Abstinence-only-until-marriage proponents hope that by misrepresenting the recent study on abstinence education they can continue getting funding for programs that have nothing in common with the single one that’s been proven effective.

Big news last week for the “sex is evil and should be

avoided” crowd—big media organizations all over the country trumpeted

that abstinence-only education "works". Naturally, I was skeptical that the sex-phobes had actually

produced a curriculum that convinced young people to put off sex for the 15

years between the onset of puberty and getting married, and indeed, a quick

perusal of the story demonstrated that the program in question only delayed the

onset of sexual activity for 2 years for a percentage of the students. As usual, by their own measurement,

abstinence-only proponents were a miserable failure, and the 95 percent number

(that’s the percent of Americans that have had premarital sex) remains

unchanged.

But knowing as I do how much the religious right loves a bad

faith argument, I was also not surprised to see abstinence-only supporters

pretend that an utter failure to convince kids to wait until marriage was a

win for them. Apparently, the

war on sex is a war of attrition and any reduction in orgasmic activity is a

plus in their book. But upon

investigating the claims that the abstinence-until-marriage crew was “right”, I

found that their declarations of victory were even more dishonest than

usual. Because the program

trumpeted by the anti-sex crew had no

relationship to the abstinence-until-marriage programs promoted by the

religious right and funded

under the Bush administration.

This successful program very narrowly taught a bunch of 6th

and 7th graders to wait until they were ready, accepting that for

the vast majority of them, “ready” is going to come before marriage. “Wait

until prom” is a much different message than “wait until marriage”. There was

no denouncing of contraception you get in the standard abstinence-only

curriculum, and in fact the teachers were told that if a student expressed

misinformation about condoms, that they were to correct them. As

Jill Filipovic noted in the Guardian, “In other words, the programme was

exactly what the abstinence portion of a good comprehensive sex-ed class would

look like.”

Very few people in the comprehensive sex education camp

think that 12-year-olds having sex is usually a good idea. Most kids that age want the ability to

say no more than they want the right to say yes, and so crafting programs to

their needs is exactly the sort of thing a good sex educator should do. But as Hanna

Rosin noted, it’s silly to think that this approach will do much for 15-

and 16-year-olds whose sexual activity is far more likely to be exactly what

they want. At best, what we’ve

learned is that teaching negotiation skills to say no is good for younger kids,

and then older kids are probably still going to need and want sex-positive,

medically accurate information, so that they sex they instigate on their own is

safer.

Since this program that worked openly flouted the

abstinence-only curriculum promoted by people like the executive director of

the National Abstinence Education Association, you’d think that Valerie Huber

would oppose it. But instead,

Huber told

the New York Times that this is great news. And was shockingly honest about why she’d think that:

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

“The current recommendation before

Congress in the 2011 budget zeroes out abstinence education, and puts all the

money into broader comprehensive education,” Ms. Huber said. “I hope that

either the White House amends their request or Congress acts upon this,

reinstating abstinence education.”

So, in other words, she hopes that by misrepresenting this

study, she can get funding reinstated for programs that have nothing in common

with this single one that’s been proven effective. This shouldn’t be surprising at all — abstinence-only is big

business. Lisa

Lerner at Politico wrote an interesting article demonstrating how politicians

seeking political gains among conservative supporters have cynically exploited abstinence-only

earmarks, and it’s interesting to see in just examining Arlen Specter’s

earmarks that are the beneficiaries of the funding.

The

Urban Family Council, which received more than $310,000 in earmarks in the

past, collected an additional $24,000 last year. The group was founded by a

Philadelphia evangelical activist and is known for its aggressive efforts to

block benefits for gay partners of city employees. A+ for Abstinence, a Christian program

that runs a website called coolvirginity.com, received $24,000. The program,

according to the website, “shares sexual purity in an innovative and

spiritually sound way that speaks directly to the hearts of young people.”

Abstinence-only

money goes to anti-choice organizations, evangelical groups, and other

religious groups that then express their gratitude by reinforcing the message

the Jesus was a Republican.

Cutting abstinence-only funds hit the bottom line of these groups pretty

hard. No wonder they want the

money back, enough that they’re apparently willing to promote a study they

ideologically oppose in order to reopen that funding stream.

Not

that there’s anything wrong with building up non-profits that rely on

government funds to do your work, of course. The problem arises when the work you do is harmful and opposed to taxpayer wishes, and you

therefore misrepresent what you do in order to get your hands on the money. Valerie

Huber has employed this strategy for a long time,

characterizing abstinence-only in such a way that it sounds just like

good comprehensive sex education, while actually

supporting scare-‘em-lie-to-‘em-moralize-at-‘em ineffective, unethical

abstinence-until-marriage programs. Call it the sex ed bait and

switch — the voters want comprehensive sex education that teaches kids skills

so they can delay sex if they want to, and Huber is happy to pretend that’s what

she’s selling if it keeps the funding flowing for the programs she wants. If she can’t be honest, it’s supposed

to be the media’s job to call her out on the carpet, not give her a platform

from which she claim credit for effective programs she’s seeking to demolish so

she can replace them her own ineffective, moralizing ones.