the world is flat

By Diogenes ( articles ) | Mar 12, 2008

For 40 years, give or take a bit, children in American public schools have been immersed in a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum. This was necessary, parents were told, to prevent teen pregnancy and the spread of venereal diseases.

Now we can see the results. The federal agencies which have been pushing these educational programs now find that one-fourth of all American teenage girls are infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD).

One in four. Teenagers.

For some, the disease means that they will never be able to have children. For most, it means that all their future sexual partners-- and there may be many-- are likely to contract the disease.

What have we learned?

It's only natural to pose that question to the president of Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been offering sex-ed instruction for the past generation. Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, responds:

"The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure,” Ms. Richards said, "and teenage girls are paying the real price."

OK, let's unpack that statement. Planned Parenthood and its allies have drawn tens of billions from the federal treasury, and told millions of American youngsters to use condoms and have fun. Despite their best efforts, a few federal dollars have trickled through to programs that suggest abstinence from sexual activity. And so, Cecile Richards tells us, the blame should fall on those few programs that promote abstinence from sex, because....

OK, now I'm stumped. Can you please help me out? What is the logic behind her argument?

- Is it that STDs are spread by abstinence? Can't be. We're talking about sexually transmitted diseases. No sexual activity, no STDs. QED.

- Is it, then, that someone who is trained to abstain from sexual activity is more likely to engage in sexual activity than someone who is trained to enjoy it (and use a condom)? An intriguing possibility, but an unlikely one. Suppose that I tell A that he should never drink Coke, while I tell B that he should enjoy Coke responsibly, and I provide him with change for the Coke machine. Who's more likely to drink Coke: A or B?

Honestly, I'm stumped here. I cannot fathom how any intelligent human being would suggest that children trained to abstain from sexual activity are more likely to contract STDs than those who are trained to believe that from the time of adolescence forward, sexual activity is healthy, pleasant, and more or less inevitable.

Could you please help me out? Please explain how you could decrease the prevalence of STDs by increasing the frequency with which young people engage in sexual activity. If you can make that argument plausible, you should be able to score a gazillion-dollar consulting contract from Planned Parenthood.

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

There are no comments yet for this item.