Sex Education Reduces Teen Pregnancy
Vanessa Hernandez
Charter Oak State College
Vanessa Hernandez, Charter Oak State College
Correspondence concerning this article be addressed to Vanessa Hernandez at the PSY 410: Research Methods for Behavior Science. The College at Charter Oak State College, 55 Paul Manafor Senior Dr, New Britain, Ct 06053
Sex Education Reduces Teen Pregnancy
In a lot of schools across the country, students are being introduced to sex education as an attempt to reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy. All through history, the government has broadly supported and funded public schools’ abstinence-only programs. However, a number of people have started to question the impact of abstinence-only programs and, if, at all, schools should teach sex-education programs that are comprehensive instead. Medical professionals, Science and health professors, and researchers of sex and female production debate the importance of the different types of sex education programs being taught to young youths in school.
The ones supporting programs of abstinence suggest that any other sex education form only encourages sexual activity, and it is only through abstinence that sexual activity among adolescents can be avoided. On the other hand, the ones supporting comprehensive sex education contend that the programs of abstinence-only ignore the sexual activity reality among teens. There is a necessity for appropriate knowledge of contraception in preparing teens should there be a rise in sexual encounters.
Even though appropriate sex education has a broad topic of discussion, the argument only became widely recognized recently. In reference to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, published article, “Understanding Title V of the Social Security Act,” funding of abstinence-only education by the federal government began in 1996 adding section 510 to the V Title of Social Security Act (v). Abstinence-only education according to the article is viewed as any program that entirely teaches on the benefits of abstinence setting abstinence together with a monogamous and mutually faithful relationship in marriage context as the expected standard (Understanding Title V 14).
Additionally, an abstinence-only program educates the students on premarital sex consequences as well as how the students should handle the sexual advances should need to arise. However, comprehensive sex education focuses on educating students on how to take part in safe sex and also provides accurate medical information in regards to STIs and the different modes of contraceptives accessible. Former U.S. President Barack Obama attempt to start funding for comprehensive sex education in 2010, started the debate again. Todd Melby’s article “Obama Delivers, Mostly,” published in the “Contemporary Sexuality,” journal, the then-president asked that $185 million be put in the comprehensive sex education (Melby 1).
Due to the fact that the federal government has always been the one funding the abstinence-only program, the change in funding once again sparked a debate on sex education and what the students need to be taught. The state, and at other times the district is responsible for the type of sex education programs offered in schools. However, the issue of determining what is the most effective program is being debated broadly across the states. And as the concerns for the future in teen sexuality grows, the importance of the debate does the same.
Notably, in the article “The Abstinence-Only Sex Education Curriculum Is Effective, “Christine, a Heritage Foundation policy analyst, and Robert, Senior Research Fellow at Heritage Foundation, argue that the abstinence-only programs are very effective in the reduction of sexual activities among teens and that the ones who do abstain from sex have better mental health reports. They do believe that abstinence-only is a logical approach when proposing that education on abstinence-only is “crucial to the physical and psycho-emotional well-being of the nation’s youth” (Kim and Rector 8). The two give a number of examples of the studies that indicate a decrease in the rate of sexual activity in teens that took part in abstinence-only programs. Generally, teens participating in abstinence-only programs take part in sexual activity rarely than those who do not participate in any form of sexual education (Kim and Rector 2-7).
Christine and Robert give a number of examples of the successful abstinence-only programs, but they, however, fail to compare their findings to the ones in the comprehensive programs. Every study compares a group of teenagers participating in the abstinence-only programs to those who have not taken part in any form of sex education completely. Even though the studies indicate success with abstinence-only programs, compared to no education, they do not substantiate that the abstinence-only programs are more prosperous than comprehensive programs.
The University of Hawaii at Manoa professors Hazel Glenn Beh and Milton Diamond lean on an opposing side. In their “The Failure of Abstinence-Only Education,” article, the two suggest that the abstinence-only programs may somewhat be harmful instead of helpful and that there is a necessity of comprehensive programs in preparing students on how to deal with their sexual health. The professors propose that teenagers will take part in sexual behaviour regardless of education and the abstinence-only education tends to deprive them of the knowledge that is needed in managing their health sexually (Beh and Diamond 15). They wind up that, abstinence-only programs providing teens with imprecise information, hinders their ability in making educated decisions regarding their sexual health. And that, these programs are possibly more harmful when it comes to their health than when they haven’t taken part in any of the sexual literacy programs (Beh and Diamond 61).
Beh and Diamond highlight the abstinence-only program’s aspects and also the positives in the comprehensive programs. They start their arguments in disclosing the flaws in sex education that fail to depict the difference between adolescence and puberty, and that ignores sexual behaviour takes part among teens reality. They go on to address the federal funding of abstinence-only programs conflict and are defensive on the possible arguments going against comprehensive sex education. Their well explained, and in-depth analysis reasoning on each argument gives a strong basis to their argument. However, the two professors do not have empirical data in supporting their claims.
According to the article “State Policies on Sex Education in Schools,” women aged 15-19 years birth rate in 2017 was 18.8 per 1000 women suggesting a drop in percentage from 2016. The reason for the decline is not clear. However, evidence suggested that there was a great number of teenagers abstaining from sex as well as an incr4ease in the use of contraceptives among the ones that were sexually active (Kate, n.d). However, the United States has still remained with the highest teen birth rate despite having a decline in the teen birth rate.
Teen pregnancy can result in various economic and social costs. Teen mothers are quite unlikely to finish high school and are very likely to lead a life of poverty, have poor health, and seek public assistance. Notably, their children will probably suffer from cognitive disadvantages, drop out of school, live in poverty, and become teen parents. Also, the number of STIs affect adolescents disproportionately as a result of biological and cultural situations. Young adults the ages of 15-24 are 25% of the population sexually active individuals, and they get half of all new STIs (Kate, n.d).
As of October 01, 2020, almost 30 states required all public schools to teach sex education, with 28 introducing both sex and HIV education. Thirty-nine states plus the Columbia district also required students to get instructions regarding HIV, and 22 states require that the provided sex or HIV education should be factually, medically, or even technically accurate so as not to keep reviewing the department of the health curriculum. Notably, parents were to be notified on the provision of sexual education, and some states even required parental consent before their child could get the instruction.
The article “America’s Sex Education: How We Are Failing Our Students” argues that, while it’s just 13 states that need the sex education in schools to be accurate medically, a lot has been left up in the teenage health literacy interpretation(U,2017). According to the Public Library of Science research, students feel well informed, make better and safer choices, and have healthy results when sex education is comprehensive, leading to a lesser number of unplanned pregnancies and a rise in the use of protection from STIs.
As much as the U.S. lags behind other nations that are industrialized in the prevention of teenage births, the rates of teenage rates in the country went down in 2016, a ten-year-long trend that has been ascribed by a number of studies to an increase in education concerning contraceptives in public schools. While sex education comprised information regarding contraception, teenagers had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who got abstinence-only or no sex education. The research findings published in the Adolescent health journal could relieve a common fear of parents and teachers that worry students are quite likely to expand their sexual activities after getting comprehensive sexual education(U,2017).
Notably, the more teens can get precise information from a trusted source, the more prepared they can be to make decisions regarding their bodies and relationships. From clinical experience, teenagers will make decisions on engaging in sexual activities, be it that they are or they are not well informed therefore leaving the health professionals with a chance in promoting sexual health education(U,2017). After all, teenagers will regularly reach out for education after making their decision. When they do, this education needs to be correct and comprehensive and not discriminatory or founded on the judgment.
What began as the government’s attempt to provide students with sexual health education was a great debate on what information is supposed to be included in this literacy and its impacts on sexuality in teens. This is an issue that will keep on being notable as long as teenage pregnancy keeps being a problem in the United States. It is of great concern about what effects teenage pregnancy and teen parents can have on their children and society. To resolve this, society has engaged in the debate in finding out the most productive way of preventing teen pregnancy. From the look of things, a lot of individuals are turning to comprehensive sex education as a way of effectively curbing teen pregnancy. Therefore, policymakers and educators should expect a change in the curriculum of sex education programs.
References
Beh, Hazel Glenn, and Milton Diamond. “The failure of abstinence-only education: minors have a right to honest talk about sex.” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, vol. 15, no. 1, 2006, p. 12+. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. November 14 2016.
Health Resources and Services Administration (DHHS/PHS), Washington, DC. Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Understanding Title V of The Social Security Act: A guide To The Provisions Of The Federal Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. n.p.: 2000. ERIC. Web. November 14 2016.
Kate Bradford, T. (n.d.). State Policies on Sex Education in Schools. Retrieved October 09, 2020, from https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx
Kim, Christine, and Robert Rector. “The Abstinence-Only Sex Education Curriculum Is Effective.” Are Textbooks Biased?, edited by Noah Berlastky, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. November 14 2016.
Melby, Todd. “Obama Delivers, Mostly.” Contemporary Sexuality. 44.6 (2010): 1. MasterFILE Premier. Web. November 14 2016.
- (2017, September 18). America’s Sex Education: How We Are Failing Our Students. Retrieved October 09, 2020, from https://nursing.usc.edu/blog/americas-sex-education/