If we want to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection rates, all we have to do is tell kids to abstain from sex. It’s that simple, right? Apparently, that’s what Senator Mary Lazich, R-New Berlin, was thinking when she introduced SB 2088 into the Wisconsin State Senate last week.

The bill repeals several important provisions from the 2009 Healthy Youth Act, while also providing additions and amendments. Under current Wisconsin law, school districts are not required to provide sex education. If they choose to, there are many guidelines which they must follow.

The new bill upholds the right of a school district to choose not to instruct its students in sex education, but it revokes the obligation of a school district to inform parents of its decision not to instruct their students in sex education.

Is it just me, or is the whole point of sex education to instruct students who would otherwise receive no such education about important sexual matters? Sure, many – if not most of us – had to suffer through the awkward “birds and the bees” talk with mom or dad. But for those young people who don’t enjoy that luxury, sex education at school may be the only education they ever receive. Wouldn’t it at least be beneficial for parents to know whether their child has received any other sex education?

For those school districts that do choose to provide sex education to their students, the biggest change that comes with this bill is that school districts are no longer required to educate about any means of contraception or ways to avoid sexually transmitted infections aside from abstinence. Furthermore, school districts are required to present abstinence as the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

This seems like telling young people that the only surefire way to prevent drowning is to never go swimming. I’m not saying parents and teachers should throw their kids in Lake Michigan to teach them how to swim, but I think a healthy respect for the water and a little bit of instruction can go a long way. It is true, as the Healthy Youth Act currently states, that abstinence is the most reliable way to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. However, to say that it’s the only reliable means of preventing such things is simply false. When used appropriately, both male condoms and birth control pills have a success rate greater than 95% with regard to preventing pregnancy.

What exactly is the purpose of not informing students about reliable forms of contraception and barrier methods for preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted infections? It seems like this bill is purely ideological and was not written with the best interests of the students of Wisconsin schools in mind. Some young people are going to have sex and some aren’t, but refusing to educate young people about condoms and other reliable means of protection is like handing them a gun and not telling them that there’s a safety lock. The consequences of forgoing comprehensive sex education are no less serious.

Aside from the changes being made to the Healthy Youth Act, another unnecessary provision is being continued. If a school district chooses to provide sex education, then it must promote abstinence as the preferred behavior of unmarried students. How bizarre. The law does not state that it favors abstinence for all students, which, if it were to, would presumably be due to the fact that grade school students are too mentally and emotionally immature to be engaging in sex. Rather, the provision states that only unmarried couples should be encouraged to abstain from having sex.

It’s grossly inappropriate that the state would discriminate between married and unmarried couples having sex. Some people will only have sex within marriage, but many people will not, and it’s not the place of the state to decide which is better for individuals.

Abstinence-only sex education does not work. It is not practical insofar as it will not adequately inform students about how to make healthy sexual decisions, decisions which would lead to a reduction in teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection rates. Furthermore, while it is certainly not immoral for abstinence to be promoted as a positive choice, it is irresponsible for the state to promote abstinence as if it were the only reliable way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections or the best lifestyle choice for unmarried individuals.

Ryan Plesh ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in philosophy and physics.