Disagrements
Abstinence vs. Comprehensive:
Most Americans agree that sex education should be mandated in schools. However, there is a dispute about which kind to implement: abstinence-only or comprehensive education.
Abstinence-only Sex Education (AOE):
Teaches that abstinence “from sex is the only morally acceptable option” (KFF)
Teaches that 100% effective method of avoiding contracting STIs or becoming pregnant
Neglects to mention contraception, except when using its failure rate as a scare tactic
For example, a pro-abstinence educator may discuss condoms, not in the context of explaining how to prevent pregnancy or getting an STD, but instead to underline how condoms are ineffective 3% of the time to dissuade being in a situation where using one is necessary (NCBI)
The District of Columbia and 39 other states “require provision of information on abstinence”, with 28 of said states emphasizing that abstinence must be stressed (Guttmacher Institute). When abstinence is required teens have “higher rates of teenage pregnancy and births, even after accounting for other factors such as socioeconomic status, education, and race” (KFF)
Comprehensive Sex Education:
Has been found to lower the risk of teen pregnancy by 50% compared to youth who were solely exposed to AOE (KFF)
Covers a plethora of factors related to sexual health without stigmatization of the subject at hand
In addition to teaching about abstinence, comprehensive education covers contraception, pregnancy prevention, communication/consent, and maturation (KFF). Teenagers receive more relevant and useful information from comprehensive sex education, which can help them make an informed decision if and when they become sexually active.
Religion:
Despite the alleged separation of church and state, religion has a longstanding influence on American policy. Compared to other religions, Christianity most frequently has ascendancy over laws, so it is no surprise when scripture sways legislation:
88% of the legislative branch identifies as Christian, compared to about 65% of the general public (Pew Research).
“Just three of the 261 Republicans who were sworn in on Jan. 3 (1%) do not identify as Christian” (Pew Research).
Historically, right-wing Christians have opposed sex education, honoring their commitment to chastity. The Church of Jesus Christ defines chastity as “sexual purity” through “thoughts, words, and actions” Church of Jesus Christ).
According to the church, the only way to achieve this is to “abstain from fornication” (1 Thessalonians 4:3), as the Apostle Paul urged.
Since sex education began to receive more attention in the early 70s, groups such as the John Birch Society and Christian Crusade would discourage education in schools by comparing it to communism. At the same time, general opposition to Sex Ed stemmed from “uncertainty about its effects”, uneducated teachers, and “general concern over premarital chastity and morals” (JStor).
This conflict has been generally constant throughout time, as despite the advancements being made, religion is used to prolong the existence of abstinence-only education when alternative methods have been proven far more effective and beneficial to youth.
Members of the American public resist sex education in schools because of their own religious views; religion dominates the existence of sex education in much of this country. As religious ideology is often passed on from parent to child, many children may not want sex education for themselves because they think abstinence is the only way to remain chaste. If this dedication to "purity" remained a personal choice, this would not be a problem. However, as previously mentioned, religion is not as separate from the state as many like to admit. Personal views on chastity become reality for many Americans who do not have the same belief about religion. The result of this is that non-Christian teenagers are receiving sex education curated for and by Christians: abstinence-only education.
Funding:
Historically, abstinence-only programs receive more money from the federal government than comprehensive programs. Ever since the 80s, states have known that adopting abstinence programs means that the federal government will give them funding. The government currently has funding streams for sexual education, as shown in the chart below:
Funding for TPPP was adjusted under the Trump administration, as they were told they would only receive funding if they adhered to new guidelines, which mandated an abstinence program (sexual risk avoidance model or sexual risk reduction model). In total, the federal government spent 1.5 billion dollars on abstinence education programs in 14 years.
The Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) and The President’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative (TPPI) are federal programs that grant money to organizations that spread “medically accurate, evidence-based programs that cover both abstinence and contraception”. States can pass these requirements by law or by the State Department of Education and State Departments of Education receive federal funds and they are the ones that decide who gets the money based on the implementation of the state decided curriculum (PU).
Societal Blocks:
There are certain components of sexual education that are not fully accepted by society, some of which are sexuality and gender identities. Unfortunately, LGBTQ+ students are often excluded from sexual health lessons, leading them to seek out information on their own. In doing so, they expose themselves to potentially inaccurate information online that may be misleading and dangerous. A lack of in-school education contributes to harmful stereotypes, as it does nothing to dismantle offensive misconceptions. In fact, one popular avenue for LGBTQ+ students to learn about their identity is through porn. This is highly problematic because porn is not representative of reality, and is incredibly misleading; it is filled with unsafe standards, such as not using condoms, emphasizing male pleasure, and over-sexualizing women. According to Psychology Today, “the likelihood of using porn as a source of sexual education also increased with age”, meaning the longer LGBTQ+ students are deprived of relevant resources, the more likely they are to gravitate towards pornography. Porn is not the only harmful result of exclusive sexual education. GLSEN reports that LGBTQ teens are more likely to have sex sooner than heterosexual teens, have more partners than heterosexual teens, engage in sexual acts, not use contraceptives, contact STIs, and become pregnant. Abstinence itself is a heteronormative term: it assumes the people involved in a sexual relationship are at risk of getting pregnant.
However, GLSEN also found that “Students in schools with an LGBT-inclusive curriculum, i.e. one that included positive representations of LGBT people, history and events, heard fewer homophobic remarks, were less likely to feel unsafe because of their sexual orientation (43.4% of students with an inclusive curriculum vs. 63.6% of other students), were more likely to report that their peers were accepting of LGBT people (67.0% vs. 33.0%) and felt more connected to their school.” Sexuality and gender are essential aspects of sex education, as LGBTQ+ students are equally deserving of being informed as to their cisgender and heterosexual peers; sex education is only comprehensive if it is inclusive.