Obama Supports Faith-Based Programs

[iNow]

Even wiki agrees that abstinence only is bunk, and they were citing all of the major players who study this stuff as their lifetime vocation. I guess that's why those who wish to impose their personal morality on to others had to open their own site called "conservapedia" to get around truth.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education

Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association,[15] the American Medical Association,[16] the National Association of School Psychologists,[17] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[18] the American College Health Association,[18] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19] and the American Public Health Association,[20] which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.

 

The AMA "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..."[16]

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."[19]

 

On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries".[21]

 

A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners.[22][23] According to the study author:

 

"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

 

Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States, is a notable critic of abstinence-only sex education. She was among the interviewees Penn & Teller included in their Bullshit! episode on the subject.[24]

 

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both infections and pregnancy.[25]

 

 

 

 

 

 

My hope is that all of the sources cited in the quote above won't be disregarded as "political" or "leftie," and that their conclusions won't be summarily dismissed as questionable.

 

 

 

 

 

Bascule - Thanks for the response with the additional information. I was aware of many of those things, but hadn't quite realized how extensive the issue truly is.

[swansont]

Swansont, you're the one making definitive statements. All I'm saying is that many of those people (including some (not all) in your own links) stop well short of definitive statements, talk about the need for additional studies to look at key factors that those studies didn't look at (such as whether pledges were a factor, when they were made, whom they were made to, etc, which was in fact one of Heritage's complaints), and other very equivocal and less-than-100%-certain positions.

 

And that paper, which appears to be the only link you read, was from 2002, and was a critique of the Heritage claims that the programs were working. They conclude that 9 of 10 the Heritage studies weren't credible, which was the point of that paragraph, if you'll go back and reread it.

 

 

All of which you thoroughly dismissed, issuing us a couple of stone tablets that you now expect us to carry around like the Ten Commandments. That is an opinion and a political statement.

 

 

"Using data from a 2002 national survey, researchers found that among more than 1,700 unmarried, heterosexual teens between 15 and 19 years old, those who'd received comprehensive sex ed in school were 60 percent less likely to have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant than teens who'd had no formal sex education.

 

Meanwhile, there was no clear benefit from abstinence-only education in preventing pregnancy or delaying sexual intercourse, the researchers report in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

 

The study found that teens who'd been through abstinence-only programs were less likely than those who'd received no sex ed to have been pregnant. However, the difference was not significant in statistical terms, which means the finding could have been due to chance."

 

That's pretty definitive. I don't see any hedging there. Now, if you have any studies that contradict this, please link to them.

 

Pointing out the existence of a study, and the conclusion it draws, is an exercise in science, not politics. Discussing the validity of studies is an exercise in science, not politics. Asking for contradictory studies or flaws with these studies, as I did in my last post, is not "issuing us a couple of stone tablets that you now expect us to carry around like the Ten Commandments"

 

Where do you get off telling me what I expect, anyway?

[Pangloss]

(This was to iNow, I cross-posted with swansont's above.)

 

Again, quit cherry-picking, guys! Also from the same article:

 

However, few long-term, rigorous studies have been done on these programs, and their effectiveness remains a matter of question.

 

And this quote is sourced:

 

"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

 

But look, don't you agree with my larger point that if Obama does decide to close down a faith-based program, it should be based on logic and reason, and not ideological pressure from special interest groups like MoveOn.org? That's really all I was trying to get at here.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

But look, don't you agree with my larger point that if Obama does decide to close down a faith-based program, it should be based on logic and reason, and not ideological pressure from special interest groups like MoveOn.org? That's really all I was trying to get at here.

 

Admittedly, I am struggling with your question. My own personal "special interest" is that I really wish he didn't give any credence to faith. It symbolizes so many things that I find unpalletable in our culture. I do find it good that he will shut them down on the basis of logic and reason, but I find it a step backward for all of us that we have to appeal to the populace by refering to this as a "faith-based" initiative instead of a "grass roots" or "humanitarian" one.

[padren]

I do wonder where the gray line of "proselytizing" gets drawn - if a church runs an after school athletics or study program, even if the church authority figures manage to keep their faith separate... will the average evangelistic teen not proselytize to their "new friends" and such?

 

No matter how you look at it, the result will be federal funds will be spent, and churches will gain exposure of their philosophy to potential members from it.

It may be indirect with very blurry connections, but the result will be the same.

 

One thing I do like is the idea of aiding religious and non-religious people alike in doing true honest humanitarian work. Religion makes me very very uneasy on a personal level - and I've honestly never considered the idea of any religious group doing humanitarian work for any reason other than to prey on people at their most vulnerable.

 

If Obama can convince me that an "uneasy truce" is a good idea in the spirit of working towards common goals - then maybe we actually can end up getting closer to those goals.

 

 

 

Side note: What actually stops any church full of followers from starting/joining secular programs to do volunteer work? If its all about the humanitarian effort and not the faith - why not just join the humanitarian effort that already exists?

[swansont]

(

Again, quit cherry-picking, guys! Also from the same article:

 

Did you miss the "2002" publication date from that article?

 

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/07/our-view-on-sex.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308898,00.html

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20080423/abstinence-only-sex-ed-loses-steam

 

Again, if you've got information that contradicts these reports, please present it.

[foodchain]

I have an anti-abstinence soapbox? I guess it doubles as my anti-homeopathy, anti-magnetic-therapy, anti-astrology and anti-a-couple-of-other-thing soapbox, all of which have one thing in common: the data say they don't work. And by data, I mean after you've taken out testimonials and other anecdotal data that don't meet the scientific burden of what constitutes evidence.

 

Which studies used questionable methods?

 

Saying that studies show that the programs don't work is NOT a political statement (the accusation of which is a fallacy of misdirection). If you can find legitimate problems with these studies, I will retract the statement that they don't work, just like I'd adjust to any other scientific finding where new data was presented.

 

 

If the studies had turned out the other way, and I still objected, then it would be a political statement. It's one thing to acknowledge that there are reasons other than science to make policy, but it's another thing altogether to simply ignore, or even misrepresent science, as sometimes happens, in order to justify policy.

 

 

How do you factor in some individuals life history to a equation? I don’t understand how simple facets even of human life can really be rated objectively with math to any great success. It the end of it you have a count which is nice. What if you make a two variable data object for instance though and tie it onto the base count of who did and who did not get pregnant using what program, if some correlation is found does that mean its not a black and white issue easily digested as such?

 

Policy of any kind typically has any bearing on anything political, unless you count political science or economics. Science is relevant to who or whom collectively wants really, and I doubt that person is surrounded by a group of phd physicists or geologists or whatever at all times.

 

IN fact the dying off of polar bears because of the idea that all the ice is melting was an issue governments scientists had to use rules with in order to talk about even, talk about even scientific individuals getting manipulated huh?

[Pangloss]

Did you miss the "2002" publication date from that article?

 

That's fine, you've got another study to add to a growing pile, and I agree that they seem to be generally showing that abstinence-only programs don't work.

 

But they shouldn't be condemned for trying the abstinence-only approach. They had a theory, that if children were more rigorously encouraged to not have sex (by not including any indications that sex was something their peers were doing), they might cut down on the numbers. They tested it, but it came up wanting. Isn't that what federal funding is for, testing scientific theories on a massive scale?

 

One of the things I like about Obama is his general inclination against the desire of a lot of other people around here to not only prejudge conservative concepts on ideological grounds, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater when they do have a point. Before these abstinence-only programs the politically correct approach was best described as "education only", in which the idea of abstinence was generally ignored or even discounted. Some idiots even went around proclaiming "have sex" or "have all the sex you want" or "the earlier the better". Perhaps the right overreacted to that with abstinence-only programs, but if you read these articles coming out now, they all talk about the importance of including abstinence advice in whatever programs we end up with.

 

But 23 of 39 studies of programs combining abstinence advice with education about condoms and other contraception found "at least some" effect on adolescents' behavior.

 

The right had a point, and the science backed it up.

[iNow]

How do you factor in some individuals life history to a equation? I don’t understand how simple facets even of human life can really be rated objectively with math to any great success. It the end of it you have a count which is nice. What if you make a two variable data object for instance though and tie it onto the base count of who did and who did not get pregnant using what program, if some correlation is found does that mean its not a black and white issue easily digested as such?

 

You don't have to factor life history into the study. You have two studies following the same methodology, studying different approaches to the same problem. The populations being sampled (for all intents and purposes) are equivalent, hence any "life history" noise is factored out.

 

With the similarity of population, and similarity in methods, the extraneous variables you mentioned above do not have any significant impact on the study outcomes. This is especially true with larger population samples, which most of these studies had.

 

 

 

 

The right had a point, and the science backed it up.

 

Isn't abstinence only teaching akin to telling someone the only way to avoid getting fat is not to eat? There are clearly more effective ways to accomplish that goal. I mean, millions of years of evolution telling us "reproduce, reproduce, reproduce," and the overwhelming impact of hormones on our psyche, and we think telling people, "just say no to sex" is going to be enough?

 

 

If you don't want to be fat, then god says, "don't eat."

 

 

Hmmm... On second thought, if we can convince the other guys not to have sex, that means there will be more women for me.

Edited July 3, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

I like the comparison, but it doesn't quite go deep enough. The main problem isn't people having sex, per se, but people who aren't well-established enough to care for children either emotionally or financially (i.e. children). I'm not sure if there's anything analogous in the food comparison.

[bascule]

But they shouldn't be condemned for trying the abstinence-only approach. They had a theory, that if children were more rigorously encouraged to not have sex (by not including any indications that sex was something their peers were doing), they might cut down on the numbers. They tested it, but it came up wanting. Isn't that what federal funding is for, testing scientific theories on a massive scale?

 

This is a little more than just "testing scientific theories on a massive scale". It's screwing with the development of children.

 

They're withholding knowledge of safe sex from these children. No matter how good the program is some kids are going to have sex anyway, and those kids don't receive a proper education about safe sex.

 

The end result is predictably higher rates of pregnancy and STDs.

 

And in what bizarre context can abstinence-only programs be considered a scientific theory? The same context as intelligent design?

[Pangloss]

This is a little more than just "testing scientific theories on a massive scale". It's screwing with the development of children.

 

But you didn't know that before the studies were done; their theories were just as good as the others. They didn't get the same respect, though, for reasons that were political, not scientific.

 

 

They're withholding knowledge of safe sex from these children. No matter how good the program is some kids are going to have sex anyway, and those kids don't receive a proper education about safe sex.

 

The end result is predictably higher rates of pregnancy and STDs.

 

That certainly appears to be the case.

 

 

And in what bizarre context can abstinence-only programs be considered a scientific theory? The same context as intelligent design?

 

Nope, the context discussed here. Only a partisan would suggest actually throwing this data out or ignoring it.

[bascule]

But you didn't know that before the studies were done; their theories were just as good as the others. They didn't get the same respect, though, for reasons that were political, not scientific.

 

How can abstinence education remotely be considered a "theory"?

[Mr Skeptic]

But you didn't know that before the studies were done; their theories were just as good as the others. They didn't get the same respect, though, for reasons that were political, not scientific.

 

Can you prove that? Anyone who knows about teens, or people for that matter, knows that self-control is hard, considering risks in the future is hard, and that teens don't do as they are told. It's like telling a kid not to cross a street but not telling them to check for cars when they cross streets. Was anyone surprised with the results?

 

I also liked iNow's analogy to telling fat people to stop eating so much.

[swansont]

But they shouldn't be condemned for trying the abstinence-only approach. They had a theory, that if children were more rigorously encouraged to not have sex (by not including any indications that sex was something their peers were doing), they might cut down on the numbers. They tested it, but it came up wanting. Isn't that what federal funding is for, testing scientific theories on a massive scale?

 

Except that's not how they approached it, AFAIK. It was "apply the ideology" and then, later on, test it. And if you look at some of these programs, their primary goal was to eliminate sex; the hoped-for decrease in pregnancy would have been just an artifact had the plan worked. I would object to that, (and yes, this is a purely political argument) too, because I don't like the idea of the government preaching ideology like that.

 

It would have been fun to have seen a "teach the controversy" movement in all of this.

 

One of the things I like about Obama is his general inclination against the desire of a lot of other people around here to not only prejudge conservative concepts on ideological grounds, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater when they do have a point. Before these abstinence-only programs the politically correct approach was best described as "education only", in which the idea of abstinence was generally ignored or even discounted. Some idiots even went around proclaiming "have sex" or "have all the sex you want" or "the earlier the better". Perhaps the right overreacted to that with abstinence-only programs, but if you read these articles coming out now, they all talk about the importance of including abstinence advice in whatever programs we end up with.

 

Apples and oranges. It's one thing to have idiots saying those things, and quite another to have it codified as part of your health curriculum. People are free to preach abstinence from their own pulpit or streetcorner.

[Pangloss]

How can abstinence education remotely be considered a "theory"?

 

If you read the articles, they talk about this. It wasn't so much that they didn't realize that kids would learn about sex from other sources. It's really about a long-standing conservative belief (which these studies may very well be disproving) that if you tell children not to have sex and hand them a condom at the same time, that will be interpreted as wink-wink/nod-nod permission. There's some logic to that, if you consider the behavior of some kinds of parents, and it is at the very least a mixed message, transmitted to minds at their most impressionable stages.

 

Remember, when we talk about children, we're not just talking about mature teenagers. We're also talking about immature teenagers, mature pre-teens, immature pre-teens, and everything else down to toddlers. So you can't just blanket everything with "well they're all having sex anyway so why hide the truth?" In fact, it's intuitively obvious that every single child learns about sex at a different exact age.

 

So it's reasonable to assume that if you have children of a variety of ages participating in a program, that some of them will not yet have heard about sex (especially if you're talking about middle-schoolers). Of course, that theory may well break down when you put those kids in a room together, or send them back to school a few weeks later.

 

So it may ultimately be a pretty daft idea, but valid scientific investigations have been conducted over far stupider ideas than these, Bascule.

 

 

People are free to preach abstinence from their own pulpit or streetcorner.

 

That's what you get for not reading your own studies -- in fact they show a direct benefit to including abstinence recommendations in these programs.

[swansont]

If you read the articles, they talk about this. It wasn't so much that they didn't realize that kids would learn about sex from other sources. It's really about a long-standing conservative belief (which these studies may very well be disproving) that if you tell children not to have sex and hand them a condom at the same time, that will be interpreted as wink-wink/nod-nod permission.

 

I think "handing them a condom" is a long-standing conservative strawman characterization of non abstinence-only programs — making contraception available is a separate action, apart from sex ed, i.e. you can teach comprehensive sex ed without such a program. But it's not surprising to me that it would be used, given the complaints about misrepresenting and outright lying that has been found in abstinence-only education. There's a certain slice of the far right that doesn't seem to have any problem with bearing false witness if it'll get them what they want.

 

 

That's what you get for not reading your own studies -- in fact they show a direct benefit to including abstinence recommendations in these programs.

 

How does that in any way imply I didn't read the studies? I pointed out studies that show that abstinence-only programs don't work. Extrapolating that to imply I said anything about including abstinence education as part of a program is a strawman.

[Pangloss]

I'm just responding to what you said, which was "People are free to preach abstinence from their own pulpit or streetcorner." That sounded to me like an opinion separate from the present discussion, and you were saying that you don't think abstinence advice should be included in other programs. That IS a common opinion here, so it was a reasonable and accurate response to what you said.

[swansont]

I'm just responding to what you said, which was "People are free to preach abstinence from their own pulpit or streetcorner." That sounded to me like an opinion separate from the present discussion, and you were saying that you don't think abstinence advice should be included in other programs. That IS a common opinion here, so it was a reasonable and accurate response to what you said.

 

I suppose, if you disassociate it from the sentence that preceded it. But in case that context wasn't clear, I meant preaching "abstinence only." Just like someone who wants to rant "have all the sex you want" or "the earlier the better." I don't think it's the government's job to push either one, that's the parents' job. The schools should be educating the students about health.

[bascule]

It's really about a long-standing conservative belief...

 

I don't want to overgeneralize, but I've noticed "long-standing conservative beliefs" tend to run antipodal to science... you know, things like intelligent design, life begins at conception, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, pollution isn't harmful, global warming is a lie, etc. etc.

 

So it may ultimately be a pretty daft idea, but valid scientific investigations have been conducted over far stupider ideas than these

 

Can you name one that happened this century?

[Pangloss]

I don't want to overgeneralize, but I've noticed "long-standing conservative beliefs" tend to run antipodal to science... you know, things like intelligent design, life begins at conception, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer, pollution isn't harmful, global warming is a lie, etc. etc.

 

Can you name one that happened this century?

 

What exactly is your point, bascule? Making your opponent wrong, or just demonizing conservatives? If you're just going to post snarky comments I recommend your blog space for that.

[bascule]

What exactly is your point, bascule?

 

There is absolutely, positively no science going on there, whatsoever. This is religious dogma being foisted upon helpless students, and surprise surprise, it's not working out very well.

[Pangloss]

Ok, thank you. I appreciate your answering my question directly, and I respect your opinion on it.