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.
Pro-family advocates, however, said they were shocked to see how far the objectivity of Waxman’s committee was compromised.
From the beginning, all but one of the “experts” indicated they would be opposed to abstinence-based education programs “even if it were shown to be effective.”
"This was really a circus to try to move an ideological agenda, and that was to defund abstinence education," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, according to Baptist Press.
"... I was actually glad that Mr. Waxman had this hearing if only to reveal the disingenuous nature of this whole argument," Huber explained.
"In his opening comments he said he wanted to put ideology aside – assuming that it was abstinence educators who were ideological – and look solely at the science … but the fact of the matter is [the experts] were brought in just to say the same ideological talking points that Mr. Waxman wanted to be said. They were putting aside their professional objectivity to push an ideological agenda,” Huber noted.
Pro-family advocates were also quick to point out that recent research supports abstinence-based education. In a review by The Heritage Foundation, 15 out of 21 abstinence-education programs “showed positive behavioral results in the students, including the delay or reduction of sexual activity.”
“It's tragic that Chairman Waxman ignores evidence showing that sexual abstinence is the healthiest behavior for youth. The government does not promote drug use or underage drinking, and it should not promote high-risk sexual behavior, either,” Perkins said in a statement.
“I urge members of Congress to support President Bush's request for $151 million for community-based abstinence education programs,” Perkins added.
Comments
Abstinence only education doesn't work at all! It is actually dangerous, because the kids feel so guilty should they have sex that they won't do it with a condom (thus increasing their risk of STDs and pregnancy.) They're also more likely to engage in alternate forms of sexual penetration (which, correct me if I'm wrong, most Christians would say is an abomination?) While we need to teach kids abstinence is the only way to stay completely safe, I think they should be taught how to protect themselves should they have sex. Not teaching kids about safer sex practices won't stop all kids from having sex, it will just make it riskier for them.
Fair point Chris
They certainly have the right to do what they want with their bodies, personally, I see nothing wrong with two people who consider themselves as married having a sexual relationship, though for the life of me I cannot fathom why they would not go ahead and have it legalized, it doesn't cost very much, also I can't understand why they wouldn't just tell people they are married.
Chris
"then you are having sex with someone else's future husband/wife."
True, but don't mature consenting adults have to be trusted to do what they feel is corrct for them at their time of life, we don't always know the future. This is 2 people who may be future wifes/ husbands(or maybe not), they do however have a right to their own private pre marriage ( if thats what they want to do)lives
Whilst sex is important, sometimes it is blown out of all proportion.
Steve
Steve,
Then how are the older people who choose not to get married? Granted it sounds a bit negative when we say, "playing around", but it means having sexual relationships with more than one purpose for either 1) to get to "know" them better, or 2) just to have fun, like playing a video game.
Again, unless you are planning to marry all of the people you have sex with, then you are having sex with someone else's future husband/wife. I think that there are more than enough ways to get to know someone without having sex.
Chris
"For instance, many people say, "Oh I am going to wait until I am at least 30 before I get married" And there reasoning is usually either, 1) they don't want the burden of supporting a child or spouse, or 2) they want to play around."
I'm not sure that most people think like that., at least not people I have known (though of course one or two have if you know what I mean).
I think that if mature consenting adults wish not to get married but sometimes wish to have sexual relations with other mature consenting adults then it is a bit unfair to accuse them of playing around, that makes them sound cheap and shallow, again my experience of many older people I have known is that they are not that.
Steve
For instance, many people say, "Oh I am going to wait until I am at least 30 before I get married" And there reasoning is usually either, 1) they don't want the burden of supporting a child or spouse, or 2) they want to play around.
To the second, there is not much anyone can say, they are playing around with people that are going to end up being somebody's husband or wife, and that just doesn't seem right to me. But to the first, they might fall in love with someone, and really want to be with that person, but they go ahead and consign themself to not getting married. They might live with that person, have a sexual relationship with that person, and in all other respects live like a married couple. It is not so difficult to get married and use birth control until you are ready to have a child, if that is what is stopping you.
Chris
"I can't understand why people want to wait until they are 30 to 35 years old to get married"
What is there not to understand?
Regards
Steve
And our burden. When American have sex ouside of marriage (before, during, and after), this causes unwanted children, abortions(murders) in the amounts of thousands per day, sexually transmitted disease, the loss of the meaning and sanctity of marriage and the marriage act (sex), the loss of dignity of a chaste person, and so much more. Our society would be so much better if we could keep sex within marriage.
I can't understand why people want to wait until they are 30 to 35 years old to get married. Anyways, if Americans want to have sex outside of marriage, then it will continue to be their burden.