By Merrill Foto News Staff

By Jamie Taylor

Seventh in a series

Last Wednesday the Human Growth and Development (HG&D) Committee set up by the MAPS Board of Education to study and recommend changes to the district’s health curriculum finished its review of the PRMS and elementary components.

The bulk of the meeting dealt with approving the overhaul of the health classes taught at Prairie River Middle School and approving slides and videos to be used as resource material there and at Merrill High School classes. The committee also reviewed changes made after the previous meeting to the opt out form that will be mailed to parents of all students taking any part of the curriculum.

The committee viewed the slides that showed the damage caused by various sexual transmitted diseases that were part of the Powerpoint presentation provided by the Lincoln County Health Department that Scott Arneson uses in the MHS health class. The committee had asked the previous week to be able to review these slides to make sure they could not be considered pornographic.

MAPS Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Carole Witt Starck said that when she reviewed the slides before the meeting, she was surprised at the damage these diseases can do to genitalia of both sexes. She thought the slides were still useful as they show how much serious damage the diseases can do.

“What the slides showed me was that it could affect all genitalia,” Witt Starck said. “You might find some of these pretty graphic, but these are pretty serious diseases.”

After reviewing the slides, the group debated their merits with input from PRMS health teacher Brian Suchocki. Two members of the committee argued that showing just half of the slides that didn’t show more identifiable genitalia would be just as effective as showing all of them.

“If you had some of these slides without the (labeling of the type of) disease, they could be considered pornographic,” one member said.

Suchocki disagreed, saying “I’ve had some parents tell me they (the slides) are pretty effective with their kids. They aren’t getting any enjoyment out of viewing them.”

Dr. John Sample, MAPS Director of Student Services and Special Education, also asked how the committee could determine which diseases were important enough to warrant inclusion and which could be left out? He said the district would be doing the students a disservice by leaving some out. He also noted that they were viewing just certain slides out of context of an entire classroom presentation.

The committee then voted 11-1 to leave the presentation intact, with one member abstaining from the vote.

The committee then turned its attention to the PRMS component, which Suchocki had previously recommended changing. Due to budget reductions, the PRMS health class was changed from eighth to sixth grade several years ago. Because some information presented in the former class is not considered age appropriate for sixth graders, it is now no longer taught. Suchocki has recommended that a three day session on HG&D be taught to eighth grade students to help them understand the importance of remaining abstinent and the consequences of becoming sexually active.

It had been argued in an earlier meeting that students going from PRMS to their freshman year of high school undergo a very social summer and peer pressure is very strong at that age.

Under the proposed eighth grade class, students would still be separated by sex and taught on the reproductive system of the other sex for the first time on the first day. The two sexes would be together for the second and third days when they would see a different set of slides on STDs as well as other information previously taught by a doctor. On the third day they would be taught about healthy relationships and sexual harassment as well as other information previously taught at that grade level. PRMS counselor Tana Frost said such modern concerns as cyber bullying and other Internet or cell phone related problems would also be addressed on this third day.

The committee also viewed several clips from several videos that he had identified as important to show PRMS students in either sixth or eighth grade and one that might be appropriate for high school students. One was made by students that dealt with STDs, pregnancy and other issues and ended by telling students that it was okay to remain abstinent.

Suchocki pointed out that abstinence is something he repeatedly stresses in his instruction.

The committee approved Suchocki’s set of slides, the video he wished to show his students and a third video “The Miracle of Life.” While the last video, which follows the development of an embryo from before conception to birth, was deemed appropriate to be shown to all grade levels from sixth grade on, it would most likely be used by Arneson, primarily due to its length.

Although the committee was not making any changes at the elementary level, it still reviewed those curriculums.

On the opt out form, which the district is not required by law to provide parents although they do have the right to opt their children out of the material, the committee revisited its decision to not include an opt in provision. A couple members thought having parents send the form back indicating that they were allowing their children to study the material would provide the district as much useful data as the optional request for comments section for those opting out. It would also be a way to spark parent involvement in the discussion of the material with their children.

However, Sample warned that not only would the provision make more work for district employees having to contact parents who did not return the form, it also could possibly leave the district open to a legal challenge of the policy. The Cedarburg School District is currently embroiled in such a suit because it made its policy opt in rather than opt out, among other deviations from state requirements.

“In my opinion, we are getting dangerously close to doing exactly what Cedarburg did,” he said.

On a second vote on the policy, an 11-2 decision reaffirmed the use of an opt out only form.

Now the group will work on drafting its formal recommendation to be sent to the board for action later this month. Once the Board of Education has approved the new curriculum, parents and other community members will have at least 45 days to comment on it before it is taught at any grade level.

Letter to the Editor:

Regarding the issue of sexual development, i.e. sexual education, in the schools, one important factor that has not been addressed is whether the school system is prepared, able to provide moral, ethical, spiritual, religious principles on which to build one’s sexuality.

It seems the only issue being tossed around is whether or not children should have information about STDs and contraception. This is putting the horse before the cart.

It is my right and responsibility to guide, teach and help my children come to full adulthood. But, to teach then the mechanics of sex and contraception is equal to showing them how a car works, giving them the keys and saying, “drive, just do it safely.” This is absurd.

Until the school system and whomever else may have an interest in teaching my children how to handle their sexuality shares my love, concern and pain with mistakes they may make – until they are able to impress upon them that sexuality is an awesome powerful gift, given by God. With it comes not only the physical responsibilities of the body, but the potential for deep emotional pain and brokenness of spirit.

Indeed sexuality in its whole is powerful, cementing a man and woman’s commitment and love.

As is with any powerful tool it has the potential to destroy. There are worse things than unplanned pregnancy and disease, such as damaged emotions, warped view of sex, shame, guilt, inability to bond, trust and ultimately love.

Until you are as concerned with my child as a spiritual being with emotions and you share my values and knowledge gained from failures and victories – until God gives you the responsibility and accountability He has given me as a parent – please stay out of my way.

Respectfully,

Melba Guzik

Gleason

Citizens of Lincoln County

The founding fathers crafted the foundation of our country with Christian principles placing Life first, then Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  In that order due to the importance of each. Without Life, the other two principles don’t matter.  We cannot claim to believe in our country if we deny this thinking as it is the very foundation and bedrock of our country’s birth certificate.

The recent decision for the MAPS district to move forward with the mandate to teach comprehensive sex ed causes one to question how many citizens understand this basic truth.  The two main authors of the sex ed bill, Taylor and Grigsby, were endorsed by Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood is the state’s largest abortion provider and they already receive $11 million of our tax dollars annually ($6 million is from the Family Planning Waiver – the teen birth control program). Let us not forget, teenagers can receive services without parental consent or knowledge. Is this what we, as Christians, believe to be acceptable?  If we believe in the foundation of this country and what it stands for then we cannot support and defend organizations such as Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in America), Family Planning Health Services (FPHS), Wisconsin American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), NARAL Pro Choice and Milwaukee LGBT Community Center. The legislation they support drives a wedge between parents and their children by confidentially providing contraception and referring for or providing abortions.

When Neville Chamberlain declared “Peace in Our Time” after appeasing a man like Hitler and selling out the Czechoslovakian people, Winston Churchill was asked what he thought of Mr. Chamberlain’s statement.  Winston Churchill said, “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”

We cannot appease anyone or any organization who proclaim one thing, claiming to keep our children health, while their actions speak another, providing contraception, which gives our children a false sense of protection, and abortions.  We complain the morals in this country are going down the tube, however, when we have the opportunity to adhere to our morals, we didn’t side with our moral authority and bent to the pressure of pop culture. Why didn’t the Superintendent and the five board members take a “leap of faith” and trust the parents and the community members who have spent months researching this legislation and what it means for our district?

It seems their decision was made up before the meeting even started. In fact, President Jeff Verdoorn, instruction the board members to speak first to express their thoughts prior to hearing community comment, which set the tone and confirms this intuition. Why didn’t the five board members look at the real numbers of pregnancies and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) for Lincoln County?  The official government statistics reveal that between 2005-2008 Lincoln County had a yearly average of just five births to under 18 year olds and that is ALL of Lincoln County. Also, for our county’s demographic, the government statistics show an STD rate of 1.8 percent (ages 15-19). Do these numbers qualify as a “crisis?” Why didn’t the board members believe a new study showing, once again, abstinence education does work? Why would the board approve a curriculum before there is a curriculum? There isn’t even a properly formed committee to make recommendations to the board on what the curriculum will be or for that matter is mandated to be by the new law.

This is an issue of whether to teach comprehensive sex ed as mandated by Madison versus opting out, forming our own curriculum and teaching what our community wants, terfore, maintaining local control. 321 community members signed a petitioun stating “no” to this mandate. There were not near as many in favor of approving it.  The board had a decision to make. A lack of morality becomes a morality unto itself.  What is proposed to us through this new sex education course is that our schools are to become not only a school, but also a parent, and a church.  We are now, in effect, throwing virgins into the volcano of popular culture. “Peace in Our Time?” Hardly. Moral corruption? Absolutely.

Sincerely,

Paul & Karen Cournaya,

Joe & Dorly Dahlke,

Joe & Carole Fink,

James and Mary Litschauer,

Tim & Pam Moat

Merrill

Of all the creepy things I don’t want to see in my campus newspaper, up around the top of the list is advertisements lying to and shaming rape victims who choose to have an abortion.

In a series on RH Reality Check, Robin Marty looked at anti-choice advertising by the Human Life Alliance (a Crisis Pregnancy Center). Marty reports that the “advertising supplement” is riddled with lies, starting with the Table of Contents, where it claims that abortion in America “is legal through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason.” Seriously, if that was true, pro-choicers wouldn’t have any work to do.

From there the insert pursues further common anti-choice deceptions, such as breast cancer scare tactics; inaccurate conflation of birth control with abortion; and gory, frightening, but completely false descriptions of abortion procedures and side effects. But what really takes the cake is the shaming and manipulation of rape and incest survivors, who are told they will feel they’ve “conquered” their assault by giving birth.

The advertising supplement informs students, “In the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion” (underlying message: so if that is your choice, something is clearly wrong with you). What was the “major study”? Why, it was the decisions of 37 women who came to the study’s author for advice. Besides the fact that this is not enough women to be scientifically significant, gee, I wonder if the biases of the rape counselor against abortion had any impact. The medically unsound ad further takes it upon itself to tell doctors to advise against the trauma of abortion for rape victims, without consideration of the unique situation facing each woman.

Oh, and in case of incest, according to the insert, abortion has never ever had a positive impact for the victim. It’s just the abusive parent who wants it; “the incest victim is more likely to see the pregnancy as a way out of the incestuous relationship because the birth of her child will expose the sexual activity.” Really, incest victims should hope they get pregnant as a means of escape? And it won’t be clear to anyone unless she give birth? There are better ways to address incest than saddling a child — since most incest victims are minors — with a child she can’t take care of, and her immature body might not be prepared to give birth to.

The Human Life Alliance has particularly targeted University of Wisconsin schools, with at least seven papers in the system agreeing to disseminate their lies (kudos to the student newspapers who have rejected these ads). Many students are upset at seeing the deceptive ads, however, and are speaking up; in a Letter to the Editor in the Student Voice at UW-River Falls, Nikki Shonoiki denounced the inaccurate “ads”: “Nothing was being advertised here; instead, you [the editor] contributed to the dissemination of 12-page tasteless booklets of disinformation designed to denigrate and shame women who receive abortion care.” And at Stony Brook University, where a campus paper also ran the ads, the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance began a campaign against these problematic inserts and Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

Insist on truth in advertising by signing this petition telling student newspapers running HLA inserts to join their peers who have rejected these inaccurate, agenda-driven ads.

Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth wrote area school districts a letter which may intimidate teachers, administrators, and school board members from developing or teaching a comprehensive community-based human growth and development curriculum.

The unfortunate consequence of his action will not be to delay first sexual intercourse by Juneau County teens.  It is more likely that those teens, when they do become sexually active, will not have the information they need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancies or sexually transmitted infections. Many people do not get any sex education after high school, so it is also likely those teens will not have the health information they need to make informed health care and family planning decisions when they marry and/or become sexually active as adults.

District Attorney Southworth’s statement that schools teach about sex for pleasure or that sex education is analogous to teaching people ‘how to mix drinks,’ makes it obvious that he either was not in a reputable sex education program or he wasn’t paying attention. Although there are always a few examples of highly publicized unacceptable behavior that opponents of sex education point to, there is no accepted pre-college program that teaches human sexual response to minors and I know there is no Juneau County school district curriculum that teaches techniques of sexual pleasure.

What do reproductive health educators teach young people?

• They can prevent cancer by being vaccinated against HPV.
• Consistent and correct use of condoms can prevent sexually transmitted infections.
• Testicular and breast self-examinations are important preventive health care regimens.
• Folic acid is important to pre-pregnancy planning.
• Coercive sexual touching is illegal and destructive.
• Hormonal contraception can prevent pregnancy.
• . . . and other information that helps people make informed decisions to protect their health.

None of the material is erotic and none of it could be considered in a court of law to be “encouraging young people to have sex.”

Family Planning Health Services (FPHS) is a private non-profit corporation with a mission based on the ideal that information is better than ignorance when it comes to sexual health. When we are invited to participate in any classroom, our presentation respects school district standards. We strive to be age-appropriate and medically accurate. Our first concern is always the health and well-being of community families.

District Attorney Southworth has gained a lot of media attention and there will be controversy and fund-raising on all sides of this issue.  Through that turmoil, FPHS will continue to provide the community with access to family planning services and education that is responsible and professional. We support Juneau county school districts who educate our young people and we promise to support any district or local teacher who provides lawful sexuality education as described in The Healthy Youth Act and who is charged with a crime by District Attorney Southworth.

 Coincidentally, Tara Malone of the Chicago Tribune took a look at the issue in Illinois which ranks fourth in receipt of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage funds.  Her article, Sex ed: Abstinence-only programs under review, is a great read on the tough challenges that state faces.  As we see increasing numbers of teen pregnancies, births, and sexually transmitted infections, more communities are discussing the sex ed programs in their communities.  In my community, I know we have a curriculum for sex ed, but it’s hard to find out if it is being taught district wide.  What’s happening in your community?

A young mother visiting our Women Infants and Children’s nutrition clinic in Central Wisconsin was frightened by a male picketer as she came into our clinic a few weeks ago.  Other women, sometimes our patients, sometimes our employees, have felt threatened by the “40 Days for Life” anti-birth control demonstrators leading a Lenten protest that began yesterday in front of our clinic in Central Wisconsin and in 131 other communities across the nation.

I haven’t asked the clients if they are visiting our clinic to get food for their infants or prenatal nutrition education. I haven’t asked whether they use natural family planning, or condoms, or hormonal birth control pills, or the patch, or an IUD.  I don’t ask whether they are married or faithful or abstinent.  I don’t ask whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist or non-believers.  Neither do the demonstrators who intimidate them.

My agency is a non-sectarian health care provider with a mission to prevent unintended pregnancies and to improve maternal and child health.  We’re proud to support access to safe, legal voluntary reproductive health care as a human right. More than 95% of all American women use modern contraceptive methods. The women who come to us do not come to get an abortion or an abortion referral.  We prevent abortions, we do not provide them.

The 40 Days for Life demonstrators know that women and men come to us for birth control. Other local clinics also provide confidential birth control.  Unlike us, they may make medical referrals for pregnancy termination when necessary.  Walgreens and Wal-Mart deliver hormonal birth control pills and every hospital emergency room in Wisconsin is now required to give out emergency contraception to rape victims.

No theological or political issue is going to be resolved by frightening the women who come to us for health care.  We have been providing high-quality affordable and confidential health care for 36 years and we will continue to provide that care as long as there are women who choose to come to us to receive it.

Publicly funded family planning programs save the U.S. billions of dollars each year though the prevention of about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including nearly 400,000 teenage pregnancies, in the U.S., according to a report released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, the AP/Miami Herald reports. The report estimates that the unintended pregnancies prevented each year would have resulted in 810,000 abortions, 270,000 miscarriages and 860,000 unintended births. The report states that without publicly funded family planning programs, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher than the current level and nearly twice as high among low-income women.

More than nine million women, including almost two million younger than age 20, received publicly funded contraceptive services in 2006. Six in 10 women who use a family planning center consider it to be their basic source of health care. The centers provide services such as breast and pelvic exams, reproductive cancer screenings, HIV testing, treatment for diabetes and high blood pressure, and a source of referrals to other health providers. In 2006, public expenditures for family planning totaled $1.85 billion, with 71% of the funds coming from the joint federal-state Medicaid program. In addition, 27 states have expanded eligibility for family planning for low-income women who would not otherwise qualify for Medicaid.

Rachel Benson Gold, a co-author of the report, called publicly funded family planning “smart government at its best.” She said that every dollar spent on the programs saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to women who are eligible for Medicaid. Gold said that obtaining a waiver from HHS to expand family planning services is a “cumbersome and time-consuming process” for states but that it is a “popular policy because it helps women while saving public dollars” and “more than pays for itself.” The report recommends that Congress do away with the waiver requirement for extending family planning and instead allow states to use the same income criteria that they use for determining eligibility for pregnancy-related care. The report also endorses family planning coverage for legal immigrants who have been in the U.S. less than five years. Additionally, the report supports pending legislation in Congress that would increase funding for Title X family planning.

The Female Condom – where the girls – AND boys – are

Please join IRMA, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) and the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE) for the first IRMA global teleconference of 2009.

Get the skinny on the NEW female condom and discuss its implications for anal sex.

Featuring presentations by Serra Sippel, CHANGE Executive Director, and Mitchell Warren, AVAC Executive Director. Slides and other materials will be made available on the IRMA website in advance of the call.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Kuala Lumpur – midnite
Mumbai – 9:30pm
Nairobi – 7pm
Cape Town – 6pm
London – 4pm
New York – 11am
Lima – 11am
Chicago – 10am
Los Angeles – 8am

The conference ID # is the same for both international and domestic participants.
If you are calling from outside the US or Canada, please send a note to jpickett@aidschicago.org as soon as possible to receive the appropriate dial-in number.

Listening to the spokesperson for Pro-Life Wisconsin as he defended the new ‘right of conscience’ regulations on Wisconsin Public Radio last week reminded me of the wisdom of the tale.

For 30 years, regulations and federal laws have struck a delicate balance between the rights of patients to receive health care and the rights of health care providers. The new regulations, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt, expand the rights of health care providers so extensively that the rights of the patient to receive care are obliterated. The new regulations give the right to refuse to provide health care to all virtually all employees for any health care service they might ‘morally object to.’

Matt Sande, speaking on behalf of Pro-Life Wisconsin, defended the broadest possible right to refuse saying: “These rights aren’t qualified in any way. That’s as it should be. We just have to work around it. We may not understand or agree with an individual’s objection, but we must protect and defend them. . . If we pick and choose which rights we protect, then we won’t have rights for anyone.”

Would this right to refuse apply to physicians who provide abortion services in South Dakota who have been required by state law to inform their patients that terminating a pregnancy is ending a separate, unique human life and that consequences may include depression and suicide? These physicians certainly have moral objections to the content of that message. Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt has said that, where state laws and the rights of conscience regulations are in conflict, the federal government will help “bring the state into compliance.”

Would volunteers at federally funded abstinence-only “crisis pregnancy centers” have federal civil rights protection for refusing to give out inaccurate and incomplete information [Waxman Report] about the effectiveness of condoms to prevent pregnancy and HIV transmission? As he described patients who ‘may have to go somewhere else,” Mr. Sande said; “One person’s convenience should not trump another person’s right of conscience.”

The moral of the fable is that we are often the source of our own destruction.

The first weakness of the ‘rights of conscience’ regulation expansion is an assumption that only anti-abortion and anti-family planning advocates have moral convictions. The probability that health care employees will refuse to comply with anti-choice or anti-contraception requirements has been overlooked.

The second weakness is a faith-based denial that absolute rights do not exist on this earth. Individual rights require constant, vigilant, rational and empathic balancing. Whether it is the right of a patient to informed consent or the right of the state to protect a fetus, purity is an impossible standard.

The Obama administration must immediately refuse to enforce these regulations and Congress must immediately begin the process to rescind them. In this case, ideologues have given their enemies the means of their own destruction and the regulations must be brought to earth.

As the global community marks World AIDS Day on December 1, advocates and policy experts welcome the promise by the incoming Obama administration to put sound scientific evidence at the forefront of the U.S. global AIDS program (PEPFAR). President-elect Obama’s campaign Web site states that the “first priority is…to ensure that best practices—not ideology—… drive funding for HIV/AIDS programs.” And indeed, both the new administration and the incoming Congress will have opportunities next year to do just that.

In August 2008, the U.S. government reauthorized the PEPFAR program, committing $39 billion over five years to the global fight against HIV. The new PEPFAR law features many improvements over the law that guided the program’s first five years; however, it, too, falls short in terms of HIV prevention policy.

What PEFPAR will actually look like on the ground later next year will depend largely on the new administration. In 2009, the incoming administration will develop a plan to implement the reauthorized PEPFAR that could remedy or at least mitigate some of the law’s shortcomings. It will make a host of crucial decisions, from how best to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV to how to better integrate HIV prevention and reproductive health services.

Backed by a growing body of evidence, policies at the global level already recognize the importance of linkages between HIV and reproductive health services. But the United States remains a major obstacle to effective integration, and the PEPFAR law is silent on the importance of linkages. That the U.S. government has failed to join and actively support the global integration consensus is exacerbated by the erosion of U.S. support for international family planning programs.

The issue of better integrating HIV and reproductive health services is especially important in countries with high rates of HIV infection, which often are impoverished and have poor health infrastructures. It makes eminent sense to offer women the services they need—whether related to HIV or to reproductive health—in settings they already frequent. For instance, PEPFAR should pay for HIV testing, counseling and referral at sites that women already visit regularly to obtain family planning services. In turn, women should be able to obtain contraceptives to avert pregnancies they themselves don’t want at sites they already visit to receive HIV services.

Embracing proven interventions that promote HIV–reproductive health service linkages, along with promoting needed increases in international family planning assistance, would allow the United States to begin reclaiming its role as a leader in international sexual and reproductive health.

Click here for more information on:

Making crucial changes to U.S. global HIV prevention policy

The urgent need for better HIV–reproductive health service linkages

The role of contraception in preventing HIV

The role of reproductive health providers in preventing HIV

Meeting the sexual and reproductive health needs of people living with HIV

At the time I read the article, there were 7 comments posted. I found the comments especially interesting also.

The comments were from:
Maryisa
Colleen
Michelle
E.S.
Deb
Alexis Zepeda

Special Journal Issue Examines Broad Range of Problems
Associated with Abstinence-Only Education

Why Take Action?

For the last 20 years, U.S. law has prohibited HIV-positive non-citizens from entering the United States, violating their human rights and perpetuating stigma and discrimination.  The law, driven by fear and stigma, was written at a time when many people had little understanding of how HIV is transmitted and when homosexuality was still grounds for inadmissibility to the U.S. (Gay Men’s Health Crisis).  Under the travel ban, all HIV-positive travelers seeking to enter the U.S. must undergo an onerous waiver process that can dissuade people – including activists seeking to inform U.S. policy – from even trying.

Contact Congress TODAY!

We urge you to contact your Representative to endorse a Dear Colleague letter urging the Administration to completely eliminate the discriminatory travel ban.  Click here to take action!

Thank you for contacting Congress and for spreading the word!  For more information about U.S. restrictions on HIV-related travel and immigration, click here.

In solidarity,

Kimberly Whipkey
Advocacy and Outreach Associate
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
kwhipkey@genderhealth.org
301-270-1182

New York, NY – Today, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) released a special report on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in Kentucky. The report, which compiles data on the major federal funding sources of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs as well as vital health statistics and outcomes in the state, paints a picture of a state that uses some of the worst, fear-based abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and lags behind national averages on many important adolescent indicators related to teen pregnancy and STDs.

Kentucky

received $3,070,315 in abstinence-only-until-marriage funding in Fiscal Year 2007, including Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding. The Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program in Kentucky disbursed $817,297 in funding to 16 local health departments, a majority of which use fear- and shame- based curricula, and crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).

“The amount of money that is flowing into Kentucky is staggering,” said SIECUS Vice President for Public Policy, William Smith, “especially when you look at the programs it is going to that are based on fear, shame, gender stereotypes, and misinformation, as well as CPCs, which are very thinly veiled religious organizations. It is clear that these funds are not about improving the health of young people in Kentucky but rather in supporting a certain ideological enterprise at the taxpayer’s expense.”

In 2007, among those high school students who reported being currently sexually active, 53 percent of females and 67 percent of males in Kentucky reported having used condoms the last time they had sexual intercourse compared to 55 percent of females and 69 percent of males nationwide. While this number is near the national average, Kentucky lags in other areas–the teen birth rate nationwide is 41.1 per 1,000 young women ages 15-19 while in Kentucky the rate is 49.2 per 1,000 young women ages 15-19, a full 19 percent higher than the national average.

The situation in Kentucky is not improving: in a single year between 2005 and 2006, the teen birth rate rose 6.6 percent while the nationwide teen birth rate rose 3 percent in the same year. And, while the overall prevalence of HIV is low compared to other states, it is important to note where new infections are occurring. African Americans make up only seven percent of the total Kentucky population but nearly 34 percent of new HIV cases in the state.

“Numbers don’t lie,” continued Smith. “It is time for Kentucky to join many other states in refusing this failed experiment of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. As long as funds are going to these programs that place ideology over what the evidence says works, young people and other underserved groups in Kentucky are going to continue to suffer.”

For other information or with any questions, contact Patrick Malone at pmalone@siecus.org.

See Full Report Here

SIECUS Report (Kentucky)

May 7^th is National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Day and a good time to study what’s working and what’s hindering out national progress.  It would also be a good time for parents of teens to consider their own vital role in sex education.

A recent local radio call-in program appearance reminded me of how our beliefs and values about sex, sex education, and sexual health can twist policy discussion and interpersonal communications into a maze of confusion and conflict.  It seems that one of the reasons the United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate of all the industrialized nations might be that our teens have to try to make sense out of nonsense.

Several callers to the radio program made these points: 

·        Teen pregnancies are increasing.

·        Abortions are increasing.

·        Sex education encourages risky sexual behavior.

·        Access to birth control encourages risky sexual behavior.

·        Requiring parental consent for birth control would reduce risky sexual behaviors.

·        Gardasil (new cervical cancer-prevention vaccine) is dangerous, even killing girls and young women.

·        Access to reproductive health care “gives teens permission” to become sexually active.

The reality is that, according to research and evidence, none of those points is true:

·        Even though the national teen birth rate rose 3% between 2005 and 2006 after a 34% fourteen year drop, the pregnancy rate continued to decline.

·        In 2005, the abortion rate was the lowest in 34 years at 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 compared to 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women in 1981.

·        Comprehensive sex education does not increase sexual activity, lower the age of first sexual intercourse, or increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth.

·        Access to birth control and reproductive health care does not encourage risky behavior; in fact it reduces the risks of those behaviors among sexually active people.

·        Requiring parental consent reduces the number of teens who seek health care, but does not reduce their sexual risk-taking behaviors.

·        Gardasil is safe and effective, with the most common side-effect being pain at the injection site.  The FDA is constantly monitoring vaccine recipients and safety. Girls and young women should be vaccinated.

·        Access to cardiac care doesn’t give us permission to overeat and watch TV and seatbelts don’t encourage us to drive recklessly.  Unfortunately, teens don’t ask health care providers for permission to have sex and if they did, we wouldn’t give it to them.

Before we teach teens about sex, we have to make sense out of the nonsense ourselves. We have to update our knowledge – especially in areas that are controversial or challenging to our cherished beliefs.  Most important, we have to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion and between science and belief.

Through the past generation, our sex education and our sexual health care policies have been determined more by politics and ideology than by science or evidence. Add the rapidly expanding knowledge about reproductive health and the result is that most adults are poorly prepared to educate teens on sexual health and wellness or about risks and consequences.

Beyond the basic biology of reproduction, here is a contemporary study guide for parents of teens:

• One in four teens has a sexually transmitted infection:  what are the most common diseases and how should you protect yourself?
  • What is HPV and how does it relate to cervical cancer? 
  • What is Gardasil?
• What is emergency contraception (Plan B)?  How does it work?  When should a reproductive age female take it?
• What is the law on minors and sexual activity?  When is it legal to have sexual intercourse?  What are the penalties?
• What is the effectiveness of condoms?
• What are the most common and effective forms of birth control? How do they work?
• Can my teen get confidential reproductive health care?  Where? Why? How?

Parents are the primary sex educators of their children. The more parents know, the more likely they are to do a good job — but it isn’t called “The FACTS of life” for nothing.

Legal Momentum, the nation’s oldest legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women, and our colleagues at Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), present a panel discussion about the harms of abstinence-only programs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on April 23, from 4:30-6:00 pm in TITU in Memorial Union and the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point on April 24, from 5:30-7:30 pm in the Founders Room.  The program will expose how the federal government uses abstinence-only funding to fuel programs full of misinformation, sexist stereotypes and extreme right-wing ideology that aim to roll back sexual and reproductive rights.  We will highlight the attack on women’s rights and sexuality both in the US and as exported via conditions on US funding, with particular attention given to the human rights implications of abstinence-only policies.

Numerous studies provide conclusive evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, at home and abroad, do not lead to positive changes in teen sexual behavior, are particularly harmful to women and girls because they promote dangerous and outdated stereotypes, potentially exacerbate the spread of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, and increase the risk of unplanned pregnancy for teens. These times demand honest and comprehensive information about the risks of sexual activity — and how to responsibly handle those risks.

We are targeting college students and young activists to incite them to become politically active to protect comprehensive sex education.  Our outreach to college campuses will allow the coalition team to provide information directly and alert students of the national organizations’ campaigns to advance reproductive rights.  We will also encourage and support the student groups’ efforts to pursue their own local and grass-roots follow-up activities to oppose abstinence-only programs and other related restrictions on reproductive rights (such as researching their local sexuality education policies, becoming involved in efforts to require truth in education, exposing crisis pregnancy centers that target local women and other initiatives).

WHAT:    Madison – Panel presentation and Q&A on Harm of Abstinence-only Programs in U.S. and Abroad

WHO:    Julie F. Kay, Senior Staff Attorney
Sexuality and Family Rights Program, Legal Momentum
Speaking on: Abstinence-Only Programs: Harmful to Women and Girls

Jamila Taylor, Legislative and Policy Analyst
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Speaking on: Exporting the U.S. Abstinence-Only Agenda

Kate Morrison, State Policy Coordinator
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
Speaking on: Challenges and Successes in Opposing Abstinence-Only

WHEN &    WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2008, 4:30-6:00 PM
WHERE:    TITU in Memorial Union
Please contact Erica L Van Steen at ccse_wi@yahoo.com for more info.
WHAT:    Stevens Point – Panel presentation and Q&A on Harm of Abstinence-only Programs in U.S. and Abroad

WHO:    Julie F. Kay, Senior Staff Attorney
Sexuality and Family Rights Program, Legal Momentum
Speaking on: Abstinence-Only Programs: Harmful to Women and Girls

Jamila Taylor, Legislative and Policy Analyst
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Speaking on: Exporting the U.S. Abstinence-Only Agenda

Jen Heitel Yakush, Senior Public Policy Associate
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
Speaking on: Challenges and Successes in Opposing Abstinence-Only

WHEN &    THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008, 5:30-7:30 PM
WHERE:    Founders Room in Old Main
Please RSVP to womenres@uwsp.edu by April 22.

. . . but the PLW ad goes on to state that; “emergency contraception is a powerful, high dose of steroids that tricks a woman’s body into thinking it is pregnant” and can cause “chemical abortions and deadly blood clots.” PLW promiscuously crammed as many misleading and unsupported claims into one short statement as it possibly could, but the main and most clearly refutable points are often heard and too often echoed across the country: ‘chemical abortions’ and ‘blood clots.’

The latest World Health Organization information is explicit that EC works by preventing ovulation and fertilization. There is no evidence that EC prevents implantation and there is substantial evidence that Plan B’s rate of not preventing implantation of a fertilized egg fully explains the pregnancies that occur after the pills have been taken. In other words, the primary argument that opponents of EC make (we should not risk the destruction of a single fertilized egg) is scientifically, theoretically, and statistically head-of-a-pin microscopic.

Weighed against the larger risks of an unwanted, untimely, or risky pregnancy or perhaps an abortion at a later stage of a real pregnancy, the microscopic objection should vanish completely. And, since unlike many forms of hormonal birth control, Plan B does not contain estrogen, PLW’s warning about ‘blood clots’ seems to be based on their own beliefs and very little else. Again, weighing the risks of a real pregnancy against the theoretical . . . this argument should also disappear completely.

What will not disappear and what is impossible to ignore in this debate about possibilities, is the question of why an organization opposed to abortions would discourage women at risk of unwanted pregnancy from acting to prevent those pregnancies? Why is an organization repulsed at the idea of risking a single fertilized egg acting in a way that puts women (including those who will subsequently abort an unwanted pregnancy) at a greater risk of pregnancy?

To a rational person seeking to reduce abortions, an unproven possibility of the presence of a fertilized egg and a theoretical possibility of preventing a potential implantation on the uterine wall is simply not morally or ethically equivalent to an unwanted pregnancy. The imbalance is dramatically and clearly shown when the woman at risk is likely to have an abortion if she becomes pregnant.

Spring break is a good time for anti-abortion advocates and supporters of accurate safer-sex education alike to call for sexual responsibility and restraint. Perhaps we can agree to exercise responsibility and restraint in our advertising too. Opponents of abortion, like Pro-Life Wisconsin, could demonstrate that they will not risk increasing the number of abortions to quench an insatiable desire for public attention.

Sex Ed programs should be effective. Download PDF