AIDS Action Committee’s Blog

Comment by Kevin

April 26, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

This is a comment sent to me by a friend at the State House regarding this issue when it came up last year:

This is an interesting issue. Last year Baddour offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate during the budget when the issue of whether to get the federal funding for abstinence only education surfaced. Baddour’s amendment expanded the def. of abstinence only so that it had to be taught in conjunction with “comprehensive sex education”. Now, I’m not a fan of abstinence based but to have it be taught in conjunction with comprehensive sex ed was kind of a nice way of getting the federal money while also requiring schools to “keep it real”, if you will and still teach comprehensive sex ed. I thought it was a pretty decent idea.

Also keep in mind that even if the state had chosen to accept the federal money it is still a local option (meaning localities still have to choose to participate).

What I thought was interesting about the issue was that it seemed like (as far as the amendment was concerned) people didn’t know what they were supporting or opposed to. Immediately liberal groups came out opposed to the amendment but I thought it was narrow minded (if you google Baddour and abstinence only you can see all the people who were upset). However, without the amendment, the state was getting the money and teaching abstinence based only education. End of story. If they looked at the amendment (that they were “opposed to”), they would have seen that it actually demanded the teaching of comprehensive sex ed. Unfortunately, it seemed like once the trigger words “abstinence only” came up many liberals freaked out.

What was even funnier was that many conservatives supported the amendment. Romney vetoed it (and there was no override) because he understood what the amendment was doing. I thought it was kind of too bad the legislature couldn’t get it past him.

Anyway, I was just disappointed last year at how misinformed people were. The issue has come up again and I’m hoping that people will stay informed. I personally agree that comprehensive sex ed is a good idea and that if it is taught in conjunction with abstinence (like the blog talks about), that is ideal, and isn’t that what last year’s amendment was about?

Comment by DHF

April 27, 2007 @ 9:58 am

Actually, ab-only wasn’t going to go forward wtihout the language in the budget. Advocates were opposed to the amendment because it was a way to get the ab-only money back into the budget AND because they understood what the Baddour amendment was suggesting couldn’t be realistically or feasibly accomplished.

Because of the regulations governing the AOUM programming, ab-only cannot be provided in the same context as comprehensive sex ed - we would have to put the kids through two different classes.

To provide AOUM programming
“together” with comprehensive sex education means that kids will first go through an entire curriculum that attempts to convince them that condoms don’t really protect you from STDs (including HIV) or pregnancy and that that is why they shouldn’t have sex. They try to scare kids into not having sex. These programs are filled with messages based on fear, shame, and stigma.

Theoretically, after going through that program, kids would then get comprehensive sex education, in which they would possibly (but not definitely) be told the opposite, that condoms are the most effective protection against HIV for sexually active people, and should be used every time one has sex, in addition to more information about other forms of contraception. Currently, there are no enforced standards for what comprises comprehensive sex ed in Massachusetts, so who knows what the actual messages would be.

At a minimum two problems arise with this scenario: The net effect of a kid hearing completely opposing “facts” about condoms is that they become ambivalent about the efficacy of condoms and they miss the message that each and every time they have sex, no matter what anyone feels about them having sex, they should use one. Look at the curricula for AOUM programs. They are crafted to scare kids into not having sex. And as we all know now, after a 10 year study, they are ineffective at doing so. They don’t even attempt to protect kids from pregnancy or disease if the kid does have sex.

The other problem with the Baddour amendment was how would the state guarantee that comprehensive sex education is provided together with ab-only if it only funds the ab-only?

Everyone knows that abstinence is the ideal option for young people. Comprehensive sex education is abstinence based education. There is no such thing as abstinence-only-comprehensive sex “education” Only and comprehensive are mutually exclusive.