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.

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.'"

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.

Smuggling in the truth

Recently, a question was raised about a phrase I used on a previous blog: "I'm looking for ways to smuggle the truth in underground.” Was I referring to subverting the authority of public school administrators? Or perhaps getting specifically prohibited material into the hands of students?

Words have power, I always say... and then I assume everyone knows what I mean. (OK, so I have some blonde moments.)

The truth I want to "smuggle in" to those school districts where I am banned:

1. That condoms/pills/shots do NOT provide the same level of protection as not having sex at all.
   
2. That, despite how hard it is to do, there are benefits to controlling your sexual urges.
3. Teen sex can produce long term relational consequences which adolescents can't grasp, foresee or predict.
   
4. Sometimes people who say they want to keep teens "safe" from sexual consequences are motivated by financial gain.
   

That's it. I'm not trying to keep accurate information about birth control or condoms from teens. I do want them to have access to everything they need to make good decisions. Unfortunately, after talking to tens of thousands of teens, I know for a fact, that they are under the impression "using protection" is just as safe as not having sex. But their idea of "using protection" has a wide range of not very safe actions.

A few common myths teens (and some adults) believe about "safe sex":

• Condoms aren't necessary if you're only having oral sex. Totally false. Most STDs can happily thrive in your mouth and throat.

• You're "safe" if you both get tested before you have sex. The fact is, there are no tests for some STDs. (Not to mention, even if someone says "I go to the clinic every three months so I'm clean," that doesn't mean they didn't get infected last night!)

• Teen pregnancy is the problem which requires the most attention. While it's true, almost a million teen girls become pregnant every year, its been estimated that 9 million 15-24 year olds become infected annually. (And don't forget, pregnancy only lasts a few months, but Herpes is forever.) The estimated direct cost of treating STDs in $14 billion per year --- that doesn't include indirect costs like lost wages and productivity, the cost of treating infants who have been infected, etc.

• If you're on the Pill, you don't have to worry about using condoms. Its a well-documented pattern that older teens and teens with the greatest number of partners are less likely to use condoms than younger less experienced teens. College students are less likely to use condoms than 9th graders, even though the "pool" of potentially infected partners is much higher among college students.
  

• You would be able to tell if you or your partner is infected. After being shown pictures of the "worst-case-scenario" diseased genitals, everyone thinks, "Well, I'd sure notice is someone's penis looked like a pickle." But the universally accepted data is 80% of the time STDs have no symptoms. No symptoms, very mild or hard to identify symptoms, sores in locations you can't see and (for some STDs) no test. [Just fyi, I've had both doctors and clinicians tell me they don't test for Herpes unless there is an active sore to culture. Their reasoning was, "Sure there's blood test to see if someone is a carrier, but you can't DO anything about it if they are, and it takes up too much chair time to deal with the emotional response to 'you have Herpes.']
  

• You can trust the people who give you free birth control and condoms. Are you kidding!? Comprehensive Sex Ed. programs are developed and presented (most of the time) by people who's INCOME is tied to sexual treatment services. Your local sexual health clinics receive federal and state funding to provide pregnancy-related and STD screening services. But (unlike Positively Waiting) they also receive funding from the feds, states and school districts to develop and present their sex ed. program. (Am I the only one who sees this as a conflict of interest?)
  

Even after a 3-to-6 week Comprehensive Sex Ed. program these myths still persist. First, because the medical data is very complicated. Second, because adolescent brains simply aren't capable of taking in data, weighing it against time/nature/experience and being able to predict the outcome of their behavior. But third, because the information gets watered-down to "Be safe. Use a condom."

In a teen mind, the message sound just like: "Be safe, don't smoke." Teens know no one dies immediately from smoking a cigarette, or a joint. You have to do it a lot so the problem builds up over time. Do you know how that message translates to sex? "You shouldn't have sex with a lot of people when you're young." Teens rarely grasp that you can get pregnant or be infected for a lifetime after only one act of sex.

Even after hearing both Positively Waiting and clinical program, some teens still respond, "Thanks for telling me all this stuff. I'm definitely going to slow down." (Yikes!)

How much more will that misconception persist if no one is there acting as their "visual aids"?

Here's the "truth" we're trying to smuggle in a nutshell: See these two people? One practiced "safe sex" by the book and got infected anyway. The other one only worried about being pregnant when she didn't want to be and ended up throwing away the chance to get pregnant when she wanted to.

We just want to be sure teens process the WHOLE TRUTH about how sex can impact their lives. We want them to know they can eliminate risk by the choices they make, and we want them to know (despite what others might say) it is possible to control your sexual passion, because WE did it.

The truth is we were banned by people who have never seen our presentations. Not one single teen (even those who who were sexually active and blew us off) has ever said they think we shouldn't be allowed to tell our story. Everyone who seen it agrees: our story makes a difference. They don't understand why adults are preventing us from showing by our own lives how to be successful at sexual self-control.

And, in all truthfulness, neither do I.

Sounding The Alarm About Teens and Condoms

“Abstinence doesn’t work, so teens need to know how to use protection."

I hear that all the time. But more and more, there's evidence that "using protection" is what's not working.

Take for example a clinical study in Atlanta, Georgia reported in the Jan. '09 edition of Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Girls who had sex in the previous 14 days, while using condoms 100% of the time, were tested for the presence of sperm in their vaginal fluid.

The clinic saw 1,585 girls between March 1 and August 31, 2004. Of those 1,585 fifteen-to-twenty-one year olds, 847 (53%) reported they were sexually active. Of the 847 who were sexually active, 715 agreed to participate in the study. The sexually active females were asked how frequently they had used condoms in the last 14 days. There were 186 girls who claimed they used condoms consistently. Vaginal swabs were then taken from those girls.

The swab was then tested for the presence of sperm.

Read this very s-l-o-w-l-y.

Of the 186 who claimed they had used condoms consistently, 34% (63 of the girls) had evidence of sperm in their vaginal fluid.

The authors of the study didn’t try to explain out why these girls had sperm in their vaginal samples, but they suggested possible reasons could be: misreporting condom use because its more socially acceptable (in my world we call that lying) or incorrect use (did you know there are 27 steps to using a condom correctly?)

[Note: Twenty-seven could be an exaggeration. I heard a medical professional use this illustration at a conference on sexually transmitted infections... still it's not "just like putting on a sock" as the ads say]

Please think this through very thoughtfully. You start with 715 sexually active girls. Only 26%, or 186 girls, said they were using condoms consistently. That means the other 529 girls were NOT using condoms consistently.

Doesn't anyone understand condoms are pass or fail?

If your son or daughter had sex with their sweetheart twice in one weekend, but they only used condoms ONE time, they're not 50% at risk of getting pregnant or infected, they're 100% at risk!

And even if they did use condoms, 34% of those girls STILL had sperm in their vaginas after 2 weeks! So if she used a condom on Saturday, but ovulated on Monday, she might still get pregnant!

It is highly unlikely that 100% of sexually teens will ever use condoms 100% correctly 100% of the time. To truly eliminate the risk of pregnancy/infection that is what is necessary. But nothing ever shakes the confidence the anti-abstinence crowd has in the Almighty Condom.

Every few days or weeks there's another news item about how abstinence is "unrealistic" (thank you Bristol Palin.) But if most teens don't use condoms correctly and if sperm is still present up to 14 days later, am I'm the only one who gets that relying on condoms to prevent teen pregnancy is even MORE unrealistic than sexual self-control?

It's also worth pointing out that sperm is not nearly as hardy as many sexually transmitted viruses. So if sperm can still be around after 14 days, you have to wonder, what else might be swimming around?

• Think about the teens you love.
• Think about the results you have seen when they say they have "cleaned" their room.
• Think about the SAME STANDARD being applied to condom use.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

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.

Really BAD Abstinence Ed.

I was reminded today of the two contestants on American Idol who "promoted" abstinence education. One was a middle aged man who sang a song called "No Sex!" and the other was a high school student who wanted Simon Cowell to know it would "just be better" if he waited for sex until marriage. They, like the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live and the "coach" at the beginning of Mean Girls, give abstinence a bad name. We do look utterly foolish when we pretend sex is bad, dirty or evil.

The American Idol contestants represent just two of several forms of really bad abstinence education. Here are some others:

1. Data Dumping: Scary statistics, graphic pictures of diseased genitals and study after depressing study on the negative consequences of non-marital sexual activity. It does produce a fairly impressive eeyewuuww! factor, but information doesn't change behavior.
2. The Sleeping Beauty Method: extreme censorship of any and all material which might inspire a sexual thought. This is a favorite of churched families, generally based on the wrong belief that preventing ALL exposure to the sex-saturated culture as a young person will somehow keep them from wanting to have sex. It makes mom and dad feel good, but leaves the child totally unprepared from the onslaught of emotions and desire they have when they step outside the cocoon.
3. Lowering the Bar: changing the standard to something other than wait for marriage, most often, "wait until you're ready/older/in a committed relationship." This are vague and unspecific targets which have broad interpretations. An adult's interpretation of the "commitment" stage is very different from a 14-year old's.
   

NONE of these strategies work.

I know this for a fact, because we tried them and failed. We found out the hard way that fear only works as long as the fear lasts. Its great when they're 5, but really ineffective at 15. When we finally set aside our pride, and really asked what works? what impacts your attitudes toward sex? Teens gave us the answers.

More next time...

The Truth about Sex Education

If I read one more article saying "abstinence doesn't work" my head will explode. Its such a ridiculous statement. Of course if you're not having sex, then you aren't going to have sexual consequences. DUH. But the argument isn't about whether or not "abstinence" works, or kids need more access to birth control. It really is about ADULT agendas.

If kids learn how to control their sexual passions, develop a broad range of interest to re-channel that energy, and learn good relationship skills... they will be more successful in life. That's a fact supported by a ton of research. It's also what every parent wants for their kids.

BUT, if a teenager, in the full flush of their peaking hormones, exercises some sexual self-control, the response from adults isn't "Good for you! Great job! I'm proud of you!"... it's "Uh-huh. Be sure you have a condom in your wallet, just in case."

The problem is that ADULTS want to believe there is such a thing as casual-sex-without-consequences. But there isn't. You can trust that latex condom all you want, but the FACT is the most common sexually transmitted diseases have the same transmission rates with or without condoms. Look it up on the CDC website.

And because teenagers are kind of famous for not following through, that whole business about 98% effective against pregnancy is a myth. Teens using condoms to avoid getting pregnant, have a failure rate of 30% in the first year (that means they GOT pregnant).

The desperate belief that pills, shots, creams, foams and condoms can somehow allow teens to be sexually active in serial relationships, but still arrive at adulthood unscathed is RIDICULOUS!

For me, its not just about avoiding STDs and making babies. Its about developing character. Being faithful to one person is hard. It takes a lot of practice and mental discipline. Learning to communicate on an intimate level requires a person to abandon the self-centeredness of childhood, and care about others. Real lasting success in relationships is hard work. If a teen is giving in to the desire to satisfy that drive for sex and only concerned with avoiding the social consequences, how and when will they learn these important skills??

Sexual self-control is hard, but so beneficial. I know, I did it myself. When I was giving in to my desires for sex, I didn't care about anyone but me. But when I stopped using people for sex, I learned how to love them.

I want that for the kids in my community.