The ABC’s of 1

The ABC’s of Legislating Morality

Angela Dykstra

Axia College of the University of Phoenix

Robert Bruno

September 17, 2006

 The ABC’s of 2

The ABC’s of Legislating Morality

Dr. Joe Dispenza, a cast member in the documentary What the Bleep do We Know!?,

states “The human brain does not know the difference between what is sees in its environment

and what it remembers” (Dispenza, 2004). If we find a hint of truth in the preceding statement,

then one could argue that what a young person encounters visually on a daily basis will have a

lasting impact on what that person believes to be true. Advancing this hypothesis further, if the

average day of youthful visual effects includes a plethora of openly sexual images from

television, the internet, video games, and magazines; by the onset of puberty, American youth

have become acclimated to a daily existence loaded with a diet of highly sexual visual materials.

If these truths are self-evident among our youth, is the national adolescent health policy of

abstinence-only-until-marriage truly an effective and ethical use of taxpayer dollars?

The New ABC’s

Since 1998, our federal government has worked tirelessly in an effort to find a new and

better solution in the prevention of teen pregnancy and halting the spread of sexually transmitted

infections (STI), formally referred to as sexually transmitted diseases (STD), including AIDS and

HIV. In the 10–17 age brackets, the current US administration believes these long-standing

health issues will be abated as soon as the youth of America learn their ABC’s.

Unless a particular State has legislation requiring a comprehensive sexual health

education component in public schools, then guidelines to any and all federal grant recipients

engaged in adolescent health education mandate teaching the ABC’s, only the ABC’s, and

nothing else but the ABC’s to remain within grant compliance. Many public schools across the

nation are now required to use curriculum that specifically teaches the only full-proof way to

avoid unintended pregnancy and those annoying STI’s, is if the student chooses Abstinence
 The ABC’s of 3

(until marriage), to Be Faithful (to their abstinence pledge), because Condoms fail more often

than not.

In reality, most adolescents are engaging in many social activities outside the classroom,

which will undoubtedly expose the student to sexual stimuli on a repeated and regular basis.

Based on recent data retrieved from YAHOO Video, two of the top 10 videos have the word

“sex” in their titles. A personal review of the top 10 videos by this author revealed five of these

videos contain characters engaged in cinematic sexual activity (YAHOO, 2006). How can our

government claim to possess an ethical mind-set for our children and their wellbeing while

comfortably educating students to be undereducated about the genuine health risks associated

with un-protected sexual pursuits?

Our government, in an effective attempt to prevent scientific and medical fact from

weaseling its way into the various abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculums, has developed

their own mandatory top eight teaching criteria. As a result, any and all funding attached in any

manner to a funding stream overseen by the department of Health and Human Services (HHS),

and/or administrated by the Administration for Children & Families (ACF), or the Office of

Population Affairs (OPA), must adhere to eight program specifics as detailed on the ACF website

under the Abstinence Division tab which reads:

These grant projects must meet the legislative priorities as described in Section

510 of Title V of the Social Security Act. Abstinence education is defined in the

legislation as an educational or motivational program that:

(1) Has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological,

and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual

activity;

(2) Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the

 The ABC’s of 4

expected standard for all school age children;

(3) Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain

way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted

diseases [sic], and other associated health problems;

(4) Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in

the context of marriage is the expected standard of human

sexuality;

(5) Teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is

likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

(6) Teaches that bearing children out-of-wed-lock is likely to have

harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and

society;

(7) Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how

alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances;

and

(8) Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before

engaging in sexual activity. (ACF, 2006, Section 510 Fact Sheet

¶ 4).

As is evident to this tax-payer, the current abstinence guidelines are exclusionary and

biased against certain select populations of gay, lesbian, and trans-gendered youth. One should

question quite vocally government expenditures involving teaching; under the guise of national

health education policy, social moral matters best suited to individual choice. On the official

White House website in a 2002 news release on welfare reform, the current administration touted

that abstinence-only-until-marriage education is THE magic social elixir. As stated in the release
 The ABC’s of 5

overview, ABC education will curb non-marital births, stamp out poverty, end violence, and halt

the dependency on government by intergenerational welfare recipients (White House, 2002). As

a taxpayer, this Author is finding it difficult to buy into increasing the funding in a program that

has not been required to monitor its successes and/or failure rates since its inception back in

1998.

Funding Streams

How many dollars has the American taxpayer shelled out since 1998 to fund the various

abstinence-only-until-marriage youth programs? The original funding appropriation for

adolescent health abstinence education was for a term of five years at $50 million dollars per

year (White House, 2002). However, no funding was appropriated to monitor the program’s

effectiveness. In the ensuing years, nailing down the financial value of abstinence youth

education has become a continually moving target. The current administration merges and

establishes new secondary funding umbrellas every fiscal year (FY). With each shift of the

shells, the mandatory abstinence teaching criteria originally only associated with Section 510 of

Title V of the Social Security Act morphs further, thus spreading its aggressive malignant

Christian values cancer into new and existing government programs.

Based on information provided on the website of Sexuality Information and Education

Council of the United States (SIECUS) a nonprofit watchdog group devoted to creating a world

that ensures social justice and sexual rights states, “Between 1996 and federal Fiscal Year 2005,

Congress funneled over $1.1 billion dollars (through both federal and state matching funds) to

abstinence-only-until-marriage programs”(SIECUS, 2005). In an attempt to validate the SIECUS

claim of funding dollar amounts, this tax-payer reviewed the FY 2005 “actual” figures for

abstinence-only-until-marriage funding and its deep semi-hidden pockets listed directly and

indirectly on the FY 2007 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) web document. Based on
 The ABC’s of 6

the dollars listed on the various program lines, FY 2005 consumed at least $500,000,000 on

programs containing the required abstinence-only-until-marriage component (OMB FY 2005

comparative, 2007, p 423-458). This Author will concur with the $1.1 billion dollar spending

levels presented by SIECUS as being authoritative and accurate.

No matter what the President believes to be best for our young people and their moral,

social, and medical health, US taxpaying adults must investigate the White House claim that 40+

years of toxic personal social fall-out actually exists. Can the government successfully legislate

the sexual morality of our youth? The current administration believes US societal woes have a

direct link to the sexual revolution of the 1960s (White House, 2002). In a successful effort to

turn back the clock on reproductive health advances, in particular those benefiting women, States

and local school districts with the financial backing of Big brother, have waged a crusade whose

soul mission is to assimilate – one student mind at a time – into the new ABC’s.

Rest assured also that our government is right on top of our horrific decline as a nation

into moral turpitude. On January 29, 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order

13198 which significantly blurred our previous understanding regarding the separation of Church

from State in America. Included during the signing was the President’s personal statement “The

paramount goal is compassionate results, and private and charitable groups, including religious

ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so

long as they achieve valid public purposes…”(White House, 2001).

In March, 2006, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in collaboration with The

University of Texas science center in Houston, was federally funded to undertake the first

scientific study assessing the “…common elements of effective education curricula that will be

of benefit to youth” (All About Youth, 2006). For the first time since 1998, the federal

government will be conducting scientific research-based results comparisons between

 The ABC’s of 7

abstinence-only-until-marriage and abstinence plus comprehensive adolescent sexuality

education. However, the government moves slowly when evaluating its Programs. According to

the study announcement, as of August 27, 2006, the study has not begun to recruit patients (All

About Youth, 2006). While awaiting study results, the US taxpayer funded abstinence-only-until-

marriage dogma partnership between god and government will continue rolling in the proverbial

dough.

Curriculum and Educators

Now that we know the “when”, the “why”, and the “how” behind our abstinence-only-

until-marriage national adolescent health program, we can begin to explore the “what” is the

curriculum and “who” is qualified to teach the new ABC’s in America. Our adolescent

reproductive health programs, previously a subject taught by formally trained educators in

school, have found an additional home in our neighborhood centers of faith and pregnancy crisis

adoption centers; most often absent medical fact or any mention of contraception methods.

In 2005, SIECUS reviewed three of the newest abstinence-only-until-marriage programs

in an ongoing effort to educate the public in exactly what type of sexual health education

programs are benefiting from the funding of taxpayer dollars (SIECUS, 2005). Reviewing

Passion & Principles, SIECUS uncovered a program based primarily in fear and shame. The

Leader’s Guide states “…sex is the glue that ultimately links them to someone…within a biblical

marriage relationship” (SIECUS, 2005).

While Worth the Wait (WTW) contains comprehensive sexuality education information,

this program promotes biased views toward marriage and contraception. The WTW lesson plan

teaches youth “Couples who cohabitate: value marriage less; do not want to be responsible for

one another; are less faithful to their partner than married couples; are not as happy; [and] are

more likely to get divorced” (SIECUS, 2005). The Wait curriculum also includes a lesson
 The ABC’s of 8

entitled “Why Contraceptives are not the Answer for Teens” (SIECUS, 2005). In this lesson,

condom failure rates are highlighted which is why condoms should be avoided by teens. One

example states, “Condoms can never protect someone from the emotional problems that can

result from multiple sexual partners and premature sexual activity” (SIECUS, 2005).

The third program under review was Navigator. Again, fear and guilt dominate the lesson

plan. Students are discouraged from making their own critical choices while being asked to

brainstorm about the negative consequences of engaging in sexual activity outside the confines

of marriage. If a student brainstorms emotional side effects such as rumors, parental conflict, or

depression, the lesson topic shifts with the facilitator instructing the class “Marriage is the

highest level of commitment that a man and a woman can make in society. Retaining individual

virginity until marriage is the only way to prevent Pregnancy, STD’s, AIDS, Infertility, and

Cervical Cancer” (Navigator, 2005).

All across America, individual states, counties, cities, neighborhoods, and school

districts, are encouraged and often required to choose abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum

over comprehensive medically proven sexuality health education for their youth. Theology-based

ideas and ideals once taught only in privately funded religious schools, are swiftly becoming a

requirement of the taxpayer supported US adolescent health education system. No special

educational requirements exist to teach the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. In fact,

most often the discretionary grants are written seeking sexuality “lay-persons” to impart and

instill the new ABC’s to our youth.

The medical and scientific communities find themselves at exceptional odds with the

federal governments’ instance that lesson content focused on morality is a better bang for the

taxpayer buck than research-based comprehensive sexuality education. In September 2005, The

American Academy of Pediatricians revised their 1998 policy on teen pregnancy by removing
 The ABC’s of 9

the statement “abstinence counseling is an important role for all pediatricians” (InfoTrac, 2005).

Without exception, unintended pregnancies, first time sexual encounters, and the volume of

multiple sexual partnerships in US teens prior to reaching the age of 18 greatly exceeds any other

industrialized country in the same age group (Friedman, 2005). Europeans promote a

comprehensive sexuality youth health education program.

In history lessons, we teach our youth America is a democracy in which each individual

is guaranteed by law and encouraged by a condition of equality to respect personal choice in

matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Additionally, the youth of America are

bombarded daily by sexually suggestive viewing material on their televisions, computers, game

boxes, and in magazines. To date, a billion dollar plus taxpayer funded morality war is waging

itself against individual student reproductive health, safety, and truth. Our National Youth Health

Education Program is biased, non-inclusive, and often medically inaccurate. Has America found

societal wisdom and personal benefit by its continued support of the newly mandated ABC’s

masquerading as our nation’s adolescent health education policy? In the government fantasy

world of abstinence-only-until-marriage, reality is ignored at substantial risk to all US youth.

References
 The ABC’s of 10

Administration for Children & Families (ACF). (2006) Working With ACF (ACF Programs
Family and Youth Services Bureau link), Abstinence education division-programs.
Retrieved August 8, 2006 from ACF [web site]:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_working_with.html
Arntz, W., Chasse, B., Vicente, M. (Producers and Directors). (2004). What the bleep do we
know!? [Film]. (Available from Lord of the Wind Films, by Captured Light Distribution,
location unavailable as of August 23, 2006)
Friedman, J. (2005, September 16). Teen sex. CQ Researcher Online, 15, 761-784. Retrieved
August 11, 2006, from Axia College of University of Phoenix Online Library, from CQ
Electronic Library database (2005091600).
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2007). President’s budget; (FY 2007budget link),
Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007-appendix, The Budget For Fiscal Year
2007, 423-458. Retrieved July 24, 2006 from the White House [web site]:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/appendix.html
Pediatricians denounce abstinence-only education. (2005, September 1). The AIDS Reader
Thomson Gale. InfoTrac OneFile, 446. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from Axia College of
University of Phoenix Online Library from InfoTrac database (A137005395).
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). (2005). State
Profiles (2005) tab, A Brief Explanation of Federal Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage
Funding. Retrieved July 23, 2006 from the SEICUS [web site]:
http://www.siecus.org/policy/states/2005/explanation.html
U.S. National Institutes of Health. (2006). ClinicalTrials.gov. All about youth: Evaluation of
sexual risk avoidance and risk reduction programs for middle school students. Study
Retrieved August 27, 2006 from the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00167505) [web site]:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/
White House. (2001). White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives;
Unlevel playing field report 2001. Retrieved July 24, 2006 from the White House [web
site]: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/unlevelfield.html

White House. (2002). News & Policies Press Releases; (February 2002 link), Working toward
 The ABC’s of 11

independence. Retrieved July 24, 2006 from the White House [web site]:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/welfare-book-06.html
YAHOO. (2006). Y MUSIC Videos; (August 26, 2006), Top 100 music videos. Retrieved August
26, 2006 from YAHOO [web site]: http://music.yahoo.com/musicvideos/lists/top.asp