Abstinence-only until marriage does not work!
It does not promote abstinence, it promotes unsafe sex.

Check out our blog for the latest study and comments.

2009: Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has pushed through an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee authorizing $50 million in funding for abstinence-only programs as part of Health Care Reform- despite over 10 years of evidence that these programs do not work.

The REAL Act Another bill, The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act (S. 611/H.R.1551) sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA), would provide federal money to support responsible, comprehensive sex education in schools. This education would include age-appropriate, science-based, and medically accurate information about both abstinence and contraception. Currently, there are no dedicated federal funds allocated for comprehensive sex education in schools. Read more about this bill on the Advocates for Youth website. Click here for a list of State, Federal, and local politicians.

Why abstinence-only until marriage does not work
- it has not lessened teen pregnancies
- it has not delayed the age at which sex begins
- it gives no education on how to protect yourself once you do start having sex
- it iis an affront to gay couples who can't get married, an affront to everyone who does not want to get married.
- it ignores the scientific studies that have shown it not to work. Some of those studies are listed below.

Even Texas is abandoning abstinence-only education
Some Texas Schools Abandon Abstinence-Only as Teen Pregnancy Climbs, Funding Shifts

September 29, 2009 — Some Texas school districts are abandoning abstinence-only curricula in favor of abstinence-based programs that also teach about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted infections, the Austin American-Statesman reports. Many of the school districts, including Austin's, made the change after it became clear that teen pregnancy rates were climbing under the abstinence-only approach, according to the American-Statesman. The change also comes as the Obama administration seeks to shift federal abstinence-only dollars to programs proven to reduce teen pregnancy rates. Here is the full report.

What are the studies?
Congress of the U.S.: In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not (C. Trenholm, B. Devaney et al. 2007). The study followed more than 2,000 students from age 11 or 12 in 1999 to age 16 in 2006. It included those who had participated in one of four abstinence education programs as well as a control group who had not. By age 16, about half of each group — participants in an abstinence-only program as well as the control group — were still abstinent. Abstinence program participants who became sexually active during the study period reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as their peers of the same age, and first had sex at about the same age as other students. The study also found that students who took part in the programs were just as likely to use contraception when they did have sex as those who did not participate. Abstinence-only education advocates claim the study was too narrow, began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and ignored other studies that have shown positive effects. A study released November 7, 2007 showed that abstinence only programs had little positive effect, while those including education on birth control were having positive outcomes including teenagers delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, California), Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives. The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, 2004 More details are below. http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

U.S. Surgeon Generals: a number of US surgeon generals support a comprehensive approach to sex education.According to an Associated Press article detailing the Surgeon General's position, Richard Carmona, MD, stated that sex education programs should include discussion of condoms and other forms of birth control. The AP quoted Dr. Carmona as saying "As part of comprehensive education, we should be talking about all of the issues."

Dr. Carmona has added his voice to a long list of former Surgeons General from as far back as President Reagan's administration who support a comprehensive approach to sex education:

• Dr. C. Everett Koop stated, "There is no doubt that we need sex education in public schools and that it [should] include information on heterosexual and homosexual relationships… [starting] at the lowest grade possible."
• Stressing the need for "scientific, dependable information about HIV and AIDS," Dr. Antonia Novella wrote in the Surgeon General's Report to the American Public on HIV Infection and AIDS about the need for information on using latex condoms correctly to prevent the spread of disease.
• Dr. Joycelyn Elders, in a 1993 editorial for the Journal of the American Medical Association, stated, "Comprehensive health education should be taught to all children, starting in kindergarten and continuing through high school."
• Dr. David Satcher, in his Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health, stated the need to "assure awareness of optimal protection from sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy."

Criticisms by associations: Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association,[16] the American Medical Association,[17] the National Association of School Psychologists,[18] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[19] the American College Health Association,[19] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[20] and the American Public Health Association,[21] which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

Study Links Drop in Teen Contraception Use to Abstinence-Only Policies, NYT Editorial States
[June 18, 2009

Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health states that since 2003, there has been a 10% decrease in contraception use among teenagers, while their level of sexual activity has not changed, a New York Times editorial states. From 1991 to 2003, increased use of contraceptives among teens was a significant factor in declining rates of teenage pregnancy, the editorial says. According to the study's authors, the decrease in contraception use since 2003 is consistent with recent increases in teen birth rates.

According to the editorial, the study's authors suggest a "link between the shift in use of contraception and one of former President George W. Bush's great social-policy follies: highly restrictive abstinence-only sex education programs that deny young people information about sexually transmitted diseases, contraceptives and pregnancy." The editorial adds, "To the extent that these programs even mention condoms, typically it is to disparage their effectiveness." In response to "mounting evidence of the program's danger as a public health strategy," many states have forgone federal abstinence-only funds, the editorial says.

Other links to studies that have been done on abstinence-only programs:

Advocates for Youth: evaluations http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations.pdf

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, California), The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, 2004. Linked above.
Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives.

Many of the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. One curriculum says that “the popular claim that ‘condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,’ is not supported by the data”; another states that “[i]n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time”; and another teaches that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms.

These erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts:

·Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risks of Abortion. One curriculum states that 5% to 10% of women who have legal abortions will become sterile; that “[p]remature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancy”; and that “[t]ubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions.” In fact, these risks do not rise after the procedure used in most abortions in the United States.

·Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science. Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception. For example, one lesson states: “Conception, also known as THE CONTENT OF FEDERALLY FUNDED ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION PROGRAMS ii fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins.” Another curriculum calls a 43-day-old fetus a “thinking person.”

·Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact. One curriculum teaches that women need “financial support,” while men need “admiration.” Another instructs: “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.”

·Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that “twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual”; the correct number is 23.

Consensus Development Program (CDP): http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997PreventHIVRisk104html.htm
Some programs based on an abstinence model propose that approaches such as the use of condoms are ineffective. This model places policy in direct conflict with science because it ignores overwhelming evidence that other programs are effective. Abstinence-only programs cannot be justified in the face of effective programs and given the fact that we face an international emergency in the AIDS epidemic.

The Consensus Development Program (CDP) is an unbiased, independent, evidence-based assessment of complex medical issues and is conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The program has operated since 1977.  Each conference is jointly sponsored and administered by one or more Institutes or Centers (ICs) of NIH and by the Office of Medical Applications of Research (OMAR) in the Office of the Director of NIH. Depending on the topic, other Federal agencies with biomedical components may join in sponsoring a CDP conference. In conjunction with each conference, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) provides a systematic review of literature on the conference topic through one of its Evidence-Based Practice Centers.

The purpose of a CDP conference is to evaluate the available scientific information on a biomedical issue and develop a statement that advances understanding of the issue under consideration and  will be useful to health professionals and the public. The panel is an independent, broad-based, non-Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), nonadvocacy group with appropriate expertise. The panel listens to the scientific data presented by invited experts and comments from the general public. The panel weighs the information and then composes a statement that addresses a set of predetermined questions. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of NIH or the Federal Government and is not an advisory body to NIH.

.

Email us!

Blog! We've started a blog - not much yet but share your thoughts!

Teens, check out:
Sex, etc.
FHWC Teens
TeenWire
TeensHealth

The Clinic!
Mondays 10:30 to 5 and
Wednesdays noon to 6.
No appointment necessary!

Our clinic on Richardson St. can see both women and men, age 12 and up, or you can visit:
The Miner's Family Health Center who also sees teens but no longer has specific teen hours. Sometimes known as the Grass Valley Teen Clinic.

Don't be confused by a fake clinic, or "crisis pregnancy centers." They are anti-choice organizations. Watch this video, linked on YouTube, Crisis Pregnancy Centers: A Special Report and read a short article on the local CPC. Some CPCs may be still receiving federal funding - tell Congress to stop federal funding of these fake clinics!

Citizens for Choice now a part of CCRF, California Coalition for Reproductive Freedom.

Are you pregnant and need a ride to your counseling or abortion appointment? ACCESS can help!

Questions about HPV (human papillomavirus)? This Nantional Cancer Institute Fact Sheet is a good source!

Abstinence-only education why you should be concerned