Abstinence Ed Funding Extension Uncertain

By Doug Carlson - Jul 9, 2007 - comment

An abstinence education federal grant program officially expired June 30, but an extension authorized by the Senate and consent pending in the House could keep the program alive for three more months.

Just prior to breaking for a week-long Independence Day recess, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a 95-day extension of Title V, one of three federally-funded abstinence education programs. The House leadership has agreed to consider the measure as Congress returns to Capitol Hill this week, a move that could keep it running through fiscal year 2007. Provisions within the measure would also ensure Title V is funded retroactively to cover the period between the June 30 expiration and the reauthorization date.

If you believe abstinence education programs offer an important message for our young people, tell your congressman to support the three-month extension of Title V and tell your congressman and senators to support full reauthorization of Title V.

A three-month extension of Title V is the most important next step, but Congress should then ensure its full reauthorization.

Title V provides $50 million in grants annually to states on a formula basis to teach students the benefits of abstinence until marriage and that abstinence outside marriage is the expected norm for school-age children. In 2007, 43 states participated in Title V, matching $3 for every $4 received in grants.

Failure to reauthorize Title V would mean not only the end of the program but also the cessation of a set of “A-H” definitions (see below) that provides clear teaching requirements for each of the three abstinence education programs. These definitions would likely be replaced with weaker guidelines for the remaining two programs, Community Abstinence-Based Education and the Adolescent Family Life Demonstration and Research Program, better known as Title XX.

Abstinence programs provide a crucial message needed to counter the misinformation of comprehensive sex education, which often minimizes the abstinence component and emphasizes condom use and so-called “safe-sex.”

Despite opponents’ arguments against abstinence education, several studies demonstrate that the programs are favored over comprehensive sex education by a majority of Americans. A survey by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, for example, reveals that 91 percent of teens aged 12-19 and 93 percent of adults believe teens should be given a strong message on remaining abstinent until at least graduation from high school. Further, nearly 79 percent of parents responded in a Zogby International poll that “being sexually abstinent is best for [their] child’s health and future.”

Still, Congress lopsidedly funds comprehensive sex education over abstinence programs, providing roughly $12 for contraception promotion for every $1 channeled for abstinence education.

If you believe abstinence education programs offer an important message for our young people, tell your congressman to support the three-month extension of Title V and tell your congressman and senators to support full reauthorization of Title V.

The “A-H definition” specifies that an abstinence education program funded under the block grant must:

A. Have as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B. Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;

C. Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D. Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;

E. Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F. Teach that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;

G. Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and

H. Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Abstinence, Modesty, Citizenship, Legislation

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to moderate in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays. Comments are now accepted up to 30 days beyond the original posting date of the article.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks speak to one another online more respectfully when not hiding behind screen-names, aliases or anonymous blogs.
  2. Posts that contain name-calling and vulgar language will be deleted. We will not spend time editing profanity. And yes, because we pay the hosting bill for this site, we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General remarks (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. Comments are limited to 1000 characters, but multiple posts are permitted.
  5. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com