedures that are legal? Do you think it should be legal to protest outside of abortion clinics or do you think this is a form of harassment?"

Students are also told "There is no scientific evidence for the so-called "post-abortion trauma syndrome," and "The most common feelings women report after having an abortion are relief and happiness."

Youth ages 12 and up are taught the ABC plan for sex education. "A" stands for abstinence. Teachers, however, are instructed, "Tell your students that 99.9% of the population will stop practicing abstinence at some point in their lives." A sexual health back-up plan is the next step for students. The letter "B" stands for birth control and also Plan B - the brand mane for emergency contraception. The letter "C" stands for choice.

The Birds & Bees Project claims to "educate more than 8,000 young people in the Twin Cities metro area each year." After reviewing the guide, I believe the best choice parents can make is to pull their kids out of these classes! Find out what your child is learning in sex education this year. Ask your school district to reject The Birds & Bees Project and the "Educator's Guide to Reproductive Health."