What 'other uncontrolled variables' have been left out of these studies which I am going to cite below? If you know of any, why don't you publish your scientific/statistical objections? As I said, these have been CAREFUL studies. That means they considered (CAREFULLY!!) the possibility of 'uncontrolled variables'. And I have utterly no idea what you mean by 'single data points'. I don't think you do, either. As a drive-by poster, you simply like to post unsupported assertions that appeal to your own sense of vanity.
Congressional
Two major studies by the U.S. Congress have increased the volume of criticism surrounding abstinence-only education.
In 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman of California
released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate
information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex
education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those arguing
that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information
about sexuality.[12] The claimed errors included:
- misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives
- misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV
transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr.
Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was
inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have
the problems of Weller's study were available
- false claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
- treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact
- other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23).[12]
Out of the 13 grant-receiving programs examined in the 2004 study,
the only two not containing "major errors and distortions" were Sex Can Wait and Managing Pressures before Marriage,
each of which was used by five grantees, making them two of the least
widely used programs in the study. With the exception of the FACTS
program, also used by 5 grantees, the programs found to contain serious
errors were more widely used, ranging in usage level from 7 grantees
(the Navigator and Why kNOw programs) to 32 grantees (the Choosing the Best Life program). Three of the top five most widely used programs, including the top two, used versions of the same textbook, Choosing the Best, from either 2003 (Choosing the Best Life) or 2001 (Choosing the Best Path — the second most widely used program with 28 grantees — and Choosing the Best Way, the fifth most widely used program with 11 grantees).
In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school
students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were
just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not.[13]
From 1999 to 2006, the study tracked more than 2,000 students from age
11 or 12 to age 16; the study included students who had participated in
one of four abstinence education programs, as well as a control group
who had not participated in such a program. By age 16, about half of
each group — students in the abstinence-only program as well as
students in the control group — were still abstinent. Abstinence
program participants who became sexually active during the 7-year study
period reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as their
peers of the same age; moreover, they had sex for the first time at
about the same age as other students. The study also found that
students who took part in the abstinence-only programs were just as
likely to use contraception when they did have sex as those who did not
participate. Abstinence-only education advocates claim the study was
too narrow, began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy,
and ignored other studies that have shown positive effects.[14]
[
edit] Scientific and medical
Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association,[15] the American Medical Association,[16] the National Association of School Psychologists,[17] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[18] the American College Health Association,[18] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19] and the American Public Health Association,[20] which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.
The AMA "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality
education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making
condoms available to students and for providing both factual
information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual
abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms,
alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of
pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole
use of abstinence-only education..."[16]
The American Academy of Pediatrics
states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful
outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of
safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best
option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and
contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually
active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and
increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported
using birth control."[19]
On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal
published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that
abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours,
incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high
income countries".[21]
A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in
November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned
Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on
both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual
behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only
programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to
abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners.[22][23] According to the study author:
"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any
particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing
sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs
are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10
rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies
of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum,
studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to
justify their widespread dissemination."
Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States, is a notable critic of abstinence-only sex education. She was among the interviewees Penn & Teller included in their Bullshit! episode on the subject.[24]
Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania,
argues that abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the
intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted
diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both
infections and pregnancy.[25]
