Public Service in Practice: Learn what it’s like to run for office with Seth Moulton ‘01
Posted 11/19/13 by Jacob CarrelRead post »
Posted 2/02/10 by Eva Lam
The Washington Post reports that a federally funded study of abstinence-only sex education, which got a lot of cash from the Clinton administration on, offers the first reasonably scientific evidence that abstinence-only might be effective. (For some of the large body of evidence that many abstinence-only programs are riddled with distortions and outright lies, see The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, aka Reasons Henry Waxman is Awesome.)
But wait! Not only was the program in question directed at sixth- and seventh-graders; it was also much unlike many programs that do receive federal funding
It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.
Moral of the story: when you take away 90% of the things that suck about abstinence-only education, it turns out that abstinence-only education sucks about 90% less.