I'm an ardent moderate, but I find the administration's compromises counterproductive. Obviously the stimulus compromise didn't work: the bill was watered down, and virtually no Republicans voted for it anyhow.
If the health bill passes, the sex education situation will go to $50 million for abstinence-only education, $50 million for evidence-based comprehensive sex education, and $25 million for experimental comprehensive sex education. That's not compromise. That's going also against popular opinion: 52% of even politically "very conservative" parents favor teaching birth control in schools, and 89% of the general population of parents. Just as most of the public and most physicians favor the public option, but that doesn't make it into policy either.
More importantly, it's going agsinst the findings of the Congressionally-mandated study finding that abstinence-only sex education doesn't work.
They're not listening to either the public or the researchers they hired.
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Monday, October 5, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
An open letter to Senator Orrin Hatch
Dear Senator Hatch,
I am the author of two of the approximately ten published papers about the sexual behavior of virginity pledgers. I found that virginity pledgers may lie about their sexual pasts and that they are less likely to use condoms when they do have sex.
Thank you for thinking of my research when you added an amendment for $50 million of Abstinence-Only Sex Education funds to the health reform bill. If the federal government does not fund abstinence education, my research into the sexual behavior of virginity pledgers and evangelical adolescents would lack policy relevance, so I'm truly grateful for this opportunity.
Nonetheless, I have to turn down this generous offer. I have a surfeit of other research topics, and I've moved on with my research. Even most abstinence proponents have moved on with their efforts. Every abstinence proponent I've spoken with, including leading Southern Baptists, seem to accept that their approach to sex education needs to be reworked. The evangelical media's reaction to my most recent paper finding virginity pledges do not work was mild (in the case of Focus on the Family Radio and the Baptist Press) and even favorable (in the case of Christianity Today).
More importantly, as you know, the case against Abstinence-Only Sex Education was definitively made by the Congressionally-mandated evaluation of the program published in 2007 by Mathematica Policy Research.
I consider that perhaps you made this amendment for ironic effect: if your amendment stays in the bill, the Democrats who favor health reform will have to vote for your abstinence funding. If so, your point was made, and I have laughed heartily at the irony. Now you can remove it.
Best of luck in your continued efforts.
Love,
Janet Rosenbaum, PhD
I am the author of two of the approximately ten published papers about the sexual behavior of virginity pledgers. I found that virginity pledgers may lie about their sexual pasts and that they are less likely to use condoms when they do have sex.
Thank you for thinking of my research when you added an amendment for $50 million of Abstinence-Only Sex Education funds to the health reform bill. If the federal government does not fund abstinence education, my research into the sexual behavior of virginity pledgers and evangelical adolescents would lack policy relevance, so I'm truly grateful for this opportunity.
Nonetheless, I have to turn down this generous offer. I have a surfeit of other research topics, and I've moved on with my research. Even most abstinence proponents have moved on with their efforts. Every abstinence proponent I've spoken with, including leading Southern Baptists, seem to accept that their approach to sex education needs to be reworked. The evangelical media's reaction to my most recent paper finding virginity pledges do not work was mild (in the case of Focus on the Family Radio and the Baptist Press) and even favorable (in the case of Christianity Today).
More importantly, as you know, the case against Abstinence-Only Sex Education was definitively made by the Congressionally-mandated evaluation of the program published in 2007 by Mathematica Policy Research.
I consider that perhaps you made this amendment for ironic effect: if your amendment stays in the bill, the Democrats who favor health reform will have to vote for your abstinence funding. If so, your point was made, and I have laughed heartily at the irony. Now you can remove it.
Best of luck in your continued efforts.
Love,
Janet Rosenbaum, PhD
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Late night Congressional abstinence exchange
Congress abstinence debate had the following exchange:
Later in the debate, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said federal dollars should only fund sex education programs -- including abstinence-only ones -- in schools that have proof that they cut pregnancy rates. She noted that abstinence-only sex ed came along in 1981.
[Joe] Barton [R- Tex.] interjected that abstinence-only has been around much longer than that, at least since his dating days. "Every girl I dated practiced it," he said. "And it was very effective, because when I went to pick them up, their fathers reinforced it on me. So it does work and it has been around much longer than the 1980s."
"Maybe," DeGette suggested to Barton, "it was [practiced] on a case-by-case basis."
Friday, June 26, 2009
Congratulations to North Carolina
North Carolina passed a bill mandating that 7-9th graders be taught both abstinence methods of contraception and STD prevention, and the governor is expected to sign it. This bill is different than the original proposed, which had required that all schools offer two sex ed classes that parents would choose between. This bill just allows parents to pull their children from the STD/pregnancy prevention portion of the class.
The current policy for the past 15 years has been that school districts that wish to teach birth control in school must go through a separate approval process to be able to teach birth control.
It is sad that no Republicans voted for the bill. I wonder whether there is any compromise legislation or any research that would convince Republicans to allow teaching birth control in schools.
The evidence from RAND's intervention to teach parents how to teach sex education to their adolescents finds that even with an 8 week program for these parents who volunteered to participate, the majority of parents STILL didn't teach their kids how to use condoms. And this is a group of parents cherry-picked for their motivation. Other parents would likely do worse. No matter what your ideals are about parents' duties towards their adolescents, the reality seems to be that if you want condom use to be taught, you have to put it in the schools. Or let them learn on youtube or in an STD clinic waiting room. Watching instructional videos in the waiting room of an STD clinic reduces the risk of repeat visits, after all.
The current policy for the past 15 years has been that school districts that wish to teach birth control in school must go through a separate approval process to be able to teach birth control.
It is sad that no Republicans voted for the bill. I wonder whether there is any compromise legislation or any research that would convince Republicans to allow teaching birth control in schools.
The evidence from RAND's intervention to teach parents how to teach sex education to their adolescents finds that even with an 8 week program for these parents who volunteered to participate, the majority of parents STILL didn't teach their kids how to use condoms. And this is a group of parents cherry-picked for their motivation. Other parents would likely do worse. No matter what your ideals are about parents' duties towards their adolescents, the reality seems to be that if you want condom use to be taught, you have to put it in the schools. Or let them learn on youtube or in an STD clinic waiting room. Watching instructional videos in the waiting room of an STD clinic reduces the risk of repeat visits, after all.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Flu risk perception
My understanding about the 1918 flu is that the first wave had few deaths, and those deaths followed standard pattern of seasonal flu: elderly and very young. The second wave came several months later and was a slightly changed form that had higher mortality, mostly in the healthiest age group, ages 20-40. These people didn't get it the first time around, so they were vulnerable in the second wave when it was more dangerous.
My question: is it possible that all these extreme measures such as closing schools --- e.g., Harvard closed down medical, dental, and public health schools today because of a case in the dental school --- will make the flu epidemic worse rather than better by inducing precaution fatigue and decreasing credibility of preventative measures such as vaccines and shutting down institutions so that when the flu is really serious people will assume it will be low mortality as it is now?
If this follows pattern of 1918, by the time the second scary wave of flu comes around, we will have a vaccine, perhaps even in adequate numbers to cover much of the population, but there's no vaccine for human irrationality. Everyone is getting all fired up now --- lots of parents kept their kids home at a local school here in suburban Baltimore due to 1 case in the school.
When the same thing happens next October or November, will people reason it's not important to be careful since last time turned out okay? Will people not bother to get the vaccine?
My question: is it possible that all these extreme measures such as closing schools --- e.g., Harvard closed down medical, dental, and public health schools today because of a case in the dental school --- will make the flu epidemic worse rather than better by inducing precaution fatigue and decreasing credibility of preventative measures such as vaccines and shutting down institutions so that when the flu is really serious people will assume it will be low mortality as it is now?
If this follows pattern of 1918, by the time the second scary wave of flu comes around, we will have a vaccine, perhaps even in adequate numbers to cover much of the population, but there's no vaccine for human irrationality. Everyone is getting all fired up now --- lots of parents kept their kids home at a local school here in suburban Baltimore due to 1 case in the school.
When the same thing happens next October or November, will people reason it's not important to be careful since last time turned out okay? Will people not bother to get the vaccine?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Is abstinence realistic?
The liberal reactions to Bristol Palin's statement that abstinence is not realistic were expected. The religious ones haven't gotten much attention.
One evangelical site says abstinence is an obligation so not up for discussion; instead society must be made so that abstinence becomes realistic. There are certainly groups of teenagers with lower (but non-zero!) rates of sexual activity than evangelical teenagers. I'm just not sure that those models work in the evangelical context. The whole principle of evangelical Christianity going back to Paul is to have a relatively low admission price in terms of obligations, so not everyone will be as committed and so may not be as likely to change their dating habits as in religious groups where adherents also have to change their diet or dress style. One admission price is attending an evangelical school as this person notes, so norms can be more successfully perpetuated in this environment in which everyone has already made a substantial commitment to even be there. It will be interesting to see whether more evangelical groups change their culture to become more conservative and separate the sexes more.
Bristol Palin's statement comes with very good timing. Hints at the future of abstinence-only education for FY 2010 will come at the end of the month when Obama submits his budget. Separately, according to the Economist Louise Slaughter's bill for medically-accurate sex education is likely to pass.
One evangelical site says abstinence is an obligation so not up for discussion; instead society must be made so that abstinence becomes realistic. There are certainly groups of teenagers with lower (but non-zero!) rates of sexual activity than evangelical teenagers. I'm just not sure that those models work in the evangelical context. The whole principle of evangelical Christianity going back to Paul is to have a relatively low admission price in terms of obligations, so not everyone will be as committed and so may not be as likely to change their dating habits as in religious groups where adherents also have to change their diet or dress style. One admission price is attending an evangelical school as this person notes, so norms can be more successfully perpetuated in this environment in which everyone has already made a substantial commitment to even be there. It will be interesting to see whether more evangelical groups change their culture to become more conservative and separate the sexes more.
Bristol Palin's statement comes with very good timing. Hints at the future of abstinence-only education for FY 2010 will come at the end of the month when Obama submits his budget. Separately, according to the Economist Louise Slaughter's bill for medically-accurate sex education is likely to pass.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Advice and why it's so rarely taken
This American Life on why people so rarely take advice, which is perhaps truly the crux of this abstinence situation. Conservative evangelicals don't want the advice of researchers on what works. Kids only kind-of want the advice of their parents. Parents don't follow the advice to talk to their kids about sex.
The first 3 minutes involve a guy channeling an Israeli commando. Very worth listening just for that.
The first 3 minutes involve a guy channeling an Israeli commando. Very worth listening just for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)