Apr 28 2008
Pro-Family Groups Call Review On Abstinence ‘Biased’
Christians and proponents of federal abstinence programs cried foul over what they claimed was a biased attempt to write off federal abstinence until marriage programs as ineffective and damaging to the health of youth.
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council (FRC), was among those who criticized Democratic Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, “known for his support of radical causes such as abortion on demand and for so-called ‘comprehensive’ sex education,” of “stacking” the panel against federal abstinence programs during a House Committee meeting on Wednesday.
Among the seven “experts” that spoke at the panel, all but one used the opportunity to thrash federal abstinence programs, claiming that they had contributed nothing to reduce rates of teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases or lower ages and incidences of sexual activity.
“Ninety-five percent of Americans have intercourse prior to marriage,” testified Columbia University medical department chair John Santelli, while referring to a two-year-old study by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of surgical abortions, according to Baptist Press.
“Abstinence-only-until-marriage as a program goal is out of touch with broad demographic trends toward both an earlier age at first sex and a later age at marriage,” Santelli said, recommending that Congress permanently cut federal abstinence programs in favor of sex education programs.
Read about it here.
[From Planned Parenthood]
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) applauds the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for examining the $1.5 billion failure of government-funded abstinence-only programs at a congressional hearing on Capitol Hill today. Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA-30) called on public health experts and young people whose lives have been deeply affected by the ineffective programs to urge lawmakers to reconsider the abysmally poor use of taxpayer dollars.
“The weight of the evidence cannot be ignored, and now — under the glare of a congressional inquiry — policymakers will have to answer tough questions about why we continue to waste millions of dollars a year on a policy that has failed to keep teens healthy and safe,” said PPFA President Cecile Richards.
During the hearing, two young adults told the congressional panel about their experiences with abstinence-only programs. Max Siegel, who now works with the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth, and Families, testified that the “abstinence-only message did not prepare me for life, and I contracted HIV from the first person with whom I consented to having unprotected sex. I was still in high school.”
Read more here.
[From me]
So we are going to take only the research of an organization that provides more abortions than any other group? The reason the gentleman above wasn’t prepared for life had nothing to do with the abstinence program. Had he not had sex he wouldn’t have gotten AIDS. I’m amazed at how intelligent adults discount students and young people. We have become a negative society that just gives up on people. Not everyone had sex before marriage and not everyone will in the future.
We need to quit lowering the bar and raise it. I work with the next generation and they want to be part of something bigger than themselves. They want to change the world. And why can’t they? Well, if we keep lowering the bar and say “they are going to do it anyway” we aren’t giving them enough credit.
What do you think?
5 responses so far
This week, Farmer Ted is scheduled to receive an effectiveness security report on his chicken coops from the special advocacy group, “Foxes United for Food”–it’s expected that FUF will not recommend any changes to security despite the loss of 76% of the Farmer Ted’s chickens.
Kelly Reed’s last blog post..Sermon– Forgiveness Offensive?–Mark 2:1-12
A survey conducted by Planned Parenthood on sex education programs…now there’s some excellent science. HA! That’s like asking Tom Cruise to take a survey on the effectiveness of Scientology and expecting reliable results. Planned Parenthood is agenda-driven and any data they present is biased from the get go. Anyone who has studied the statistics of conducting surveys knows that the ordering, structure and wording of the questions can strongly bias the results. It is HARD to minimize the bias effects of surveys. That’s why an effective survey seems to ask the same question in several different ways, so they can cross-correlate and reduce the question-based bias.
Bill,
I’ve heard of Planned Parenthood before but, not being from America, I don’t know much about them. I’ve only heard about them in Christian circles and it’s usually all negative.
You raise a good point about the neutrality of surveys. I would be less likely to trust a survey designed by a group that had particularly strong interests in the results showing one thing or another. But I feel that any Christian-based survey would be equally as biased in the opposite direction. (With the exception of pewforum.org who seem to have some fairly sturdy methods especially because they’re not afraid to publish results that show their religion off in a bad light).
I personally would be happy with any well-run survey or study that subjects itself to peer review. What is the general feeling among the Christians here? What would you trust in the way of surveys and studies?
Damian,
…I don’t know much about them. I’ve only heard about them in Christian circles and it’s usually all negative….I personally would be happy with any well-run survey or study that subjects itself to peer review.
To respond to your first statement, I believe that Planned Parenthood definitely has an agenda, and they have consistently fought and derided a priori any attempt to include anything abstinence-based, whether it was to include discussions of abstinence or abstinence-only. That’s why I wouldn’t trust any data that they gather.
Regarding the review of surveys and studies, I agree with you, and I agree with your concern about biases in Christian-based surveys, depending on who has done them. What they need to do is publish their instruments and methods along with the results.
Among Christian-based organizations , there have been two recent self-studies which yielded results that weren’t flattering from a PR point of view, but they released the results, and at least one is taking action. Willow Creek church near Chicago found out that what they wanted to happen in their congregation wasn’t happening. Christianity Today summarizes it. They are making radical changes in the programs that they implement for the people that attend in teaching them the Gospel message of Christ based on the Bible.
The Lifeway agency of the Southern Baptist Convention recently released a study that indicates a decline in the total membership of churches that participate in the SBC Cooperative Program along with a decline in the “number of baptisms” for the year. For them/us (I belong to such a church) to publicly admit this is a big step. I hope it’s not the last. Because the SBC is so large, and the churches can act independently (there is no official bishopry), the discussion of any action is long, slow, and at times rancourous. Admittedly, my explanation is a simplification, but I believe it is accurate.
Hi Bill and thank you for your thoughtful response. It sounds like you have a good understanding of what constitutes an accurate study.
In essence, it doesn’t matter who performs a study so long as their methodology is correct. Alarm bells should ring when we see studies performed by people who have an obvious agenda but that doesn’t mean we should dismiss the study; just that we should more closely inspect their methodology.
One of the best ways to test the methodology of a study is to submit it to peer review where other experts in the field are encouraged to tear the study apart. Often this process is undertaken by scientific journals where they will not publish a study unless they are confident that doing so won’t damage their integrity and reputation. Obviously there are a range of qualities of scientific journals out there and some (especially, in my opinion, the alternative medicine journals) who publish studies without subjecting them to full criticism. That said, there are many excellent journals.
I went onto pubmed (which is sort of like a reference library of all published studies) and looked up “abstinence” to see what reputable studies had been performed. I found two that seemed relevant:
Impacts of abstinence education on teen sexual activity, risk of pregnancy, and risk of sexually transmitted diseases.
Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education and the initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy.
They both seem to conclude that teaching abstinence-only sex education is, at best, ineffective and, at worst, does more harm than traditional sex education.
I realise that many Christians believe that abstinence-only education is the way to go but in order to convince the public that this is a good idea they are going to have to show some compelling scientific evidence for doing so. To ignore the results of the studies that have already been published is only going to harm this agenda.
I believe that we (all of us) will benefit if we actively seek the truth no matter how it impacts on our personal beliefs. If I find that either abstinence-only or traditional education or some other method is more effective then I’m happy to go with whatever the findings are. I see Christians accusing Planned Parenthood of having an agenda (and perhaps they do, I don’t know much about them) but I’d level the same accusation back at the Christians. In Christians I see a very clear agenda that borders on dogma that I believe clouds judgment and will make it almost impossible to discern which method of sex education will be of most benefit to adolescents.