Life Finds A Way!

Henry Wu: You're implying a group comprised entirely of females will breed?

Ian Malcolm: No, I'm simply saying that, life, uh, finds a way.

Jeff Goldblum's character in Jurassic Park was pointing out the foolishness of believing it is possible to eliminate every potential gateway to disaster, because the wonder of life is that it can invent creative solutions humans never dreamed of.

That's what went through my mind when I heard states passed laws stripping public schools of their authority to teach sex education.  I thought, "Parents found a way."

In 2000, the Department of Education standard in CA schools was "abstinence until marriage/faithfulness in marriage."  No one knew that was the standard and they weren't actually teaching that, but that's what was on the books.  Children were taught whatever the particular beliefs were of any given Health teacher. 

I know, because I saw it.  In the San Fernando Valley where I live, for instance, there were teachers who taught it was a scientific fact that there is a "homosexual gene."  I saw another classroom presentation where the instructor opened the subject by writing the names of genitals and sex acts on a whiteboard then asking students to "Call out the street names for these words," which he wrote underneath the terms he had already written on the board.  For the rest of the class, he stood in front of those names for parts of their bodies and intimate human behavior.  It was supposed to "desensitize" them so they could have a "mature" discussion.

Parents objected to this and began supporting abstinence education.  In 2002, Federal money was designated for abstinence educations ($1 for every $12 that went to other types of sex ed.)  That didn't sit well with people who have a vested interest in promoting casual sex.  Fewer pregnant teens meant fewer abortion dollars, condom purchases, and STD containment services or research.  Not to mention, pointing out there are benefits to saving sex for marriage wouldn't advance the cause of same-sex unions.

What was the reaction? A systematic herding of parents and children toward "Comprehensive Sex Ed." 

First, any program which refused promote condoms or birth control was designated as "Abstinence Only."  A program which discussed such devices but didn't actively recommend using them was still designated "Abstinence Only."

Then they made up things like "The high rate of teen births is the result of 'Abstinence Only' programs which failed to tell students that about birth control and condoms."  Right. Like no adolescent would know such devices exist unless told by their Health teacher.  Not to mention it's a lie.  Birth rates began dropping immediately after abstinence programs began to be implemented.

Then they bullied the decision-makers.  An ACLU/Planned Parenthood campaign called "Not in My State!" threatened lawsuits.  They intimidated elected officials into refusing federal money for programs that were already working in their state.

The next step was to change the law.  Many states went from allowing school districts to choose the curriculum which best suited their community, to deciding the state knew what was best for everybody.  It wasn't because they listened to what parents demanded that CA went from "schools will emphasize abstinence" to "schools will either teach Comprehensive Sex Ed. or no Sex Ed. at all!"

Here we are in 2012: Quick, close the gate before anyone gets loose!  Deny new charter school applications, crush school voucher programs and create new textbooks to encourage children to think about who they will have sex with beginning in kindergarten.

Parents don't like to herded, so given the chance, they voted to take away the school's authority to instruct their kids about sex.  Yep, life finds a way!

It Doesn't Work? Spend More Money!!

Here's something I bet you never heard...

Pregnancy rates in the US had been on the rise until 1993. From 1993 to 2006, pregnancy rates began to decline. In 2006, for the first time in 14 years pregnancy rates have begun going up.

• 1993 (the year the decline began) was the first year public schools introduced abstinence programs.
  
• In 2006 (the year the rates began to go up), the ACLU threatened lawsuits for discrimination against school districts whose sex education programs standard was "abstinence-until-marriage."
  

A cause-and-effect? Maybe, you say. OK, grab your high-blood pressure medicine, and follow the latest sex ed. developments.

Here's how your tax money for sex education was spent.

• Title V began in 1994. It is currently funded at $50 million a year. This federal program gives a block of money for Abstinence Based Education to states who match every $4 with $3 from their own budget.
• Since 2006, school districts in states who accepted this money have been the target of lawsuits by the ACLU, so only about 30 states currently accept the funds.
• Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) allowed individual abstinence programs to receive federal grants without requiring the state to match funds. CBAE was denfunded in 2009 by the Obama Administration.
  
• When all the abstinence education (ASE) money was added up in 2008, it totaled $176 million.
• When all the "comprehensive" sex education (CSE) money was added up it came to $609 million plus $27 Billion for HIV prevention programs.

In the 2010 budget, President Obama created two NEW funding streams for Teen Pregnancy Prevention. Tier I is $75 Million for existing evidence-based programs. And Tier 2 provides $15-$25 million for research and demonstration grants.

Here's the kicker: NONE of the new money can go toward Abstinence Education. Every penny of it has to go toward a "comprehensive" approach. (In government-speak that means you say abstinence is effective, but your main focus is getting teens to use condoms. Most comprehensive sex ed. programs discuss condoms over abstinence at a ratio of 7:1.)

Now, this is the REALLY funny part. TWO well-documented reports have been published showing comprehensive sex ed programs DON'T WORK!

The first was conducted by John Jemmott, PhD and published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (here). It showed that in head-to-head measurements, only 33% of students who received abstinence based education were sexually active 2 years later compared to 50% of students who received comprehensive sex ed (abstinence plus condoms message), "safe sex" education (condoms only) and the control group (health information with no extra emphasis on sexuality).

This study marks the first time ASE and CSE programs were evaluated side-by-side, with the same at-risk population. It came as a surprise to some people who promoted handing out all that CSE money for the last 3 decades.

The other report came from the Institute for Research and Evaluation. Unlike every other evaluator of sex education, IRE doesn't have a dog in this hunt. They don't create or sell sex education programs. They just look at the evidence of what they produce.

Their evaluations (see pdfs here), over several years, in head-to-head comparisons found that:

• The CSE programs touted as "effective in reducing teen pregnancy and STDs" didn't actually MEASURE pregnancy or infection rates at all.
  
• NONE of them increased consistent condom use or had an effect on delaying sexual initiation over time.
  
• But several studies have shown that ASE programs (the ones that just had their funding cut) are proven to be effective at delaying sexual initiation.

Oh, dear, how awkward that the new funding is only for existing "evidence based" programs.

Remember CSE gets $609 million dollars a year vs. ASE which got $176 million per year. The programs which cost taxpayers LESS money, and are MORE effective have been eliminated. The programs which HAVEN'T worked for the last 30 years, and cost taxpayers MORE are about to get an additional $100 million dollars.

Yep, reminds you of President Regan's old saying:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Guest Post from Arizona State U

The following is a guest post from Shaun Thomson, in his 3rd year at Arizona State University in Phoenix. Shaun heard his first Positively Waiting talk (unwillingly, I might add) when he was 14 and a freshman at El Camino Real High School.

Over the years, as he saw his friends deal with the consequences of sexual activity, my credibility increased significantly. Not long after joining a fraternity, Shaun agreed to be interviewed with me on KFWB after a report came out saying "abstinence doesn't work."

Responding to a question about taking heat from his frat-brothers for not being sexually active, Shaun's classic response was: "Some guys don't eat meat. I don't have sex. Got a problem with that?"

Doing The Math About Abstinence

We all know there are tons of numbers and statistics flying around trying to say that "abstinence education doesn't work." However, I thought it would be prudent to address this with some simple math, and some common sense.

In a broad sense, math tells us what can and cannot happen under specified circumstances. This applies to abstinence in that we know without a doubt, what can happen if adolescents engage in sexual activity... STDs, pregnancy, emotional problems, etc. These are not fictional or doctored results. They are Real-Life for an ever-increasing number of young people here in the US.

These consequences are not the "by-product" of a strange coincidence. They are the result of sexual activity, and nothing else.

Consequently, the opposite is also true: if you avoid sexual activity, the likelihood of having negative consequences goes way down.

So, getting back to the math, if you abstain from sex (that is subtract or remove it from the equation), then is is no longer possible to get pregnant, and the risk for contracting an STD or having emotional issues related to sexual relationships drops dramatically.

It can be simply put as "You can get in trouble for something you aren't doing." If you are abstaining from sex, then you are protecting yourself against all the negative side effects of sexual activity.

Consequences of sexual activity do not happen if there is no sexual activity.

(Duh. Thanks, Shaun!)

If You Don't Tell Them, Who Will?

Today I received the first of what I expect will be many heartbreaking phone calls. A teacher in LAUSD has been preparing her students to hear my story, and found out today that I'm not allowed to tell it in her school anymore.

As we talked, she echoed every conversation we have had at Positively Waiting. What about...? A taped presentation? Getting in with the clinic speakers? Webcasting?

The hurt and urgency in her voice squeezed my heart. Both of us are thinking, "what about THESE kids?" They will get only the one view (Be safe, use "protection.") Who will tell them they're worth waiting for? Who will tell them there are BENEFITS to learning how to control those powerful impulses?

The teacher assured me she will do her best, but pointed out, "They listen to you because you've been there."

I'm not giving up. I'm looking for ways to smuggle the truth in underground. But I'm dreading every one of those phone calls this Fall.

Teen's Pact to Get Pregnant

Seventeen girls in at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts got pregnant. This is a 400% increase over the normal rate of pregnancies.

It all started last October when the school nurse practitioner noticed a lot of girls coming in for pregnancy tests. She and the head of the clinic immediately went to the school board to insist this "epidemic" of pregnancies meant that the school needed to pass out birth control --- with or without parental permission. The school district said, "No," and the two resigned in protest.

They have to feel pretty silly now to find out they quit over a non-issue.

See, the girls didn't get pregnant by accident, or because they had no access to birth control. They got pregnant because they made a pact to "raise their children together." According to reports most of the babies fathers are over 20, and one of the "dads" is a homeless man they paid to get them pregnant.

Let me explain how this can happen...

Step into the mind of a 14 year old GHS student in June of '07.

It's the end of your freshman year of high school. You just saw the movie Juno about a teenager who gets pregnant. You have completed your sex education unit where you were encouraged to use pills, shots, creams, foams and condoms if you didn't want to get pregnant. Then you were taken over to the school's free on-site daycare center and told by the director, "We're proud to help mothers stay in school."

You discover that one of your role models, Jamie Lynn Spears, is pregnant and going to keep her baby. You and your friends talk all summer about how great it would be to have a baby, baby showers, lots of attention, and how, as long as there was SOMEONE around to help, having a baby would be wonderful.

You already know you don't need the baby's father --- after all didn't Jodie Foster have a baby with no dad? What about Halle Berry? And Jessica Alba? Lots of people are single parents.

If all these women can do it, you reason, then why not us?

I've spent enough time with teens to tell you, that's exactly what went on in their heads.

She can vividly imagine the fuss that will be made over her, the presents and how she will quickly get her figure back --- just like Angelina did.

Command central in a 14 year old's head is the amygdala, the source of her emotions and impulses. The reasoning part of her brain is still under construction so she is not capable of understanding the longterm consequences of her decision. Its not that she's ignoring the data she's been given.

It's that she can't understand it. Literally.

She's not stupid. But data about the hardships of single parenthood, the studies showing teen moms living in poverty and not finishing school, that stuff means nothing to her.

Being a single mom is portrayed as effortless by the media --- and it probably is when you're a celebrity like Jamie Lynn Spears. She has nannies and assistants to ease any inconvenience.

Emotionally, the girls identify with Jamie Lynn and Juno. Not to mention they each imagine the fun of being just like her best friends who will all have babies too.

These girls are not an anomaly...what's happening in Massachusetts is coming to a state near YOU.

There is a well-financed and media-backed movement to get free daycare, birth control and condoms (with or without parental consent) in every U.S. public school. Threatening lawsuits, the ACLU is demanding sex education programs which draw no distinction in risk, fidelity or child-rearing between heterosexuals and homosexuals. They insist our laws require schools to teach that ALL types of family combinations (single-parent, gay/lesbian, blended or cohabiting) produce the same level of security and happiness as traditional families do.

The state of Massachusetts has adopted every single one of these "progressive" recommendations from the "safe sex" coalition. Hmmm.

According the CDC, since 2006, when the ACLU and other advocates began their campaign to eliminate abstinence education from public schools, there has been an increase in the national rate of teen pregnancies for the first time in FOURTEEN YEARS.

Ok, so let's review. The schools (by law) promote multiple partner lifestyles, minimize the inherent dangers of promiscuity, eliminate heterosexual marriage as the ideal, glorify celebrities who think fathers are unnecessary... and then they're "shocked" that teen pregnancies have gone up.

Maybe teenagers aren't the only ones who fail to use the reasoning part of their brain.