Abstinence Only and the new Supreme Court
Via Jessica at Feministing comes a hint of a little softening on the abstinence-only education front. The post is short and Jessica's commentary is to the point so I'm quoting the whole thing here.
This is surprisingly good news from a state that has been so insane lately.
A South Dakota Senate committee rejected a measure that would have required schools push abstinence in sex education.
HB1217 had passed the House by a wide margin, but the Senate Education Committee voted 6-1 to kill the bill after some senators said it would take away some control by local school districts.
Other opponents also said they believe the bill is flawed because it would prevent schools from including education on contraceptives, information they said some students need to protect themselves against pregnancy and diseases.
This is especially important considering that any day now women won't be able to obtain an abortion in South Dakota.
While I've nicked the entire post you can read it again here.
I may have mentioned once or twice that abstinence-only education isn't very effective. And if I did I still wasn't the first person to point out that it doesn't work because a) people still wind up having sex and b) when (usually not if) they do they're clueless about avoiding an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy because *they've never learned how!*
With the Supreme Court able, and, ready and almost certainly willing to strip women of their right to reproductive self-determination the stakes are about to be raised, dramatically, sex education curriculum selection. As long as Red-state voters knew they had a "well, we're different so just this once" out they could afford to pretend that only inner-city people, or east/west-coast liberals have abortions. If they finally get what they've been clamoring for the last 30 years, it's not just going to be people they don't know coming home pregnant with no recourse, it's going to be their own football stars and cheerleaders, their *own* children who are going to become premature fathers and mothers. (If they don't know they're going to start finding out maybe roughly three to five months after the inevitable decision is handed down, and certainly after the next graduation dance, which ever comes first.)
Under those circumstances we can expect people to start taking a harder look at the effectiveness of their education decisions. I'm not sure what motivated the South Dakota legislature to balk at imposing abstinence-only education on their children, but I don't think they'll be the last to do so.
As my blog title suggests, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about underage sex, and I applaud efforts to encourage young people to wait as long as they can to start. But since I'm also realistic about the foolish chances even well-meaning young people take I think it's a pretty good idea to give them the education, and the materials, to avoid compounding their mistakes. It's encouraging that, at the very least, South Dakota isn't actively moving in away from that.
One more thing, something I'm going to be saying more and more over time: Nobody in the debates over sex education, birth control availability, or abortion wants more unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. If you stand and look from far enough back it's clear we're all just haggling over the best way to get there. With the stakes about to get much higher we might start seeing a little less posturing and a little more honest strategizing from both directions.
There seems to be this new fad concerning 'absintence' education. We don't have it in our faces here so much, not blatantly pointed out, but its there in the media. It's like (and I know this sounds stupid), the 'Coalition' nations have this one agenda and to be blunt, it scares the fuck out of me because we're living in the 21st Century, but they all want to live in the era of 'Leave it to Beaver' or something.
The one thing I'll never get over (because it's downright hypocrisy) is the view any 'Right to Life' organisation has, and the reason I mention them, is because they stick their noses in there when abortion becomes a topic or the flame is fanned but funnily enough all these Right to Life people (the 'nice benevolent Christians') don't really protest or are seen 'giving a shit' about the millions of children that die of hunger, disease, in 'poorer' nations (that are dressed up with the term 'developing', when they're basically developing more HIV and hunger).
I think abstinence education has no place in schools, it's up to parents to educate their kids, if they can't be bothered then that's their issue, they have to lie in the bed they make. The reason I say that it has no place in schools is because education about sex is educational, telling a person what to do and how to behave (or what decision to make) is practically totalitarian and I don't think a 'democratic' government should be doing that. How long before they, for example, transform into China and dictates a 'one child policy?'. Sounds far fetched, I know, but a lot of things posing as 'democratic' rights don't really illustrate one's personal 'freedom' and abstinence 'education' by teachers is one of these things.
I don't see why everyone else in society has to sit there and bother with the wealthy nations and their 'issues' (absintence, for one) and this fear of sex and intimacy.
"As my blog title suggests, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about underage sex, and I applaud efforts to encourage young people to wait as long as they can to start."
I agree that underage/teenagers should wait until they're ready, but unfortunately outside industries do promote the notion that being sexually active 'as soon as possible' is the 'in thing' or whatever else. Sometimes I also do think parents influence a child's priorities from the beginning. Parents who don't take an interest in their children more or less allow their children to take charge (in terms of exploration and experimentation).
[I'm mildly hopeful that abstinence-only education is actually an old fad, like pet rocks, that people will look back on and say "what were we thinking?" I also agree that while the abstinence folks and the advertising media (for instance -- see that utterly conscienceless Pizza Hut ad with Jessica Simpson) are at odds over tactics but united in their belief that sex is an event instead of an ordinary act. On one side it's a transformational event to be forestalled, in the other it's a transformational event to be longed for, but sides see sex as something something that will happen to you instead of something you do routinely (like dining with your family) with no transformation at all. Thanks, Ana. -- fl]
Figleaf:
As I mentioned earlier, I sincerely appreciate your numerous postings on the issue of abortion. I was a volunteer for an organization which raised funds for women who could not afford abortions. I also volunteered my time with an agency that evaluated abortion clinics to ensure adequate safety and licensing standards.
What motivated me to volunteer was the abortion I had to arrange for myself at age 19 before abortion became legal. The residents of South Dakota will find that legislation will not stop teenagers or preteens from having sex, not for lurid reasons, but because it is one of the most important experiences of one's life. It is something for which you long and something for which you will take risks.
But it is chilling to hear your doctor tell you where you can go to get a relatively safe, albeit illegal, abortion and to hear his parting message: "Do not tell anyone you got the name and phone number from me. I'll deny it. If you're caught, you're the one going to jail, not me."
It is chilling to empty your savings account of next semester's tuition and walk around with so much money, because you were told to bring only cash.
It is chilling to go to a deserted office building on a Sunday morning, and shiver as the "doctor" (you hope he is a licensed doctor) smokes a cigarette while putting on his latex gloves.
When enough young women of South Dakota endure this experience (and they will), or when their boyfriends and parents witness their daughters in the same type of setting, they may question the wisdom of the ban.
They may also question the ban when a woman who is in her third trimester learns that the fetus she is carrying is dead. Since removal of the dead fetus is technically considered an abortion, and the mother's life is not in danger, the woman will have to wait until her body eventually rejects the fetus. This is not an exaggeration, since individuals covered by federally funded health care cannot request abortions. This was the plight of my friend's daughter. She could obtain an abortion only with private funds at a private clinic. So even if abortion is legal now, it is certainly not available for all women who seek it.
Once again, my sincere thanks for addressing this issue as many times as you have.
Kochanie
[Yikes, Kochanie! I hadn't considered that abortion after fetal death would also be restricted but of course it would be. And if the procedure's not taught in medical school (because it's illegal or unpopular) then of course doctors are put in the position of forcing women to carry an already dead baby to term. Yikes! Thanks for the reminder. --fl]
You and I are very much on similar wave-lengths. I've been meaning to write a post about abstinance only but I've just been too busy.
Well done.
[Cool, Shay. I look forward to hearing your perspective. Thanks for the heads-up. --fl]