May 1, 2008
The Daily Show on the Abstinence-Only Hearing
Wow. You gotta love Jon Stewart and the crew from The Daily Show. Take a look at the video below of the perspective they bring to last week's abstinence-only hearing:
Posted by Molly at 4:04 PM | Comments (2)
April 25, 2008
"Abstinence-Only" Hearing: Greatest Hits
Donna Crane is Policy Director for NARAL Pro-Choice America
On Wednesday, I had the privilege of attending the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's first pro-choice hearing on Bush's dangerous and discredited "abstinence-only" policy.
Under the chairmanship of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the panel examined "abstinence-only" programs and considered their failure rates against the following facts:
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that one in four girls has a sexually transmitted infection.
- Ninety-five percent of Americans have sex before they get married.
- Teen-birth rates are once again on the rise, and American teen-pregnancy rates are much higher than other industrialized countries.
- Scientific evidence overwhelmingly proves that "abstinence-only" programs do not work at delaying sex, reducing the frequency of sex, or the number of partners.
Of course, as one has come to expect, President Bush and his anti-choice allies continue to ignore these scientific facts and push hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into failed and discredited "abstinence only" programs. Our teens need accurate information to stay healthy and protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and disease - and under the Bush policy, they simply aren't getting it.
I know I just bummed you out, but now it's time for the good stuff. Chairman Waxman and several other committee members - Reps. Paul Hodes (D-NH), Peter Welch (D-VT), Chris Shays (R-CT), and John Sarbanes (D-MD)) - worked hard to expose these ineffective programs... and they succeeded. I now present you with the "greatest hits" of the "abstinence-only" hearing:
- Okay, okay, some "abstinence-only" programs don't work. Want to know who admitted that one right off the bat? None other than former presidential nominee Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)! Shocked he would actually admit that? So were we, but it only speaks to how bad these programs truly are.
- The experts agree: The programs fail teens and taxpayers alike! Noting the alarming statistics of teen-pregnancy and STD rates, freshman Rep. Hodes - one of Congress' new 26 pro-choice lawmakers - asked witnesses if they thought the federal government's "abstinence-only" policy was an effective response to our nation's adolescent reproductive-health crisis. The medial and scientific experts - including representatives from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine - all firmly answered "NO!" Talk about a waste of taxpayer dollars - $1.5 billion of them to be exact!
- Medically accurate? Sure, in theory... Under a tough line of questioning from pro-choice freshman Rep. Welch, Sen. Brownback conceded that federally funded programs should be proven effective. He also admitted they should be medically accurate. Really, senator - you agree that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to "teach" our kids that you can contract HIV/AIDS through sweat and tears? Too bad you refuse to write medical accuracy into the law!
- Hypocrisy! Next up: Rep. Shays, who was quick to point out the hypocrisy of the anti-choicers. At one point, he said in disbelief, "Throughout the course of this hearing, I've asked my colleagues if they'd had pre-marital sex, and they all said yes!" I have to admit, this was one of the most entertaining moments of the hearing, made even more so when the anti-choice members sitting next to us put their heads in their hands with dismay upon hearing this revelation.
- Mr. Chairman! Rep. Sarbanes - who is also new to Congress - was another pro-choice champion at the hearing. In fact, when Chairman Waxman had to step out of the room for a few minutes, he left his gavel in the hands of Rep. Sarbanes, who continued the excellent lines of questioning! You can read a wrap-up on his questioning over at the NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland blog, C.R.A.Blog.
I want to reiterate that pro-choice Americans should be really proud of the pro-choice committee members that attended the hearing and asked some fabulous questions. We know we can count on them to speak up for commonsense solutions, and that is the real difference we can expect from a Congress now in pro-choice hands.
Of course, NARAL Pro-Choice America has opposed "abstinence-only" programs since their inception, and has long urged Congress to invest instead in traditional sex-education programs that teach young people about both abstinence and contraception. Be sure to click here to read the testimony, submitted by Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Posted by blogforchoice at 2:17 PM | Comments (4)
March 6, 2008
Iowa rejects abstinence-only funds
Iowa is now the 17th state to reject Title V funding for abstinence-only sex education, which provides $4 in federal funds for every $3 the state spends, allowing for $50 million nationally. According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the Iowa Department of Public Health, which is responsible for these funds, doled out slightly more than $212,000 in 2006, $45,000 of which went to the UI to cover the mandated evaluation of the program.In 2007, Rep. Mary Mascher, D-Iowa City, sponsored a bill that, when passed last spring, set guidelines requiring all of Iowa's sex-education curricula to be scientifically based.
Which, shockingly, abstinence-only education is not.
Posted by Jessica at 8:18 AM | Comments (0)
February 5, 2008
Thank you Sen. Lautenberg!
We all know the Bush administration struggles with the facts, but, thanks to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), we have yet another example of just how detached Bush’s appointees are from reality.
Look at this video of Sen. Lautenberg taking Bush Budget Director Jim Nussle to task for the president’s support for ineffective and unproven abstinence-only programs.
Apparently Nussle hasn’t read any of the independent studies disproving the “abstinence-only” approach.
And remember those stories about how President Bush refuses to read newspapers? Well, apparently Nussle is doing the same, which means he missed the countless stories in the last couple of months about the alarming rise in the nation’s teen-pregnancy rate. I mean, after all, he is the budget director. Isn’t keeping up with the news in his job description?
After you watch the video, please go thank Sen. Lautenberg for putting this issue front and center. Email him here or call him here: (202) 224-3224, (856) 338-8922, or (973) 639-8700.
Posted by Molly at 6:24 PM | Comments (0)
January 8, 2008
Colorado refuses abstintence-only funds
I love it. Colorado, home of the purity ball, is rejecting abstinence only funds.
Colorado officials this year are rejecting nearly $500,000 from the federal government for programs that teach "abstinence-only" sex education, saying the teaching tactic is ineffective when it comes to preventing teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
I'd call that a win for Colorado youth, for sure!
Posted by Jessica at 12:22 PM | Comments (0)
November 27, 2007
Quick Hit: Still a Puritan Nation?
Alison Bowen at Alternet asks: Still a Puritan Nation? Most '08 Candidates Support Abstinence Education
And then I get scared.
Posted by Jessica at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)
November 8, 2007
Yet another study: Abstinence only education doesn't work
A new study put out by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports that abstinence-only education does not affect teenager's sexual behavior.
"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners" among teenagers, the study concluded.The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."
In other words? Abstinence education is a big fat waste of money.
The report also debunked myths about comprehensive sex-ed that the abstinence crowd like to spout--that it promotes promiscuity and so forth. Douglas Kirby, one of the researchers, said that instead comprehensive sex ed improves teens' knowledge about pregnancy and STDs and gives them "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex."
I can't wait to see what the pro-abstinence folks will say about this.
Posted by Jessica at 10:09 AM | Comments (0)
July 20, 2007
Why I heart Massachusetts
And its governor:
Gov. Deval Patrick (D) on Thursday vetoed a provision in the state budget measure that would have accepted a $700,000 federal grant for abstinence-only sex education classes, the Boston Herald reports (Fargen, Boston Herald, 7/13). According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, eight other states have rejected the funding, which requires that sex education curricula promote abstinence until marriage, and 12 additional states are considering not applying for the grant.
It's nice to see states realizing that comprehensive sex education just might actually be the better choice.
Posted by Vanessa at 10:03 AM | Comments (0)
July 18, 2007
Birth control is booming.
Check out this great opinion piece that talks about how "birth control is back." I don't know if I would necessarily say BC is back from the dead, but is certainly booming:
Barr Pharmaceuticals, maker of the "Plan B" morning-after contraceptive pill, estimates that sales doubled since the Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sale of the product after a long, politically inspired delay. Opponents had argued that the pill is tantamount to abortion -- which it is not. A woman takes the medication after unprotected sex, and it works like a high dose of birth-control pills. Plan B brought in $40 million annually when it was available by prescription only, according to Barr spokeswoman Carol Cox. The company estimates that sales this year, which marked the start of marketing without a prescription to women 18 and older, will reach $80 million.More teenagers who have sex, meanwhile, are using condoms -- 63 percent used a condom during their last sexual intercourse, according to data compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics. That's up from 46 percent of sexually active high school students who reported using condoms in 1991. Progress in reducing the rate of births to teenage mothers that began in the 1990s has held steady. So fewer girls are becoming mothers before they are emotionally and financially ready -- and fewer babies are born burdened by the toxic mix of poverty and social stress related to teenaged parenting.
Sounds good to me.
Posted by Vanessa at 10:07 AM | Comments (0)
April 16, 2007
Shocker of the day: Abstinence-only ed doesn't work
A new study shows that abstinence-only sex education shows has no effect on the sexual behavior of U.S. teenagers. Money not so well spent, I guess.
Researchers tracked four groups of children in two rural and two urban communities, half of them given abstinence-only training. All the children received whatever sexual education was routinely given in their community.When the study ended, the children's average age was just under 17. By that time, almost half had become sexually active, The Washington Post reported.
Fewer than 25 percent of the sexually active group reported consistent condom, use while 1/3 had had multiple partners. Teens who had been through abstinence-only education had the same behavior as the others.
You can read the full report here.
Posted by Jessica at 12:15 PM | Comments (0)
April 5, 2007
National Abstinence Education Association hires “Swift Boat” PR firm
Here’s some crazy news from Scott Swenson at RHReality Check:
Using membership dues paid in part by federal tax dollars, the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) hired the Washington, DC, public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts, best known for the 2004 "Swift Boat Veterans" ads against John Kerry, to launch a public relations effort supporting the failed and unpopular abstinence only education policies.
Whoa! Well, I guess when your programs fail and put teens at risk, you have to do something. As Earl Pike, executive director of the Cleveland-based AIDS Task Force, says in Swenson’s post: "It begs the question: If abstinence-only programs are actually effective in reducing long-term rates of sexually transmitted disease and unplanned pregnancy, why hire a PR firm to spin the message?"
Swenson thinks—and I agree—that the spin won’t be about promoting abstinence as much as it will be about attacking supporters of comprehensive sex education.
Specifically, the membership recruiting letter from NAEA outlines "unlimited legislative lobbying" and mobilization in "key Congressional Districts" as well as a "Rapid Response" initiative that is intended to "counter attack negative attacks on abstinence education". That last part makes one wonder if at one time a memo circulated outlining the Swift Boat ads as "rapid response to negative attacks on George Bush's military record", broadly interpreting "negative" as John Kerry simply discussing his exemplary service in Vietnam.
Never mind that advocating for silly things like the truth isn’t attacking abstinence-only education. It’s fighting for a sex education that’s honest and that works.
Posted by Jessica at 10:50 AM | Comments (0)
March 5, 2007
Wisconsin turns down abstinence-only money
Love this. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has turned down about $600,000 in federal abstinence education money because it would affect how much recipients could talk about contraception and STDs, you know, honestly.
Go Wisconsin!
Posted by Jessica at 1:34 PM | Comments (0)
December 28, 2006
NC abstinence group: condoms don’t work
A report from NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina says inaccuracies occur in both Sex Respect and Me, My World, My Future, which are used in the county's "abstinence only" family life program taken by some middle school students.Sex Respect, used by eighth-graders in New Hanover County, questions the protection that condoms provide against HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, stating: "There is not a lot of proof that condoms really work. Would you trust your life to one?"
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that condoms are highly effective against HIV when used consistently and correctly.
But the truth, of course, has no place in school. Check out this analysis of the Sex Respect curriculum from SIECUS, it’s scary stuff.
Like this gem: “A young man’s natural desire for sex is already strong due to testosterone, the powerful male growth hormone. Females are becoming culturally conditioned to fantasize about sex as well.” (Cause lord knows we wouldn’t think about sex naturally. Ick.)
Another peeve? Jere Royall of the North Carolina Family Policy Council says, “If you get into 'let us show you how to use contraceptives,' then you're sending a mixed message to young people…With drugs and alcohol we encourage them to make wise and healthy choices. We don't turn around and say, 'If you are going to do these things, this is how to do it.'”
Of course we don’t. Because drugs and alcohol are pretty much bad for you no matter what—there ain’t no coke condom. It just kills me when people liken teen drug or alcohol use to sexual activity—shouldn’t we be teaching kids that sex is a wonderful thing rather than something akin to heroin use?
Posted by Jessica at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)
December 20, 2006
Nearly all Americans have pre-marital sex
A new study, “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” says pre-marital sex is nearly universal among Americans.
The study, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports, reports that by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had sex before marriage.
From The Guttmacher Institute:
...Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government’s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12–29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active—which nearly everyone eventually will.”
Yeah, but what fun would that be?
Posted by Jessica at 11:12 AM | Comments (0)
June 26, 2006
Shameless self-promotion
I have an article up on Alternet today, Abstinence Double Standard Threatens Girls' Health. Here’s a teaser:
Check it out when you get a chance.
Posted by Jessica at 10:09 AM | Comments (0)
May 24, 2006
Rhode Island schools get ride of abstinence-only sex ed
I love me some good news.
The Rhode Island Department of Education ruled last week that schools should stop participating in a federally funded abstinence only ed program:
Last Wednesday, the state Department of Education (RIDE) Commissioner Peter McWalters sent a letter to all school districts stating the program, run by Heritage Rhode Island, had been deemed inconsistent with the Rhode Island’s education standards. "This program should therefore not be offered as part of the public school health curriculum," he said.McWalters’s decision came partially in response to a complaint filed with the Department of Education last fall by the Rhode Island arm of the American Civil Liberties Union (RI ACLU).
In a letter sent to McWalters, RI ACLU director Steven Brown said the Heritage program used false information about sexually transmitted diseases and conveyed negative stereotypes of homosexuals and women to students. Additionally, the ACLU charged, Heritage invaded student’s privacy by collecting information about sexual activity.
Damn. Sounds real “educational.” I’m glad that the states are taking
some action over these ridiculous programs. I’m wondering if there are
any parent-led initiatives to put an end to abstinence-only ed. I know
if this was going on in my kids’ school, I’d be livid.
Posted by Jessica at 11:44 AM | Comments (0)
May 10, 2006
Conference on STDs gets bullied into abstinence-only hell
Because politics are clearly more important than people’s health.
The 2006 National STD Prevention Conference, which is government-sponsored, has been changed up (screwed up) after an abstinence-only-loving congressman made a stink.
An aide to Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), sent an e-mail April 26 to the Department of Health and Human Services raising questions about a panel titled "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?""Just the title alone was enough to cause us concern," said Martin Green, Souder's spokesman. But the congressman also was alarmed because one of the speakers was focusing on a report produced by the office of Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) that was critical of abstinence programs, and because no one would be speaking in support of such programs.
Right. Because no one who cares about public health would support these programs.
In response to Souder’s objections the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the main conference organizer, changed the name of the panel to “Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth” and removed the panelist set to discuss the Waxman report. Take a wild guess who replaced the original speaker. Not one, but two abstinence-only panelists: Eric Walsh of Loma Linda University in California and Patricia Sulak of Scott & White Memorial Hospital in Texas, founder Worth the Wait.
Green said that the change took “basically a propaganda panel” and made it into “a more accurate reflection of the scientific opinion.” Right.
By the way, here are some of Worth the Wait’s very “scientific” recommendations on how to not get an STD: Go shopping at the mall with your friends; have an 80's movie marathon; make a scrapbook; make a quilt out of your old T-shirts and blankets; play catch with water balloons in the yard or have a water balloon fight.
Who needs condoms when you have arts and crafts?
Posted by Jessica at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)
May 4, 2006
Missouri House votes to screw up sex ed
The Missouri House approved a bill this week that will change sex ed programs throughout the state--and not in a good way.
The bill requires public school students to get permission slips from their parents before taking sex ed, would ban “abortion providers” from providing any class materials, would state that life begins at conception and would have to push for "lifelong monogamous marriage between a man and a woman."
Wow. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Cynthia Davis (who says that contraception is “a way to have all the goodies and not pay the price"), who originally wanted to ban a requirement that students be taught about sexually transmitted diseases. Thankfully, that requirement was reinstated.
I don’t know about the parental permission for sex ed thing--when I was in school we had to get a note if our parents wanted us taken out of the class. And while we never really learned about abortion, a lot of great information on birth control and STDs was given to us by local women’s clinics. But I digress--this bill has nothing to do with caring about young people and their health. It’s about limiting our choices and our knowledge. Period.
Posted by Jessica at 11:08 AM | Comments (0)
February 24, 2006
Missouri measure would drop contraception requirement in sex ed
A House panel is considering legislation in Missouri that drop a school requirement to teach contraception.
Under the measure, schools wouldn’t have to make contraception a part of their sex education classes and would only be required to tell kids that if they really wanted info, they could go to their doctors. Nice. I know how eager teenagers are to talk sex with the family doc.
"We're not expecting the public school to do everything," said Davis, R-O'Fallon. Under the state's current policy, "we're letting non-medical professionals talk about medical events."
Are you kidding? Isn’t that a teacher’s job? Next she’ll be arguing that if kids want to know about biology, they’ll have to go to a practicing scientist. After all, we wouldn’t want a non-science professional teaching how to dissect a frog.
Posted by Jessica at 10:18 AM | Comments (5)
January 25, 2006
Washington Times distorts abstinence poll results
A January 22 article in The Washington Times inaccurately reports that the majority of young people support abstinence-only education.
Check it out:
Critics of abstinence-only sex-education programs may be too hasty in judgment. There is support for the method among age groups that count -- the young.According to a new Harris Poll, 56 percent of people ages 18 to 24, and 60 percent of those 25 to 29 think abstinence programs effectively reduce or prevent the occurrence of HIV/AIDS. Another 49 percent of people ages 18 to 24 and 52 percent of those ages 25 to 29 say the programs reduce or prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The problem is, the Harris poll didn't ask respondents about abstinence-only education programs. They asked about “programs to promote abstinence.” All sex education programs promote abstinence!
Comprehensive sex education promotes abstinence as well as contraception use; abstinence-only education teaches that refraining from sex is the only option. But the reporting in this piece distorts that very big difference.
Even more:
Among six age groups and three political groups, younger respondents showed the strongest support for abstinence over safe-sex programs.
The Harris poll doesn’t ask if abstinence education is preferable over “safe-sex” programs. It only asks if “programs that promote abstinence” are effective. The questions listed on the poll don’t even mention “safe sex” programs.
The article goes on to confuse abstinence-only ed with the questions in the poll in a number of ways; you can check it out for yourself.
But I call bullshit.
(By the way: the majority of all the people polled thought that “programs that support abstinence” were not effective in reducing HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancies or extra-marital sex.)
Posted by Jessica at 3:08 PM | Comments (7)
January 6, 2006
New report: abstinence-only ed “ethically problematic”
The Society of Adolescent Medicine has just released a comprehensive report reviewing government-funded abstinence-only programs. And shockingly, it ain’t good.
James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, says, "The report reads like an indictment. Abstinence-only is bad science, bad policy, and a blatant violation of medical ethics and basic human rights. Enough is enough. The time has come for Congress to declare an immediate moratorium on federal funding for these programs."
Here are some highlights from the report, which is published in the latest issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health:
"We believe that current federal abstinence-only-until- marriage policy is ethically problematic, as it excludes accurate information about contraception, misinforms by overemphasizing or misstating the risks of contraception, and fails to require the use of scientifically accurate information while promoting approaches of questionable value.""Abstinence-only programs threaten fundamental human rights to health, information, and life."
Posted by Jessica at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)
November 16, 2005
Contradiction, my ass
A county in Texas has just dropped the one day of teaching contraception from their abstinence education program. You’re going to love this:
"Our curriculum, if I can say this, was a liberal description of contraceptives," L.V. "Butch" Foreman, who was the swing vote, said in a story in Wednesday's Odessa American. "It was a little explicit."
Um, it’s sex ed--how are you supposed to dance around it? Perhaps use words like wee wee and hoo hoo?
"We cannot teach abstinence and contraception," said Pierce, who got a standing ovation from the crowd of about 100 people at the board meeting. "They contradict each other."
Contradict each other? Please. Let’s see how see how worried they are about contradictions when kids start getting STDs.
Posted by Jessica at 2:17 PM | Comments (0)
September 21, 2005
Maine refuses federal funds for abstinence-only education
Guess why?
Federal guidelines don't allow any of the money to be used to teach “safe sex” practices. Wow. Yeah, god forbid your kids have safe sex.
“This money is more harmful than it is good,” [Maine Public Health Director Dora Anne] Mills said. “You can't talk about comprehensive reproductive information.”
Kudos to Maine for putting teens’ health and education first!
Posted by Jessica at 4:02 PM | Comments (0)
September 6, 2005
Wake up Ohio!
The statistic at the school in the heart of this old steel city contrasts with a decade of declining teen pregnancy rates nationwide.
The national average teen pregnancy rape is 8 percent.
Since 2001, Ohio has been awarded $32 million from the Ohio Department of Health and the Bush administration for abstinence education. Seems like it’s working real well. Sigh.
Joanne Hinton, whose 16-year-old daughter is pregnant, said she believes abstinence education is not enough.
“It's time to take the blinders off and realize that these kids are having sex...Obviously, abstinence is not working. If we have to, just give them condoms.”
Posted by Jessica at 2:24 PM | Comments (1)
August 23, 2005
Funds withheld from abstinence organization
Oh how I love good news. The Washington Post reports today that federal funds have been withdrawn from the Silver Ring Thing abstinence program because the org has been using tax money for religious activities.
In filings with the Internal Revenue Service, the organization describes its mission as "evangelistic ministry" with an emphasis on "evangelistic crusade planning."
While I’m certainly pleased that the group won’t be getting federal funding (at least for the time being), it annoys me that the only reason they’re getting cut off is because of the whole God-loves-virgins thing. What about the fact that abstinence programs give out false and potentially dangerous health information?
Posted by Jessica at 3:18 PM | Comments (0)
August 10, 2005
Too young for sex ed?
When should kids start learning about contraception? I first got the condom and birth control pill workshop in my New York junior high school. Apparently some folks think that’s a little too young:
The new curriculum doesn't teach middle schoolers about birth control, for instance, or address sexual orientation except in the context of AIDS. Activists, who have been working with the city on the overhaul for the past year, are upset about the omissions.
I can imagine why! How can you wait until high school to teach teens about contraception when many of them are having sex before they even get there?!
Not to mention the sexual orientation teaching change--what is that all about? Miriam Yeung, of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center says “when you don't see info about your life, or your behaviors or your feelings, then you don't practice any health-promoting behaviors.” Especially when the only discussion of your sexuality is in terms of disease.
A lack of comprehensive sex ed isn’t exactly news these days; I guess I’m just surprised to see my hometown move backwards like this.
What do you guys think? Is there a right age to start talking about sex and contraception?
Posted by Jessica at 10:04 AM | Comments (20)