The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a debate on April 21 over the question of continued federal funding of abstinence-only sex education in public schools.
At the heart of the debate was the contention held by many that abstinence-only education does not work, with most experts advocating a comprehensive program that includes information on how teens can protect themselves from disease and pregnancy.
Several witnesses argued that after 11 years of abstinence-only education (at a price of $1.3 billion), young people are still getting pregnant and becoming infected with sexually-transmitted diseases because they are not getting the information they need.
Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 2006 showed a rise in teenage pregnancies in the U.S., after falling 34 percent during the previous 15 years.
“I see an ideological discussion versus a reality discussion,” said Rep. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles). There is good reason to think that Watson is correct.
Both sides agreed that young people should wait until they become adults to become sexually active. But, for states to receive funding, the abstinence-only program requires schools to teach that sexual activity is only acceptable within marriage.
This requirement is dismissive of the fact that reserving sexual activity for marriage is no longer a value that our society practices.
Therefore, there are exceedingly few teachers or parents who can make this demand without becoming hypocrites.
Our economic infrastructure no longer favors delaying sex until marriage. Due to the migration of manufacturing jobs overseas, it is no longer the case that someone just out of high school can get a job earning $30 an hour.
Back when well-paid blue-collar jobs were common, it made sense to get married shortly after high school. Delaying sex until marriage was typically not problematic.
Now people commonly postpone marriage into their 30s, so it is ridiculous to expect them to delay intercourse until marriage.
Being young and libidinous is reason enough to date, but it does not make for a successful marriage. One can be in a monogamous relationship and unmarried.
It is not the case, as some on the right would say, that to be unmarried and sexually active is to be promiscuous.
The goal of education is to produce well-rounded adults and there is no way that one can be such without knowledge of birth control.
Something else to consider is that there is nothing more dear to people than educating their children.
Conservatives rightly see this not only as a controversy about a certain program, but a crucial battle that will be a vital loss for their movement, if public policy embraces secular, commonsense notions of human sexuality and the need for young people to have a solid command of birth control.
Christopher Herrin is a religious studies graduate student and a contributing writer for the Daily Forty-Niner.
