Monday, March 8, 2010

The Lie: Abstinence Education Doesn't Work.

A Budgetarily Funded Lie

As continued from "Planned Parenthood Helps Teen Birthrate Decline. What???" , part of what Planned Parenthood had to say about the President Obama's 2010 FY budget is that it doesn't go far enough in helping them to help us, but it does eliminate those dreaded ineffective abstinence only programs:
“President Obama’s budget makes clear that the government won’t waste federal dollars on programs that don’t reduce the number of teen pregnancies or keep teens healthy and safe. We applaud the president for rejecting failed abstinence-only programs that have cost our government more than $1 billion and, instead, investing in evidence-based sex ed programs that have proven to help prevent teen pregnancy,” ~ PPFA President Cecile Richards. (1)
Cut To The Heart Of The Matter

Let's define what is actually being said here. Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) is a practice in which the efficacy of interventions is demonstrated "supposedly" by a credible body of scientific work. This has proven effective in helping a child learn math, or reading, or even how to modify behavior. However, the world of evidence based psychology or science is also the backbone for evidence based sexual education strategies. Right off, one might think this is a good thing. There are significant problems however that we should be made aware of right off the bat.

Problem With This Approach

Experts agree that there are generally 4 inhibitors to this type of approach the third of which specifically deals with what I feel is a growing and glaring problem with President Obama's agenda and organizations such as Planned Parenthood's support of evidence based sexual education programs:
1.More and more educators and groups are reviewing research with the intent of establishing an evidence base for their work. Although there is some overlap in the coding criteria in use, the diversity of efforts has created challenges for consumers.

2.Integrating EBIs into practice is not always well tailored to the realities practitioners face-for example, administrative and practical barriers that are not present in research settings.

3.When designing, implementing, and evaluating their own interventions, some psychologists may be more influenced by clinical judgment than by research supporting EBIs.

4.Many psychologists-both trainers and practitioners-lack the training to implement EBIs in their school practice. Teachers are also often involved in implementing interventions in schools, further increasing the complexity of adopting EBIs and meeting training needs. (2)

The fact is that the research supporting evidence based sexual education programs (which are TOTALLY supported by the current administration) does not exist as we have been made to believe that it exists. We'll discover more of this later in this post.

How Did This Come To Be?

This implementation of this concept at a school and adolescent level was born in part out of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent 15-member panel that issues public-health recommendations, which reviewed an analysis of 83 studies of sexual-education programs conducted between 1980 and 2007. The analysis was conducted by a 19-member team of experts assembled by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to examine the politically sensitive question.  According to the Washington Post the conclusion of this panel was that there was "insufficient evidence to know the effectiveness of abstinence programs"(3) Please pay special note to that. There was "insufficient evidence to know" in other words the effectiveness of the programs could not be determined. What actually happened was that the EBI advocates immediately jumped on the bandwagon and spun the findings as if the abstinence until marriage programs had been proven to be ineffective.

This is the LIE that has been perpetrated and incorporated into current legislation, peddled by modern anti-biblical psychologists and further promoted by them that view traditional and biblical values as ineffective.

A website dedicated to AIDS education reported this:
People providing sex education have attitudes and beliefs of their own about sex and sexuality and it is important not to let these influence negatively the sex education that they provide. For example, even if a person believes that young people should not have sex until they are married, this does not imply withholding important information about safer sex and contraception. Attempts to impose narrow moralistic views about sex and sexuality on young people through sex education have failed. Rather than trying to deter or frighten young people away from having sex, effective sex education includes work on attitudes and beliefs, coupled with skills development, that enables young people to choose whether or not to have a sexual relationship taking into account the potential risks of any sexual activity. Effective sex education also provides young people with an opportunity to explore the reasons why people have sex, and to think about how it involves emotions, respect for one self and other people and their feelings, decisions and bodies. Young people should have the chance to explore gender differences and how ethnicity and sexuality can influence people's feelings and options. They should be able to decide for themselves what the positive qualities of relationships are. It is important that they understand how bullying, stereotyping, abuse and exploitation can negatively influence relationships. (4)
In other words, let the children decide for themselves, don't be a parent, simply be a disseminate of information..."YOU report...THEY decide!"

The question is are children mentally equipped to be left along in making these decisions no matter how much information that you have given them? Is it better that they have sex in your home, than no sex at all? Is there no call or encouragement to greater accountability?

Normalization Of Gay & Homosexual Sexual Practices

Having a motive of making society safer is a good goal, however that is only the wrapper on this package of deception and destruction. There is yet something else under the surface. Here it is:

In order to change attitudes about sexuality and what is deemed "normal", sexual choice and attitudes towards sexual diversity must be realigned at an early age. In other words, Evidence Based Sexual Education is a path and a way for promoters of the gay agenda and liberal sexual agenda, to introduce the selected forms of sexual diversity, and realign what are deemed as stereotypical attitudes towards sexuality. The "golden carrot" is the promise that by exposing indivuals to a broad array of sexual diversity sexual discrimination, especially that against gays and lesbians will decrease or become non-existent. This becomes a sexual integration or sexual moral desegregation program and NOT merely a sexual education program. This approach has very serious underpinnings that cannot be minimized. At heart, it is only another way to normalize anti-biblical sexual sexual practices and minimize, if not even trash, the traditional and biblically centered sexual moral values upon which our society is established. 

These type of thoughts ring loud and hit home when we consider those who are the most vocal proponents of ideaologies promoting these sort of issues and this type of education. By far and large they are individuals who hold homosexuality in high esteem and who do not feel that homosexuality is necessarily wrong, harmful or bad for society in general. They reveal themselves in television segments promoting their message at the viewers expense. Here is an historic example of such:

The Interview:

On a 5/6/2009 news-talk show, "Issues With Jane Velez-Mitchell' the following conversation regarding abstinence took place between Jane Velez-Mitchell (a self-confessed lesbian) , Jim Beck, and Dr. Brenda Wade (an open homosexual advocate). Dr. Wade seems to be a cauldron of misinformation relating to sexuality, even going so far as to suggest that homosexuals are homosexuals because of incidents that occur within the pregnant mother's womb. She states that these "incidents" possibly changes fetal psychology in vitro. She is certainly a homosexual advocate, but with statements and suggestions such as that it is nearly impossible to see how she claims to be so, or why the gay community stands for an association with her, as, in essence, she believes that homosexuals exist because of some sort of birth defect or accident! Nevertheless, this is an excerpt of the conversation:

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Essentially, Bristol is telling teens they should abstain from sex when that is precisely what she herself did not do. So some are wondering if they should call this the "do what I say, not what I do" campaign. Brenda Wade, I had a psychologist explain to me once that the reason "abstinence only" doesn`t work is that intellect is a low defense against biology, that physiological urges...

WADE: Exactly.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... called hormones will be stronger in a teenager than their thought process.

WADE: That`s right. And this is the worst possible defense, Jane. We have the research. We have the statistics. Abstinence does not work for teenagers. What we do know is teens who are educated about contraceptives, teens who access to contraceptives are much more likely to not have unplanned pregnancy and not have these very, very lethal STDs that are now out there. And we know that the highest rate of STD infections are among young people. So to say that abstinence works is so irresponsible. I just can`t stand it.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Jim Beck, you`re with the Christian Coalition of America. There are 750,000 American teens getting pregnant every year. We have the highest pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. Eight out of 10 of those young girls do not marry the father of the child. Do you really think "abstinence only" is the solution to that crisis?

BECK: I just heard a very intelligent woman say abstinence doesn`t work. Show me one person that ever got pregnant not having sex. I mean, abstinence works. I mean -- I mean, I`m just old country. I`m an old country boy...

WADE: Abstinence doesn`t work. I`m sorry.


BECK: ... but abstinence works.

WADE: Statistics exist. Statistics exist that teenagers are not able to maintain abstinence. The intention may be there, but the execution is not there. And we are leading our teens at risk.

BECK: So what about alcohol?

WADE: To try to tell them to be abstinent.

BECK: What about alcohol and drugs? What about alcohol and drugs?

WADE: Alcohol and sex are not in the same category.

BECK: Sometimes it`s in the same car.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. I want to thank my ferociously fantastic panel.
BECK: Sometimes it`s in the same car.

So if a teens intentions are there but they have an inability to maintain, does that mean we allow them to experience all that they can't seemingly refrain from doing??? If a teen is so weak and unable to maintain their sexuality, how can they be trusted to have sex responsibly? Dr. Wade is OFF THE CHARTS? Her reasoning defies any kind of logic!

In addition, I guess neither Ms. Velez-Mitchell nor Dr. Wade were aware that no one has ever contracted an STD by refraining from sexual activity and as Mr. Beck pointed out that, with the exception of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who was apprehensive probably for some time, no one has ever had an unwanted pregnancy when there had been no sexual contact.
Arguments like this tend to display how misplaced the carnal mind really is and how this brand of touchy feely morality is only meant for the garbage can. Therefore, it is revealed that the argument takes on more of a personal judgement rather than one based on the facts. Advocates of Evidence Based sexual education believe that all that is necessary is simply to account for the behavior, rather than change the behavior. The problem is that the lust of the flesh is never fulfilled or satisfied and teaching self-control is the best possible lesson that not only children can hear, but the public in general can hear.  This is the lesson that is can we overcome these tendencies that can be destructive when used wrong, but can be beautifully experienced when used properly and biblically?

Just because one can do something does not make it good to do and certainly does not make it a desirable thing to do. The root of the problem must be addressed. The problem is, in part, a total moral and social value reduction to relativism and "feeling based" morality. Feelings allow individuals to experience what they want to experience. Feelings also can be very deceptive even shading the truth. We must live however beyond feelings to accomplish and do many great things. We should not be defined by our feelings, but we should control them. that is only possible through Christ. 

The Truth About The Evidence

As Jim Beck was pointing to, these studies do not include full information nor disclosure on why certain sexual interventions could not be determined to be effective. None of the studies included variables of behavior and choice associated with sexual activity such as alcohol, drugs etc. Not everyone on the CDC task force agreed with the majority opinion of the task force either. The Washington Post reported:
"Two members of the CDC team issued a dissenting report disputing the findings. They argued, among other things, that the analysis actually shows that comprehensive sexual-education programs in schools do not significantly increase teen condom use, reduce teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases.

"This is an important finding because the school classroom is where most teens receive sex education," said Irene Erickson of the Institute for Research and Evaluation, who issued the dissenting report with Danielle Ruedt of the Georgia Governor's Office of Children and Families. "Furthermore, the data indicated that many types of [comprehensive] programs do not work, even in non-school settings, yet the recommendations do not identify what those are. Unfortunately, the report's conclusion that comprehensive sex-education programs are broadly effective simply ignores these findings. This is misleading to policymakers who are seeking evidence-based programs, especially for schools." (3)
The data does not conclude that evidence based or comprehensive programs are effectiver. Nevertheless, in part because they do not include what has been traditionally thought of as biblical moral values, they are funded to the tune of over $178 million, becasue our President thinks "science is good". We do too when it is actually science and not atheism described or dressed up as science.  

Still further research affirms that whatever observation that can be drawn from the data are full of problems and cannot be used to make general statements that programs are either effective or ineffective by themselves. There are many factors that should be considered and no particular study takes into account all the necessary details. In other words human choice and behavior is a variable which cannot be precisely accounted for.
"Virtually no experimental or observational literature reliably answers questions about the effectiveness of counseling in the clinical setting to reduce rates of unintended (unwanted, mistimed) pregnancies in this country. Existing studies suffer from appreciable threats to internal validity and loss to follow-up and are extremely heterogeneous in terms of populations studied and outcomes measured. The quality of the existing research does not provide strong guidance for recommendations about clinical practice but does suggest directions for future investigations. Numerous issues warrant rigorous investigation."(5)

The problem is that society was not meant to function as it is today. So many children with no parental guidance was never the biblical or desired way to raise a family. There have been many factors that have fed into the problems that we face. Drugs, poverty and under-education have been at the forefront of the problems and devastation. However, failure of the Christian community to respond to the devastation that has occurred cannot be understated. Within the Christian worldview, that breakdown didn't happen apart from the devastating results of sin in the world. Rebellion against the truth of God has been the terrible backbone from which many of these problems have grown and continues to develop. However, even though there is what can be deemed as a moral breakdown and a system failure, this situation is not beyond God, nor sound principles of correction and encouragement outlined within the pages of Holy Writ.

What amazes me is the complete confidence in modern convention toward age old social and moral problems. If it had been left to individuals like the queen of atheism, Madalyn Murray O'Hare, most children would be sexual perverts, having sex freely in their parents homes, experimenting sexually with adults and promoting further godless views of sexual immorality. As those ideas were rejected then, they are rejected now by thinking and rational individuals who believe that there is an absolute right and wrong and moral standard to live by. 

Can we hold a condom and a birth control pill in one hand and tell and expect our children to refrain from sex? This is the dilemma and what the whole argument breaks down to. Is the sexual education of our children to be done God's way or the world's way? Which way and path is more fulfilling and which path teaches children to best value and honor their bodies, relationships, marriages and the union and bond of the family?  

What Should The Church Do?

  • Teach the bible which is a prescription that is health to the community. Abstinence has never caused a problem for the individuals practicing it and valuing their sexual morality and purity. Whereas condoms have broken, and diseases have been transferred even when some have practiced what they though was safe sex.

  • Teach the lost the God centered benefits of right and health living and sexual purity and morality. Children want to hear that they can be strong and they need to hear alternatives to peer and social pressure. how will they know unless you tell them?

  • Model God centered and biblical behavior in front of the kids, community and church. Sexual purity catches on when it's lived. Each one should be willing to live and model others into healthy sexual relationship and right standing with God. We need no church mothers telling the young ladies to test the "product" and no men teaching the boys how to be playa's. Be a part of the solution and not the problem.

  • Create a system of accountability. Unlike the world which simply says give them the information and let them make their own decisions, (About the most ridiculous idea I cam across in researching this subject) the church should be actively engaged in supporting parents and leading the children into accountability toward one another and the body of believers. They should know that their actions effect the complete body of believers and that everyone is concerned about their continued success.

  • Advocate and teach purity. Get involved in what your school district is doing in this area. This will effect not only your children, but the children of your relatives, family members and church members. once you read through this lie, you can share better and more accurate information.
For the critic, what I've outlined is "small and narrow" As President (then Candidate) Obama outlined in the previous post. That's OK, but if one person can be produced who was emotionally scarred or psychologically damaged, by sexual purity. Or one child can be produced that was unwanted becasue of sexual purity, then these arguments will remain small and probably divisive for those who can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that God's plan is the best plan that man can experience. 

Every now and then we find that doing things like God said do them is the best prescription for all involved. This is one of those things. Humanism and anti-God prescriptions of moral acceptance will never be able to replace the moral right and value of God to mankind.

Proverbs 16:25 ~"There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death."



1- Planned Parenthood's Response To President Obama's 2010 budget

2-Wisconsin Center For Education Research, "Evidence Based Interventions In School Psychology"

3- The Washington Post Online "Panel says evidence is insufficient to know effectiveness of abstinence programs"

4- Avert HIV/AIDS Foundation "Sex Education that Works"

5- Contraception, An Internal Journey, Volume 67, Issue 2, Pages 115-132 (February 2003) "Counseling in the clinical setting to prevent unintended pregnancy: an evidence-based research agenda"


  1. Interesting that the new health care reform included a significant amount of dollars for abstinence only sex education...Do you think the President would prefer that his daughters are taught how to remain chaste as opposed to prepare for sex? I think so!

  2. Science doesn't stand still:

    1. Yes but one can't stop there is the effort is to receive the most up to date information. This is what a more recent study said regarding the finding of this study:

      "Instead, the study authors looked at African-American middle-school students in the Northeast who enrolled in an abstinence-only program (no instruction on contraceptives) and were taught, sans moral or religious arguments, that they should delay sex until they were ready. Marriage was notably left out of it.

      The students in this program were more likely to delay sex in the two years after the program, as opposed to those who enrolled in no program or those who were instructed in safe sex.

      Where there is no moral adjustments one can talk abstinence all day. there must be a moral adjustment, an expanded view of the roll of sex in life and a change of heart. That works 100% of the time. As I have stated and consistently state, aside from Mary, name me ONE pregnant virgin.

      Now the advocates of education only programs are upset because their premise is wrong. Read that here:

    2. Another little quirk about teaching children to delay sexual activity instead of distributing contraceptives because you feel they have the "can't help its" could be school performance or grades in school.

      In a 2011 article in "The American Journal Of Health Studies" the researches stated the following:

      "This new study shows that abstinence-only programs have produced: better GPAs and improved verbal and numerical aptitude skills. Other associated social benefits are stronger peer relations, positive youth development, and students are aware of the consequences of risky behavior, such as teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases."

      Further there was a greater benefit toward moral values and especially that towards views of marriage. They also stated the following:

      "Among the positive results, students come away with a deeper respect towards the idea of marriage and of improving their own socioeconomic status. Students of these programs are taught the principles and facts that desperately need to be conveyed to their age group, especially when it comes to child-rearing, priorities, and planning for their future. Abstinence-only programs provide inspirational and rational choices for America’s young to be equipped for a life not of regret or hardship, but of hope and responsibility."

      This study basically laid down a gauntlet to EBI's to study if their programs also provided any educational benefits. Simply put, anyone claiming that abstinence only education has lost it's way, can't see the target. The target is not only about stopping sex and sexual activity. the target is about enhancing societal moral values that have proven to be beneficial to all those that adhere. The critic doesn't like this, because this is also what the bible teaches. There is still what is called a blessing upon individuals for doing the right thing.


I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Thanks.