CloseUp

States that use abstinence unless married federal funds must follow the federal restrictions in spending federal dollars. While this spending rule is not particularly controversial, federal law typically does not delineate what can and can not be taught locally. The abstinence unless married initiative does not offer states the authority they have come to expect in an era of devolution. While state authority is prescribed, states are offered new money. The 1996 initiative makes nearly $500 million available over five years in federal and matching state funds.

The federal law was enacted even though there is no research providing clear evidence that abstinence-unless-married education helps reduce sexual activity or birth rates. Implementation and evaluation of the new abstinence-unless-married program have become highly politicized around the country. Further, while some opinion polls suggest the public may view abstinence unless married education as too narrow to effectively address adolescent pregnancy prevention, an active conservative coalition is dedicated to ensuring an even more restrictive interpretation. While the definition of abstinence education in the new law is extremely narrow, states still have the opportunity to address a variety of policy choices.

This fact sheet reviews the 1996 federal law, the controversy surrounding the abstinence provision, state plans and implementation, as well as on-going state policy choices such as whether to seek federal funds, who to grant funds, and which activities to support. Complete listing and access info »

Absent evidence that abstinence-until-married education works better than other abstinence education strategies (including those that provide contraceptive education), and given evidence that the approach appears to create harmful health risks for some, Congress should re-visit the provision. A key question is funding and whether and to what extent the half billion in federal and state funds spent since 1996 on a restrictive approach to abstinence education should continue. To the extent funds are made available, they should be allowed to be spent more flexibly. Complete listing and access info »

Responding to the continuing health threats of HIV, STIs and unplanned pregnancy among young people, the widely respected Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences recently recommended eliminating congressional, federal, state and local "requirements that public funds be used for abstinence-only education." And surveys consistently show that the public wants schools to deliver strong abstinence messages alongside information about self-protection for young people who find themselves in sexual situations. The vast majority of parents support sex education in the schools, including the provision of information about contraceptive and condom use.

Unfortunately, federal policy is grossly out of step with the wishes of most parents and students, as well as the scientific research. Since the early 1980s, Congress has devoted significant resources to abstinence-only programming. Partly as a result of federal policy and funding changes, public schools are increasingly supporting abstinence-only curricula that are less likely to include information about birth control, STD prevention and sexual orientation. The evidence tells us that these trends represent a dangerous disservice to America's younger generation.
Complete listing and access info »

The HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to play a significant role in the lives of adolescents and young adults today. In 2000, youth ages 15-24 represented only 25% of the sexually experienced population in the United States, but had 48% of all new STIs that year (Weinstock, 2004). To make a difference in reducing HIV among new generations, youth need accurate, culturally relevant, age-appropriate information about HIV transmission and infection, as well as, how to protect themselves, including abstinence, contraception, safer sex practices and where to get tested. HIV education and services must be also readily available to all youth, regardless of ability to pay and in a variety of settings. Complete listing and access info »

This paper encourages those who work with youth to understand the impact of prejudice and discrimination on vulnerable adolescents, to assess and address their needs, and to build on their assets. In prevention programming, it is essential to empower young participants by involving them in all aspects of designing and running programs for youth. It is equally essential to provide culturally appropriate interventions, with culturally competent adult and youth staff. Complete listing and access info »