critical discourse 
JUDITH VOGTLI, director of an upstate New York-based abstinence organisation called ProjecTruth, is worried that the golden age of “abstinence-only” education may have come to an end. George Bush junior helped increase funding for this kind of sex education—which focuses on chastity as the way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and discusses condoms only in terms of failure—to over $175m a year. The fate of that money, and of abstinence education itself, is uncertain under a new administration and Congress.
Ms Vogtli need only wait a few weeks. Barack Obama will submit the first draft of his budget to Congress later this month. In the meantime, her organisation, funded entirely by a government grant, is trying to go about business as usual. That means teaching about abstaining from sex, drugs and alcohol in New York schools and holding its sixth annual abstinence Creativity Contest, to which students submitted essays, poems, artwork and music on the theme of “Waiting is easier because…”
Abstinence-only education programmes have been controversial ever since they were introduced under Ronald Reagan in 1981. Some liberals have labelled it “ignorance-only” education and most favour a curriculum that includes discussion of both abstinence and contraception. Since the start of abstinence-only programs, the federal government has spent over $1.5 billion on them, but the United States still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates of any developed country.
Supporters of abstinence-only education mostly think that the media and a culture of promiscuity are to blame for this and that more government support for abstinence could help offset the rise of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. But opponents blame abstinence-only education.
There is some evidence to support their case. According to Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, an advocacy organisation, there has been no randomised study showing that abstinence-only education delays sexual activity, and research from the University of Washington suggests that teens who receive comprehensive sex education have a 50% lower risk of becoming pregnant than those enrolled in abstinence-only courses.
Abstinence-only advocates want the government to let school districts choose which type of sex education they prefer. But in an ominous sign for them, the new Congress is already shifting its emphasis. Louise Slaughter, a congresswoman from New York and a former scientist, has introduced a bill that would fund “medically accurate” comprehensive sex education in schools. It is likely to pass.
Ms Vogtli need only wait a few weeks. Barack Obama will submit the first draft of his budget to Congress later this month. In the meantime, her organisation, funded entirely by a government grant, is trying to go about business as usual. That means teaching about abstaining from sex, drugs and alcohol in New York schools and holding its sixth annual abstinence Creativity Contest, to which students submitted essays, poems, artwork and music on the theme of “Waiting is easier because…”
Abstinence-only education programmes have been controversial ever since they were introduced under Ronald Reagan in 1981. Some liberals have labelled it “ignorance-only” education and most favour a curriculum that includes discussion of both abstinence and contraception. Since the start of abstinence-only programs, the federal government has spent over $1.5 billion on them, but the United States still has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates of any developed country.
Supporters of abstinence-only education mostly think that the media and a culture of promiscuity are to blame for this and that more government support for abstinence could help offset the rise of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. But opponents blame abstinence-only education.
There is some evidence to support their case. According to Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, an advocacy organisation, there has been no randomised study showing that abstinence-only education delays sexual activity, and research from the University of Washington suggests that teens who receive comprehensive sex education have a 50% lower risk of becoming pregnant than those enrolled in abstinence-only courses.
Abstinence-only advocates want the government to let school districts choose which type of sex education they prefer. But in an ominous sign for them, the new Congress is already shifting its emphasis. Louise Slaughter, a congresswoman from New York and a former scientist, has introduced a bill that would fund “medically accurate” comprehensive sex education in schools. It is likely to pass.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar