Adolescent Sex Education
The American Academy of Pediatrics has released recommendations for an updated policy on teen pregnancy that argues abstinence education must be paired with information about and access to contraception. Dr. Jonathan Klein, chairman of the committee that devised the new recommendations, told the Associated Press: "Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy." Dr. S. Paige Hertweck, a pediatric obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Louisville who advised the committee, argued that promoting abstinence without also providing contraception leaves teens who do engage in intercourse far more likely to practice unsafe sex, opening the door to unwanted pregnancies and the threat of sexually transmitted diseases.
It goes without saying these days that the Bush Administration opposes such measures. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, reaffirmed the administration line that abstinence-only education provides adolescents with consistent information, arguing that offering contraception just makes the message confusing for them. He did admit that, although teens who aren't sexually active should not be distracted by contraception, access should be available to those who are active. Exactly how and when teens could gain information about and access to contraception so they could make use of it when they actually cross the line from nonactive to active was not clear.
That teens who might become sexually active should have all the options for abstinence and contraception available to them is such a no-brainer that it's amazing we're still fighting about it. But when I remind myself of the current political climate and the culture wars being waged every day, I come back to reality, and the situation all makes sense again. The new recommendations can be found in the July issue of the journal Pediatrics.
6 Comments:
It's nice to see the AAP taking a stand. They're also the people who say no tv at all for young children, with which I vehemently agree. However, it seems few people are listening to their no-tv advice, so I don't know that this will have much impact either. In the abstinence debate, people who are certain God is on their side are not going to listen to anyone, including a bunch of secular pediatricians.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I didn't know the AAP had a no-TV stance. I'd second that, too.
Kids don't need TV; they're already the most creative people in the world, because they have no filter on what they do.
Developing a filter, making choices, and choosing how to live one's life takes time. That's why young people need sex education--they're just developing and THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING YET.
To deny young people education about a serious life choice, just to satisfy your own personal dogma, is irresponsible, insensitive, and utterly stupid.
Just wait! Soon enough, some right-wingers will begin saying that their kids shouldn't have to endure teachers instructing them on how to read.
Their stance on tv is none until age two, after which they recommend max 30 minutes a day or something. If it were me, I'd recommend raising the no-tv-at-all age to 6 or 7.
Many in the home-schooling movement (a mix of many political types) already believe that they can teach their kids how to read better than teachers for many reasons, including that they get to decide exactly what their kids read and don't read....
My big problem with home-schooling is the same problem I have with prep schools and charter schools: that these worlds are self-selecting elite societies. I thought the whole point is that we were supposed to learn to live together.
I wish more people thought that was the point!
Post a Comment
<< Home