If schools suddenly decided to forget about evolution and only taught creation, people would be outraged. However, the public has responded with barely a murmur of protest to President Bush’s counterproductive and dangerous plan to expand abstinence-only sex education programs.

These programs–utilized by 29 percent of the nation’s schools–promote celibacy until marriage and refrain from discussing birth control and STD prevention (one leading abstinence advocate said talking about both would be the moral equivalent of telling kids smoking is bad and then doing a unit on the virtues of filtered cigarettes).

The president’s devotion to abstinence-only sex education is not new; as governor of Texas, Bush increased funding for such programs by $6 million.

Bolstered by soaring post-Sept. 11 approval ratings, Bush hopes the time is ripe to extend the reach of abstinence-only programs across the rest of the country. He is asking Congress to increase federal funding to $153 million next year–which is, coincidentally, approximately the same amount of money Congress annually spends on sex-ed programs promoting safer sex through STD prevention and birth control.

While Americans should be alarmed by this latest push by the Bush administration to legislate morality, ethical concerns are only a small part of the problem with abstinence-only education.

On a purely utilitarian level, there is no evidence abstinence-only programs are effective. Teen pregnancy rates have not fallen as abstinence-only programs have gained in popularity nor have STD rates.

Bush points to a 1999 survey by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which found that high school students who took abstinence pledges managed to stay celibate, on average, 18 months longer than their classmates, as evidence that abstinence-only education programs have been successful. What Bush fails to mention is the same survey found the pledges, when they finally did decide to have sex, were much less likely to practice safe sex.

At first glance this may sound extremely paradoxical–after all, abstinence-only programs purportedly are supposed teach students personal responsibility and that choices have consequences. However, the seeming contradiction begins to make sense when you remember that in abstinence-only programs students aren’t taught about contraceptives or how to protect themselves from STDs. If birth control is brought up at all, it is only to warn students about how unreliable and dangerous it can be.

“Contraception doesn’t concern us,” says Jimmy Hester, coordinator of True Love Waits, one of the country’s leading providers of abstinence-only education. “Waiting is what we’re striving for here.”

Talk about wishful thinking. Abstinence-only supporters are living in a dream world: No program, no matter how far-reaching and well designed, will ever be 100 percent effective. Kids are going to have sex, whether adults want them to or not. It is unnecessary and cruel to deny teenagers crucial safety information simply because their actions don’t conform to their teachers’ ideas of morality.

While abstinence-only advocates undoubtedly have good intentions, this does nothing to lessen the severe threat their misguided programs pose. Some critics claim abstinence-only sex ed is one of the major reasons Texas, long a stronghold of abstinence-only supporters, has the nation’s 4th highest AIDS rate.

Abstinence-only education is not only illogical and unrealistic, but it also sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to decide for us what our beliefs and values should be.

It’s not the government’s job to impose moral standards, especially when it comes to something as personal as sex.

While Bush and his supporters will swear they support abstinence-only education for practical reasons and that it has nothing to do with religion, this is obviously not true. A close examination of Bush’s proposed budget reveals that while faith-based programs will not be the only ones eligible to apply for grants, applicants will nonetheless have to promise to uphold “the marriage standard.”

If Bush was really more concerned with practicality than morality he would not insist upon “the marriage standard”–after all, there is a world of difference between middle school kids having unsafe sex and responsible adults having sex within a loving, secure relationship.

Telling kids the only acceptable context for sex is within marriage is a message that belongs in churches and homes–not public schools.

Whether or not to have sex should be a well-informed decision each person makes–not simply a knee-jerk reaction to a one-sided curriculum preaching about the horrors of nasty STDs, the ineffectiveness of condoms and the threat of irreparable psychological damage. Kids deserve to be presented with all sides of the issue–how to have safe sex, as well as why abstinence might be preferable–and then make up their own minds.

Kristin Wieben ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and French.