Abstinence under Fire

This week, Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat  released a report critical of Federally funded abstinence programs. The Waxman report lists 5 flaws with abstinence education programs.

1. Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives.
2. Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risk of Abortion.
3. Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science.
4. Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact.
5. Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors.

Of course the Waxman report is an attempt to paint the entire concept of abstinence education as flawed.  Many of the claims of the report are questionable. For example, the report states that, "Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception." The Waxman report makes some good points but it is an amalgam of individual flaws drawn from several programs presented to indict all abstinence based programs.

Sex education programs that are not abstinence-based present as fact the religious view that life does not begin at conception.

The real issue in American sex education is the flaws in the non abstinence-based programs still in use in the majority of American schools. The primary problem with non-Abstinence Curricula is that they begin with the premise that kids will have sex, therefore we must teach kids how to have sex responsibly.  Proponents say that abstinence is just not realistic.

Since this is the majority thinking in education today, the dis-oriented author would like to propose the following defeatist curricula for adoption by our nation's schools.

1. Fire prevention curricula that teaches kindergarten students how to responsibly play with matches. (Emphasis on playing in well-ventilated areas away form accellerants like gasoline.)
2. Drunk driving curricula that teaches students how to drive drunk responsibly. (Emphasis on not carrying passengers, and letting people know your routes  in advance should you drive off a bridge or into a ditch. This precaution will limit the uncertainty and make it easier  for your family to find and identify your remains.)
3. Bullying curriculum that teaches students how to be compassionate, safe bullies. (Emphasis on not over- bullying a single student who might go postal but to try bullying mores students less to minimize the impact.)
4. Cheating/Plagiarism curricula that teaches students how to cheat without getting caught. (Emphasis on how to use term paper sites on the web without directly copying to make it harder to prove plagiarism.)
5. Sexual harassment curricula that teaches students how to make subtly inappropriate comments. (Emphasis on double-entendre so that statements made appear innocuous if taken out of context.)

Obviously these programs are absurd. It would be irresponsible to send such mixed messages too our kids. Programs such as these would actually be harmful to our kids and likely lead to the kinds of behaviors thay are trying to curb.

Why is it that we cannot see the absurdity of Sex Education that is not abstinence based?