Bush Administration Twists Facts to Trick States into Accepting Funds for Ineffective Abstinence-Only Programs

Title V Grant Extension Is a Gimmick

The following is a media release from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. I question the administration's motives. Among other things, few if any federal grants are made for five years. I'd feel a tiny bit better if there were five year grants for HIV prevention education, family planning services, etc. I'm interested to learn what you think about this.

Washington, DC — Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today criticized the Bush administration for misleading states about the certainty of Title V abstinence-only program funding in a new grant extension announced last week. The move is a gimmick aimed directly at countering states’ rejection of failed abstinence-only programs.

"On the way out the door, the Bush administration is once again caught misrepresenting the facts to push its own agenda," said PPFA President Cecile Richards. "This latest announcement is nothing more than a gimmick and offers nothing new or different for states that want to provide effective programs to protect teens’ health and safety.”

Last week, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) sent an e-mail to states touting the extension of the Title V, Section 510 State Abstinence Education Grant Program, and informing them that they may now submit one application for funding for five years, from fiscal year (FY) 2009 through FY2013. Previously, states were required to submit a new Title V grant application each year.

The grant extension distorts the facts around funding availability for Title V. In fact, Congress must still determine whether to grant an extension of the program past June 2009, meaning funding uncertainty still exists for state programs.

“The facts are clear: abstinence only programs do not work,” Richards said. “The government’s own evaluation of Title V found that these programs did nothing to increase abstinence or delay sexual initiation among participating youth.”

To date, 25 states have declined federal abstinence-only dollars. Officials in many of those states have expressed clear and unequivocal support for real solutions that give teens the information they need to be healthy and safe.

In the last decade, more than $1.5 billion in federal and state funding has been wasted on dangerous abstinence-only programs that deny teenagers lifesaving information. It’s time to put that money toward real solutions that will help prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among teenagers.

We have a preventable public health problem in this country — an estimated 750,000 American teens will become pregnant this year and nearly four million will contract a sexually transmitted infection. Teenagers need to know how to protect themselves against unintended pregnancy and HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections. They need the right information to make responsible decisions. We need education programs in our schools that will keep teens healthy — by including information about abstinence as well as contraception, healthy communication, responsible decision making, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections. I hope that the readers of this blog will help me to spread the truth about this administration's latest attempt to force ideology over science.

The "Glucester Pact"

There has been an international media obsession with the group of teen girls in Gloucester, Massachusetts who may or may not have made a pact to become teen parents. It makes me sad that it took such a tabloid-style story to bring people's attention to the issues of teen pregnancy prevention, sexuality education, and the limited opportunities we offer to teens.

To me, the story is not about pacts. It is about the much larger issue of the way our society treats disadvantaged teens, especially young women. It is about our culture's institutionalization of misinformation about sexuality through the misguided, wholesale government support of abstinence-only programs. It is about society's tendency to stick its head in the sand when the issue is teen sexuality. And it is about our country's deficit of resources available to teens when dealing with the present and planning their futures.

But these things are too complicated for a simple headline or opening story.

I couldn't agree more with Jeanne Blake of Words Can Work. She wrote, "Changing the environment that resulted in so many teen pregnancies will require a long-term, far-reaching approach."

Are we up to the task?