Originally as an effort to reduce teen pregnancy rates, abstinence-only education abstinence has become dominant in the American public school system. Abstinence advocates have used the general decline in teen pregnancies to justify these programs, despite the lack of empirical evidence supporting this correlation. In addition to the ineffectiveness and vagueness of abstinence-only education, these programs convey a distinctly religious agenda that ultimately affects the minds and self-esteem of the adolescents they serve. target. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essaySupport for abstinence-only education began with the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) of 1981 Commonly referred to as the “Chastity Act,” this piece of legislation promoted abstinence as the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV, and unplanned pregnancies. It limited funding for family planning services and expressly prohibited subsidies for projects related in any way to abortion (Perrin and Bernecki). Almost immediately, AFLA became the subject of controversy. In 1983, a lawsuit was filed against the law, claiming that it violated the separation of church and state by endorsing a religious view of sex education. Just two years later, it was declared unconstitutional by a district court judge. This decision was, however, overturned by the Supreme Court and new stipulations were imposed on the law. These included the absence of religious reference, a requirement for medical accuracy, a principle of self-determination regarding the referral of adolescent girls to contraceptives and the ban on presenting programs in sanctuaries religious during school hours (Perrin and Bernecki). In 1992, the Senate made a decision. decision to deny funding for the American Teenage Study of sexual behavior. This was partly due to pressure from a group of conservative senators, although the Senate was warned that religion was allowed to dictate law. These senators succeeded in presenting the study as a “reprehensible” investigation intended solely to “legitimize homosexuality and other sexually promiscuous lifestyles” (Remez). This victory had a damning effect on the study of adolescent sexual activity, helping to perpetuate the idea that "sex" is just vaginal intercourse. In the late 1990s, Title V, Section 510 of the Social Security Act added a language “until marriage.” » stipulation of abstinence-only education (Perrin and Bernecki). Absent in the original law relating to sex education, this clause of Title V is followed by others on a similar, strangely religious, motive. The most notable of these are the specific “standards” that the law imposes on adolescents and adults. Abstinence until marriage is expected of the former, while a faithful, monogamous relationship “within the context of marriage” is expected of the latter (Perrin and Bernecki). . The law even goes so far as to state that premarital sex will most likely result in physical or psychological harm. Indeed, the only positive aspect of Title V is a stipulation that programs will teach students how to refuse sexual advances, as well as the dangers of drugs and alcohol as they relate to sexual relationships. He isInterestingly, abstinence-only programs delivered in public schools today also tend to run counter to AFLA stipulations. In a 2004 study by the House Government Reform Committee, many abstinence-only programs were found to teach false information and blur the lines between religion and science (Alford). Some of these lies include that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide; up to 10% of women will become infertile following the operation; condoms fail as often as 31% of the time; and that pregnancy can result from contact with another person's genitals. Despite the inclusion of abhorrent misinformation in school curricula, the prevalence of this approach to sex education has increased significantly in recent decades. From 1988 to 1999, the percentage of sex education teachers who taught abstinence as the only way to avoid STDs and pregnancy increased from 2% to 23%. Between 1995 and 2002, the number of students receiving formal education about birth control fell by about 20 percent for both sexes; and in 2002, a third of students of both sexes had received no instruction on forms of birth control (Alford). The federal government has provided more than $1.5 billion in funding for abstinence-only education since 1997. This funding has been significantly reduced. influenced by evangelical Christian organizations, allowing these organizations to introduce the belief that sexual activity outside of marriage is morally wrong. This funding source blurs the line between church and state and arguably allows religious references prohibited in the AFLA to pass. Even with the prevalence of abstinence-only education in American schools, these programs do not reflect the beliefs of the state. majority of the population. About 92% of Americans believe in teaching contraception as a form of sex education, and 83% believe that protection and prevention of STDs and pregnancy should be taught whether or not the student is sexually active ( Perrin and Bernecki). The majority of adolescents themselves believe that abstinence-only education is ineffective. In fact, there is no strong evidence that abstinence-only education has any effect on the problems it targets. The few rigorous studies that have been done on abstinence education have failed to provide any evidence of effectiveness, suggesting that abstinence-only education has no significant value (Perrin and Bernecki). Another question to address is what exactly constitutes “abstinence.” ? Abstinence-until-marriage programs focus only on vaginal intercourse, without any consideration of other non-coital sexual acts. This narrow definition of sex leaves gaping gaps that abstinence education alone cannot and will not fill: oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation. While the programs were initially created to combat rising teenage pregnancies and birth rates, these gaps in the materials can be somewhat explained. by the fact that acts such as oral and anal sex are not related to pregnancy. However, efforts to expand studies on these topics often face the same political obstacles as comprehensive sexuality education. Although this may be partly attributed to the perceived difficulty of convincing parents to talk about their child's sexual habits...