Abstinence Education Program, Guidelines Could Be Cut

By Doug Carlson - Jun 1, 2007 - comment

A highly successful abstinence education grant program, along with key definitions for abstinence education curricula, will expire June 30 if the program is not reauthorized by that date.

Title V, one of three federally-funded abstinence education programs, provides $50 million annually in state grants to teach students the benefits of abstinence until marriage and that abstinence outside marriage is the expected norm for school-age children. States that receive the grants must match $3 for every $4 in federal funds they receive.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has indicated he expects the committee to drop Title V from the Transitional Medicaid Assistance program, the legislation that typically includes Title V, when Congress reconvenes after its Memorial Day recess.

While the two other abstinence education grant programs would remain in place if they are reauthorized, the “A-H definition” (see below), which provides clear teaching requirements for each of the three abstinence education programs, would be cut along with Title V. This definition would likely be replaced with weaker guidelines for the remaining two programs.

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.”

A Zogby International poll released this month demonstrates that parents overwhelmingly favor abstinence education over comprehensive sex education. Nearly 79 percent of parents responded that “being sexually abstinent is best for [their] child’s health and future,” and 64 percent believe it is important for their child to remain abstinent until marriage. Further, once parents were given a better understanding of both abstinence education and comprehensive sex education programs, 61 percent preferred that their child receive abstinence education rather than comprehensive sex education.

If you agree that abstinence education programs and the strong definition that guides them should not be cut, please tell your congressman to support the reauthorization of the Title V abstinence education program.

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, Citizenship, Legislation, National

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.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

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 are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. 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