A new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine Monday showed that young teens given an abstinence-only message were significantly more likely to delay having sex than those receiving more comprehensive sex education.
The research is gaining attention since itÂ’s the first rigorously conducted study demonstrating that an abstinence-only program can be effective.
“This is really game-changing research, because it provides the first strong evidence that abstinence-only education can help very young teens delay sex,” says Bill Albert, chief program officer for that National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a nonpartisan organization. “The menu of proven options just got larger, and that’s good news.”
And the target age group of the report was 12.
Abstinence-only study could alter sex-education landscape - CSMonitor.com
>>>>
Yes....and?
Did you bother to read the results?
In the group receiving abstinence-only education, 33 percent began having sex over the next two years, compared with 47 percent of those in the control group. Among the other groups, 52 percent of those taught only about safe sex became sexually active within two years, as did 42 percent of those in the comprehensive program.
Did I read that? Yes.
I also read this...
"For one thing, the targeted population – with an average age of 12 – was quite young. And for another, the abstinence program was carefully designed to try to avoid pitfalls others have encountered. It counseled children to delay sex “until they are ready” rather than until marriage, avoided a moralistic tone, and was careful not to disparage condom use, and to help children get rid of misconceptions about contraceptives if the subject came up during discussion."
And this that shows that teen pregnancy rose under funding pushes under the Bush administration...
“This is not the kind of program that the federal government has been funding,” says Heather Boonstra, a senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, referring to the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that thrived under the Bush administration.
Last week, the Guttmacher Institute released data showing that after a decade-long decline, AmericaÂ’s teen-pregnancy rate rose 3 percent in 2006. Ms. Boonstra is among those who believe some of that uptick may be due to the reliance on abstinence-only programs.
This scientific study found that abstinence-only education produced the best long term results.
No it didn't.
It showed that this modified program, which as the author of the report says, does not meet current federal guidelines to qualify for federal funding and does not disparage the use of condoms. Had a positive impact on a small sample group selected group for a period of 24 months. That's 12 year old going to 14, that is not "best long term results", it's a limited sample for a relatively short time.
"Best long term results" would be measured across socioeconomic strata, multiple races, multiple education levels of the supporting family, multiple religious backgrounds for the family, and over the long term (from say age 12 to 20).
But, as we all know, only 6% of Liberals acknowledge scientific studies that contradict their ideology.
Good thing I'm not a liberal and also know how to read the source material directly like reading the study not just a media report of the study.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med -- Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents, February 2010, Jemmott et al. 164 (2): 152
This does not appear to be the type of "abstinence only" education that some believe it is. It doesn't identify abstinence to marriage it advocates until they are ready, it does not present a moralistic view of abstinence only - it is neutral, and did not stress "inadequacies" of condoms.
>>>>
