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!

2/19/12

Last night, I was on FOX 11 news discussing a silly new program in CA. It's called Condom Access Project (as in "put a cap on it.") This project (funded by YOUR tax dollars) will send teenagers free condoms thru the mail in a discreetly wrapped package.

As with most govt solutions to problems THEY create, this one is based on 3 false premises.

False Premise #1:
Receiving condoms at home will be less embarrassing and awkward than going to a clinic or school health office.

If the child is sexually active with parental permission, chances are parents will provide them, there's no reason to send them in mail. If the child is sexually active without parental permission, receiving a box of condoms every month will surely let the cat out of the bag.

I asked several teens, "Which would be more awkward, going to the store/clinic to ask for them or getting a package at home your mom will probably see?" They all said, "It's going to come to my HOUSE???"

False Premise #2:
Teens fail to use condoms because they don’t have access to them.

NOT.

Teens fail to use condoms because the reasoning center of their brain is not fully developed until age 25. They aren't able of taking in information, filtering it thru time/nature/experience and predict the consequences of their behavior. Teens don't use condoms because they don't fully understand the risk!

The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (taken every other year since the 1990s) has shown the highest condom use is among 9th graders (64-69% on avg). Condom use DECREASES to 52-54% by 12th grade when ACCESS is greatly increased.

False Premise #3:
If teens have condoms they will use them and the rates of STDs will go down.

ASSUMED, but never proven!

1 out of 3 teen couples using condoms to avoid pregnancy GET PREGNANT in the first year.* It's not just because of breakage, it's because of inconsistent use! Even adults fail to use condoms with every single act of sexual contact. Inconsistent use (anything less than 100% consistent and correct) provides the same rate of infection as not using them AT ALL!

Then there's the question of "how much protection" condoms provide. The amount of risk reduction from correct/consistent condoms use varies by disease -- meaning which partner is infected and what type of sex they’re having. For instance, take Gonorrhea — if HE is infected: 85% risk reduction. If SHE is infected: condoms offer only 50% risk reduction.

Or take, HIV. For vaginal sex, 85% risk reduction. Anal sex: no evidence of ANY risk reduction.

But more than that, the Condom Access Project completely ignores the evidence! The CAP program was initiated because of high Chlamydia and Gonorrhea infection rates, but according to the NIH** condom effectiveness studies, condoms only reduced the risk of infection by 50%. (The website hosting this program says “Condoms give good protection against Chlamydia.” Does 50% sound like "Good protection"??)

Teens use condoms like they clean their rooms. Adults who believe giving kids more ACCESS to condoms will automatically result in lower rates of infection and pregnancy have obviously never met a teenager from Earth.

(I say this with no disrespect for teens, by the way. Teens get the fact that the reason stuff doesn't make sense sometimes is because they have no way to process the data adults throw at them. In this regard, teens are a LOT smarter than some adults!)

Sources:
*[See "Contraceptive Failure in the First Two Years of Use: Differences Across Socioeconomic Subgroups," Family Planning Perspectives, 2001, 33(1):19-27]

**National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention, July 20, 2001.

Did You MEAN to Raise a Sexually Active Teen?

It's here! Everything I've learned about how teens think, and how to help them make good decisions about sex are in a new book called Did You MEAN to Raise a Sexually Active Teen?

I can't tell you how to get them to do their homework, but I can tell you how they think, and how you can become their BEST SOURCE of information about sex, love and relationships. The dangers young people face are very real and sometimes leave permanent scars. And what most adults do instinctively -- DOESN'T WORK!!

I've seen the results of the Sleeping Beauty Method, where well-meaning parents try to cocoon their child in hopes of keeping out any sexual thought until they graduate from college. I've heard the arguments for Lowering the Bar to some standard that can be applied to just about anything (wait til you're "ready", for cryin' out loud.) And I've seen how desperate parents are to change their teen's behavior with information... but information doesn't change behavior.

This book is not JUST for girls and it's not written in Christianese. It's full of my practical and humorous tips that you can put to use immediately, and see results immediately. If you are a parent, a grandparent, a pastor, a teacher, a youth leader or just concerned about kids --- this will help you make the case for sexual self-control.

And I truly hope you will!

Health Innoculation Is Now Stealth Indoctrination

Health and Life Skills classes will no longer be taught as stand-alone subjects at Granada Hills Charter High School. Instead the required "health concepts" (meaning, nutrition, suicide prevention, body systems,and sex education) will be incorporated into Physical Education.

I'm not a parent of a child attending GHCHS so my input is completely irrelevant to the decision makers. And I really hope to establish relationships with the PE teachers who are now going to be saddled with teaching sex ed. But I can't help but wonder...

State Law requires a "comprehensive" sex education program be taught. That means the students have to receive information on reproduction, pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, sexual harassment and safe surrender laws. It's hard to imagine PE teachers choosing to become fully informed about this complex material so they can teach it effectively, when it would be much easier to call the local clinic to schedule a presentation.

If I were a GHCHS PE teacher, that's what I would do. Hand out pills, shots, cream, foam and condoms today... your shoulder pads will be here tomorrow.

Unlike most LAUSD schools in the San Fernando Valley, GHCHS has had very low pregnancy and infection rate. Since 1998 has been the ONLY public school in our community where every student saw a Positively Waiting presentation as a part of their Health class. All four of the Health teachers made sure their students heard as much about Risk-ELIMINATION as Risk-REDUCTION. Years of the PW message on campus has provided positive peer-pressure for students to practice sexual self-control.

Will PE teachers, now required to disseminate mountains of complex, politically-charged material, in addition to their own course requirements, be as concerned about teaching both sides? I honestly don't know. I hope so.

Oh, and in case you're wondering what will take the place of a 20-week class focusing on the importance of making informed health decisions --- and the lifelong consequences of failing to do so --- students will now be encouraged to take a year-long course in Geography as an "enrichment elective."

The year-long class meets a college requirement... and coincidentally, provides 40 weeks of instruction on diversity, class warfare, gender-issues and of course, climate change.

I'm not kidding.