What are the programs that hold power in public as well as private schools?
Introducing the lead role- abstinence funding programs. Role playing a conversation about sex… no sex included.
These programs are equivalent to the sex fantasies where the nun walks in with a ruler ready to make you a bible thumper… then you come to the realization nuns are not sexy and the only thing wet is the holy water she’s splashing on you for even having those thoughts in the first place. Pervert.
A sex educational program that attempts to teach adolescents to abstain from sex based on partially inaccurate information or not enough information to give them the knowledge they may need in the future.
To get everybody on the same page, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs started in 1981 under the Reagan Administration; meaning this is no new advancement.
In 1981, the federal government started funding these programs through three different funding streams. The first was named, The Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) created in 1981, followed by the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program, constructed in 1996, and lastly, the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), made in 2000.
The first program, AFLA, according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, “was quietly signed into law in 1981 as Title XX of the Public Health Service Act without hearings or floor votes in the U.S. Congress.”
Originally the program aimed to prevent teenage pregnancy and encourage abstinence until marriage. Changing in 1997, AFLA revamped their organization by tying it to a stricter 8 point guide on how to teach abstinence.
Since its’ initiation into office in 1981 to 2010, the AFLA received more than $200 million. According to SIECUS, “From Fiscal Year 2005 until Fiscal Year 2009, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs under AFLA received $13 million a year.”
This is only the beginning of the tax dollars poured into these programs throughout the years.
Next up, perhaps the most stringent of anti-sex regulations; the Title V Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program. Signed into law in 1996, this too was enacted in secret.
Title V was listed under the Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act. According to Advocates For Youth, a non profit organization striving to promote all inclusive sex ed for students, there was an alarming amount of money advocated to this program; “Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, appropriating $250 million dollars over five years for state initiatives promoting sexual abstinence outside of marriage as the only acceptable standard of behavior for young people.”
Just a point- you could buy every high school student in America condoms for $250 million.
15 million high school students x $0.99 condom = $14,850,000.
$250,000,000 / $14,850,000 = 16.84 condoms
OR
$250,000,000 / 5 (years) = $50,000,000
$50,000,000 / $14,850,000 = 3.37 condoms
If we’re being specific.. s
ince this is sex; at that rate you could buy students 16 condoms EACH. EACH. Assuming every single student is 100% heterosexual and is NOT abstaining from sex. Which we all know is not true.
Or alternatively you could buy every student in high school 3 condoms each year for 5 years. All variables previously mentioned are still included.
This doesn’t even include bulk pricing.
By the state matching three dollars for every four federal dollars, half of a billion dollars in state and federal funds were funneled to the Title V initiative in just five years.
The establishment of this program shifted the ideology, according to SIECUS, from “pregnancy prevention to promoting abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage, at any age.”…”some might consider the standard required by the law to be outdated, it “was intended to align Congress with the social tradition…that sex should be confined to married couples.”
Let’s sip our tea while we dig up what congress tried to bury. These laws were passed under the radar without public knowledge. It is legal to pass private bills that effect a certain group of individuals with no public debate.
But should it still be considered legal when those “private” bills are funding public schooling and influencing childrens’ learning?
That’s a lot of grey area that we aren’t allowed to have an opinion on.
Another point- pulling from the quote, they said sex should be confined to married couples. Not only does that exclude people that may not want to be married but also anyone who is in any sense, a part of the LGBTQ community.
In the funding for the Title V abstinence program, the HHS gave $50 million in federal funds annually to the states based on a formula in reference to the population of low income youth in each state. For every four federal dollars the state was required to match 3 state-raised dollars.
Every state apart from California at one time has excepted the abstinence-until-marriage funds.
By accepting these funds states’ are bound to teach abstinence and exclude all other topics. Stated by SIECUS in reference to Title V’s guidelines, “These restrictions mean that states still cannot use Title V abstinence-only funds to provide comprehensive information about contraception or teach the complete education young people need to make informed and healthy decisions about their sexual behavior.”
This statement might come across as bias, but the core of their argument is simple. If you accepted these funds the state was bound to follow their guidelines, regardless if it provided false information or wasn’t comprehensive.
After enacting the Title V abstinence-only-program, “an eight-point federal statutory definition of “abstinence education.” All programs that receive Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funds are governed by this definition:”
Looking at the chart it is obvious that it has faults. I think teaching abstinence is important but teaching kids that somebody could have psychological defects by participating in sexual activity- that’s a far reach. There are many other aspects in the chart that should alarm parents on how their adolescents are being educated.
The last federally funded program is called Community-Based Abstinence Education. Enacted by the government, it awarded grants to state and local organizations since 2001.
In SIECUS’ research, they found, “Funding for CBAE began in Fiscal Year 2001 at $20 million. By Fiscal Year 2006, CBAE increased over 450% to a total of $113 million where it stayed for two more years. For Fiscal Year 2009, the program was cut by $14.2 million, bringing its funding down to $99 million.”
But there’s good news!
In 2010 under the Obama administration, congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, which wiped out facultative funding to all abstinence-until-marriage programs. Meaning, they could still be funded, but no longer in secret.
So to the mother’s, father’s and others paying for their child’s education and quality of life this is through you. By raising awareness to this issue we can make more changes to these laws and focus more on comprehensive sex ed.
Just like comprehensive English… or Math… or Science. Crazy.
You’ve got an in depth look at the funding going into these programs. Now let’s gather around for a compilation overview. hint hint. wink wink.
In connection with what I’m about to share, I’m going to need all you readers to take a few breathes…. in…. out…in…out… in… you get the point.
Calculating the totals found by SIECUS they concluded, “Between 1996 and federal Fiscal Year 2010, Congress funneled a total of over one-and-a-half billion tax-payer dollars into abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and the funding continues today.” (SIECUS)
Fast forwarding to the present, a combination of the leading sex education providers found, “In 2015, abstinence-only-until marriage programs still received $55 million in federal funds, a number that is guaranteed to increase to at least $75 million in 2016 even without this policy shift.”
This is without the state matched funds in relation.
But the amount of money your parents or you yourselves are paying in taxes for these programs have to be worth it right? If they are taking money out of your pocket that you could be using to take your kids on that fancy spring break cruise, the programs have to be working. Or do they?
Let’s analyze the real impact abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have on all these sex (or non sexual) animals.
The Queer Thing About Abstinence 