Navigation key

The Article Archives

Abstinence Education has Failed!

April 23, 2007
S. Michael Craven
tweet this  share this on facebook  

This is what the mainstream media and opponents of abstinence-centered education would like you to believe in the wake of the most recent study. Headlines around the country read:

Abstinence classes have little effect, study finds – Seattle Times, 4/14
Abstinence programs fall short, study says – Minneapolis Star Tribune, 4/14
Study: Sex abstinence classes failed – Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/14
Study: Abstinence Classes Don't Stop Sex – ABC News, 4/14
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs – Washington Post, 4/14

William Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), a leading proponent of “safe-sex” education, said “This report should serve as the final verdict on the failure of the abstinence-only industry in this country, It shows, once again, that these programs fail miserably in actually helping young people behave more responsibly when it comes to their sexuality.”

The report, which was released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. appears, on the surface, to live up to the headlines. The study sought to determine the impact of abstinence education programs. Key findings include:

•Youth in the program group (abstinence classes) were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex; they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.

However, the report did go on to say that “Contrary to concerns raised by some critics of the Title V, Section 510 abstinence funding, program group youth were no more likely to have engaged in unprotected sex than control group youth.” Another key finding was:

•Program and control group youth did not differ in their rates of unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months.

But again, the report reveals that students subjected to abstinence education also did not have higher rates of unprotected sex – a charge often leveled by “safe-sex” education advocates. Other key findings include:

•For both the program and control group youth, the reported mean age at first intercourse was identical, 14.9 years.

•Program and control group youth also did not differ in the number of partners with whom they had sex.

This all sounds rather damning to abstinence education. However, here are the problems with concluding that “abstinence education has failed.” First, this study only examined four programs out of more than 900 currently in place. Furthermore, of the four programs observed in the study; one was voluntary and took place after school. Also, the Mathematica study targeted children who were in abstinence programs from ages 9-11 and those children were not evaluated until four to six years later. The fact is, the targeted children were too young to absorb the abstinence message, and there was no continuation of abstinence education into the High School years when adolescents are most likely to engage in sexual activity. Lastly, the study authors themselves stated that “Some policymakers and health educators have questioned whether the Title V, Section 510 program’s focus on abstinence elevates these STD risks. Findings from this study suggest that this is not the case, as program group youth are no more likely to engage in unprotected sex than their control group counterparts.”

The bottom line: this study hardly serves to condemn abstinence education and support a return to “comprehensive” sex education in the public schools. In fact, a recent HHS-sponsored conference in Baltimore unveiled evidence from more than two dozen other studies that abstinence programs are producing positive outcomes for youth. There are now 15 evaluations documenting the effectiveness of abstinence education. (Of course, the media never reports on these.) Even the authors of the Mathematica study acknowledge that “Nationally, rates of teen sexual activity have declined over the past 15 years,” since the advent of abstinence education beginning in the early 1990s. Studies through the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show the rate of teen pregnancy has dropped approximately 35% from 1990 to 2002 with subsequent studies demonstrating the decline of teen pregnancy has only accelerated since 2002. The Journal of Adolescent and Family Health published a study that concluded 66% of the decrease in teen pregnancy was due to teens choosing abstinence. The CDC commissioned a study which estimated 53% of the drop in teen pregnancy was due to teens choosing abstinence.

A significant finding of the Mathematica study, which has been ignored, is “that friends support for abstinence is a significant predictor of future sexual abstinence.” Adding that, “promoting support for abstinence among peer networks should be an important feature of future abstinence programs. While friends support for abstinence may have protective benefits, maintaining this support appears difficult for most youth as they move through adolescence. At the time when most Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs are completed and youth enter their adolescent years, data from the study find that support for abstinence among friends drops dramatically.” In essence, the study’s authors confirm the positive impact of abstinence education and argue for the expansion of abstinence education into the High School years since it is only the “values” of abstinence education that have any potential for strengthening this social support.

Let me conclude by showing you exactly what it is that "comprehensive" sex education advocates oppose. The following are the federal government guidelines for abstinence education under Title V, section 510 programs:

A Have as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity

B Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children

C Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems

D Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity

E Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects

F Teach that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society

G Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances

H Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity

Comprehensive sex education advocates oppose the teaching of any “values” related to sexual activity since they regard sex as a “values-neutral” act in which the government has no interest. As I have stated before, given the procreative potential inherent to sex, society has a compelling interest in the manner and place in which children come into being, therefore the government plays a valid role in securing this interest.

So, given the values espoused under abstinence education versus “no values” education offered within a cultural context that only supports the latter – which approach should we employ if the stated goal of both sides is to “reduce adolescent sexual activity and its consequences?”

© 2007 by S. Michael Craven

Back to Top

Response from : S. M. Hitt  

April 23, 2007 10:12 AM

Following is a link to a recent article on this topic by Donna Garner, a former high school English teacher who helped write the Worth the Wait curriculum for Scott and White Hospital in Temple, Texas. Donna is a committed Christian who works tirelessly to raise education standards in Texas. She also speaks out on other issues of morality in today's culture.

Response from : Chris Sinclair  

April 23, 2007 11:06 AM

Dear Mr. Craven

Your article "Abstinence Education has Failed!" made me realize a danger that those promoting the homosexual agenda might make use of one or more of the federal government guidelines for abstinence education as the basis for legalizing homosexual marriage. Specifically, if they are successful in getting society to accept homosexuality as simply another alternative life style (and it appears they are well on their way), I believe they may even use abstinence based sex education standards to create a "right" to homosexual marriage using the government standard below:

D. Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity

They may even use some of the other standards, but I believe this one is the most likely to be used. Of course we know that rights are not created by man but granted by God. The role of man (specifically those in government) is to secure those God-given rights.
It is so vitally important that we remain committed to the battle at hand and not give up the truth that homosexual behaviour is wrong. It is part of a God given moral standard that has served us well.

Blessings on you and your ministry,
Chris Sinclair

Response from : Larry Hagen  

April 24, 2007 10:17 AM

This article points out another of the thousands of reasons why we choose to homeschool our children. The secular world thinks that it is better to expose our children to everything, and then let them sort out right from wrong. I don't understand why Christian families continue to subject their children to the polution of our culture. Homeschooling is the only viable option for families that want to have children with a decidedly Christian worldview. The public schools, and sadly, many Christian schools are too filled with the morals and standards of the world. If we truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God, we should read it and teach it to our children and show them how it applies to all areas of life.

Be blessed and be a blessing,
Larry Hagen

Response from : tom lindsey  

April 24, 2007 4:13 PM

Thanks Michael good information.

Tom Lindsey

Response from : Michael McGowan  

May 2, 2007 9:43 AM

What a wonderful dissection of the trash that we are fed on a daily basis.
It is imperative that we research everything and discern the truth In a world that is intent on distortion and deception.
I am a die hard home school father and would never dream of risking the minds and souls of my beloved daughters to the garbage society feels obligated to fill their heads with.
This reminds me of a Hillary Clinton statement "it takes a village to raise a child". With all due respect to Senator clinton I have seen your village and would appreciate it if you kept them far away from my children as it is my right as a parent, an obligation as a parent to raise them to be upstanding productive citizens of the USA and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Keep the village idiots away please. And stop insisting that we swallow the pabulum that is spoon fed to the public every day.

Response from : ayo akinola  

May 2, 2007 11:29 AM

The world standard can never meet up to God's.teaching our children from the Word of God will help a great deal.let them (EVEN WE THE PARENTS be DEEPLY )rooted in the Word and they will not be tossed to and fro with all standards the world will spring up.
we should consider these as a matter of top responsibility.

Response from : Katrina Padilla  

May 2, 2007 2:15 PM

Yippie to the authors of these responses!! I am a Christian wife and mother of four who struggles daily with the woes of what values my children are being taught in school. I have just been called by God to join the homeschool regime, as my fellow Christians before me, and I must say that as a future homeschooler in training, it will be my duty not just to teach my children the 'ABCs' and the '123s' of worldly education, but the 'ABCs' and the '123s' of living the morals and values that God has set before us! Something that was once taught to us of the mature generation as part of our school carriculum. It amazes me how God has been taken out of EVERY SINGLE EQUATION of societal living; we no longer say the pledge of allegience because it involves God; we no longer are allowed to have daily prayer in school because there are tose who don't BELIEVE that there is a God(amazing!); all statues that involve God in any way are removed from public eye(i.e. the display in the courthouse that held the Ten Commandments), yet we are free to display and 'worship' anything that morally wrong and ungodly! What a corrupt world we are living in! It just proves that satan has his hand in everything that is of this world, and we as good Christians have a responsibility to ourselves and our children to stop him from corruting us.

Response from : Terri  

May 7, 2007 3:20 PM

I am excited to hear of the many programs that are working because I believe telling young people the truth about STD's and good decision making is helping. We have seen a decline in teen pregnancies since we implemented our program in Santa Rosa County. We can not take all the credit, but we are a part of the solution. The more students hear the truth about their sexuality, the more they will listen.

Response from : Jose  

May 7, 2007 8:21 PM

Great and thoughtful article. It is no surprise the efforts of our secular and moral relativist society to bring confusion about the truth. The Scripture is fulfilled when it says, "they call good evil and evil good."


Return to topics Return to articles
Back to Top

Respond to This Article

Form Authentication: 

Refresh the page if  
image does not appear  

Please enter the form validation code
you see displayed above.

Your Information:
You must include your full name. Submissions that do not include both first and last names will not be posted.



Email Address:


Respond to This Article:

Your comments will be reviewed and either approved or denied publication.


Back to Top

Navigation Key

 Return to topics
 Return to articles 
 Read article with responses 
 Respond to this article