Governor is wrong on abstinence education
Matt Kinnaman
Berkshire Eagle
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
In 1998, with President Clinton in the Oval Office, the federal budget dispensed its first round of abstinence education funding to Massachusetts. Averaging more than $700,000 a year, the money has come to the commonwealth every year since.
Not anymore. Gov. Deval Patrick — who launched his political career working for President Clinton — has eradicated it from the state's 2008 budget. The money will now be sent to other states instead, and Massachusetts middle school students will lose the chance to learn additional positive strategies for responsible sexual behavior.
Why is the governor against abstinence education? It conveys a straightforward truth supported by an overwhelming majority of parents: 11-13 year old kids have no business having sex. Does Governor Patrick agree? If he does, wouldn't he want to support these kids when they are especially vulnerable to peer pressure and media misinformation about sex? Apparently not.
Gov. Patrick's decision raises further questions: How can a man who achieved personal, business, and political success by professing self-discipline and high standards now deny Massachusetts' middle school students their best opportunity to blaze the same path to success themselves?
That's what he's doing. By refusing abstinence education funding, Gov. Patrick denies a basic, universal understanding — the long-held cultural agreement that moral education is critical to overall intellectual and social wholeness.
That's why teachers show up for work every day and enforce rules and standards in their classrooms. That's why all parents — liberals and conservatives alike — teach their kids the difference between right and wrong on matters big and small.
Young kids facing the complex and consequential decisions of life need all the help they can get. So why, when it comes to the most complex and consequential decisions of teenage behavior, does Gov. Patrick want to shortchange the conversation?
Why does our governor, on one hand, support "comprehensive" sex education that teaches middle school students clinical expertise in the ins and outs of various sexual techniques, while denying these same students equal time for reinforcement in the basic values of delayed gratification, wise choices, and sound preparation for marriage and family life? ·
And where does our legislative delegation stand? Rep. Christopher Speranzo, D-Pittsfield, is reportedly concerned about the strong morality tone of abstinence education, according to The Eagle. Take an honest look at the life-long effects of teen pregnancy, and the rampant march of STDs among adolescents, and then ask yourself: what's wrong with a strong morality tone?
State Senator Benjamin B. Downing, D-Pittsfield says that "when it comes to any type of funding, especially with sex education, programs should be science-based and they should be able to show some type of success. That's something we haven't seen in abstinence-only education."
Yes we have. Positive data is readily available. As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health showed abstinence education approaches that were dramatically effective in reducing sexual activity among teenagers in grades 7-12."
The national Title XX abstinence program revealed that students who participated in their study's evaluated curriculum "were 30 percent to 50 percent less likely to commence sexual activity than were those who did not participate."
States from Utah to Arkansas and cities from Cleveland to Atlanta feature successful abstinence education programs. Boston, Lowell, Worcester, and Pittsfield deserve nothing less.
And back to Senator Downing's standard that "all funding should be science-based." Here's something science-based: students who abstain from sex are scientifically proven to experience 0 percent of teen pregnancies, and have a 0 percent infection rate for STDs.
Beyond that, while science is important, a parent might also reasonably ask our politicians if sexuality is really just science-based after all, or if there aren't also moral and social aspects of sexuality worth exposing our students to.
This much is certain — all parents in Massachusetts want their children to learn self-control instead of promiscuity. Does Gov. Patrick want the same thing? Is he ignoring the data? Is he ignoring the priorities of parents?
One more irony: Against the backdrop of his veto, Gov. Patrick incredulously says he actually supports abstinence education. If that's true, he has a golden opportunity to prove it. He can simply do the right thing, and restore abstinence education funding for the kids of Massachusetts.
Matt Kinnaman is an occasional Eagle contributor.