Peer-reviewed studies of abstinence-only programs have found that there are no consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse, and at least one study provided strong evidence that the program did not delay the onset of intercourse.

Yet President Bush is requesting an increase of $27.7 million in the 2009 budget -- for a total of $141 million -- for a program that multiple studies have found faulty:

President Bush's budget request for the 2009 Fiscal Year included $141 million in funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) grants, an increase of $27.7 million from the previous year. In total, the president asked for $204 million abstinence-only-until-marriage funds; $141 million for CBAE, $50 million for Title V abstinence-only funding, and $13 million for the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA).

A group of 76 members of Congress recently sent a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (D-WI), urging Obey to eliminate funding for failed abstinence only sex education programs from the FY 2009 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill. The letter calls for a shift of funds to "other, more effective programs," reports the Daily Women's Health Policy Report.

"In a country with the highest teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease rates in the industrialized world, we have a responsibility to ensure that our youth has access to medically accurate, comprehensive sex education with a history of success. Study after study has proven that abstinence-only education simply does not work and we cannot afford to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on programs that we know to be a failure," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), one of the letter's signatories, according to RH Reality Check.

A new study by researchers at the University of Washington found that students who receive comprehensive sex education are half as likely to become teen parents as those who receive abstinence-only sex education. According to the Seattle Times, this study marks the first time researchers have compared comprehensive sex education and abstinence-only education in a national sample of teenagers.

The study found no evidence that abstinence-only programs delay teen sexual activity. There was also no evidence that comprehensive sex education increased the likelihood of teen sex or boosted rates of sexually transmitted diseases, reports Reuters.

The report is published in the April 2008 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health. Researchers used data from a 2002 federal survey.

This study follows a series of reports released in 2007 that highlighted the ineffectiveness of abstinence only education programs in delaying or preventing teen sexual activity or pregnancy. In 2005-2006, the teen birth rate rose for the first time since 1991, according to a report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There has also been a surge in states rejecting federal abstinence-only funds. Iowa became the 17th state to do so last month.

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

Congress of the U.S.: In 2007, a study C. Trenholm, B. Devaney et al (2007). "Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs" 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.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.

D. Kirby (1997), p. 25. http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/pdf/abstinence_eval.pdf The evidence indicates that these abstinence-only programs do not delay the onset of intercourse.

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, http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

Per Rep. Waxmans’ report, compiled in December 2004:

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.

U.S. Surgeon Generals: According to a recent 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."

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.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC): Under the Bush Administration has changed solid scientific data to a political agenda. This is no longer an unbiased source.