Sex education in the United States
This approach covers abstinence as a choice option, but also informs adolescents about age of consent and the availability of contraception and techniques to avoid contraction of sexually transmitted infections.
Adequate sex education programs in public schools greatly benefit students and have the potential to reduce the high percentages of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies in America.
During the Second World War, in the context of fears about rising divorce rates, immigration, and birthright citizenship, the curriculum in some areas portrayed a woman's choice of a "fit" mate as a civic duty.
Within the demographic of United States public and private high schools which taught pregnancy prevention, the average time spent in class teaching this topic was 4.2 hours.
[20][21][22] The poll sponsored by the National Abstinence Education Association (now called Ascend) and conducted by Zogby International reported information that has not been replicated in methodologically sound surveys.
Identification of common negative social and emotional consequences of having sex may also be useful in screening for adolescents at risk of experiencing more-serious adverse outcomes after having sex.Sex education is still a debate in the United States to this day.
[33] The "It's Okay to Ask Someone" app, was created in 2014 to serve as a sexual health text line that would reach beyond the classroom, in which peer educators could participate in by responding to students questions with adult oversight.
[36] A 2004 NPR survey indicated that the majority of the 1001 parent groups polled wanted complete sex education in schools, as over 80% agreed with the statement "Sex education in school makes it easier for me to talk to my child about sexual issues", and under 17% of polled parents agreed with the statement that their children were being exposed to "subjects I don't think my child should be discussing".
[50][51] A 2006 California survey asked 1,284 randomly selected, digitally-dialed parents of school-aged children for their perspectives on various matters regarding school-based sex education.
Of the CSE supporters, 94% cited at least one of the following three reasons; "those focused on the consequences of actions, on the importance of providing complete information, on the inevitability of adolescents' engaging in sex.
At the time, each organization was looking ahead to the possibility of a future without federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding and simultaneously found themselves exploring the question of how best to advance comprehensive sexuality education in schools.
Abstinence-only education began its rise in the 1980s with congress's Adolescent Family Life Act, which encouraged young people in the United States to abstain from sexual intercourse prior to adulthood and marriage.
In Bowen V. Kendrick, the Court had to decide whether or not there was a first amendment violation in the Adolescent Family Life Act to call on various religious and governmental organizations for funding to continue their message.
Many of these grantees are faith-based or small non-profit organizations, including crisis pregnancy centers, which use their grants to provide abstinence-only programs and services in local public and private schools and to community groups.
While abstinence-only sex education is a controversial subject, the fact that complete abstinence itself (even within marriage) is the most effective preventative measure against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections has never been in dispute.
Congressman Henry Waxman of California released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs.
[102] Other criticisms of abstinence-only sex education include emphasizing conventional gender and heterosexual norms and expression, excluding members of the LGBT community.
[105] In February 2017, Journal of Adolescent Health found that A.O.U.M policies "reinforce harmful gender stereotypes" as well as fail to bring down teen pregnancy and STI rates.
This study found that abstinence-only sex education reinforces harmful gender stereotypes regarding female passivity and "rigid masculinity", both of which are associated with decreased use of condoms and birth control.
[113] Additional research by Jillian Grace Norwick conducted in 2016 found that in interviews with female college students who had abstinence-only sex education, participants commonly reported that they received messages about sexual "purity" aimed at girls.
The lack of information distributed regarding mentally and physically healthy LGBT relationships can also be attributed to the ongoing stigma surrounding queerness in the US, especially as related to adolescents.
Known as the "California Healthy Young Act", the law requires that all sex ed curricula used in public 7-12th grade classrooms contain accurate information pertaining to gender and sexual orientation.
[124][125] The “Don’t Say Gay” legislation impacts the ability for LGBTQ+ youth to gather sexual health information and learn how to engage in safe sex practices by eliminating the discussion of queer-sex related topics in school.
Later in 2013 Senator Stacey Canfield amended the campaign with Bill 234 to allow personal discussions on homosexuality and gender non-conforming issues with teachers and guidance counselors; however, it mandated the reporting of students’ sexual identity to the parents after these conversations occurred.
Dissenters of this bill have stated that young LGBTQ+ children lacking support in their home environments will suffer significantly as teachers and counselors can no longer offer assistance and comfort.
Supporters of the bill claim that including LGBTQ+ topics in schools' curricula is a form of grooming, and its removal empowers parents to be more involved in their children's upbringing.
[128] Opponents of LGBT-friendly sex education claim that teaching health topics in this way could be disrespectful to some religious beliefs and potentially inflict particular political views on students.
The state's Department of Education announced they would now mandate curricula to be “culturally proficient, evidence-based, medically accurate, and age-appropriate for middle and high school students”.
Tennessee schools have created a mandatory family life education program if females ages 15–17 have pregnancy rates higher than 19.5 per every 1000 depending on the county.
In fact, the U.S. government has spent more than $2 billion over the last 20 years to prohibit comprehensive sex education in public schools, choosing instead to fund the AOUM curriculum while the adolescent pregnancy rates continue to rise.
