Safe sex, save money

The budget deficit is reaching record levels. We are fighting and funding a "war" on terrorism. Tax revenue is down because of the economic slow-down and President Bush's tax cuts. Sounds like a perfect time to waste more money. \nAnd during the State of the Union address, the president outlined a plan that would do just that -- waste more money by doubling the funding for abstinence-only education programs. \nAbstinence-only programs began more than 20 years ago. In its first year, $11 million in federal funds went to the Adolescent Family Life Act. The program was originally designed to combat rising teen pregnancy rates. Since its inception, AFLA has morphed several times because of court challenges. Finally, in 1993, an out-of-court settlement stipulated that AFLA sexual education programs must meet the following guidelines: "not include religious references," "be medically accurate," "respect the 'principle of self-determination' regarding contraceptive referral for teenagers" and "not allow grantees to use church sanctuaries for their programs or to give presentations in parochial schools during school hours." At the beginning of the Bush administration, funding for abstinence-only programs stood at $100 million annually. Bush's proposal will increase funding to $270 million per year. \nAll the while, numerous studies continue to conclude abstinence-only programs are ineffective. In Minnesota, a study found sexual activity among junior high school students doubled after abstinence-only education. A Centers for Disease Control study concluded teen pregnancy prevention programs need to emphasize both abstinence and contraception. Most worrisome of all, Columbia University researchers discovered teens are one-third less likely to use protection if they break a "no sex pledge." Such pledge programs, though not funded by the government, have become popular with religious organizations around the country.\nThe results are in -- abstinence-only education is destructive and ineffective. President Bush appears to be using funds to mobilize the conservative base before the 2004 election. While using federal funds for political ends is nothing new, the consequences of this choice actually hurt people. This is what differentiates abstinence-only education from Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage. The marriage ban, while emotionally degrading to some, doesn't lead to unprotected sex among teenagers. How ironic -- we're spending money on a program to reduce teen pregnancy, but in reality, the program increases the likelihood that some teens will engage in unprotected sex. \nSex education is needed in our public schools. Abstinence should be taught because, as the president said in the State of the Union address, "Abstinence for young people is the only certain way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases." But, Mr. President, some kids will have sex anyway, so we better start teaching them how to do "it" safely, too.