Congress added new funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs
ANALYSIS | Abstinence-only education doesn’t work. We’re still paying for it.

Adapted from a story by John Santelli for The Washington Post.
Buried among the many changes to health programs in this year’s federal budget was an important one. Congress added new funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, bringing the annual total to $90 million. And then in July, the Department of Health and Human Services announced it would end funding for the Office of Adolescent Health’s evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention program next year.
Research about abstinence-only programs is already quite clear: They don’t work, and they don’t prepare young people for life.
To be sure, abstinence from sexual activity can be a healthy choice for many young people.
- Some adolescents believe that sex before marriage is wrong.
- Many more feel they are not ready for a sexual relationship.
And while some adults think abstinence until marriage programs are the only moral choice for sex education, these programs fall short of the standards of medical ethics by limiting access to important health information.
The government shouldn’t be in the business of promoting an unrealistic and ineffective solution to adolescent sexual and reproductive health — particularly one that has been so overwhelmingly repudiated by health professionals and parents.
The scientific evidence is clear. While abstinence is theoretically effective in preventing pregnancy, in actual practice, intentions to abstain from sexual activity often fail.
The CDC examined scientific evaluations from 66 comprehensive risk reduction programs and 23 abstinence-only programs. The CDC found inconclusive evidence that abstinence-only programs helped young people delay sexual initiation; nor did they change other behaviors.
In contrast, CDC found comprehensive programs had favorable effects on multiple adolescent behaviors, including sexual initiation, number of sex partners, frequency of sexual activity, use of protection (condoms, oral contraceptives, or both), frequency of unprotected sexual activity, sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy.
In other words, comprehensive sexuality education helps young people remain abstinent, while abstinence-only education does not.
The goal of abstinence until marriage also is increasingly improbable, given the rising age at marriage around the globe. Young people in rich and poor countries are increasingly delaying marriage — often so young women and young men can complete education goals and begin careers — before starting a family.

Since 1982, the government has spent over $2 billion on domestic abstinence-only education programs. Federal funding guidelines for these programs have required an exclusive focus on abstinence, forbidding accurate information of condoms and contraception, sexual orientation and other aspects of human sexuality.
Some states began refusing the funding in the mid-2000s so they could provide comprehensive and medically accurate information. By 2009, nearly half of U.S. states were refusing abstinence-only dollars. In 2010, Congress shifted the focus of federal funding to evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs. But abstinence-only funding persisted — given renewed support from a conservative Congress after 2010.
Abstinence-only has been rejected by many mainline and progressive churches. National surveys demonstrate strong support among parents for sexuality education that gives young people all the information they need to protect their health.
The weight of scientific evidence is clear. Parents, health professionals, church folks, educators and young people all need to stand up and tell Congress and the president to stop spending on useless and harmful programs. Young people need straight talk about sex.

