Abstinence-only-until-marriage education has been taught for over two
decades and yet there is still no peer-reviewed research that proves it is effective. Government funding of
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs is not new. In fact, the federal government has poured large sums of money into such
programs for the past 20 years.
AFLA: the birthplace of abstinence-only programs.
The U.S. Office of Population Affairs began administering the
Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) in 1981. This program was designed to prevent teen pregnancy by promoting chastity and
self-discipline.[1] During its first year, AFLA received $11 million in federal funds. In fiscal
year 2000, AFLA received $19 million.
AFLA’s early programs taught abstinence as the only option for teens
and often promoted specific religious values. As a result, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit in 1983 charging
that AFLA violated the separation of church and state as defined in the U.S. Constitution. In 1985, a U.S. district judge
found AFLA unconstitutional. On appeal in 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case to a
lower court.[2]
Finally, an out-of-court settlement in 1993 stipulated that
AFLA-funded sexuality education programs must: (1) not include religious references, (2) be medically accurate, (3) respect
the “principle of self-determination” regarding contraceptive referral for teenagers, and (4) not allow grantees to use
church sanctuaries for their programs or to give presentations in parochial schools during school hours.[3] Within these limitations, AFLA continues to fund abstinence-only programs today.
Abstinence-only-until-marriage education as defined in AFLA has been
taught for over two decades and yet there is still no peer-reviewed research that proves it is effective in changing
adolescents’ behavior. To the contrary, a meta-evaluation of AFLA program evaluations found them “barely adequate” to
“completely inadequate.”[4]
Congress institutes similar programs through Doolittle
amendment.
The first Congressional attempt to censor sexuality education using an
abstinence-only provision came in 1994 during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Representative John Doolittle (R-CA) introduced an amendment to limit the content of HIV-prevention and sexuality education
in school-based programs.
Fortunately, four federal statutes required alterations to the
Doolittle amendment. The Department of Education Organization Act (Section 103a), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(Section 14512), Goals 2000 (Section 319 (b), and the General Education Provisions Act (Section 438) all prohibited the
federal government from prescribing state and local school curriculum standards.
Proponents of abstinence-only programs learned from this that even
though they could not legally restrict state and local education programs that they could restrict and define the scope of
state and local health policy and funding. They applied their new-found lesson in 1996.
Federal entitlement program promotes
abstinence-only-until-marriage.
That year, the federal government attached a provision to the popular
welfare-reform law establishing a federal entitlement program for abstinence-only-until-marriage education.
This entitlement program, Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social
Security Act, funneled $50 million per year for five years into the states. Those states that choose to accept Section 510(b)
funds are required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars and then disperse the funds for
educational activities.[5]
Programs that use the funds are required to adhere to a strict
eight-point definition, which, among other things, requires them to teach that “sexual activity outside of marriage is likely
to have harmful psychological and physical effects.”[6] (The complete definition is on page 11.) The
section 510(b) abstinence-only-until-marriage funds are up for reauthorization in 2001.
Other federal abstinence legislation.
Since inception, over a half billion tax dollars have been spent on
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. In November 1999, opponents of comprehensive sexuality education, family planning,
and reproductive rights began a process that successfully secured an additional 50 million federal dollars for
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs over the next two years. Although these funds are not part of Section 510(b), they
are only available for programs that conform to the strict eight-point definition in 510(b).[7]
These new funds will be awarded directly to state and local
organizations by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau through a competitive grant process instead of through state block
grants as is the case for 510(b) funds. Many viewed this decision as an attempt by conservative lawmakers to control the
funding and prevent money from supporting media campaigns, youth development, and after-school programs that they saw as
diluting the abstinence message.[8]
[1] R. Saul, “Whatever Happened to the Adolescent Family Life Act?,” The Guttmacher Report on
Public Policy, vol. 1, no. 2, April 1998.
[2] Ibid.
[3] D. Daley, “Exclusive Purpose: Abstinence-Only Proponents Create Entitlement in Welfare Reform,” SIECUS Report, April/May
1997.
[4] C. Bartels, et. Al., Adolescent Abstinence Promotion Programs: An Evaluation of Evaluations. (Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Nov. 18, 1996, New York, NY.)
[5] Daley, “Exclusive Purpose” SIECUS Report, April/May 1997.
[6] Section 510, Title V of the Social Security Act (Public Law 104-193).
[7] W. Smith, “Public Policy Update: More Federal Funds Targeted for Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs,” SIECUS Report,
June/July 2000.
[8] Ibid.
Print page