What's the Matter with Oklahoma?

Sometimes things happen by coincidence, but they are teachable moments nonetheless.

Today is the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court's decision in Roe v Wade. To commemorate the anniversary, there will be a showing of the documentary, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" based on the best-selling book. The invitation for tonight's event shows the title, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" except in the place of "Kansas" there is a colorful, vintage postcard of Oklahoma.

So, what's the matter with Oklahoma?

There's mostly wonderful things. That's why I live here. But it's not all good, which is also why I live here. We need people willing to work toward positive, progressive change.

Last night, I was working with a group of teenagers who were on probation for a variety of reasons. We talked very candidly about safer sex, about HIV, and about healthy relationships. About every two minutes, one of the young women would say, "Why don't they teach us that in school?" and, "How come they don't ever teach us the truth in school?"

The answer can be simple or complex. Some people are afraid of teenagers and especially afraid of teen sexuality. Those people worry that sex education causes teens to have lots of casual sex with lots of people. They believe that if you include other information along with abstinence messages, you'll lead kids to ruin. (Someone even told me once that they thought providing sex ed for young people would be bad for teenagers' "monkey see, monkey do" way of thinking.) Well, those people who want to restrict access to age-appropriate information and who equate teens with monkeys have been calling the shots for far too long.

We know for a fact that REAL sexuality education answers the questions that teens are asking. REAL sexuality education confronts head-on the types of challenges that young people face. It's not easy. It can be down right uncomfortable at times, but teens respond to it. It is medically accurate, and it helps many teens delay sexual activity and leads other teens to use methods of risk reduction if they do participate in sexual activity.

It's frustrating when I'm before a new group of teens who greet me with, "Yea, we know the drill. Sex is bad. Don't have it before marriage. Being a teen parent is not good. Blah, blah, blah. It's not going to be anything we haven't hear before." Then after our meeting, they say something like, "How come they don't teach us this in school?"

It could just as well be, "What's the matter with Oklahoma?"

As Our Leaders Argue

Happy new year!

The end of 2009 was packed with educational programs, training, and program planning, so much so that blogging kind of bit the dust for a while. But nothing has stopped - the need for good, sound sexuality education; the always looming numbers of people newly infected with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections; the gap in access to sexual health care services; and the ever-present prospect of health care reform that could help or hurt the sexual health status of our citizenry.

It is hard to imagine that I have not added to this blog since November. Although the older I get, the faster things rush by, some important things seem to take forever. Case in point: federal funding to support sexuality education that is R.E.A.L.

Since the state is in a financial pickle, budget cuts have been an easy excuse to eliminate the small amount of funding usually set aside for prevention programs. Therefore, some truly fine programs must seek other funding in an increasingly competitive market.

One hope is federal funding. Although people may have mixed feelings about tax dollars being used for prevention programs, we must remember that in the past, hundreds of millions of dollars were already being used for restrictive, ineffective abstinence-only programs. Just think of what that money could do by supporting effective programs! The old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure comes to mind.

Nonetheless, it has been a waiting game on the federal front. The following is from the Women's Health Policy Report of the National Partnership for Women and Families.

Abstinence-Only Advocates Urge Congress To

Preserve Funding in Senate Health Reform Bill

January 4, 2010

Advocates for abstinence-only programs are hoping that a provision in the Senate's health reform bill (HR 3590) will restore federal funding to their programs, which did not receive funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget, the Washington Post reports. The Senate bill includes an amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would allocate $50 million for states to fund abstinence-only curriculum encouraging adolescents to delay sexual activity until marriage as a way to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection rates.

The FY 2010 budget includes more than $110 million for a new "teenage pregnancy prevention" initiative that would only allocate funds for programs that have been "proven effective through rigorous evaluation." The program would be administered by a new Office of Adolescent Health at HHS.

Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, which is lobbying to maintain federal funding for abstinence-only programs, said more than 130 programs, reaching 1.5 million adolescents, would lose funding by September 2010 unless some funding is restored through health reform legislation. Huber said advocates for abstinence-only education are "optimistic," adding, "Nothing is certain, but we're hopeful."

Abstinence-only programs received more than $100 million in federal funding annually during George W. Bush's administration, as well as about $50 million in federal funding allocated to states that utilized such programs. However, the programs became the subject of mounting criticism after studies showed that abstinence-only education was ineffective and that the decline in teen pregnancies was slowing, the Post reports.

Abstinence-only programs "deny young people life-saving information about condoms and other forms of prevention," James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, said. The FY 2010 budget "not only marks the return of science and evidence back to health policy but also provides a critical infusion of funding to implement comprehensive sex education and teen pregnancy prevention programs," Wagoner said.

While the budget would effectively eliminate abstinence-only programs that focus on preserving virginity, it does include $25 million for new, innovative programs that "could potentially embrace encouraging abstinence," the Post reports. Some said the funding was included as a way to pacify conservative critics, but Huber and other abstinence-only advocates remain skeptical. "There is absolutely no priority given to risk avoidance," Huber said, adding, "So there is no certainty that even one dollar would go to this approach."

According to the Post, it is "unclear" how the issue will be resolved when the House and Senate meet to merge their versions of health reform legislation. The House version (HR 3962) does not include funding for abstinence-only programs, but it does include $50 million for states to finance comprehensive sex education programs. The Senate bill includes $75 million for comprehensive programs administered by states (Stein, Washington Post, 12/17/09).

Cutting Abstinence-Only 'Right Move,' Editorial Says

The elimination of federal funding for abstinence-only programs under the FY 2010 budget is "the right move," a Newark Star-Ledger editorial says. A 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated a rise in the teen pregnancy rate in 2006 for the first time in 15 years, while a 2008 CDC study found that at least 25% of teenage girls have an STI, the editorial notes. "Many states ... wisely opted out of the [abstinence-only] program years ago, finding it contradicted their own curriculum for teaching protection against [STIs], HIV and AIDS," the editorial says.

However, "some conservative lawmakers refuse to acknowledge the policy's shortcomings," including Hatch, the editorial continues.The funding in Hatch's amendment "would go to better use if put toward legislation sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)," which would "ensure that teenagers get the information they need to protect themselves if they choose to engage in sexual activity," the editorial continues. Lautenberg and Lee's bill "would set aside funds for comprehensive sex education, including education on abstinence and contraception," and also ensure that "young people receive medically correct information." It "earmarks a special appropriation for education programs that teach about pregnancy prevention" and STIs, the editorial adds (Newark Star-Ledger, 12/16/09).


Here's hoping that 2010 is remembered as the year our country actually did something positive to increase sexual health and decrease unintended pregnancies and infections.