What's sex education without sex?

What is sex education without the sex?

If you, like 89 percent of other Americans, believe that young people should have information about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, then you deserve to have that question answered.

Though no federal program exists to support sex education that teaches both abstinence and contraception, there is extensive focus on abstinence-only programs. Currently, three programs fund federal abstinence-only programs: the Adolescent Family Life Act, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (known to most of us as welfare), and the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance program of the Maternal and Child Health block grant.

Since 1997, abstinence-only programs have received over half a billion dollars in federal funds, and this amount is only growing. In fiscal 2004, the Bush administration requested a record $136 million for abstinence-only programs.

Given that most of us would like the result of sex education to be "abstinence-only" teenagers, the dangers of this sex education trend are not readily apparent from the name. Here's the catch: by law, high schools accepting any of this federal money cannot "promote or endorse" condoms or contraception or provide any instruction regarding their use. The only thing schools accepting this money can say about contraceptives is their failure rates.

Some programs, like one in Texas cited by Human Rights Watch, have even provided false information about contraceptives by telling students that condoms were ineffective and not worth using, even though condoms are proven to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STDs.

Human Rights Watch has condemned the U.S. for these programs, stating that "federally funded abstinence-only programs interfere with fundamental rights guaranteed by international law, including the right to 'seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds' and the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and, indeed, may have dire consequences on the right to life. The failure to provide accurate information about prevention of HIV transmission needlessly puts children at risk of contracting this devastating and fatal disease ."

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy found that abstinence-only programs had no impact on students' sexual activity, and another study comparing abstinence-only sex education with a more comprehensive "safer sex" program found that the safer sex program was the only one of the two that reduced unprotected sex.

Despite these results, more and more schools have moved toward abstinence-only sex education due to budget crunches that make the federal abstinence-only money more attractive or even a necessity. Approximately one-third of secondary school principals indicated that the federal abstinence-only funding influenced their decisions about their school's sex education curriculum.

Are you now wondering what exactly abstinence-only sex education does promote, if not birth control and STD protection? Many curriculums encourage gender stereotypes in relationships and home. Teen Aid, Sexuality, Commitment, and Family text used in Ohio and Texas teaches that "couples considering the option of dual careers should spend time discussing whether the advantages outweigh the limitations, realizing that there are factors other than financial and self-fulfillment which must be kept in mind."

The WAIT Training text used in Georgia and Pennsylvania states that "from the start, the woman has a greater intuitive awareness of how to develop a loving relationship. Because of her sensitivity, she is initially more considerate of his feelings and enthusiastic about developing a meaningful, multi-level relationship. She wants to be a lover, a best friend, a fan, a homemaker, and an appreciated partner." Other texts have faced federal litigation due to their religious content.

As we see our own school district struggle with shrinking funds, any available federal money becomes increasingly precious. And, of course, federally funded programs are fueled by our tax dollars. Should our money go to promote misinformation and sex education without the sex?

In 2001, 225 young people between the ages of 15-24 died from HIV/AIDS. Hundreds more were infected with the virus. By contrast, of the 350,000 people in the U.S. who skydive each year, only 35 died in 2001. One might claim that this miniscule fatality rate could be attributed to the fact that before letting people jump out of planes, U.S. law requires them to learn how to use (and indeed to wear) a parachute.

It would, in fact, be impossible to receive instruction on skydiving without mentioning the parachute. In sex, as in skydiving, it's all about the parachute.

A graduate of Carson High School, Elizabeth Pederson has a master's degree in public administration from the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and is an entering student at Stanford Law School.