Get R.E.A.L. Oklahoma!

The condoms are coming! The condoms are coming!

2012-02-06T13:21:00.000-08:00

Have you heard the news? National Condom Week 2012 is coming! Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma will be cruising around Oklahoma from February 10th to the 17th to hand out plenty of FREE condoms, lubricants, and more! Yea, yea, I can already hear it: “I don’t like condoms.” Have you asked yourself why they might not be pleasurable? Have you also thought of ways to make them fun and engaging? Believe it or not-there are hundreds of different condoms. Some are flavored; others have ridges, dots, or grooves. They come in crazy colors, and there are even glow in the dark rubbers! Did you know that you can get extra large or tighter fit condoms? There’s something for everyone!

Now, now, you might be thinking, “Well condoms don’t work.” This, my friend, is a popular misconception! When used correctly, male latex condoms can be up to 96% effective at preventing pregnancy. If you’re interested in spicing things up, try the female condom! It offers the same protection against pregnancy and is made of a soft material called nitrile. Both male and female condoms can provide protection against STI transmission (including HIV). If you’re allergic to latex, be sure to try a polyurethane male condom or the female condom. Just don’t use an animal skin condom; they are porous and will not protect you against some scary STIs!

Want to learn more and get free stuff? Come check us out at our NCW table! You can grab all the freebies that your heart desires, play “Guess the Number of Condoms in the Jar” for an awesome prize, and even do some condom trivia! Want a sneak peak? What year can the first condom be traced to? Drum roll please…1850 BC! Bet you didn’t know that one!

DATES/LOCATIONS:

February 10th, 13th, 14th-University of Oklahoma Student Union (by the bookstore and Wendy’s)
-9 AM-4 PM each day

February 14th-University of Central Oklahoma
-Women & Gender Studies will host a table stocked by PPCO!

February 15th-Oklahoma City University (by the cafeteria)
-11:30 AM-1 PM

GET READY for NCW 2012!

"What will it take to end Cervical Cancer?"

2012-01-18T12:57:00.000-08:00

January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, and in honor of this, we post an article that asks this important question. The author makes practical suggestions that we support on the Get R.E.A.L. blog, like emphasising a comprehensive sexual education curriculum for all students, and ending the stigma that surrounds cervical cancer, and that also colors the way we think, feel and talk about sexuality, our bodies and our genitals . The article also addressed the importance of bringing everyone to the table, since we all have a role to play in ending cervical cancer: parents, friends, boyfriends and husbands, cervical cancer survivors, lesbian, gay and transgender individuals, doctors, nurses, immigrants, young people and students, older people, low-income communities, communities of color, public health officials, teachers, and politicians.

What do you think, readers?

Happy New Year All!

2012-01-05T14:56:00.000-08:00

Here is the best article of the year we have seen so far on the topic of young people, their sexuality and why these issues will be so important in the coming year. We love it. Here is an excerpt:

The radical shift from an abstinence-only framework to a comprehensive one loses its transformative potential if our previous generation is still setting the rules. This is why we desperately need a youth-centered and youth-led struggle for comprehensive sex education. Young people have to lead the way in shaping sex education policy. Otherwise, we’re destined to replicate the same morally bankrupt narrative that youth sexuality is an epidemic of global proportions.We have to change the very way we think about sex and sexuality. Instead of treating it as a social parasite, we should embrace it. We need to teach young folks that when treated with maturity, reciprocity and awareness, sex can be an exciting, fulfilling, and even empowering aspect of our lives. Learning to love our bodies is one of the most radical things we can do in a culture sustained by oppressive power structures. However, as long as we’re taught to feel shameful about our bodies, and denied the right to sex-positive comprehensive sex education, we’re doomed to replicate the very systems of domination that thrive on our ignorance and complacency.

Condoms are okay! (just make sure to use them correctly)

2011-12-05T14:11:00.000-08:00

Here's a good article about condoms. In particular, it addresses that ever-present myth that condoms break easily, and explains exactly how to use them correctly. For the record: although it seems like condoms break all the time on television soap operas and reality tv, the actual failure rate is .4%. Or to put it another way, the condom failed only 4 times out of every 1,000.

More pro-tips:

First, check the expiration date! Condoms are safe for about 5 years after manufacture- after that the latex starts breaking down.
Make sure the condom hasn't been exposed to extreme heat or cold.
If the condom fits, wear it. (Sorry we had to say that). Don't be afraid to experiment with different brands and styles to find one that feels good and is easy to use. After all, there are LOTS of different kinds out there: in every size and color of the rainbow, with dots, ribbed, and in a plethora of flavors like chocolate, strawberry and banana. Studies also show that a person who finds condoms difficult to use is less likely to use them at all. So don't be afraid to experiment until you find a style that works for both you and your partner.
When you're using condoms for oral sex, don't forget to watch those teeth. (And don't open the package with your teeth, either).
Don't be afraid to add more lubricant if things feel a bit dry. Did you know nowadays you can get lube that comes in lots of flavors, including passionfruit and pina colada? Just remember: DON'T USE OIL-BASED LUBE (or Vaseline) with latex condoms.
Leave a bit of room at the top of the condom (about a half inch), both for the ejaculate and to make it more comfortable.
Withdraw and throw the condom away promptly after ejaculation.

And most importantly, don't forget that PPCO gives away all of the products listed above. If you're curious about ribbed or flavored condoms, or lubricant, stop by to pick some up. Because bubblegum lube tastes even better when it's free :)

Another thing to be thankful for :)

2011-11-23T12:27:00.000-08:00

Here's a hopeful article from Texas about the oft-elusive status of comprehensive sex education there. The best quote:

"The truth is, responsible, comprehensive sex education just isn't all that controversial among most parents. Our poll last year showed that 80 percent of likely voters in Texas support teaching about condoms and other forms of contraception as well as abstinence."

Signs of change in the Lone Star state? That is something to be thankful for!

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!! Enjoy your turkey, or your tofurkey, if you prefer :)

New Birth Control Ads

2011-11-11T12:21:00.000-08:00

The Ad Council just launched a new ad campaign addressing unplanned pregnancy and birth control; the ads are *gasp*actually funny! Watch here:

http://blisstree.com/live/sex/new-birth-control-ad-reminds-us-just-how-awkward-sex-is-450/

We also like the central message. “You didn’t give up on sex. Don’t give up on birth control either.” Remember, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancy in the developed world. Maybe humor is the most effective way to deliver serious (but possibly boring) messages.

Do you agree or disagree?

"Where do babies come from?"

2011-10-20T10:50:00.000-07:00

This and other dreaded questions often put parents in a pickle. Luckily, Planned Parenthood has everything from quick tips to classes that can help parents and guardians talk to children about puberty, relationships, sexuality, and more. In honor of "Let's Talk Month", check out this video on chatting with your kiddos about the "birds and bees".

http://youtu.be/LiH0_2Xwzzg

If you're intrigued, contact us today to sign up for "Straight Talk"-a parent/child communication class.
1800-230-PLAN
Local number: 405-528-0221

News from Chicago

2011-10-11T12:00:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting study from University of Chicago Section of Family Planning about teen moms and their feelings towards the IUD (the intrauterine device). Researchers were specifically interested in the many hurdles teenage African-American moms face when considering the IUD as a birth control method.

(Remember, the IUD is a small, “t-shaped” device that is inserted into the uterus and prevents pregnancy for 5-12 years (depending on the brand used). It has been proven safe and effective for most women who use one, even for adolescents and women who have not had children.)

Interviewers talked to 40 young women who had just given birth for the first time. 20 said they were interested in the IUD. Those that expressed interest experienced a variety of obstacles: misinformation from family, friends and doctors, resistance from partners, fear of side effects or of the procedure itself. The high up-front cost of getting an IUD is certainly also a major deterrent. On the other hand, this method of birth control is highly effective and eliminates the issues that arise from remembering to take a pill every day. IUDs can be especially useful for adolescent mothers who are trying to delay or prevent another pregnancy.

(On this note, also remember that 1 out of every 5 teen births nationwide is a repeat birth; that is, a birth to a teen girl who already has a baby. In some places rates of repeat teen births are even higher. Studies show that repeat teen births only compound the problems these young moms often face: to finish school, live above poverty level, raise healthy children and staying healthy themselves.)

In the end, 8 women out of the 20 got an IUD after that first birth. To look at the positive, it’s great that we are all becoming more accurately informed about the options that are available to us (this includes you too, doctors!) and that the IUD is getting rid of its bad reputation and gaining popularity. Which is always a good thing.
HUZZAH!

Tackling the Facts of Life

2011-10-10T15:00:00.000-07:00

A recent poll indicates that 82% of parents are talking to their kiddos about sex and sexuality. However, the results aren't as clear cut as they seem. Many parents think simple five minute excerpts on how babies are made qualify as "talking". Newsflash: they don't. Telling young adults to "just say no" or "abstain" is consistently proven ineffective, and kids need the facts-not fantasy. With 50% of young adults in danger of getting an STI before 25 and the highest teen pregnancy rate among industrialized nations, American teens are at high risk.

When you turn on the TV, listen to the radio, or spend a day at a US middle or high school, the need for quality sex education becomes glaringly clear. Kids are hearing about it, talking about it, and living it. They need their parents to give them what the media and friends often cannot: compassion and the facts. "How does a condom actually work?" "Why if I am being pressured to have sex?" "Does it really feel that great?" Questions like these circle around and around, and parents can be the ones to answer them. 90% of poll respondents stated the they did NOT receive quality sexual education from their parents. It's time to break that chain.

For more, visit: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2016439742_cepada10.html

The Cost of Abstinence-Only Education is TOO HIGH!

2011-09-27T11:34:00.000-07:00

Today's Daily Women's Health Policy Report covered the results of a survey released in conjunction with World Contraception Day yesterday that I found extremely disturbing - more young people worldwide are having unprotected sex, compared with three years ago, and they know less about contraception. The study -- commissioned by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals and endorsed by 11 international non-governmental organizations -- surveyed more than 6,000 young people in the U.S. and 25 other countries about sex and contraception.

According to the study, the number of young people in the U.S. who engaged in unprotected sex increased by 39% since 2009, while the rates in Britain and France increased 19% and 111%, respectively. The study also found that many young people lack adequate knowledge about effective contraceptive options, raising concern about the quality of sex education in schools.

About 50% of survey respondents in Europe indicated that they receive sex education in school, compared with about 75% of respondents in the U.S., Asia Pacific and Latin America. Many respondents indicated that they had received misinformation about contraception and were too embarrassed to ask a health care professional for contraception

How many more young people will suffer the consequences of our country's inability to take ownership of the fact that sexuality is a part of people's lives and that honest, accurate information can save lives?

HIV IN OKLAHOMA: part 2

2011-09-16T13:30:00.000-07:00

And here are the answers from our pop quiz on Tuesday!

There are only 4 bodily fluids that can transmit HIV. They are: blood, semen, vaginal fluids and breast milk. And remember, it is impossible to transmit HIV through everyday activities like shaking hands, or through casual kissing. It is also impossible to become infected from a water fountain, door knob, toilet seat or silverware, or from animals or mosquitoes.

About 4,500 people in Oklahoma have HIV or AIDS. However, this does not include people who don't know that they are infected with the virus.

Over half of new HIV infections in the US occur in people under 25.

DID YOU KNOW: HIV in Oklahoma edition, Part One

2011-09-13T13:39:00.000-07:00

Attention all! In case you all didn’t know (or had forgotten)- the OKC AIDS Walk & 5K Run is coming up Sept. 25th in Bricktown. It’s always a fun event, and the money raised goes towards HIV/ AIDS treatment and prevention. (link for more info)

We are also contractually obligated to mention the awesome walk team we’re putting together for it, and remind you that if you’d like to sign up to walk with us, you can do so here. We love company!

Most importantly, this event is a good way to remind us that HIV still affects many people all over the country, including right here in Oklahoma City. Even though this disease has now plagued the world for 30 years, many still believe rumors and stereotypes about HIV, like how it is contracted, who gets infected, and what someone who is HIV+ looks like.

So here is a quick pop quiz:

What are the 4 body fluids that can transmit HIV?

How many people in Oklahoma are living with HIV or AIDS?

What age group makes up half of the new HIV infections nationwide?

(answers coming soon!!)

Rick Perry reminds us that

2011-08-29T12:39:00.000-07:00

"Abstinence works"..... (and has been proven effective in raising the teen birth rate in Texas). Not only are Texas teenagers having more sex , the rate of repeated pregnancies in young people has also risen dramatically.

These statistics don't "work" for us, Mr. Perry; do they work for you?

Parent-Child Communication: The "Super Protector"

2011-08-05T15:19:00.000-07:00

“But they just won’t listen!” How often do adults find themselves uttering this phrase? Parents can get extremely frustrated with pre-teens and adolescents who seem to tune everything out. At times, they may even think talking is not worth the time or effort. This assumption could not be further from the truth.

It is integral that parents discuss issues with their children on a frequent basis because kids ARE listening. Everything from safer sex talks to a chat about school can strengthen familial ties. A recently released article details a similar study and report release by Planned Parenthood and Teenwise, respectively, which analyze parent-child relationships and their impact on a child’s decision-making. Not surprisingly, both organizations point to the effectiveness of parent-child bonding and refer to this bond as a “super protector”. The importance of parents as role models is often understated, and whether a child lives in a nuclear family or is raised by a relative or legal guardian, those adults can make a huge difference in a teen’s life.

Children clearly benefit from parental interaction and value relationships with their role models. Involvement in a child’s life is undeniably beneficial and leads to positive consequences, but the opposite can also hold true. The article not only ties uninvolved parents to teen pregnancy, but also specifies eating disorders, violence, poor grades, and STIS as possible consequences. Most parents are keen on keeping children away from the above ills, but just as many parents feel that they are powerless to make an impact. Research proves otherwise.

The connection becomes glaringly clear as the article progresses. A survey found that 46% of adolescents point to parents as the most influential people in their lives when it comes to decisions related to sex. 20% listed friends as their number one influencers, but that 26 point gap speaks volumes. While kids might prefer to be with peers and shirk in embarrassment at their parents’ “lame” antics, they clearly look to these adults for advice, guidance, and support. Parental opinion is not only valued but taken to heart and applied.

During the teenage years, sex is foreign, confusing, and overwhelming. By creating an open, communicative environment, parents can facilitate conversations that might otherwise go unspoken. Many teens that delay intercourse or opt to use protection are heavily influenced by their parents. Openness is a key component of successful growth and maturation, and parents should not give up just yet. Keep talking, keep listening, and keep loving.

See the full article here: http://www.echopress.com/event/article/id/86954/group/Opinion/

Episode Review

2011-08-01T10:20:00.000-07:00

16 and Pregnant: Episode 309 (Taylor)

This episode seemed to have a lot in common with the last episode we watched (remember Kianna)? 15 year old Taylor, like Kianna, is being raised by her single mom, as is her 17 year old boyfriend Nathan. “I was thinking a lot of crazy things”, Taylor says when she found out she was pregnant. But here, in contrast to the last episode, both Taylor and Nathan want to keep the baby while their moms encourage adoption. “I don’t want you to struggle”, Taylor’s mom says. This is hard-won advice, since Taylor’s mom herself had Taylor when she was a teenager. However, the young couple is looking forward to being a family, even though neither one has a job, car or any concrete plan on how to pay for the baby.

Let’s Go Shopping!

Taylor and Nathan’s first taste of reality comes when they first go baby-supply shopping with only $25 in cash. They quickly realize how expensive an undertaking this is going to be. Taylor begins to pressure Nathan to get a job, which he has promised to do. With all this to think about, Taylor decides to go back-to-school shopping for herself, reasoning that once the baby arrives, buying clothes for herself won’t really be happening.

A Hard Choice

Taylor, Nathan and their moms finally sit down for a chat about the logistics of taking care of the baby once it’s born. Taylor hopes to be able to keep attending school, but they quickly realize that with Nathan at school and both their parents working, this will be impossible. Taylor is not happy at all about this. “I knew there would be sacrifices; I didn’t know high school would be one of them”. She begins to resent Nathan for being able to continue with school.

After baby Aubri is born, Taylor heads home to learn to learn the basics of being a new mom. Her sister is able to help out a lot, but Taylor is still stressed from caring for Aubri and attending virtual high school. Her relationship with Nathan becomes more stressful too. He still does not have a job, so Taylor’s mom must pitch in to help financially, which she warns she can not do for much longer. Nathan is also starting to complain about having to spend so much time doing not-fun things like midnight feedings, and Taylor still resents him for being able to still attend school. The episode ends on an uncertain note after 6 months-the couple is trying to stick together and make things work, but admitting that in life “you never know”.

Our Take on Episode 309

So many of these episodes seem to focus on pregnancy (while spending little time on the less-pleasant things like swollen feet!) and don’t have enough time to cover more than a few weeks or months after the baby is born. I know they do a ‘reunion show” at the end of the season, but I wonder how much detail they are able to fit into one episode. This raises the obvious question- is it realistic for us to expect a certain level of depth from an MTV program whose first goal is entertainment? Just how educational is the average episode? These are great questions… for another post!

Another POV

2011-07-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/26/138546792/a-young-mom-resists-a-cycle-of-failure

This is another interesting look at the effects of teen pregnancy. It is perhaps more educational than the average episode of "16 and Pregnant" because it focuses instead on the struggles that come after having the baby. None of them are easy: dropping out of school and working to complete a GED, having no parental support, getting pregnant a second time, feeling stuck with a partner because you have no job skills or anywhere else to go.

Just another POV on a situation that seems to have no "normal".

Time to Talk? Teens and Sex

2011-07-25T11:07:00.000-07:00

Ah…the age old adage…Americans are uptight and moralistic, while Europeans are all about free love and pleasure. Is there truth to this statement?

In a recent NYT article, Amy Schalet profiles differences in family reception between the US and the Netherlands to sexual activity among teens. She then assesses the effectiveness of each very divergent attitude. Harkening back to a recently released documentary, “Let’s Talk About Sex”, Schalet probes into the lives of 130 white, middle class people to discern their views on adolescent sexuality.

“Not under my roof!” Who remembers this battle cry? The vast majority of American parents turn a blind eye to their teens’ sexual lives, and, as long as they do not know about it, it is not happening. The problem is, teens ARE having sex, and they need protection. By advancing the stereotype that children are pure well into their twenties, we are only hurting our youth. Most people are sexually active before marriage. This is a fact. No matter how much we deny its existence, it is not going anywhere. So, why do we play the shame game? Why do we force our teens to have sexual experiences in the back seat of a car or anywhere they can have a hidden, rushed copulation? As we all know, that is not the ideal situation.

The article primarily compares two young women-one American and one Dutch-who are sexually active. The American teen refuses to tell her parents and hides her sexuality for fear of tainting her “little princess” status. On the other hand, the Dutch teen is up front with her sex life, and after some talks with dad and mum, the truth is out on the table and fully accepted by both parents. The Dutch teen is now allowed to have her boyfriend “sleepover” because the aforementioned Dutch parents want their daughter to have a comfortable, healthy sex life and still remain an active part of their family.

Many Americans would shirk at this idea. By letting teenagers have sex under their (sacred, virginal) roof, are they are condoning or accepting this act? If so, is this a bad thing? Or, are they actually supporting their daughter’s sexual health by providing a safe environment for sexual expression?

This article has a seemingly low point. Its most tragic observation is the American teen’s desire to be open with her parents. She wants that relationship, and she wants to be accepted for who she is-sexually active or not. Surprisingly, the Dutch teens surveyed also showed a respect for traditionalism and expressed a desire to please their parents. This development shows us that family structure, at least in Holland, can be unharmed, and even strengthened, with complete honesty and acknowledgement of young people’s sexuality. Their approach is that by denying their children’s most intimate feelings and experiences, they are both discrediting them and distancing them from the family unit.

Many teenagers are going to have sex whether their parents “know” or not, so denial is not going to stop the process. However, a knowledgeable family base and information on contraceptives, STIs, and safer sex will make the process a healthier one.

See the full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24schalet.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

16 and Pregnant: Episode 308, Kianna

2011-07-15T12:58:00.000-07:00

Our Take on Episode 308
This episode features Kianna, a 17 year old who lives with her mom in Ft. Worth, Texas. Her boyfriend Zak is 15, plays football at a different school. This makes it difficult for them to see each other often, since Zak doesn’t have his license or a job, and relies on him mom for rides.

Shock and AHH!

Kianna and Zak are both in denial when they find out she is pregnant. Kianna had been taking birth control pills, but had skipped them for three days in a row. As she points out, “Who knew that in those three days your life changes forever?”
It’s important to remember that oral contraceptives are most effective when used correctly. This means taking the pill as directed, every day at the same time. When used correctly, less than 1 out of 100 women will get pregnant a year if they take the pill correctly every day. When pills are not taken every day as directed, 9 out of 100 women a year will become pregnant. If you have missed pills, it’s important to use a back-up method (like male or female condoms or emergency contraception) every time you have vaginal intercourse. If you have questions about pills you have missed, it is best to keep taking one pill a day, using a back-up method, and talking to your health care provider as soon as possible.

Differences of opinion

At first Kianna hopes to place her baby up for adoption. She really wants to finish high school and go to college to become a veterinary technician, and knows how difficult it will be to do all these things while taking care of a newborn. However, Zak is completely opposed to the idea. He wants to keep the baby and be a good father like the one he never had. He doesn’t really seem to understand how much work a baby will be though, and is reluctant to give up football practice and free time. She puts off making a decision, but finally they sit down to talk. They agree to keep the baby as long as Zak is willing to do his share of the work in caring for him. He agrees, and promises things will be fine, even though neither one has a job yet.

Kianna’s communication with her mom is not great either. First she tells her she is considering adoption, but puts off having to tell her they have decided to keep the baby. Mom is surprised, and warns them that they need to start planning and saving, since having a baby “is going to take a lot

Did you know?

Kianna is diagnosed with pre-eclampsia, a common pregnancy-related medical condition. It can occur pre- or post pregnancy and is associated with high blood pressure and a large amount of protein in the urine. This is why Kianna has to carry around the huge jug of pee for the hospital to test. Pre-eclampsia can be dangerous for both mother and baby. There is no cure for pre-eclampsia, other than delivery, and no widely agreed-upon ways to prevent it.

New arrival

After emergency C-section, Kianna gives birth 3 weeks early to a healthy boy, Kay’den. Since everyone is unprepared, Zak and Kianna’s mom scramble to assemble a crib and buy essentials like formula and diapers before Kianna and baby come home. When they finally get to leave the hospital, Kianna is nervous to be alone with her son for the first time. As the weeks go by, Kianna get more comfortable taking care of Kay’den, but realizes just how hard it is going to be balancing her life and baby. It is even harder since Zak still relies on his mom for rides, so he is only able to help out on Sundays. Despite these difficulties, Kianna still holds on to her dreams for the future and wants to build a stable family with Zak.

Interesting Reading

2011-07-08T14:57:00.000-07:00

Until today I had never paid much attention to NPR's blogs. But as it turns out, they put out a good one called The Baby Project. Nine pregnant women across the US contribute to share their varied experiences during and after pregnancy. It is all interesting reading, but two posts about stranger's reactions to younger-looking pregnant women and how Medicaid helps one pregnant couple during the pregnancy really stand out. The couple's experience with Medicaid illustrates the differences between commonly held stereotypes and the reality about the program. And regarding Ashley's experiences with people while being pregnant in her small town, all we can do is quote Stephanie Tanner and say... "How rude!!"

The state of Oklahoma

2011-07-05T14:50:00.000-07:00

I think most people saw the report from a few weeks ago which reported that unintended pregnancies to teenagers cost taxpayers a total of almost $11 billion dollars in 2008. Did you also see this report on the local costs of teen childbearing in Oklahoma? The taxpayer cost is estimated to be at least $190 million dollars, and is based on an analysis of federal and state programs such as child welfare, Medicaid, and other factors such as lost tax revenue due to a decrease in earning and spending, and increased rates of incarceration. From the total of all these costs, it is estimated that 52 percent were state costs and 48 percent were federal.

Here are some more disturbing facts:

More that 7,500 Oklahoma teens gave birth in 2008.

Older teens (18 and 19 year olds) make up two-thirds of all births, and in fact the birth rate for older teens in Oklahoma has gone up, even though in general the teen birth rate in the U.S. has been declining.

In 2007, Oklahoma’s birth rate for older teens jumped from 6th place to 2nd in the nation, right behind Mississippi.

21% of teens who give birth are already mothers.
Statistics are always quite straightforward; the real question is what do they mean? An even better question might be what we can do to change them. Not many people would argue that teen pregnancy is a positive thing, or that Oklahoma’s teen birth rate is just fine the way it is. If we can all agree on this much, and know that teen pregnancy is preventable, why can’t we do more to prevent it? I think one answer is the big “C”, communication. We (often apparently silently) acknowledge that something is wrong but are reluctant to address the issues in our own lives… often until after the fact, when our own children, or perhaps a relative or a friend, has to deal with the realities of teen pregnancy firsthand. Would things be different if we all tried to be more honest and open about the issues surrounding teenage sexuality in our own lives? Of course it’s not easy to have these conversations, but I say it couldn’t hurt to try. We know what we must do to succeed, and we also know the cost of failure. Talking to our families, our friends and our communities might be easier than we think… but there’s only one way to find out!

Age-Appropriate Sexual Education-How Young Is Too Young?

2011-07-01T12:33:00.000-07:00

For those of us in the sexuality education field, the above article is no shocker. However, many parents may be astounded-if not appalled-by recommendations to start age-appropriate “sex-ed” as young as two years old. This reaction is completely normal, but, upon further examination, the reader will discover that “sex-ed” can encompass everything from medically accurate names for body parts to discussion on playing “doctor”. The new education guide in question has been approved and supported by Family Planning Victoria and other agencies throughout Australia.

Could we expect such a reception in the United States? Doubtful. Our national mentality still condemns sexuality as not only taboo-but unacceptable before marriage. Our government even funds “purity balls” for young girls to emphasize the importance of virginity. Who wants to bet that these girls couldn’t pick out a uterus from a pineapple? Most American teens severely lack any brand of comprehensive sexual education, and many parents are either too embarrassed or too unsure of themselves to discuss such “sensitive” subject matter with their children. This has resulted in an epidemic of teenage pregnancy, widespread STI infection, and alarming-and often life-threatening-misconceptions about sex and sexuality. So, what could be so wrong with the ideas presented in Walsh’s booklet?

Age-appropriate sexuality education is not about SEX. It’s about healthy bodies, self-esteem, self-awareness, and more. By teaching toddlers the accurate names for their own body parts, they become more capable and apt to monitor themselves and others. For children who are sexually abused or victimized, anatomically correct names can make a world of difference in spotting and resolving the problem. A child who is uncomfortable with his or her body parts may be hesitant to mention inappropriate touching, while a child who has learned proper terminology will more easily identify detrimental behavior. Additionally, a healthy sense of sexuality carries well into adolescence and adulthood, and there is absolutely no correlation between onset of sexuality education and age of initiation for sexual activity.

While this statement may seem hard to believe for many adults, there are numerous studies to support its basis in facts. Additionally, age-appropriate sexuality education prepares children for sexual activity-whenever it does occur. Although the onset may not be any sooner, when activity does begin, these individuals are armed with knowledge, bodily self-confidence, and good communication skills. Creating a trust between parent(s) and child well before sexual activity commences is integral to successful and healthy relationships. Once the trust has been built, children will feel far more comfortable coming to parents for advice and guidance-no matter the topic. So maybe sexual education from a young age isn’t so horrible after all…

For more information, please see the article listed below:

http://www.news.com.au/national/toddlers-ready-for-sex-education/story-e6frfkvr-1226084678410

46 Years Later...Griswold v. Connecticut

2011-06-09T08:44:00.000-07:00

Although June 7th was the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, we find ourselves still fighting the same battle-46 years later. People often take contraceptive access for granted, and have never known a world without readily available birth control. However, many individuals still live in this world of little or no access. We must remember that real education about life (i.e., R.E.A.L.) is critical to knowledge, prevention, and empowerment, but it is not the only piece of the puzzle we call sexual health and family planning. Access to reproductive health care is just as critical. Even though the landmark decision mentioned above ensured the right to privacy within a marriage, women all across America are continually subjected to assaults on their personal lives. Contraceptives are not accessible to large segments of the population, and many women are forced to choose between birth control and necessities like groceries. Reproductive freedom and health is not seen as a need but rather as a want. This battle has become increasingly public, and with each passing day, a different state legislature starts an attack on women’s health and wellness.

As Oklahomans, we are no strangers to these attacks. Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma was denied Title X funding years ago, and although this federal funding does not provide abortion care with federal tax dollars, the connection seems to get lost in legislative turmoil. In the most basic language, Title X provides free or reduced cost contraceptives and reproductive healthcare to low income individuals. This should be a number one priority for those who are pro-life or against elective abortion. If you can prevent pregnancy in the first place, where is the need for abortion? Where is the need for this never-ending debate over when life begins? While not all unwanted pregnancies can be stopped before they begin, a large number could be averted with more accessible contraception.

How is the Griswold decision being respected and followed if many American women cannot access-better yet afford-a birth control method of their choice? When so many US residents are without healthcare and many insurance plans refuse to cover contraceptives, what’s a woman to do? Is it the monthly prescription or the baby’s diapers? Of course they will choose the diapers, which inevitably puts the woman in a pregnancy situation all over again. In this vicious cycle, those who cannot afford birth control end up with a child that they definitely cannot afford. Additionally, many women feel forced to choose a method with negative side effects simply due to cost. The key word here is method of her CHOICE. A woman should not be relegated to taking pills that make her sick simply because the alternative is $50 more. ALL methods need to be cost effective and available to each and every American who needs contraception.

So as we move further into the 21st century, let’s reflect on that decision from four decades ago. How much has changed? How far have we really come? There is still plenty of work to be done, and as we push forward, let’s remember that reproductive healthcare IS basic healthcare. You will find an article below from the Women’s Health Policy Report. Its shining moment is the following quotation: ‘"Family planning involves providing women with the information and resources they need to have children when they want," noting that it "often is the absence of family planning that results in women considering the option of abortion"’. By giving women the power to control their reproductive lives, you change a country’s overall health. This is road to success, and women will lead the way if we give them the opportunity.

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=29066&security=1201&news_iv_ctrl=-1

Season 3, Episode 1 (Jordan)

2011-06-08T09:26:00.000-07:00

Intro: This episode focuses on Jordan, her twin sister Jess and her boyfriend Brian. Jordan and Jess are models and live with their grandparents. Her grandma lectures her about being pregnant, and rushing into a physical relationship with her boyfriend. “Sex is for reproduction,” she says. Jordan rolls her eyes and points out that it’s a bit too late to be having this discussion.

Fact Check: This is an attitude a lot of people have. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the reality that people have sex for many reasons, not just to reproduce. Being honest about this is a good way to begin talking to your parents or children about sex. Jordan has a point that waiting until someone is pregnant to have the conversation does no one any good.

A Big Surprise: Jordan and Brian talk about their relationship. Jordan was on pill when she got pregnant, but admits in the after show that she had been “careless” about taking them. Brian says “I don’t remember what you look like not pregnant!” and points out that Jordan has been pregnant for most of the relationship. Both agree that if they could do things over, they would still want a child together, but that they would choose to wait a lot longer, maybe “4 years…. 7 years.” Brian is also giving up going away to college to attend a community college close by.

Family Problems: Jordan’s twin sister Jessica feels jealous that Brian is taking up so much of her sister’s time. Until recently they had done everything together, and Jessica has a hard time adjusting to the fact that those days are over. Jordan spends a lot of time trying to make sure both of them get along. She also has to deal with being stuck at home while Jess goes out more often with her friends, doing normal things going to prom and the pool. One scene shows an unpleasant side-effect of pregnancy: Jordan getting morning sickness. She also has back pain.

Push it! Jordan’s labor takes over 7 hours, but she delivers a health baby boy, Noah. Both new parents are unprepared for how much care the new baby needs. Jordan says she expected to be woken up a few times during the night, not that she would be getting hardly any sleep at all. Noah cries and spits up so much Jordan suspects something is wrong. She takes him to the hospital and finds out he has acid reflux disease, which is quite common in babies. The doctors give Noah medication and send him home.

What Happens Next: Months later, Noah still has problems with acid reflux and is still on medication. Jordan experiences all the stress of being a new mom. Since Brian is away so much going to class or at work, she he relies on her sister to help take care of Noah, and has become an expert in changing diapers. At times Jordan is envious of Jess who is still free to go out with her friends. She says she wants more children someday, but for now plans to be on birth control “for a very long time”.

(my always opinionated analysis of this episode, coming up next...)

Coming Soon

2011-06-02T09:05:00.000-07:00

Is there anything MTV loves more than teenagers getting pregnant? We hope so, but the amount of shows dealing with the topic might give you pause. I know we all watch these shows on occasion, and that we also wonder how realistic they are in dealing with the many thorny issues surrounding teens and sexuality, pregnancy and real life afterwards. Can shows like these be educational as well as entertaining, or do they only perpetuate stereotypes and false information?

We're curious too. So, to answer these burning questions (and more!!), I am offering up my valuable services as a scathing (and thoughtful) critic to review episodes of shows like "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom". The first review should be posted soon. This will be an ongoing feature, so be sure to check back regularly for new posts. Is it possible to get accurate information about sex from MTV? We don't know either, but can't wait to find out!

Talking To Our Kids About Sex - Surprise!

2011-05-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

One of the most effective ways to increase sexual health and instill a commitment to prevention in teens is to have regular, age-appropriate conversations in our families about sex. To kick-start these conversations, there are some terrific programs available for families, including the outstanding, locally-developed Straight Talk.

Since countless families have participated in Straight Talk workshops, I often get emails and notes from colleagues and parents, and sometimes even kids, on parent-child-family communication about sex.

One friend and colleague shared this wonderful video of comedian, author, and Saturday Night Live alum, Julia Sweeney, telling an audience about a conversation started by her ten year-old daughter. It is hilarious! So often, a purely logical question from a ten year-old can catch us completely off guard!

Here is the link. Enjoy!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/06/wits-sweeney/

Outrageous Sex Myths and More

2011-05-03T13:09:00.000-07:00

Did you get to check out MTV’s “10 Most Outrageous Sex Myths” last week? Well, lucky for DVR, I finally tuned in the other night, and, I must say, I was shocked. As a Community Health Educator, I like to believe people have basic sexual knowledge, but time and again, I am proved otherwise. The myths ranged from “If I use birth control, I don’t need to worry about STDs-right?” to “If he pulls out, I won’t get pregnant or an STD.” There were blurbs from celebrities and young adults, which served as the real shocker. The vast amount of misinformation floating around the internet, among friends, and on TV is hard to comprehend. There are many people who think you can identify someone with an STI simply by looking at them, and there are other people who think HIV can be cured. This is terrifying.

Is this how we are protecting our youth? We give them incorrect information, tell them not to have sex, and expect that when they do-it will all be alright. Consequently, we have ended up in a situation where 50% of young adults will have contracted an STI by age 25 (http://www.itsyoursexlife.com/gyt/know/). That is no small number. With a society that pushes an abstinence only agenda and often portrays sex as “dirty” or “wrong”, it’s no surprise that youth are hesitant to ask about both contraception and testing. It’s far easier to neglect birth control and hope for the best and live with “ignorance is bliss” when it comes to STIs. This, paired with the sneaky nature of STIs to often show no symptoms, has placed us in an epidemic. So, what can we do to reverse this trend? I think comprehensive sex education would be a start. You have all heard the demands over and over again, so I will spare you that segment. However, let’s just pause for a moment: how has it gotten this bad? Have we really failed our children this gravely?

The popular saying "change begins with you" may very well apply here. Whether you are an educator, parent, teen, or simply a concerned friend, start the conversation. The only way to protect yourself from STIs is with abstinence or a male or female condom. For those who choose to become sexually active, the latter two options are widely available and often provided free of charge at clinics and health departments. Spread awareness. Spread knowledge. Talk to those you love about STIs and their prevention. Get tested and encourage others to do so. The statistic above has the potential to change, and it all begins with education.

See: http://www.itsyoursexlife.com/gyt/know/top-10-most-outrageous-sex-myths/ for more!

From the Daily Women's Health Policy Report

2011-04-01T15:05:00.000-07:00

"Uterus Now Officially a Dirty Word in Florida, " Robin Marty, RH Reality Check: "A Florida representative was admonished by his GOP counterparts for using the word 'uterus' on the floor during a debate," Marty writes, adding that "if nothing else," lawmakers' opposition to the word "explains why some in the legislature have been trying so hard to regulate it so much." During a debate, state Rep. Scott Randolph (D) "suggested that his wife 'incorporate her uterus' to stop [others] from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. [They], after all, wouldn't want to further regulate a Florida business." He was told not to discuss body parts in the chamber and that his language could be offensive to guests, including children. Marty writes, "To be fair, with the state of sex ed as of late, many of those kids probably wouldn't even know what a uterus is" (Marty, RH Reality Check, 3/31).

US Continues to Lead the Industrialized World in Teen Pregnancy

2011-01-07T14:06:00.000-08:00

In a recent article, it was revealed that he US still has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized, western world. This statement compares us to all of our friends in Europe who seem to be so much better at getting the bigger picture. So what is good ole' Uncle Sam really doing wrong? Why do our girls keep getting pregnant when they are still children themselves? Above all, why do we continue to push policies that simply are not working? Let's look at the hard numbers, which are not only shocking but should be instigators for change.

The Women's Health Policy Report pulled this article from the AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, and it gives us a startling figure: the US teen pregnancy rate, (15-19 year old females), is 39 births per 1,000 girls. I like the usage of the word "girls". This helps to remind us that these are not adults. These are not people who are legally allowed to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or join the military, (with the exception of the 18 and 19 year olds, of course). They are children. As a stark comparison, Italy has a teen pregnancy rate of 5 births per 1,000 girls. The Netherlands boasts a rate of 4-5 births, and Britain is the highest with a rate of 24. 24 is still 15 points below 39.

What could be the reasoning behind such a wide gap? How could we, powerhouse USA, be failing our girls in such a vivid way? The article cites wider access to contraception as well as cheaper birth control and a more "realistic" attitude as reasons for European success. Are they insinuating that waiting until marriage, (nowadays we are talking late 20s, early 30s), to have sex is unrealistic? Never! Europe is acknowledging that, yes, teenagers have sex, and, no, they are not going to stop anytime soon. Unfortunately, showing students nasty images of herpes lesions and telling them their virginity is the equivalent to an uneaten chocolate bar does not seem to stop their hormones from calling out in glee.

The article also cites contraception usage rates. British and French girls are seeking out birth control at a rate of 88%, while US females are at a steady 61%. That is a 27% discrepancy! Is this really shocking, however, when we consider the barriers placed on contraception access in the US? First off, it is wildly expensive-especially for those who do not have health insurance. While some methods may be available for free at the health department or other local agencies, these may not be the best forms of contraception for everyone. Girls are a lot more likely to use their birth control if it does not ravage their body and/or mood. However, the most important issue at hand is attitude. The article finally references the US aversion to teenagers having sex, and, above all, teenagers having premeditated sex. Gasp!

Abstinence only education is a "US phenomenon" and leads to harsher judgment on teenagers seeking to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy and STIs. Teenagers may shy away from talking to parents, teachers, or even doctors for fear of both punishment and the next Spanish Inquisition. Research has shown time and again that comprehensive sex education does not lower the age for one's first sexual experience nor does it change the number of teens having sex or planning to have sex. What it does change is lives. Contraception can protect teens from life threatening STIs and unexpected pregnancies that will affect their lives forever-and not in a good way.

We have seen the data. We have seen hard numbers. We have seen the detrimental consequences of abstinence only education. We have seen teenagers' lives crumble before our own eyes. Isn't it time we see change? Isn't it time we protect our children? Isn't it time we guard our youth and shelter their futures? Isn't it time we face reality?

See the article here: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=27287&security=1201&news_iv_strl=-1

Teens, Young Adults Reporting Recent Abstinence Test Positive for STIs

2011-01-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

Hmmm. The National Partnership for Women and Families reported on this yesterday. What do you think about it?

More than 10% of teenagers who reported being abstinent for at least one year tested positive for a sexually transmitted infection, according to a study published on Monday in the journal Pediatrics, the Washington Times reports. Study author Jessica McDermott Sales, a research assistant professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education at Emory University, said the findings suggest that young people should be screened for STIs regardless of the sexual history they provide to physicians.

The study utilized data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health -- also known as Add Health -- an ongoing study tracking thousands of teens and young adults.

The researchers collected a urine specimen from about 14,000 Add Health participants to test for gonorrhea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis. Of those participants, more than 11,000 said they had sexual intercourse in the last year, while the other 3,000 said they had not.The results showed that 964 participants tested positive for an STI, the majority of whom reported having sexual intercourse in the previous year. However, 118 teens and young adults who said they did not have intercourse also tested positive.

According to data, 60 of those individuals said they had never had intercourse in their lives.

The Times reports the discrepancies could be attributed to individuals forgetting about sexual encounters or lying about them. Sales said that although there is a "small possibility" that some participants acquired the infections through activities other than intercourse, the normal transmission routes of the three STIs suggest that the majority of transmissions "would have to have occurred through penile/vaginal sex" (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 1/3).

GIVE A LOOK #3 ...

2010-12-29T11:28:00.000-08:00

GIVE A LOOK #2 ...

2010-12-29T11:27:00.000-08:00

GIVE A LOOK #`1 ...

2010-12-29T11:20:00.000-08:00

Two-Thirds of U.S. Teens Receive Information on Birth Control, CDC Reports

2010-09-16T12:04:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting report. I have not seen how many students in the sample were from Oklahoma. I would guess very few since most of our young people get little if any sexuality education. Perhaps the sources they counted had an impact. The following is a report from the National Partnership for Women and Families Daily Women's Health Policy Report.

September 16, 2010

Although nearly all U.S. teens receive formal sex education, only about two-thirds are given information on birth control methods, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report released Wednesday, the AP/Washington Post reports. The report is based on face-to-face interviews with nearly 2,800 teenagers from 2006 through 2008. For the interviews, female researchers from the University of Michigan asked the teenagers questions in their homes.

According to the report, about 97% of teens said they received formal sex education by age 18. The report defined formal sex education as instruction at a school, church, community center or other setting that dealt with sexually transmitted infections, birth control or saying no to sex.Instruction on STIs and how to say no to sex was more common than discussion about how to use a condom or other birth control methods, according to the study.

The report found that about two-thirds of teens -- 62% of boys and 70% of girls -- received instruction on birth control by the end of high school, while about 92% reported instruction on STIs and HIV prevention. About 81% of boys and 87% of girls were taught about how to say no to sex.

The findings of the report are similar to those in a 2002 CDC study that found about 85% of high schools and 72% of middle schools teach human sexuality and sex education, according to the AP/Post. The new report did not address trends in sex education, which shifted in the past two years from abstinence-only curricula to comprehensive sex education programs that discuss birth control.

John Santelli, a Columbia University professor of population and family health, noted that government policies stressing abstinence-only sex education were still in place when the report was conducted (Stobbe, AP/Washington Post, 9/15).

Joyce Abma, a demographer at the National Center for Health Statistics and lead author of the report, said that the goal of the report is to update information on sex education, including how many students are receiving it, what information they are getting, and which sources the information is coming from (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 9/15).

Back to School

2010-08-10T10:48:00.000-07:00

Some students have already started the new school year, and many more will begin in the next couple of weeks. Families are busily getting school supplies and clothes. Students are excited, or not, about their new classes, teachers, and extracurricular activities.

All of this got me to daydreaming. What would life be like for these students if personal health, including sexual health, was a required class for grades K-12 (as it is in a small number of European countries)?

Would some students await the new year with excitement about possible subject matter in health class? Would there be special school supplies involved? How would the teachers be trained, and who would be considered qualified? Might kids worry about passing? Would the content be fact-based and age-appropriate as so beautifully outlined by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.? Would the students learn to value their health and their bodies in the same way that they value sports?

What would that world be like? What would that world be like for kids?

Recently I was doing some research to put together some trivia questions related to sexuality and sexuality education. I learned that as early as 1899, the National Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) promoted before-puberty sexuality education in public schools.

More than a hundred years later, it still hasn't happened. (Showing "the film" for 30 minutes in fifth grade doesn't count.)

A friend of mine who is a headmaster recently told me that her private school's health curricula, which is top notch, has for the first time come under fire by some parents. The parents evidently don't like the idea of their children learning about anatomy, puberty, and reproduction.

This does not encourage me. But I can still daydream.

LIVING WITH PRIDE

2010-06-29T08:56:00.000-07:00

Greetings!

Does, "I'm sorry; it's been incredibly busy," work as an excuse? Three months after my last blog entry, I return. The weeks have been a blur with classes, Straight Talk parent-child workshops, programs, outreach, management-type work, and more. It is too easy to put "Blogging" at the bottom of the priority list. Perhaps that, along with my disdain for Facebook, shows my age.

In spite of all that, something exciting happened this weekend to bring me "back to blog." It may not seem to have much in common with R.E.A.L. education, but I believe it definitely does.

This past weekend was Oklahoma City's annual Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning PRIDE Festival and Parade. As always, it was such a treat to see so many people, gay and straight, come together for a couple days of celebration, camaraderie, and support. The events were top notch this year and brought together more people than ever before.

It is easy to think that the PRIDE Festival and Parade is a relic of the past, that it is no longer relevant in today's environment of greater personal openness and tolerance of sexual diversity. I wish that it was irrelevant. Although PRIDE has definitely grown and changed some over the decades, we still have a long, long way to go. Here are a handful of incidents and observations to show you why I believe this.

Pride is spreading. Members of the Enid, Oklahoma PFLAG (Parents, Friends, and Families of Lesbians and Gays) were on hand and are currently working on Enid's 2nd Annual PRIDE Parade. I know things have changed over the years, but my personal experience growing up in rural northwestern Oklahoma was that "tolerance" meant that you might be willing to try vanilla flavoring in your Coke at the Sonic. Kudos to the courageous folks in Enid who are not afraid to show their friends, families, and neighbors that not only is it okay to be gay, but it is okay to be gay wherever you choose to live.

The closet is still a very real place. I had the opportunity to meet a former pastor who, after years of hiding in shame and discomfort, chose to move from eastern Texas to Oklahoma City in search of a more accepting environment after coming out. Does that say more about eastern Texas or more about Oklahoma? I met a young man who spent a significant portion of the festival dodging the television news cameras so no one, especially his mom, would see him at the festival and put two and two together (even though many of the people at the festival were straight). I also met a woman who, at age 39, was "out" to her family and friends, but who was not out to her boss for fear of losing her job. (Unfortunately, job security is not a given for most lgbt people in Oklahoma.)

Many stereotypes and assumptions about lgbt people are nothing more than stereotypes and assumptions. I saw lots of parents with their gay children. I saw lots of children with their gay parents. (Two teen girls sported t-shirts that their aunt had made that said, "I'm not gay, but I love my gay mom.") There were old people and young people, extremely religious people and atheists, buff bodies and overweight bodies, couples and singles, and so on. It is wonderful that diversity within the lgbt community is seen as an asset.

PRIDE is an opportunity to grow as an individual. About three years ago, I met a developmentally disabled young man who was at PRIDE for the first time. He was shy and very nervous and seemed to stick out among the crowds. I had a chance to visit with him at this PRIDE and was amazed at the changes. He was confident, friendly, and assertive. He represented the concept of community at its best. He felt welcomed and accepted. I also ran into three young men who were apparently at the festival to pick up free stuff. They giggled and punched each other and said about 30,000 times, "I'm not gay." That's okay. Coming to the festival gave them an opportunity to be around lgbt people and see that nobody's there to get them. If some day down the road one of those young men comes to the realization that he is gay, he'll know that there's a vast community open to him, to offer support.

Support still matters. Two-Fold and Brothers, both terrific support groups for people who are transgender, participated in the festival - reaching out and making a difference; people helping people. We live in a society in which sex and gender are binary: you are either a male with a male body to fill masculine gender roles, or you are a female with a female body to fill feminine gender roles. When someones experience is different, too often our culture freaks out at the expense of the person who is different. It's a difficult road. That's just one of the reasons that groups like Brothers and Two-Fold, and events like PRIDE, are so important. Not only can they make the journey a safer one, they may someday change the road itself.

LGBT people can work together for the benefit of all. The festival and parade are proof of that. So was the weekend-long HIV testing and counseling service. Groups from across the metro area worked almost around the clock in the scorching heat to provide these important services, and the community responded. Normalizing HIV testing is critical to getting people the medical services they need, the prevention education they want, and the opportunity to de-stigmatize a disease that too often has a detrimental effect on self-esteem.

So what does this have to do with Real Education About Life? Everything. It's all about education - educating the people of Oklahoma, educating the lgbt community, educating the individuals and families - on diversity, on resources, and on how important the acceptance of diversity is to all of us. Self acceptance and self esteem can lead to a sense of value, to a belief that we are each important enough to keep and stay healthy and productive. It's about building a sense of personal and community power, the power to make a difference and to set the sails to direct the wind.

Plus, it was great fun!

If you would like to see some of PRIDE weekend's many festivities, click onto the OKC Pride link and onto the Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma's Facebook page. More photos and films will be added throughout the next few weeks.

Happy PRIDE!

The Ghosts of Budgets Past

2010-03-30T12:39:00.000-07:00

I'm a little confused. Well, a lot confused. People who were (are) against the health care reform bill that was passed into law last week complained that there were special earmarks in the bill that angered them.

Well, it turns out that one of those special earmarks restored funding for abstinence-only until marriage programs. This is not the type of special earmark I would imagine raised their ire. But I could be wrong.

President Barack Obama's first two budgets included zero funding for the abstinence-only programs. But the programs didn't go away, and they likely won't now that a provision of the health care reform bill restores $250 million over five years for states to sponsor these irresponsible programs. That one sure came out of left (or right) field!

Naturally, the National Abstinence Education Association responded with approval. According to The Washington Post, Valerie Huber, the lobbying group's executive director, said, "We're very happy to see that funding will continue so the important sexual health message of risk avoidance will reach American teens."

I guess they've already co-opted the language of risk-reduction. "Risk avoidance" does sound much better than "sex will ruin your life and probably kill you if you have it before marriage, and since gay people can't get married in most states, well, who cares about them anyway" education.

What exactly have they been doing these past few years? The abstinence-only groups have already received a quarter-billion dollars, our dollars, to provide this education that is so full of promises but so short on positive results.

I cringe at another quote from Ms. Huber - "What better place to see such an important health issue addressed than in the health legislation?" I suppose that's all they want the funding to do - address an issue, not provide any real solutions or help.

It certainly could be worse. We'll just have to work hard to see that this funding is not at the expense of supporting comprehensive sexuality education. Perhaps we'll be able to minimize the harm caused by abstinence-only programs.

Even better, we could see to it that this abstinence-only funding is not maintained. We could call the end of this funding "risk avoidance."

An Opportunist's Dream

2010-02-16T10:33:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I commented on a new study that showed a particular "abstinence-only" program to be effective when used with a group of fifth- and sixth-graders in Philadelphia. To me, the news was encouraging, a potential area for agreement, and a basis for real progress in efforts to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. I guess I was naive to think that the study would be used only for good, not for evil.

The Boston Globe has reported that the Abstinence Clearinghouse (the mouthpiece for abstinence-only until marriage federal grant recipients) on its Web site has claimed the new study as "proof [we] were right all along," and that "comprehensive sex ed is a big flop." This comes in spite of reports that the lead author of the study disputes such claims.

It is amazing to me how the prospect of government funding can skew the way science is interpreted.

Lead author, John Jemmott, reminds us that the study looked at one particular program with one specific audience. Whether or not the study results can be replicated with different audiences in different locations remains to be seen. He also notes that the particular "abstinence-only" program did not focus on "until marriage" and did not forbid the discussion of how condoms and other methods of contraception can reduce risks for people who are sexually active.

Details, details.

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Bill Albert, chief program officer for the highly regarded National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said it best: "We need to buck up and move beyond politics to invest in things that work. While adults are arguing about all this, teenagers are getting pregnant."

Abstinence-Only With or Without Moralist Messages? Recent Study Provides Insight

2010-02-02T10:09:00.000-08:00

A new study came out yesterday on an "Abstinence-Only" education program that actually works. Any program that works is something to celebrate, so I am excited at the prospect, even though it is only one study and it does not necessarily reflect common abstinence-only programs that have been federally funded for more than a decade.

An article from the AP/Washington Post describing the study is posted below. To me, the findings lend credibility to what I have always believed -- tell teens the TRUTH, and they will learn. Teach teens practical skills, and they will apply it. That's what Get R.E.A.L. is all about.

My hope is that the new study will transcend the conflict between abstinence-only folks and comprehensive folks so we can all focus on practical, honest sexuality education. Let's work together to make that happen!

Study Shows Experimental Abstinence-Only Education Program Delays Sexual Activity

February 2, 2010

An experimental abstinence-only education program without moralistic themes was more effective in delaying sexual activity among teens than three alternative sexual education programs, according to an NIH-funded study published Monday in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the AP/Washington Post reports (Tanner, AP/Washington Post, 2/1).

The study, conducted from 2001 to 2004, involved 662 black public school students in a city in the Northeastern U.S. The study randomly assigned students -- all in either sixth or seventh grade -- to one of four sex education classes and monitored their levels of sexual activity over the next two years. According to the Post, the new research is the first abstinence-only study designed to produce the highest level of scientific evidence by comparing the program with several alternatives and following participants for an extended time.

The first group in the study used an eight-hour abstinence-only curriculum that included sessions in which instructors taught the students in small groups and asked them about their attitudes toward abstinence and sexually transmitted infections. The instructors also led role-playing and brainstorming exercises intended to correct misconceptions, encourage abstinence and explore ways to resist pressure to have sex. The instructors did not take a moralistic tone, did not disparage condom use and encouraged students to wait to begin sexual activity until they were ready -- but not necessarily to wait until marriage, a message espoused in most current abstinence-only programs.

The second class featured an eight-hour curriculum on safer sex, while the third class -- which lasted either eight or 12 hours -- taught abstinence and safer sex methods. The final class, which served as the control, involved an eight-hour program teaching students other ways to be healthy, such as exercising and eating well.

Two years after the classes, 33% of the students from the abstinence-only program, 52% from the safer-sex course, 42% from the comprehensive program and 47% from the control group had started having sex. Researchers also found that the abstinence-only course had no negative effect on condom use, a criticism of current abstinence-only programs (Stein, Washington Post, 2/2). In addition, researchers found that 8.8% of participants in the comprehensive class had sex with multiple partners, compared with 14.1% from the control group, suggesting that the comprehensive instruction lowered the risk of STIs (Maugh/Roan, Los Angeles Times, 2/2).

John Jemmott, the study's leader and a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said, "I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," adding, "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

Sarah Brown, head of the National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said the study's findings are "game-changing," adding, "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens."

Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said, "One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire."Some observers pointed out that the abstinence-only curriculum included in the study differed greatly from current abstinence-only programs.

"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, said (Washington Post, 2/2). Rodriguez agreed, saying, "It's unfair to compare this abstinence-only intervention to the typical abstinence-only-until-marriage program that young people in this country have been put through" (AP/Washington Post, 2/1).

Abstinence-only critics noted that the experimental program did not take a negative approach to condom use and avoided a moralistic tone to promote abstinence, which distinguished it from many current programs.

The findings come in the wake of new research showing a rise in the U.S. teen pregnancy rate after years of declines. The Obama administration cut funding for abstinence-only education programs from the federal budget and is instead launching a $114 million teen pregnancy prevention initiative to focus on programs that have been scientifically proven to be effective.

Administration officials suggested programs similar to the abstinence-only class used in the study could become eligible for federal funding.Nicholas Papas, a spokesperson for HHS, said, "No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention" (Washington Post, 2/2).

In an editorial accompanying the study, Frederick Rivara -- the journal's editor -- and Alain Joffe -- an associate editor, wrote "No public policy should be based on the results of one study, nor should policymakers selectively use scientific literature to formulate a policy that meets preconceived ideologies."Jemmott noted that the classes in the study were taught at schools during weekends and suggested that future research could examine effectiveness when such classes are taught during regular school hours by the students' regular teachers. Rodriguez also said that the results suggest that the program in the study could be effective for younger students but cautioned that it might be less useful for older, more sexually experienced teens (AP/Washington Post, 2/1).

What's the Matter with Oklahoma?

2010-01-22T08:28:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-04T11:17:00.000-08:00

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.

CDC Report Finds Comprehensive Sex Education Programs Effective

2009-11-13T10:22:00.000-08:00

There's been so much gnashing of teeth regarding health care reform and the coverage of abortion, that the following story was lost in the shuffle. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to get people's attention away from teen sexual health and sexuality education, and toward a more contrary issue. I'm not saying that abortion rights and health care reform are less important or that they don't play a role in teen sexual health; I am saying that these issues find their ways to the front burner, while the debate on sexuality education gets postponed again and again.

Nonetheless, read this report and pay close attention to the response of abstinence-only promoters. It's another example of the "my agenda is more important than scientific proof" thinking that has strong armed public policy for the past decade.

November 9, 2009

Sex education programs that advise students to delay sexual activity while also offering instruction on ways to avoid unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections effectively reduce risky sexual behavior, increase condom use and decrease spread of STIs, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-commissioned report released on Friday, the Washington Post reports. The report said there is insufficient evidence to determine whether programs that focus on abstinence until marriage reduce the chance adolescents will engage in risky sexual behavior, become pregnant or contract an STI.

The report was authored by a 19-member expert panel assembled by CDC to examine the efficacy of various sex education programs. For the report, the panel reviewed an analysis of 83 studies on sex education programs from 1980 through 2007. The findings come as Congress considers whether to approve President Obama's request to redirect federal funding from abstinence-only sex education to programs that have been validated by scientific research.

CDC's Randy Elder -- who works with the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent 15-member panel that issues public health recommendations -- said the study found "sufficient evidence that comprehensive risk reduction efforts are effective." However, "after a similar look, the task force determined that based on a number of problems with the studies presented to them there was insufficient evidence" to determine the efficacy of abstinence-only programs, Elder said.

Two members of the panel issued a dissenting report, arguing that the analysis indicates that comprehensive sex education programs in schools do not significantly increase condom use or reduce pregnancy and STI rates among teenagers, the Post reports. In their dissenting report, Irene Erickson of the Institute for Research and Evaluation and Danielle Ruedt of the Georgia Governor's Office of Children and Families said, "This is an important finding because the school classroom is where most teens receive sex education." Erickson added, "Furthermore, the data indicated that many types of (comprehensive) programs do not work, even in non-school settings, yet the recommendations do not identify what those are." The report's "conclusion that comprehensive sex education programs are broadly effective simply ignores these findings," they wrote, adding, "This is misleading to policymakers who are seeking evidence-based programs, especially for schools."

However, Elder disputed Erickson and Ruedt's arguments, saying, "All of those points were considered by the task force." He said that their arguments "reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of a systematic review process," adding, "The whole point of what we are doing is to aggregate data from as many studies that are critical to answering the question. What they were doing was chopping up the evidence into very fine subsets to poke holes."

Advocates of comprehensive sex education programs praised the findings, the Post reports. James Wagoner of Advocates for Youth said, "At long last, evidence and common sense have returned to public health policy," adding that the report "endorses the comprehensive approach to prevention that includes condoms and birth control." Wagoner said, "We should be spending taxpayer dollars only on evidence-based programs." Sarah Brown of the National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy said, "Most Americans would like their teens to stay away from sex," adding, "Strong research shows that the best way to do this, especially in schools, is to use a curriculum that encourages teens to delay sex and also -- this is the key -- talks to them about family planning and protection."

Abstinence-only supporters criticized the report. "If you compare the statistical significance of outcome measures related to sexual activity and sexual initiation, the data is better for the abstinence education program than the comprehensive program," according to Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association (Stein, Washington Post, 11/6).

Newsweek Article on the Future of Abstinence-Only Programs

2009-10-29T10:15:00.000-07:00

A while back, one of the leaders of Oklahoma's abstinence-only until marriage "vendors" publicly decried the possibility of losing federal funding. His major concern was not for the children of the state who have likely been harmed by these programs, but rather for the future of the fundamentalist religious organization that employed him. In his own words, he said that at least 70% of his agency's budget was from federal abstinence-only funds, and a loss of the federal funds would nearly destroy the group.

This caught my attention because he was basically saying that his "agency" existed on federal funding. (I won't name the group, but it is well known for its connections to the arch-conservative Family Research Council with its anti-choice, anti-contraception, anti-sex, anti-gay work.) In other words, he was admitting that MY TAX DOLLARS were being used, through federal and state abstinence-only funds, to support his organization -- an organization whose mission is diametrically opposed to honest education, public health, sexual self-determination, and the separation of church and state.

Forgive me if I don't shed any tears.

With this background in mind, I was especially interested to read about a recent article in Newsweek. A review from the National Partnership for Women and Families follows. The bolding of certain words and phrases are mine.

Future of Abstinence-Only Programs Unclear

Without Federal Funding, Newsweek Reports

October 29, 2009

Abstinence-only sex education programs that received substantial federal grants under the Bush administration are turning to private donors as an attempt to keep their programs running, Newsweek reports. Since 1997, the abstinence-only industry has received a total of $1.9 billion in government funding, including $1.5 billion from the federal government. However, the "next decade may well be its bust," as President Obama's 2010 budget cut federal funding for abstinence-only programs in favor of programs that have been proven effective, Newsweek reports. Although Congress could restore funding to the programs -- as the Senate Finance Committee voted 12-11 to do last month in its health care reform bill (S 1796) -- the "chances are slim" that the full Congress would approve such a measure, according to Newsweek.

Twenty-five states were already rejecting federal funding for the abstinence-only programs when Obama proposed the budget changes, with 16 of them citing ideological reasons or saying that they weren't seeing results in reducing teen pregnancies and STIs.

Alesha Doan, author of "The Politics of Virginity: Abstinence in Sex Education," said that now, the "open question" is whether abstinence-only advocates and their programs "will continue to thrive when federal funding is not longer available." She asked, "What is the underlying support in society for this?" The shift in funding comes as a growing body of research indicates that abstinence-only messages do not reduce rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

"Everyone was willing to give new ideas a trial period" when the programs were first introduced, according to John Santelli of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. However, "[e]ach evaluation came along ... and each showed it didn't work," he said. In 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs showed that students involved were no more likely to abstain from sex until marriage than students enrolled in a comprehensive sex education program. At the same time, a 2008 review of 48 studies found that two-thirds of comprehensive sex education programs reduced the frequency of sex or number of sexual partners.

Newsweek reports that there are several reasons why abstinence-only programs "proved largely ineffective," citing the incomplete and inaccurate information provided as major reasons. For example, one study, released earlier this year by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, found that one curriculum in Texas was teaching that condoms have "little to no benefit," despite recommendations from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that condoms are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV infection and reducing the risk of other STIs.

Researcher Doug Kirby said, "The programs that have by far the strongest evidence that they have a positive impact ... are those that give the message that not having sex is safest, but if you have sex always use condom and contraception."

Religious influence also contributed to the criticism of some federally funded abstinence-only programs, with the American Civil Liberties Union filing "a number of lawsuits (some successful, some not)" against such programs in public schools and against state-sponsored events that encouraged a specific religious perspective, Newsweek reports.

Experts on both sides of the issues expect the abstinence-only program industry to continue to "shrink significantly," even if Congress restores Title V funding, Newsweek reports. Several states are turning to a comprehensive approach, combining abstinence-based programs with more comprehensive curricula that include basic information about contraception. For instance, the North Carolina Legislature this summer approved a program that teaches abstinence until marriage and offers information about contraceptives. Parents are allowed to opt out of portions of the program. The bill has attracted support from the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of North Carolina's Christian Action League, as well as from Planned Parenthood.

Abstinence-only advocates argue that programs combining abstinence and comprehensive sex education programs send mixed messages to teens, teaching them to remain abstinent until marriage "while demonstrating how to use condoms," Newsweek reports. Leslee Unruh, director of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, called such programs "very harmful."

According to Newsweek, abstinence-only advocates say they "are not quitting," even though the federal funding is gone and a growing body of research indicates that the programs are not effective. Unruh said that the loss of federal funding, "will have a chilling effect on abstinence education across the country," adding, "We're in a race against time to keep these people in business."

Private fundraising has been successful for some abstinence programs, such as Oklahoma's KEEP -- Kids Eagerly Endorsing Purity -- which receives about $100,000 in federal funds annually.

The Newsweek article profiled the effect changes in abstinence-only funding have had on Texas' McLennan County Collaborative Abstinence Program. In 2006, it had a $1 million budget comprised entirely of government grants, which it used to educate 6,000 to 7,000 students. However, the group now "struggles to reach half that number" after its $800,000 grant from the Community-Based Abstinence Education program ran out in 2007 and was not renewed. The group also no longer receives Title V grants. MCCAP Executive Director Tracy Cousins said, "It was a definite shock to go from everything we had ... down to the bare minimums," noting that the group used to have seven staff members servicing 19 school districts. They now have two employees and are likely to operate in four or five school districts going forward (Kliff, Newsweek, 10/27).

Doing the Funding Shuffle

2009-10-02T15:01:00.000-07:00

My day yesterday was spent working with staff and volunteers in preparation for a very important fundraiser, so I stayed away from TV, radio, and the Internet. That evening, as guests began arriving at the event, more and more people stopped me to ask what I thought about the committee vote in favor of reinstating federal funding for education that is abstinence-only until marriage. I was clueless. Could it be? Could it be that the majority of the Senate Finance Committee members had ignored multiple studies showing abstinence-only ed to be a failure? Could it be that they discounted the number of states who, finding abstinence-only to be downright dangerous, have refused to bring abstinence-only funds to their public schools? Could it be that the committee had snubbed the majority of parents who support a more comprehensive approach to sexuality education for young people.

Apparently so, to the tune of $50 million. Granted, there are many more committee meetings ahead on this subject, but wow. The vote was 12 to 11 in favor of abstinence-only funding.

I hope the committee's next step is to ensure universal health care coverage because at this rate, there are likely to be a lot more teen pregnancies and a lot more sexually transmitted infections in 2010.

Some Texas Schools Abandon Abstinence-Only as Teen Pregnancy Climbs, Funding Shifts

2009-09-29T10:12:00.000-07:00

I thought this article from the National Partnership for Women and Families Daily Women's Health Policy Report was interesting and timely. Granted, it IS Austin, but Austin is still in Texas. Is it too much to hope that Oklahoma will follow suit?

Some Texas school districts are abandoning abstinence-only curricula in favor of abstinence-based programs that also teach about contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted infections, the Austin American-Statesman reports. Many of the school districts, including Austin's, made the change after it became clear that teen pregnancy rates were climbing under the abstinence-only approach, according to the American-Statesman. The change also comes as the Obama administration seeks to shift federal abstinence-only dollars to programs proven to reduce teen pregnancy rates.

More government money has been spent teaching abstinence in Texas than any other state, and it has the third-highest teen birth rate in the country, the American-Statesman reports. A Texas State University study released earlier this year found that less than 5% of Texas districts have comprehensive sex education. The school districts in Austin, Lufkin and some other areas have adopted "abstinence-plus" curricula, which teach that abstinence is the safest choice but also stress the importance of using contraception if teens become sexually active.

"Our data says that what we're doing isn't working, and our community is ready for us to do something different," Roy Knight, superintendent of the Lufkin Independent School District, said. Whitney Self, lead teacher for health and physical education in the Hays Consolidated Independent School District, which switched to abstinence-plus, said, "We mainly did it because of our pregnancy rate. We don't think abstinence-only is working."

One federal abstinence program -- known as Title V -- expired in June. Congress, with support from the Obama administration, is also considering replacing a second federal program, the Community-Based Abstinence Only Program, with one that funds initiatives "proven to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), reduce the transmission of [STIs] or reduce teen pregnancy."

The American-Statesman reports that Texas could face challenges as it seeks to implement the types of federally funded programs envisioned by Congress. Sex education is not required in the state, but when it is offered, it must meet strict abstinence mandates under the Texas Education Code, which is "widely interpreted as barring detailed instruction about birth control and condoms," according to the American-Statesman.

Austin Tries New Approach

The revised sexual education program in the Austin school district was created by Janet Realini, a San Antonio physician and public health expert who testified before the state Board of Education in 2004 about faulty medical information in school health textbooks. Realini's program teaches students about STIs and the success rates of various forms of contraception.

"The key message is, if you're sexually active, you need to use a condom because it will reduce the risk of [STIs] and reduce the chance of pregnancy," Realini said. Her program, available online and free of charge, has been adopted by school districts in Hays County, San Antonio, Lufkin and the Rio Grande Valley. The Houston school district, Texas' largest, is considering the program for next year. Houston has more children born to teens under age 15 than any city in the country (Bell, Austin American-Statesman, 9/27).

Great Video!

2009-09-21T09:02:00.001-07:00

Isn't It The Truth

2009-09-18T13:16:00.000-07:00

The quote at the end is priceless...

Teen Birth Rates Highest in States With Greatest Levels of Religious Belief, Study Finds

September 18, 2009 — States whose residents have high levels of conservative religious beliefs also have higher teenage birth rates, a study published this week in the online edition of the journal Reproductive Health found, according to HealthDay/U.S. News & World Report.

Study author Joseph Strayhorn -- an adjunct faculty member at Drexel University and the University of Pittsburgh -- noted that the findings showed an association and not causation, adding, "But if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, we conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."

Do The Math

2009-09-18T08:37:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Schroeder, Ed.D., M.S.W., is the executive director for Answer, a national sexuality education organization housed at Rutgers University. Dr. Schroeder is also the co-founding editor of the American Journal of Sexuality Education. This article first appeard on National Sexuality Resource Center website at http://nsrc.sfsu.edu.

Teen Pregnancy and Abortion Prevention ≠ Comprehensive Sexuality Education

I love Barack Obama. I love him for many reasons. But right now, I’m speaking as a sexuality educator. I love that he regularly mentioned lesbian and gay people during the campaign. I love that he pledged to end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (okay, so he hasn’t gotten to that one yet). And I’m over the moon that he has openly supported comprehensive sexuality education— in the Senate as an original co-sponsor of the REAL (Responsible Education about Life) Act, throughout the campaign, and now as President.

Well, sort of.

He has proposed a federal budget that eliminates much of the harmful Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage funding. And, in that very same budget, he did propose funding to support pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction programs. But while reducing unintended pregnancy and abortions are important and desired outcomes of sexuality education, they are not, nor should they be, the only goals of sexuality education. More importantly, however, funding teen pregnancy and abortion reduction is not the same thing as funding comprehensive sexuality education.

By setting up such specific outcomes for potential funding, the Administration risks creating competition among organizations that should be – no, need to be – working together, especially in this challenging economic climate. This competition impedes our work toward accomplishing the goals of comprehensive sexuality education. Let me explain.

For many years now, I’ve come to see the sexuality education field – both comprehensive and abstinence-only-until-marriage proponents—as being very similar to an elementary school soccer game. If you’ve never seen one, the referee places the ball onto the field, blows the whistle, and moves quickly out of the way. As the crowd watches on the sidelines, both teams descend upon the ball en masse, kicking wildly, until the ball pops out and lands nearby. The entire gaggle of players moves together to surround the ball and begins kicking again.

Sometimes the ball will advance, and sometimes it will move backward. Sometimes it will stay exactly where it is. Points may even be scored. On both sides, there will often be frustration, name-calling and even tears. The game is a race against time – and if no one scores, the game still ends when time is up. The excitement and energy abates, the referee collects the ball, and everyone simply goes home.

Today, the myriad youth-serving professionals who have anything to do with providing sexual health information or services are the players in this elementary school soccer game. The federal government is the referee, and the soccer ball is funding. The teams are made up of a wide variety of approaches, goals, and ideologies. The fighting and limited progress speak for themselves.

With the prospect of the budget passing, and money being included for teen pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction programs and not comprehensive sexuality education programs, I have to admit, I’m worried.

I’m worried that the general public will continue to misunderstand the breadth of what is needed via comprehensive sexuality education to help young people grow into healthy sexual beings. I’m worried that focusing on teen pregnancy and abortion reduction will reinforce the mistaken perception that all kids are heterosexual, and that the bullying and homophobia running rampant in our schools nationwide is somehow less important than the possible outcomes of unprotected vaginal intercourse. I’m worried that in focusing on pregnancy prevention and abortion reduction, the public and policymakers will incorrectly assume that sexuality education can start in high school or late middle school – when the keystone of the understanding, skills and self-esteem needed to make healthy choices about sexuality must be firmly planted in early childhood. And I’m worried that a funding stream looking to reduce teen pregnancy and abortion will, in such a tight economy, tempt organizations to revise their strategic or work plans – or even their very missions – in pursuit of the elusive dollar.

Just like the elementary school soccer game, our field would benefit extremely well from calling a “time out” to talk about a unified strategy for using whatever funding is included at the federal level – and for pushing for more. We need to avoid being so grateful to have any kind of funding relating to the work we do and hold the Administration’s feet to the fire to fulfill its promise to support comprehensive sexuality education. Otherwise, we will all continue to kick wildly at the soccer ball, exhausting ourselves and our resources without much to show for it all, until the referee’s whistle blows to let us know that the game is over.

Proposed UN Sex Ed Guidelines Spark Controversy

2009-09-04T11:50:00.000-07:00

September 3, 2009

Drafts of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) International Guidelines on Sexuality Education that will be launched formally in October are inciting controversy. UNESCO describes the guidelines as "an evidence-informed and rights-based framework to give children and young people access to the knowledge and skills they need in their personal, social and sexual lives." The guidelines were developed using input from worldwide experts and research and aim to reduce the number of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, contracted by youth globally each year. Currently, there are 111 million new cases annually, according to the Telegraph UK.

Conservative groups, primarily in the United States, have criticized the proposed guidelines as promoting the idea that access to legal abortion is a right, positioning abstinence as "only one of a range of choices available to young people", and encouraging discussion of homosexuality and masturbation, reported the New York Times.

In response to the critics, the United Nations Population Fund has reportedly requested that their name be removed from all materials supporting the guidelines.Sue Williams, chief of UNESCO's Paris press relations department told Time, "we're not surprised by this reaction, nor the places it's coming from. In fact, our very goal with such recommendations is to initiate the kind of debate, reflection, and action that moves the topic forward. Our desire now, however, is that debate be both informed and balanced."\

Nanette Ecker, who co-authored the guidelines said, "Successful programs merge both evidence-informed approaches with rights-based, scientifically accurate and comprehensive approaches. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. In a world with so many children and young people at risk of unintended pregnancy, sexual abuse and violence, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), it would be an abuse if critical information about sexuality, relationships and sexual health wasn't provided to young people."

Media Resources: UNESCO 8/27/09; New York Times 9/2/09; Telegraph UK 8/28/09; Time 9/3/09

© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

The Attacks Get Louder

2009-08-10T07:59:00.000-07:00

While going through my email this morning, I found the following piece:

OPINION Washington Times Opinion Piece Criticizes Comprehensive Sex Ed Curricula[Aug. 10, 2009]

Sex education programs in U.S. public schools are "dominated by" the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, Rebecca Hagelin, a family advocate and author, writes in a Washington Times opinion piece. According to Hagelin, these groups' materials "promote a radical political agenda, are highly pornographic, encourage our children to be sexually active and are largely devoid of biological and medical information." She recommends that parents read Miriam Grossman's new book -- titled "You're Teaching My Child What?" -- to "fully grasp the problem."

Hagelin continues that the first step parents should take to prevent their children "from falling victim to radical liberal ideology is to become familiar with the materials used in your school." Parents should request to review all materials used in the classroom and opt out of sex education classes for their children, according to Hagelin. "Your children deserve to know about the dangers of being sexually active outside of marriage, and the truth that sexual relations within the bonds of marriage are beautiful, safe and incredibly fulfilling," Hagelin writes. She concludes by recommending that parents visit the Web site of the Abstinence Clearinghouse for "practical, proven ways to help your teens practice abstinence" (Hagelin, Washington Times, 8/10).

What makes it difficult for me to respond to such an opinion piece is that there's not enough substance to contradict with scientific and honest information. And even if it did, would it be worth my time and effort?

I've been hearing a lot about the book, "You're Teaching My Child What?" It sounds like the opinion piece is taken directly from the book's promotional materials. Hagelin and her ilk continuously blame Planned Parenthood for the sorry state of adolescent health in our country.

I would challenge anyone in Oklahoma to look into and consider the sources of sex ed in schools. I can assure you that fear and misinformation is by far more common than any comprehensive education that is provided by Planned Parenthood. I could provide sex education 24 hours a day, every day of the year and still not reach every child in every school. Plus, most of my work is with alternative programs - the programs that people like Hagelin don't seem to be concerned about.

The author does give some good advice - parents should review their children's sex ed materials. It is law in Oklahoma that these materials be made available. But since the vast majority of schools in Oklahoma do not provide any sex ed, well, there's not going to be much for parents to review.

Periodically, these sorts of opinion pieces come out. Their primary objective is to attack Planned Parenthood and scare school administrators. Parents who know better will ignore the "call to arms," and parents who believe it are usually the ones that take their kids out of any sex ed anyway.

I do sometimes worry that an unsuspecting board member of a private foundation will focus on the "radical liberal ideology" part and reconsider ever providing funds to Planned Parenthood. All I can say in response is that I am, above all, honest. I teach young people how to respect themselves and others, how to value health and healthy behaviors, how to appreciate the role that human sexuality plays in our lives, and how to always seek information that is accurate, appropriate, and applicable. If that is a pornographic, radical political agenda that promotes sexual activity, then my nearly three decades of experience working with young people must be terribly misdirected.

Do you suppose the Abstinence Clearinghouse could straighten me out?

Abstinence-Only Fails in Mississippi

2009-07-29T09:22:00.000-07:00

From the e-newsletter of Positively Aware -

In the July 22 Kaiser Family Foundation HIV/AIDS Report, the Jackson Clarion-Ledger reported findings from the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

“Mississippi is among the top states in the nation in the spread of HIV and AIDS among pre-teens to young adults, as well as pregnancies in the same age groups," according to the CDC. The report found that the rate of young adults age 20 to 24 living with HIV/AIDS was 33.9 cases per 100,000 people, the eighth highest rate in the nation for this age group.

Mary Currier, the state epidemiologist, said the findings indicate that the state's abstinence-only approach to sex education is ineffective. According to the Clarion-Ledger, "Earlier this year, an attempt to establish a pilot sex-education program in a limited number of schools passed the Mississippi House but died in the Senate without a vote. The bill would have required the program to report its successes or failures in a 2012 report to the Legislature." State Rep. Alyce Clarke (D), who authored the bill, said she will try again to get the bill passed.

Good News About Federal Funding & Something Fun!

2009-07-28T10:33:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a $730.5 billion bill (HR 3293) to fund health, education, and labor programs in fiscal 2010. Two exciting components of the bill are worth noting.

The first may not appear to have much to do with comprehensive sexuality education, but it represents a clear change in prevention philosophy to one based in science and cost-effectiveness. HR 3293 allows for the use federal funds for needle exchange programs with only a few restrictions.

We have known for more than a decade that providing clean needles and syringes for injection drug users (IDUs) significantly reduces the spread of HIV and viral Hepatitis B and C.

Arguments against needle exchange programs typically fall into two groups - the group that claims the programs encourage drug use, and the group that says needle exchange removes the fear of infection as a punishment for using the drugs in the first place.

Sound familiar? A little like, "Giving people condoms encourages them to have sex," and "Fear of infection or unplanned pregnancy is the best sort of prevention, so reducing the risks of these punishments will, in turn, lead to higher rates of unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections." Or, the crazy claim that "giving young people the Gardasil vaccine to reduce the risks of HPV, genital warts, and cancer will lead to promiscuity." Or, the ever-popular, "Teaching kids about safer sex encourages them to have sex. "

Finally, our federal government is basing a funding decision on good science rather than on fear and punishment. With access to needle exchange, IDUs are less likely to share needles. Needle exchange does not increase injection drug use. It is cost-effective and proven.

The second part of HR 3293 that we should celebrate is that it drops funding for dangerous, unproven abstinence-only until marriage sex education, and it adds $114 million for a new teenage pregnancy prevention initiative. Again, I say, "FINALLY." This comes on the heels of reports that teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are on the increase, even though the past dozen years have focused federal dollars exclusively on abstinence-only.

In response to the "fear and punishment" model used in abstinence-only, I encourage you to take a look at a recent article from The Onion. If you enjoy satire, follow this link:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/study_abstinence_only_lunch?utm_source=a-section

Britain's new message for teens

2009-07-16T10:36:00.000-07:00

Check out this news article regarding Britain's efforts to curb teen pregnancy rates over seas. The new booklet entitled "Pleasure" was created to try and change the tone of sex education by encouraging healthy sexual relations and masterbation. More information is available on our facebook page, click the link to the right...

More on the "Purity Myth" with Jessica Valenti

2009-07-14T09:23:00.000-07:00

Legislative Funding Priorities A Painful Reminder

2009-06-08T10:54:00.000-07:00

I am outraged.

Today, a friend and colleague who works for the school-based clinic at Emerson High School dropped by my office to pick up some resources for her patients, clients, and students. It's a common occurrence because we have some great resources to share with teens. This visit was a bit different, though. This time, my friend also dropped by to say goodbye.

In case you did not catch the local news last month (which you probably didn't because the media has been unusually silent on the subject), our legislature stopped all state funding of two incredibly important and successful programs targeting teen parents.

For years, the Margaret Hudson program in Tulsa and the Emerson Teen Clinic have provided on site health care, including prenatal and postnatal care for teen moms. These clinics provided so much more than health care to keep teens and their babies healthy. They were reliable sources of education on childcare, parenting, pregnancy prevention, STI and HIV prevention, and other important life skills for all teens in the area. They were models of how a good program should and does work.

But now, because our legislators were looking for easy targets for budget cuts, both programs are likely to be closed. State taxpayer support has ended. Now, the connections between access to health care, education, health, and responsibility will be severed for some of our most vulnerable populations.

So I am outraged. I am outraged that the majority of Oklahoma's legislators are short-sighted and that they care more about their own prejudices and agendas than they do sound public policy.

I am outraged because our state and most of our legislators present themselves as "pro-life" and anti-abortion. If this was really the case, why cut the state's only two programs dedicated to medically supporting teens who have chosen to carry their pregnancies to term? Why would they end access to other social services by ceasing the operation of these two programs, both of which have built intricate social service partnerships and networks across the state?

I am outraged because the bulk of the legislature is not "pro-life." In fact, it seems that once an abortion is averted, our elected officials lose interest in what happens next to a teen parent struggling with all the obstacles ahead. The Emerson and Margaret Hudson programs helped teens negotiate the challenges and overcome the obstacles. But no more.

I am outraged that the legislature passed an unnecessary bill that required abortion providers to report statistical information that could potentially threaten the medical privacy of patients. Why does this outrage me? For one, this new law will cost taxpayers an estimated $280,000 a year, and the additional information to be reported does nothing but put a greater burden on abortion providers. Correction - it does nothing but put a greater burden on abortion providers and take funding away from worthwhile programs like the clinics at Emerson and Margaret Hudson that actually decrease the need for abortion.

At first glance, neither of these terrible legislative actions has anything at all to do with R.E.A.L. education. But they do. Sexual health education with accompanying access to health care is proven to reduce the rates of second pregnancies (and therefore, abortions) among teen parents. A legislator who was truly "pro-life," I would hope, would see the wisdom in expanding programs like those at Emerson and Margaret Hudson to other parts of the state. Although education alone does have an influence on health and healthy decisions, it is even more effective when it's backed up by health care services, social support, and a motive to plan for the future. That is what the school clinics provided - not only to pregnant and parenting teens, but to all students who had easy access to their services.

When I get really, really busy (which is most of the time), I sometimes forget about the collaboration between individuals and agencies that it takes to make a difference in people's lives. The recent legislative funding priorities, though, are painful reminders that we don't function in a vacuum. We operate as a system. And when one or two important components are taken away, we all suffer.

Defining Medical Accuracy in Sexuality Education for Oklahoma

2009-05-18T08:34:00.001-07:00

On February 5, 2009, the governor’s Interagency Coordinating Council for the Prevention of Adolescent Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (ICC) adopted the following definition of medically accurate information.

“Medically accurate information used in sexuality education and HIV/STD prevention programs is information relevant to informed decision-making based on the weight of scientific evidence, consistent with generally recognized scientific theory, conducted under accepted scientific methods, published in peer-reviewed journals, and recognized as accurate, objective, and complete by mainstream professional organizations such as the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Public Health Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics; government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health; and scientific advisory groups such as the Institute of Medicine and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The deliberate withholding of information that is needed to protect life and health (and therefore relevant to informed decision-making) should be considered medically inaccurate.”

Although the group does not have the authority to make state policy or law, the ICC represents a variety of highly respected constituencies in Oklahoma, including professionals in health care, education, and youth development. A statement from ICC on its accepted definition of medically accurate information in sexuality education is an exciting step toward ensuring that the young people of our state receive the highest quality sexuality education.

National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

2009-05-06T09:21:00.000-07:00

In recognition of the eighth annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) today called for public funding of comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs to reduce the alarming rate of unintended teen pregnancies in this country.

“Teens deserve honest, accurate, age-appropriate information about how to protect themselves,” said Terry Dennison, Director of Education for Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma. “They need sex education that provides information about healthy communication, responsible decision making, as well as abstinence and contraception as ways to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.”

The U.S. teen birthrate increased for the second year in a row, according to data released in March by the National Center for Health Statistics. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports the U.S. has the highest rates of teen pregnancy among comparable countries. An estimated 750,000 American teens become pregnant each year.

Planned Parenthood affiliate educators nationwide reach more than 1.2 million young people and adults with medically accurate sex education each year. As a trusted health care provider, Planned Parenthood knows firsthand the power of education to help teens make responsible decisions about their health. Every year we provide three million women, men, and teens nationwide with health information and services to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect their health.

Providing teens and young people with the information they need to make responsible decisions is the commonsense solution to reducing unintended teen pregnancy. Numerous studies have analyzed abstinence-only programs and found them to be ineffective.

A study conducted by the University of Washington found that teens who had comprehensive sex education were 50 percent less likely to become pregnant than teens who had no sex education or who were in abstinence-only programs. A study by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports that two-thirds of the examined sex education programs that focus on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. And a 2008 Guttmacher Institute report found that most abstinence programs did not delay initiation of sexual activity.

President Barack Obama has consistently supported comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education. As a senator, President Obama was an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which would ensure that all taxpayer-funded federal programs are medically accurate and include information about contraception.

Planned Parenthood is a 2009 national partner of the National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, an effort to help teens understand the importance of avoiding unintended pregnancy. For more information, please visit The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Author Jessica Valenti talks about the Purity Myth

2009-04-23T11:41:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Earth Day at UCO

2009-04-23T08:14:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was Earth Day and PPCO celebrated at the University of Central Oklahoma! Now I know you're thinking, why was PPCO at the Earth Day celebration? Well, it's about population control. The more people in the world, the more consumption of resources. All we want is for individuals to plan when and whether they want to have a family.

It was a beautiful day and we handed out many condoms and information to students, faculty and friends!

Really?

2009-04-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

The biggest teen pregnancy story in the United States last year was this young man and a certain presidential candidate's daughter. Was safe sex practiced? Really?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Check out this article...

2009-03-02T11:25:00.000-08:00

U.S. News and World Report did a story on the uninsured and the need for Planned Parenthood. Check out this article! Just a reminder, here at Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma we are a low-cost, high quality health care provider but we do not receive any federal funding so we are a fee for service organization.

Call 1-800-230-PLAN for an appointment today!

Planned Parenthood To Promote Prevention and Responsibility

2009-02-09T14:08:00.000-08:00

Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma will be celebrating the effectiveness of latex condoms during National Condom Week, February 10th – 15th. People can stop by their closest PPCO health centers during the week of Valentine’s Day to enter a “guess the number of condoms in the jar” contest and to pick up free condoms, information, candy, and “Just Wear It” bumper stickers. Health centers are located in Norman, Edmond, Midwest City, south Oklahoma City, and central Oklahoma City.

The group will also be working with area radio stations to spread the word and reward listeners with special prizes.

“Since 1978, the week of Valentine’s Day has been marked as National Condom Week,” says Terry Dennison, Director of Education for Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma. “It is a terrific opportunity to educate people about the importance of prevention and responsible condom use, and to address the misinformation about condoms that might discourage their use.”

“We want people to feel that it’s okay to talk about condoms, and that condom use can be the norm rather than the exception,” says Dennison. “The more comfortable people become, the better equipped they will be to make safer decisions about their sexual health and behavior.”

The latex condom is among the most popular and effective ways that sexually active people reduce the risks of unintended pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. But according to Dennison, there are people who still believe some of the myths spread by anti-condom advocates.

“I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard from people who’ve been told that latex condoms have ‘tiny pores’ in them that let through viruses, such as HIV. That simply isn’t true,” says Dennison. “Latex condoms do not have pores, and they are highly effective in preventing viral infections such as HIV.”

With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, PPCO is hoping to address the distortion of information about condoms by joining other organizations nationwide to promote the use of latex condoms during National Condom Week. Dennison describes a conservative movement to push abstinence-only-until-marriage while marginalizing the important part that condoms play in prevention. “These folks are putting ideology before people’s health. We have a responsibility to provide accurate information about all people’s options in sexual decision-making.”

In addition to activities planned at the PPCO health centers, PPCO will join student organizations to distribute free latex condoms, information, and related items on area university and college campuses.

“PPCO appreciates the fact that abstinence is a valid and practical choice,” says Dennison. “The reality, though, is that most people, married or not, will choose to have sex at some point in their lives. Condom awareness and the promotion of responsible choices and behaviors are also key parts of our continuing strategy of prevention.”

For additional information on National Condom Week or other services of Planned Parenthood, call 405/528-0221. For an appointment at your local Planned Parenthood clinic, call 1-800-230-PLAN.

The National Condom Week campaign is made possible through the support of Oklahoma AIDS Care Fund, AIDS Walk of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Friends Fighting AIDS (OFFAIDS) and private donations.

Abstinence on the Defense

2009-01-02T09:28:00.000-08:00

Another study, this one published in the January 2009 issue of the journal Pediatrics, has concluded that premarital abstinence pledges are ineffective. The study shows that teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of contraception when they do.

This news is neither surprising nor ground-breaking. What's interesting to me are the strong and dismissive responses of the pro abstinence-only until marriage groups in response to this study.

First, I am clear that abstinence pledge programs are not necessarily the same as all the federally-funded, abstinence-only until marriage programs. But you'd never know that by looking at the backlash to the study.

Of particular note is a statement by Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, as reported in a recent Washington Post article. Her response to the study: "It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs."

Maybe I am reading between the lines, but I would have hoped that abstinence-only folks would respond with greater care for the teens themselves rather than in a manner that defends a failing agenda.

If it were me, I would be most concerned about the teens. If I was an abstinence-only advocate, I would respond to the study by saying, "This study tells us that follow-through with abstinence-only until marriage is much more complex and difficult than taking a simple pledge. We may need to spend more time helping young people to look at all sides of the decision to have sex and to realistically consider the pros and cons of each option. It also appears that we may need to ensure the inclusion of more accurate information about risk reduction strategies, such as condom use, safer sex alternatives, and contraception. This way we can reach even those who do choose to have sex before marriage so that they will at least be prepared to deal with the responsibilities of being sexually active. The study is a wake-up call for us to constantly evaluate the effectiveness of our programs and work to improve them."

But that's just me.

Instead of showing concern for the teens in the study or for teens in general, Huber attacks the study and the study's author. She wants us all to believe that this study, and the many others like them, are intentional lies and misinformation in the campaign to discredit ab-pledge and ab-only programs.

And why would she take this defensive posture? Perhaps it has something to do with the new administration's reconsideration of the more than $176 million in annual tax payer funding for the programs she represents.

Random Thoughts

2008-10-24T08:33:00.000-07:00

It has been several weeks since my last blog entry. So much has been happening!

Of course, every one's attention right now is focused on the troubled economy. Before all the bad news, REAL sexuality education became a political issue in the presidential campaigns. One candidate accused the other of wanting to provide sexually-explicit education to children in kindergarten. Turns out, the other candidate is a supporter of COMPREHENSIVE, age-appropriate education, which does start in grade K with education about personal safety and abuse prevention. This is a terrific discussion to have in the public arena, but, understandably, debate has moved to matters of high-stakes money matters.

The AIDS Walk of Oklahoma City was held on the first Sunday in October. Although it was successful, and we had more compassionate volunteers than ever, it is evident that HIV disease is once more out of the spotlight. For a short time, the presidential candidates discussed the reality that although the U.S. has become a leader in funding international HIV services, it has been dreadful at addressing the domestic epidemic. This is such an important issue, but one that is taking a back seat to the financial crisis. It is very difficult to get people to understand the critical role that increasing public health plays in stabilizing economic, social, and political problems.

I have lost count of the numbers of college students I've met who don't even know the basics of sexual health. It is not their fault. The only prior "learning" opportunities they've had are from popular movies, here say, entertainment-oriented websites, and television. Those who received abstinence-only until marriage education learned cutsie phrases, a million ways to say no, and all the horrible things that happen to people who have sex unless they are married, but most did not learn how and why their bodies work the ways they do, how to build good communication in relationships, or anything at all about gender and sexual diversity. And these are young adults who have decades of potentially life-changing choices ahead of them!

Last month, I met with teens in a juvenile detention facility. In one group of females, there were three young women who were already moms and who could not stop talking about how they couldn't wait to be released so they could have a baby of a different gender. Their focus was on wanting at least one boy and one girl - not on how they could become better mothers by continuing their education and improving their chances for a secure future. A small group of young men, on the other had, were focused on having as much sex with as many people as they could when they were released. They seemed to be more interested in boasting about sexual conquests than in learning about sexual health.

Is abstinence-only until marriage going to work for these kids? What's the bottom line - that they don't have sex when they get out or that they understand the concepts behind family planning and disease prevention? I can only speculate on what the presidential candidates would have to say about it.

Back in September, I was interviewed by a local television station about a new website that offers testing for sexually transmitted infections and that would issue to customers who were "disease-free" an ID card that they could show to potential sex partners. This isn't the first time an aspiring entrepreneur has tried this business model. The idea behind the website, other than making money, is wrong on so many levels. I wonder if anyone will actually fall for it. Given the low level of sexual literacy in our country right now, I'm frightened of the possibilities. The reporter interviewed several "people on the street" who fortunately viewed the website offer with suspicion.

I had an interesting experience with a another group of teen boys this week. A while back, one of the boys asked how much it costs to raise a baby "nowdays." So during our meeting this week, we brainstormed all the possible expenses associated with raising a child. Then, in small groups, the boys estimated how much each year of parenting would cost. I was fascinated to see the huge amounts the boys came up with. We then compared their guesses with estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to see that, yes, parenting is not a role to take-on casually. It is a commitment of not only emotional resources but also of financial resources. I wish I would have done this activity with the girls at the detention facility.

By the way, the report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that raising a child through age 18 requires an average of nearly $11,000 per year.

And finally, something completely different. I asked about 130 college students to complete a personal assessment on gender and on sexual orientation as part of our exploration of adult sexual development. Two things really stood out while grading the assignment. First, I was taken by surprise at the number of students who wrote that they "didn't agree with homosexuality." That is a curious comment. It never occurred to me that sexual orientation, a fact, would be something with which people could agree or disagree. One student even wrote that she teaches her kids that "they are straight and will always be straight." I wonder if she had abstinence-only until marriage education in school.

Second, it was clear that the students who had the most broadminded views of sexual orientation were the ones who had a gay or lesbian friend or family member or who were gay themselves. That does not surprise me. Sexual orientation is one of the least likely issues to be discussed in school sex ed classes. That is sad - for gay students in the school, for gay friends and family, and for our society as a whole. Denying the existence of an entire group, or labeling their sexuality as disagreeable, is something that worries me. Kind of like how the current status of sexual health education worries me. It is almost as if we've gone back in time and will have to start again from scratch.

But I'm up for it. Are you?

WHY HER BUSINESS IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS

2008-09-05T10:53:00.000-07:00

The following letter was written by my colleage, Bill Taverner (whom you've seen in this blog before) and sent to the New York Times.

When Governor Sarah Palin, Republican candidate for Vice President, announced that her 17 year-old daughter was pregnant, Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama was quick to tell his supporters to "Back off!" He reminded everyone that he, himself, was the product of a teen pregnancy, and that the Palin family deserves privacy in this matter. He is right. Mostly.

The difference, of course, is that when Senator Obama's mother was pregnant at age 18, no one in her family was running for office or contemplating the nation's teen pregnancy prevention policies for the next generation. Yes, 17-year-old Bristol Palin deserves privacy. To put a nation's failures on the shoulders of young Bristol Palin would be unfair. But no, her mother, Governor Palin, does not deserve the luxury of privacy, at least when it comes to examining the failed public policies she supports that affect the rest of the nation's teenagers.

After the Palin family made its announcement about their daughter's pregnancy, one of the delegates at the Republican convention in St. Paul, MN, put it best. "Well, she wouldn't be the first one," said Pam Younggren of Fargo, ND. Indeed, you could almost say she's one in a million! Or, more precisely, one in three quarters of a million. That is the number of teens that become pregnant every year in the United States: 750,000 pregnancies.

If that figure sounds alarming, it should. The United States lags far behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to preventing teen pregnancy. The United States has maintained a rate of teen pregnancy four times higher than that of France; five times higher than the rates in Germany; and nine times higher than the rates in the Netherlands. What's going on in these other countries? Are their teens having less sex than teens in the United States? No - actually, the rates of sexual intercourse among teens in Western Europe are similar to those in the United States. The difference is in prevention education. Young people in western European countries learn about the choices of sexual abstinence AND methods of contraception and disease prevention. The United States federal government, by contrast, has seen fit to fund programs that only teach our nation's youth about sexual abstinence.

For more than a decade, Congress has secured over $1.5 billion in federal tax dollars to pay for abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) programs that forbid giving accurate information about condoms and contraception. The failure of AOUM programs has been well-documented:

* A congressional oversight committee found that 80% of AOUM curricula contained "false, misleading, or distorted information about sexual health."

* Independent research groups have found that there is no strong evidence that AOUM programs have any impact on teen sexual behavior.

*Researchers found that among more than 20,000 teens who made "virginity pledges," 88% failed to keep their pledges.

Nevertheless, AOUM programs continue to be championed by Senator John McCain and Governor Palin. But, since accepting the federal AOUM monies require states to pony up matching state tax dollars, many states have begun to critically examine the costs and benefits of accepting the money. At a time when everyone seems to be tightening their belt buckles, governors want to be accountable to their constituents. Investing more hard-earned tax dollars into a sinking ship is not the best way to endear oneself to the populace! Thus, two dozen states have refused the federal monies.

What does this have to do with Bristol Palin? Nothing. Everyone wishes her a healthy and safe pregnancy, and the best of support from her loving family. She is fortunate to live in a country where she can make a decision about whether to continue her pregnancy, and whether to marry the man who shares responsibility in her pregnancy.

What does this have to do with everyone else? Everything. This issue is much larger than a single family. The way the next president and vice president prioritize teen pregnancy prevention will speak in volumes about whether we catch up with the rest of the developed world that has already figured out strategies that are successful. McCain and Palin need to re-examine their long-held policy of withholding critical prevention information from teenagers. 65% of teens have had sexual intercouse by the 12th grade. To preach "Abstinence!" to them is to continue to keep their heads in the sand and pretend the problem will go away. They need to decide if they will listen to the vast majority of Americans (82%) who want education to include information about BOTH abstinence and other methods of contraception and prevention of sexally transmitted infections. Even 72% of voters from "red states" want sexuality education. How the Palin family plans to handle an unplanned teen pregnancy is their business. How Governor Palin and Senator Mccain choose to handle this issue nationally is everybody's business.

A Great Story

2008-08-26T06:53:00.000-07:00

I encourage you to go to one of our sister blogs and read the fun story about an experience at a campus outreach effort last weekend. Go to www.okvoiceofreason.blogspot.com.

The Public Needs It, Too

2008-08-08T11:43:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I focus so much on providing accurate sexuality education and doing effective outreach that I forget there are people out there who don't understand the need.

Today, a volunteer came to the office to help label and package a case of new female condoms. After a couple hours of handling hundreds of female condom packages, her boyfriend called on her cell phone. She told him what she was doing. His response? That giving that stuff (condoms)just pushes kids into having more sex.

When she shared this with me, I regretted that he was not here in person. I would let him know that all research shows better access to condoms leads to more condom use, but it does not lead to more sex. (In fact, some studies have shown a decrease in sex when condoms are free and easy to get.) Even if it did lead to more sex, why is that such a bad thing? Is it really any of our business, as long as it is consensual, informed, and safer?

I would let him know that people of all ages benefit from free condoms, not just young kids. The most hospitable response I get toward female condoms is from single moms in their late twenties or older. The sexually active of those women say they are tired of conflicts concerning male condom use and are interested in something they have control over.

I would say that some of the most difficult behaviors to change or control are risky sexual behaviors. Denying access to condoms, or putting up barriers to condom use, doesn't keep people from having sex anyway.

And finally, I would thank him for reminding me that we can't lose sight of the fact that there's still a lot of educating to do so that more people understand the necessity of GETTING R.E.A.L.

If there's a next time I'll get his phone number so the learning can begin....

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

2008-07-28T08:51:00.000-07:00

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"

2008-07-09T11:45:00.000-07:00

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?

Abstinence-Only Versus Pride

2008-06-26T06:57:00.000-07:00

This past weekend, I was reminded how damaging abstinence-only until marriage messages can be to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (lgbt) youth. For three days, friends, colleagues, and I participated in the Oklahoma City PRIDE Parade and Festival. It was truly an amazing experience, as it has been for more than two decades. Thousands of straight allies joined thousands of lgbt people to promote equality, an end to hate and discrimination, and truth. It meant a lot to me personally to see so many caring people join together for values I hold dear.

What do Pride festivities have to do with abstinence-only education? Abstinence-only educational messages assume that everyone is heterosexual or straight. It labels sex outside of marriage as dangerous and immoral. Since same sex marriages are not recognized-or allowed- in Oklahoma, the bottom line of abstinence-only is that if your deepest feelings of love and attraction are not for the other gender, you must live a sexless life - or enter into a marriage in which you cannot be honest with yourself or with your partner about who you really are.

The last thing a lgbt youth needs is more pressure and more shame. In fact, some people refer to abstinence-only until marriage education as "shame-based" or "fear-based" sex education. They are right to do so. The damage that such education can cause is seen in the number of teen pregnancies among lesbian, bisexual, or questioning teens (a higher rate than among straight teens), more risk-taking behaviors (why bother protecting your health if your feelings are immoral?), high rates of school dropouts (when schools can be one of the most dangerous environments), runaways, and suicide, both attempted and successful.

Abstinence-only education did not invent or start these issues, but it does exacerbate them.

When people ask me why gay people need a parade and festival, I tell them that we have a lot of years of hate to get over. Celebrating pride helps, and it helps to show lgbt youth that, regardless of the anti-gay rhetoric of ab-only education, tens of thousand of people in our community don't think that they are perverted, damned, or in need of changing.

Someone who was interviewed by the media this year said (and I paraphrase) that his dream was that some day lgbt pride activities would become nothing more than community celebrations; that hate and discrimination would no longer be problems to change, and that we could all just get together to celebrate the joy of community and diversity.

I agree. And abstinence-only until marriage does not support those goals.

Even K-Mart Is In On It!

2008-06-11T06:45:00.000-07:00

K-Mart now carries a line of abstinence-only until marriage clothing for girls. This is not a joke. The line promotes the abstinence-only until marriage program True Love Waits, which usually ranks near the bottom in effectiveness and near the top in misinformation.

To check it out, follow this link: http://list-manage.com/track/click?u=4ec9efd3f6f7aa89c108ea960043aa&id=90f6cbfa2e&e=zN71Qpdoa8. Be sure to click on the various colors.

The True Love Waits program is created by LifeWay Christian Resources, and is "designed to encourage moral purity by adhering to biblical principles."

If you have an opinion about K-Mart's new line, let K-Mart know contacting them at 1-866-KMART-4U (1-866-562-7848) or help@customerservice.kmart.com.

I suppose I'd feel a little better about it if they also ran a line of girls' clothing promoting condom use or educating people about emergency contraception when the choice of abstinence fails.

Can You Judge a Book by Its Cover?

2008-06-05T13:05:00.000-07:00

The news today is filled with reports on the very recently CDC released results of the national 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). Below is a review from the National Partnership daily report of the sexual behavior portions it from the YRBS. I found particularly interesting the response to the report given by Valerie Huber, director of the Abstinence Education Association.

The comprehensive sex ed programs she refers to are a fantasy -- there aren't many out there because abstinence-only until marriage has a monopoly on public funds. Although there are some terrific comprehensive programs being implemented, they are dwarfed by the well funded and wide-reaching ab-onlys.

Also, her conclusions are conjecture. The YRBS can in no way be interpreted as proof of the success or failure of certain curriculum. It merely reports behaviors as self-reported by teens. The YRBS gives us a picture of behavioral trends and the impact of over-arching prevention philosophies. All the other research that does look specifically at comprehensive sexuality education shows that, far from giving youth a "green light," it helps youth personalize the seriousness of sexual health and decision-making. But Ms. Huber and her supporters have never really paid much attention to research or science because research and science do not support the millions in abstinence-only funding.

I must say, the one thing the abstinence-only folks seem good at is self-promotion and twisting facts to suit their financial and philosophical goals.

PUBLIC HEALTH & EDUCATION Decline in Teen Sex, Increase in Condom Use Level Off, CDC Study Says [June 5, 2008]

A 10-year decline in the percentage of teenagers having sex leveled off between 2001 and 2007, while an increase in condom use among sexually active teens leveled off in 2003, according to a CDC study released Wednesday, the Washington Post reports. According to the Post, the survey also found "disturbing hints" that the teen sex rate is increasing and that condom use rate is decreasing, but officials said that the "trend lines have not yet reached a point where statisticians can be sure."

The study collected data from the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which CDC conducts every two years to track risky behavior among teens. The 2007 survey involved 14,103 students in grades nine through 12 at 157 high schools nationwide (Stein, Washington Post, 6/5).

According to the study, 47.8% of teens surveyed in 2007 said they had engaged in sexual intercourse, compared with 46.8% in 2005, 46.7% in 2003 and 45.6% in 2001. Among sexually active teens, 61.5% reported using a condom during their most recent intercourse, down from 62.8% in 2005 and 63% in 2003 (Li, New York Post, 6/5).

The survey also found an increase from 2005 to 2007 in the percentage of teens having sex before age 13, the percentage of teens who had sex within the three months of being surveyed, and the percentage of teens who had four or more partners. According to the Washington Post, none of the increases were large enough to convince researchers that there is an upward trend in teen sexual activity. Some experts noted that because the study was conducted only among teens attending school, it could underestimate the level of sexual activity and overestimate condom use.

The 2007 YRBS pointed to continued racial and ethnic disparities. The study found that 66% of black students surveyed in 2007 reported having had sexual intercourse, down from 82% in 1991 (Reichard, CQ HealthBeat, 6/4). The percentage of sexually active black students who have had four or more sex partners decreased from 43% in 1991 to 28% in 2007 (Dunham, Reuters, 6/4). Black teens were four times as likely as white teens and twice as likely as Hispanic teens to have sex before age 13 (AFP/Google.com, 6/4).

Among white students, 44% in the 2007 survey reported having had sex, compared with about 50% in 1991. The percentage of white students who have had four or more partners decreased from 15% in 1991 to 12% in 2007, the study found. The percentage of Hispanic students who had sex decreased slightly from 53% in 1991 to 52% in 2007, while the percentage of Hispanic students who had four or more partners was 17% in both 1991 and 2007, according to the study (CQ HealthBeat, 6/4).

Howell Wechsler, director of CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health, said the "bottom line" of the study is that health officials "don't seem to be making the progress we were making before" in measures of teen sexual activity. "There's no reason for panic, but there is reason for concern," he added (Washington Post, 6/5). Sonia Perez, senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, said the lack of significant improvement among Hispanic students could be attributed to poverty, having less-educated parents than other students, and "overcrowded schools that offer less-quality education" (Narancio, Miami Herald, 6/5). Wechsler said, "It's extremely important that our schools and community programs understand and address the health-related needs of our Hispanic students" (Reuters, 6/4).

According to the Post, the study "renewed the heated debate" over abstinence-only sex education programs. "Since we've started pushing abstinence, we have seen no change in the numbers on sexual activity," John Santelli, chair of the department of population and family health at Columbia University, said. He added, "Abstinence education spends a good amount of time bashing condoms. So it's not surprising, if that's the message young people are getting, that we're seeing condom use start to decrease" (Washington Post, 6/5). Wechsler noted that the decrease in condom use could be in part because of a complacency about HIV/AIDS (New York Post, 6/5).

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said comprehensive sex education programs have contributed to the leveling of teen sexual activity. "Contraceptive sex education does not provide practical skills for maintaining or regaining abstinence but typically gives teens a green light to activity that puts them at great risk for acquiring [sexually transmitted infections] or which serve as gateway-to-intercourse activities," Huber said (Washington Post, 6/5).

The full 2007 survey, a CDC release (.pdf) and fact sheets including trends from previous Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are available online.

National Abstinence Education Association Launches Effort Aimed at Gaining Support of 1M Parents

2008-06-02T10:32:00.000-07:00

Hmmmm. Since science (and real life) doesn't support their goals, it looks like the abstinence-only until marriage gang is preparing for a fight using scare tactics and money. This is certainly one way to raise millions of dollars so they can lobby Congress and state legislatures to grant to them many more millions!

Check out the report below from the June 2 Daily Women's Health Policy Report from the National Partnership. It is fascinating that the abstinence-only lobbyists call their opponents "special interest groups" while never identifying themselves as a special interest group.

Most of the folks who fight for abstinence-only education federal monies are the same ones that are against any federal funding for critical services such as family planning for low-income women. They say they have the right to decide how their tax dollars are spent. Well, both sides can play that game. We had better get ready to respond to an all out attack that uses lies (e.g., "comprehensive sexuality education encourages teen sexual intercourse" -- as if teens needed encouragement), and now money, to force their philosophies on our families. How dare they name their campaign "Parents for Truth."

Whatever happens, the biggest losers will be our young people, who will be left to fend for themselves while we adults bicker with each other.

Last week, the National Abstinence Education Association launched a $1 million nationwide campaign aimed at garnering the support of one million parents to lobby schools for more abstinence-only education programs, the Washington Post reports. Participants in the program will be encouraged to lobby schools to implement abstinence-only programs and to support political candidates for local, state and national offices who support such programs.

The group sent e-mails promoting the Parents for Truth campaign to about 30,000 supporters, practitioners and parents last week and plans to e-mail an additional 100,000 this week, according to the Post. NAEA hopes to recruit 100,000 parents during the first year of the campaign -- which charges a $30 registration fee to all participants. NAEA's projection of one million participants within three years is based on a 1993-1994 Georgia campaign that recruited 60,000 members to lobby the state to provide abstinence-only education programs.

Efforts to recruit participants for the campaign include a three-minute video, which states that comprehensive sex education programs encourage teenagers to engage in sexual activity, and a Web site offering parents advice about sex education. The video features the mother of a 13-year-old girl who was alarmed after learning the details of the sex education program taught at her daughter's school, which included suggestions that teens should give each other condoms and could shower together. (Supporters of comprehensive sex education programs said the campaign is misleading given that the "Be Proud! Be Responsible!" curriculum cited in the NAEA video was developed to help slow the spread of HIV/AIDS among black male teenagers ages 13 to 19 and cited showering as an activity with a low risk of HIV transmission.)

According to the Post, NAEA is launching the campaign as Congress approaches the annual debate over the level of federal funding for abstinence-only programs, which critics have said are ineffective. At least 17 states have refused federal funding for such programs, the Post reports.

NAEA Executive Director Valerie Huber said, "There are powerful special interest groups who can far outspend what parents can in terms of promoting their agenda," adding that the group "recognize[s] that parents more than make up for that by their determination and motivation to protect their own children. " Parents "are told the content of the curricula in their children's classrooms stress abstinence and just have information to make decisions in case they become sexually active," Huber said, adding that "most of these programs provide explicit how-to information that give[s] teens a green light for activities that put them at risk."

James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, said the NAEA video is a "classic fear and smear campaign," adding, "It's absolutely misleading." Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the government has "wasted" $1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs that "don't work," adding that parents "want education programs in our schools that do work and will keep teens healthy -- by including information about abstinence as well as contraception, healthy communication, responsible decision-making, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections" (Stein, Washington Post, 6/1).

Guttmacher Study Challenges Perception Teens Substitute Oral Sex for Intercourse To Stay Virgins

2008-05-20T12:04:00.000-07:00

This study from the Guttmacher Institute, orignally reported by the Washington Post and USA Today, was outlined in today's Daily Women's Health Policy Report listserv. Isn't it interesting that both sides of the abstinence-only until marriage debate use this study to support their claims?

[May 20, 2008]

Most teenagers who engage in oral sex also are having vaginal intercourse, according to a Guttmacher Institute report released Monday and scheduled to be published in the July issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, the Washington Post reports.

The findings of the study -- which for the first time examined the issue of teen oral sex nationwide -- suggests that the "popular perception that teens are engaging in serial oral sex as a strategy to avoid vaginal intercourse" is a "misperception," Guttmacher researcher Rachel Jones said.

For the study, Laura Lindberg of Guttmacher and colleagues analyzed the sexual practices of 2,271 teens ages 15 to 19 who participated in the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (Jayson, USA Today, 5/20). About 55% of the teens reported that they had engaged in oral sex, and slightly more than 50% reported that they had engaged in vaginal sex. About 87% of the teens who reported on a computerized questionnaire having vaginal sex also had oral sex, compared with 23% of those who said they never had intercourse.

In face-to-face interviews with teens who said they had vaginal sex in the previous six months, 82% also said they had oral sex, compared with 26% of teens who said they had never had intercourse. In addition, 92% of the teens who said they had intercourse for the first time more than three years earlier had engaged in oral sex, the report found. Jones said researchers were unable to determine whether teens had oral sex or intercourse first.

According to the Post, previous research suggested that more teens were having oral sex instead of intercourse; however, the reports were based on small samples or anecdotal accounts. Jones said that the study's finding that 67% of teens who had oral sex had only one partner is "another piece of evidence that there's not a lot of teens engaging in serial oral sex."

According to Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, "This study ... invalidates the suggestion that 'technical virgins' account for the rise in oral and anal sex." Huber added that the report suggests that more teens should be encouraged to delay all sexual activity. "The report reveals that teen sex, even with a condom, presents significant risk for future sexual experimentation and so underscores the need for redoubled emphasis on abstinence education," Huber said, adding, "Only abstinence education adequately addresses this problem."

Critics of abstinence-only education said the report reinforces the need for comprehensive sex education programs. "We can't afford the luxury of denial," James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, said, adding that abstinence-only programs "are the embodiment of denial. They have been proven not to work, and it's time to invest in real sex education, including condoms."

According to the Post, some researchers applauded the study for providing "much-needed data in the often highly polarized debate over teenage sexuality." Claire Brindis, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California-San Francisco, said, "We have these images of oral sex parties, but it's not based on evidence," adding, "A study like this allows us to begin to dissect what actually is going on. It really helps to break both the positive and negative stereotypes" (Washington Post, 5/20).

The study is available online (.pdf).

Taking Out The Trash

2008-05-15T07:08:00.000-07:00

I love helping parents to feel more comfortable in talking with their children about sexuality. It is an important and rewarding part of a commitment to realistic, applicable, and comprehensive sexuality education.

When I work with parents, I emphasize that true learning and the application of information are complex tasks. Family conversations about sexuality are important and must be ongoing, just as our sexuality is important and ever-changing.

For example, a four year-old's question, "Where do babies come from?" can be very different than a six year-old's "Where do babies come from?" A pre-teen's expectations of family dating rules can be very different than those of a senior in high school or those of a teen who is gay.

That's one of the reasons that exclusive, abstinence-only until marriage education fails. It is a simplistic, one-size-fits-all response to a much more complicated part of a young person's sexual and social development.

Most parents understand this. They know, for example, that getting a young person to avoid or reduce sexual risks takes more than a simple cliche, just as getting him or her to take out the trash takes more than a one-time order. I think that's why nearly every national survey has found that, overwhelmingly, parents support comprehensive, R.E.A.L. sexuality education at home and in the schools.

It shouldn't be an option.

Many years ago, I read a quote that had a profound impact on the way I see our roles as responsible adults. (I am sorry that I am unable to remember the original source.) The quote is:

Our children are not our future.

We are our children's future.

In other words, we can't afford to screw up.

Pos or Not? Can You Tell?

2008-05-05T10:20:00.001-07:00

This is a terrific resource to help people personalize HIV and to increase awareness--both important parts of practical, comprehensive sexuality education. I recommend this.

Some Personal Ramblings on Abstinence Ed

2008-05-01T12:12:00.000-07:00

Back in April, during the meeting of a coalition of people concerned with the prevention of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, a coordinator of abstinence-only programs expressed her frustration with the lack of support she was receiving from coalition members. A few members in the group cited the various studies that have shown abstinence-only programs to be ineffective and wasteful. A few other folks, attempting to sooth a frayed nerve or two, acknowledged the role that abstinence education can play in preventing pregnancy, especially among younger, sexually inexperienced teens, even though comprehensive education is still the gold standard.

Naturally, I couldn't and didn't keep my own mouth shut--expressing my frustration with abstinence-only's unethical credo.

Since that meeting, I have had several chances (usually while in my car, driving to different outlying communities to do more responsible sex ed programs) to clarify for myself why I have trouble supporting abstinence-only until marriage education -- particularly the kind that has received more than $1 billion from our federal government (or, rather, from us).

Yes, abstinence-only programs seldom have any positive, long term effect on young people's sexual behaviors. Yes, they do not decrease adolescent pregnancy or the rates of sexually transmitted infections that affect so many of our youth. And, yes, it is crazy that such a chunk of our tax dollars gets wasted on this sort of education while effective, comprehensive sexuality education does not get a dime. These are all critical issues that we must communicate to our elected officials.

But to me, abstinence-only education is also careless and dishonorable. I challenge you to consider these parts of the federal rules that sex ed programs must follow in order to be eligible for public funding.

The program "...teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."

If this was true, boy would our country ever be in trouble! A recent survey found that 95 percent of adults have had premarital sex. According to this tenet of abstinence-only education, that's millions of psychologically and physically defective adults running around.
If true, I wonder how these "harmful effects" are eliminated by marriage? Has a billion federal dollars been spent to convince sexually-charged teens that marriage is their ticket to sexual expression and sexual release?
Since it is illegal in most states (and unconstitutional in Oklahoma) for same-sex partners to marry, it seems to me that one intent of abstinence-only programs is to sentence a valuable segment of our society to either sexless lives or lives filled with psychological and physically harmful sexual behaviors.

That brings me to another requirement for abstinence-only programs. They must teach "that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity."

Sounds to me that this eliminates just about any sexual activity--from kissing to masturbation and beyond--unless it is practiced by someone who is married.
It also tells me (and the children who are important to me) that just about every member of my family, and group of friends, and almost everyone else in our country, is abnormal. Gee, that's a boost to the old self-esteem.
I personally am a big supporter of mutually faithful, monogamous relationships. I'm also an advocate for abstinence. After all, it is an option that we all choose at various times in our lives. But insisting that everyone agrees we must judge ourselves according to this "standard of human sexual activity" is offensive.

How about this requirement? The programs must teach "the importance of self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity."

Wait a minute. You now mean that people who are not self-sufficient (which in the strictest sense includes even politicians) are at a greater risk for, well, for those harmful psychological and physical effects?
Actually, since such a huge portion of our population does not have coverage for health care and cannot afford it themselves, this might be a more rational requirement of federally funded abstinence-only programs. So much money is being spent on the abstinence-only until marriage education, and not on providing health care for the uninsured, that I guess it makes sense that only the self-sufficient should be able to engage in sexual activity, since they are the only ones to have decent access to products and services like contraceptives, exams, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections.

All sarcasm aside, I really do have tremendous ethical concerns about abstinence-only until marriage education. As a colleague of mine recently wrote, sexuality education in our country remains a political football, while our teens are basically left on the sidelines to fend for themselves.

Given that, I think scores of teens deserve a lot of credit for figuring it out on their own. Many of them seek and use accurate, practical information and services. They have it going on, even if our lawmakers don't.

Florida Revamps Sex Ed to Fight HIV Myths

2008-04-10T13:02:00.000-07:00

I read this in poz.com and thought it was of interest. Take note, Oklahoma legislators!

Widespread misconceptions among Florida teens - including the belief that drinking a capful of bleach prevents HIV infection - have prompted lawmakers to draft a bill requiring more comprehensive sex education in the state's schools, the Miami Herald reports.

The bill - which the state Senate approved on April 1 - would still require Florida schools to emphasize abstinence as the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. However, schools would now also be required to teach students about condoms, as well as about other forms of contraception and disease prevention.

According to the Florida Department of Education, half of the state's middle schools and a third or its high schools teach abstinence-only courses. The Herald reports that Florida has the country's sixth-highest teen pregnancy rate.

2008-04-01T08:54:00.000-07:00

Last week, a panel of Planned Parenthood representatives spoke at a congressional briefing on the benefits of comprehensive sexuality education and the harm that can result from abstinence-only-until-marriage education. I thought you might be interested in reading the transcript of Bill Taverner's testimony. It is very good.

"Speak Up for REAL Sex Education"
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Congressional Briefing
March 27, 2008
Remarks by BILL TAVERNER

The Congressional briefing, attended by approximately 200 individuals, including press and congressional staffers, opened with remarks by Cecile Richards (President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America), followed by actress Kate Walsh ("Grey’s Anatomy" and "Private Practice"), teen peer educators Mildred Gamez and Melissa Carrera, Dr. Scott Spear (Medical Director, Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma), and concluded with remarks by Bill Taverner (Director of The Center for Family Life Education at Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New Jersey).

Following is the prepared statement by Mr. Taverner.

As an educator, I will resist the temptation to break you all up into small groups and discuss what we’ve heard so far. We are very fortunate to have teens with us who can articulate so clearly the misinformation they are receiving from abstinence-only-until marriage programs. Many teens who are subjected to these programs simply trust that the material being taught is honest, reliable, complete, and effective...just as any other course is that is taught in the schools.

Unfortunately, abstinence-only programs are not honest, reliable, or complete, and they are definitely not effective. A federal review of abstinence-only-until marriage programs found that 80% of the curricula contained "false, misleading, or distorted" information about sexual health. 80%! Would we accept that level of false, misleading, or distorted information for any other subject? Algebra? History? Driver’s ed?

Let’s imagine if driver’s education was taught the same way as abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Teenagers would learn, "Don’t drive until you’re married. I know you may have urges to drive, but if you do, you’re gonna die because seatbelts don’t work."

Does this sound crazy? Well, every day teens are being told that condoms do not work, even though they’re 98% effective when used correctly and consistently. But teens hear "Condom’s don’t work," so they say, "Why bother?" It’s no surprise that one in four young women in America has a sexually transmitted infection.

Does this happen anywhere else in the developed world? No. As Dr. Spear said earlier, teen STD rates in America are much, much higher than in any other developed nation – England, France, Germany, the Netherlands...and anywhere else where teens learn about both abstinence and other methods of protection. The same is true of teen pregnancy, teen births, and other teen health indicators. U.S. teen rates are off the charts, compared with countries that provide complete information.

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs tell more lies: "If you have sex, you’re going to have psychological problems" and "If you have sex, you’re probably going to kill yourself." They admonish teens to wait until they’re married, even though marriage tends to happen in the late 20’s. And not everyone chooses to get married, or is granted the legal right to marry.

Nevertheless, Congress has wasted more than $1.5 billion on these dangerous programs. I call them dangerous because they deny teens life-saving information about birth control and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections.

Research authorized by Congress found that teens who participate in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are no more likely than other teens to delay first intercourse; are no more likely to have fewer partners; and are no more likely to use condoms at first intercourse. Dr. Douglas Kirby, a national expert on program evaluation found no strong evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have any impact on teen sexual behavior.

A study of more than 20,000 young people who made virginity pledges found that 88% of these teens failed to keep the pledge.

Let’s let that sink in a moment.

There are about 200 people in this room. If we all imagine we are teenagers making a pledge to be abstinent, everyone but the people in these first two rows would fail to keep that pledge! (Way to go, first two rows!)

Because abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are so dangerous, 17 states have refused to take the federal funding this year. Governors do not want to waste their limited state dollars on programs that have proven to be ineffective and harmful.

Parents and voters are overwhelmingly supportive of sex education. 82% of Americans want sex education, which includes both abstinence and other methods of contraception and prevention. 78% of Catholics (including me) want sex education; 76% of independent voters want sex education; and 72% of voters from "red states" want sex education.

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher issued a Call to Action for "evidence-based" methods for sex education. Dr. Kirby found that two-thirds of evaluated sex education programs had positive effects on teen sexual behavior, including delaying first intercourse and improving contraceptive use.

It’s time for Congress to stop wasting money; to acknowledge the successes in other nations; to honor the wishes of American parents and voters; to listen to what the experts are saying; and to get real about sex education. Thank you.

Thank you, Bill!

And life goes on...

2008-03-31T11:59:00.000-07:00

The community's opposition to HB 2628 (the proposed anti-sex ed and anti-Planned Parenthood legislation) gave me a boost that has carried me through the spring. The bill failed on the floor of the House of Representatives at 50-for and 51-against. Whew! I am so thankful that clients, colleagues, and friends made time in their busy schedules to make their voices heard.

I am also happy that the battle is over for the time being. Every minute wasted on fighting that ridiculous bill was a minute taken away from what truly matters - providing accurate and applicable sexuality education for all ages. Perhaps that was the true intent of the bill's authors - to side track us.

Whatever the case, life goes on.

In the last few weeks, another batch of research has concluded that abstinence-only-until-marriage education is not effective in preventing sexual activity, teen pregnancy, or teen sexually transmitted infections. One highly publicized study found that one in four teen girls in the United States has a sexually transmitted infection. (This coincides with the fact that most sexually active teens do not use condoms to reduce their risks.) Although this research got a lot of media time, ideology apparently still trumps science.

In today's The Oklahoman, there was an insightful editorial about alternative schools. One particular line really caught my attention: "When it comes to alternative education, it's clear that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work."

The same can be said for sexuality education. The best, most effective sexuality education must take into consideration the developmental levels of the individual students, the environments in which they live, their experiences related to sexuality and relationships, their families and peers, their access to health care, and much more. To force educators (and students, for that matter) into an individual notion of what's right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, moral and immoral - simply doesn't work. This is becoming quite evident from the research findings.

I sure wish that certain legislators and a few others in positions of power could understand this. We are not anti-abstinence. We are pro-sexual health. In today's world, sexuality is complex and deserves more than the simplistic approach of "just say no." I much prefer the title of a locally-developed, life skills-based program that has proven effective -- "Just Say Know."

Actress Kate Walsh speak out against abstinence programs

2008-03-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

CBSnews.com had an interesting interview with actress Kate Walsh today. Kate is a board member for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Please Oppose HB 2628 - Your Voice Needs To Be Heard!

2008-02-25T11:14:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends:

I need your help. A bill authored by extremist Representatives Faught and Kern has been pushed through committee and will soon be heard on the floor of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. HB 2628 not only makes it more difficult for public school students to have access to a variety of sources for sexual health education, it would prohibit Planned Parenthood in particular from being involved in any way.

As a reader of this blog, and as a friend of Planned Parenthood, you can make a difference by contacting your legislators and letting them know how you feel about this proposed legislation. I know you are committed to common sense and responsibility in legislation. If you choose, you are welcome to use any of the wording I use in this communication when providing your own input to legislators. The bill itself follows this entry.

You would have been appalled by several members of the House committee that initially reviewed HB 2628. The lies and misinformation were scandalous. It was quite clear that the bill targets Planned Parenthood, because Planned Parenthood was the only “nongovernmental entity” discussed by name during the committee meeting. To support the bill, the authors claimed that Planned Parenthood promotes abortion in its public school education programs and that Planned Parenthood uses its in-school sex education to influence impressionable teens to abort their babies. The authors also assured committee members that the bill was specifically written to ban Planned Parenthood and would not affect anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers from easy access to schools.

You can guess that I am stunned by this legislation on so many levels.

First, for nearly two decades I have been a guest speaker in public schools. I have never been invited to discuss abortion (although it is common for schools to invite anti-abortion groups to talk about adoption and about the phony risks of abortion). The topics most requested from me by schools are HIV/AIDS basics, sexual responsibility, sexually transmitted infections, and teen pregnancy and parenting. On occasion, I am invited to cover contraception, healthy relationships, assertive communication skills, and other life skills. In fact, I can think of only a couple times in which the topic of abortion arose – both related to questions posed by students about legal issues related to abortion in Oklahoma.

Second, parents already can prevent their children from participating in any sexuality education program, including those by Planned Parenthood. The proposed legislation would actually take this important decision out of the hands of families and put it squarely in the hands of anti-choice legislators who think they know what is best for everyone.

One thing I find particularly odious is that HB 2628 exempts alternative schools from the ban. I guess that students in alternative programs are not worthy of the legislators’ protection from the “pro-abortion influence” of Planned Parenthood educators. Perhaps I should be thankful for this one exemption, since we work pretty closely with a number of alternative school programs. Instead, I find it insulting to students and teachers in these programs.

Although she has made a name for herself as an ultraconservative enemy of free thought, Rep. Sally Kern, a co-author of HB 2628, has actually participated in one of my educational programs. She knows firsthand that Planned Parenthood educational programs provide unbiased, accurate, and practical information that contributes to the health, safety, and well-being of the participants. She even complimented me and thanked me for my time at the conclusion of that program. That she would base this legislation on rhetoric taken directly from the anti-choice handbook and not from her actual experience is offensive.

It is almost impossible to understand the legislators’ obsession with abortion while Oklahoma’s teachers’ salaries are sub par; classroom size continues to grow; and instances of bullying and other school violence skyrocket. There are many public school issues of greater import than banning one agency from the public school sphere because a handful of legislators want to flex their anti-choice muscles.

Abortion is a personal, private matter that should never be influenced or directed by outside forces, whether those forces come from legislators, crisis pregnancy centers, or Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not use in-school programs to “promote abortion.”

Some of you have been in the audience of a Planned Parenthood program. Some of you have worked in partnership with me to educate people about sexual health and life skills. All of you know that the only influence I am committed to having on young people relates directly to their current and future health. If you believe, as I do, that HB 2628 is an example of out of control harassment by anti-choice legislators and lobby groups, please contact your representatives and senators now and throughout this session. They need to hear from you.

Thank you for your support.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
House Bill No. 2628

HOUSE BILL NO. 2628 - By: FAUGHT and KERN of the House and _____ of the Senate.

An Act relating to schools; amending <70> O.S. 2001, Section <11-105.1>, which relates to sex education curriculum and materials; clarifying statutory language; prohibiting school districts from allowing certain nongovernmental entities to teach or provide curriculum and materials for sex education classes and programs; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:
SECTION 1. AMENDATORY <70> O.S. 2001, Section <11-105.1>, is amended to read as follows:

Section <11-105.1>

A. All curriculum and materials including supplementary materials which will be used to teach or will be used for or in connection with a sex education class or program which is designed for the exclusive purpose of discussing sexual behavior or attitudes, or any test, survey or questionnaire whose primary purpose is to elicit responses on sexual behavior or attitudes shall be available through the superintendent or a designee of the school district for inspection by parents and guardians of the student who will be involved with the class, program or test, survey or questionnaire. Such All curriculum, materials, classes, programs, tests, surveys or questionnaires shall have as one of its primary purposes the teaching of or informing students about the practice of abstinence.

B. The superintendent or a designee of the school district shall provide prior written notification to the parents or guardians of the students involved in a sex education class or program of their right to inspect the curriculum and material and of their obligation to notify the school in writing if they do not want their child to participate in the class, program, test, survey or questionnaire. Each local board of education shall determine the means of providing written notification to the parents and guardian which will ensure effective notice in an efficient and appropriate manner. No student shall be required to participate in a sex education class or program which discusses sexual behavior or attitudes if a parent or guardian of the student objects in writing to such participation. If the type of program referred to in this section is a part of or is taught during a credit course, a student may be required to enroll in the course but shall not be required to receive instruction in or participate in the program if a parent or guardian objects in writing.

B. C. The superintendent or a designee of a school district in which sex education is taught or a program is offered which is designed for the exclusive purpose of discussing sexual behavior or attitudes shall approve all curriculum and materials which will be used for such education and any test, survey or questionnaire whose primary purpose is to elicit responses on sexual behavior or attitudes used in the school prior to their use in the classroom or school. The teacher involved in the class, program, testing or survey shall submit the curriculum, materials, tests or surveys to the superintendent or a designee for approval prior to their use in the classroom or school. A school district shall not allow a nongovernmental entity, organization, or agency that promotes abortions, provides abortion services, or provides information about abortion services to be involved in the teaching of a sex education class or program which is designed for the exclusive purpose of discussing sexual behavior or attitudes in the public school or to provide any curriculum, materials, tests, or surveys to the school or teacher for use in a sex education class or program.

D. This section shall not apply to those students enrolled in classes, programs, testings tests or surveys offered through an alternative education program.

SECTION 2. This act shall become effective .

SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.

COMMITTEE REPORT BY: COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, dated 02-18-08 - DO PASS, As Coauthored.

PPCO Celebrates National Condom Week, Feb. 11 - Feb. 17

2008-02-06T14:54:00.000-08:00

Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma will give away its one millionth condom during National Condom Week, February 11th – 17th. People can stop by their closest PPCO health centers during the week of Valentine’s Day to enter a “guess the number of condoms in the jar” contest and to pick up free condoms, information, candy, and “Just Wear It” bumper stickers. Health centers are located in Norman, Edmond, Midwest City, south Oklahoma City, and central Oklahoma City.

“Since 1978, the week of Valentine’s Day has been celebrated as National Condom Week,” says Terry Dennison, Director of Education for Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma. “It is a terrific opportunity to educate people about the importance of prevention and responsible condom use and to address anti-condom claims.”

The latex condom is among the most popular ways that sexually active people reduce the risks of unintended pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. But according to Dennison, the past few years have been filled with politically motivated attacks on the efficacy of condoms.

“Instead of providing accurate information about all people’s options in sexual decision-making, there is a conservative movement, both here and abroad, to push abstinence-only-until-marriage while marginalizing the important part that condoms play in prevention,” says Dennison. With Valentine’s Day just around the corner, PPCO is hoping to address the distortion of information about condoms by joining other organizations nationwide to promote the use of latex condoms during National Condom Week.

“PPCO appreciates the fact that abstinence is a valid and practical choice,” says Dennison. “The reality, though, is that most people, married or not, will choose to have sex at some point in their lives. Condom awareness and the promotion of responsible choices and behaviors are also key parts of our continuing strategy of prevention.”

In addition to activities planned at the PPCO health centers, PPCO will join student organizations to distribute free latex condoms, information, and related items on area university and college campuses.

“We want people to feel that it’s okay to talk about condoms, and that condom use can be the norm rather than the exception,” says Dennison. “The more comfortable people become, the better equipped they will be to make safer decisions about their sexual health and behavior.”

For additional information on National Condom Week or other services of Planned Parenthood, call 405/528-0221. For an appointment at your local Planned Parenthood clinic, call 1-800-230-PLAN.

The National Condom Week campaign is made possible through the support of Oklahoma AIDS Care Fund, AIDS Walk of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Friends Fighting AIDS (OFFAIDS) and private donations.

Teens Can Become Advocates

2008-01-10T09:49:00.000-08:00

The holidays are a fond memory. It's time to get back to the hectic schedule of a sexuality educator!

This week has been eventful. The next five months are quickly filling with program requests. I have been pleased to receive requests from a couple new school districts for the first time.

I did get some unfortunate news this week. A teacher with whom I have worked for nearly two decades notified me that her school district was forcing her to sever all relations with our agency.

I consider the teacher a dear friend. Her classes are made up of nontraditional, teenage students who are typically at higher risk for unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and relationship violence. She has invited me to speak to her classes each semester on some of these issues. We have been able to gear the information to be responsive to her students' experiences, learning styles, and the real world in which they find themselves.

Now, I guess they're on their own.

So often, restrictions are placed on the classroom and on our agency programs as a result of pressure from only one or two "concerned" parents. Sometimes the pressure comes not from a parent, but from an anti-sex individual who does not have any knowledge of what we actually discuss with teens in a classroom setting. This is especially frustrating when the majority, if not all, of the students' parents want them to participate in these sexuality education classes. Without this sort of outside interference, parents/students can always opt-out of our programs. The opt-out alternative offers a pretty clear choice to parents. When we are restricted from providing programs, those choices are essentially taken away from all parents and students regardless of their interests.

What does this have to do with teen advocacy? Today I read a report about a group of teens who recently testified before the New York City Council and said that sex education should be mandatory in high schools in the Bronx borough of the city. I know that some of you are thinking, "Sure, that's in New York. This is Oklahoma." But read on.

According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the teen pregnancy rate is 137 pregnancies per 1,000 girls in the Bronx, while the rate citywide is 99 pregnancies per 1,000 girls. Although the NY Department of Education recently approved a new comprehensive sex ed curriculum (which encourages teens to delay sexual activity but also provides information about contraception and other sexual health issues), school principals can choose whether to adopt it or not.

In an effort to mandate such a program, the teen advocates of Public School/Middle School 218 in the South Bronx started a petition, created a MySpace page online, and designed brochures on sex education for teens. The teens and their adult mentors said that they were astonished that factual information about sexual health was absent in the school.

I can hardly wait to find out what happens as a result of these courageous teens and their advocacy efforts. I am both proud and jealous: proud that teens are speaking up and demanding attention, and jealous that it is happening in NYC and not here in Oklahoma.

Teen activists could make a real difference at the school district in which I am no longer welcome. I know the teens are out there, and I encourage them to voice their opinions in support of sexuality education in school settings.

Write a letter to your principal. Write an article for your school paper explaining why you think sex ed is important. Start a petition in support of mandatory comprehensive sex ed. Heck, get on the agenda for the next city council or school board meeting to let those in power know what REAL life is like for today's teens.

Any takers?

My Daughter at 14: Christmas Dance

2007-12-13T11:04:00.000-08:00

A colleague from Tennessee shared this poem with me from the December 8, 2007 edition of The Writer's Almanac. It so beautifully expresses the fear and excitement involved in watching a daughter navigate early experiences with attraction, relationships, perhaps even love. It also reminded me why we have educational programs such as Straight Talk to facilitate open communication between parents and their kids about all aspects of sexuality. The narrator of the poem treats this situation honestly and with such respect for the daughter. The poem is by Maria Mazziotti Gillan, published in Winter Light, (c) Chantry Press, 1985. I'd love to hear your impressions.

My Daughter at 14: Christmas Dance

Panic in your face, you write questions

to ask him. When he arrives,

you are serene, your fear

unbetrayed. How unlike me you are.

After the dance,

I see your happiness; he holds

your hand. Though you barely speak,

your body pulses messages I can read

all too well. He kisses you goodnight,

his body moving toward yours, and yours

responding. I am frightened, guard my

tongue for fear my mother will pop out

of my mouth. "He is not shy." You giggle,

a little girl again, but you tell me he

kissed you on the dance floor. "Once?"

I ask. "No, a lot."

We ride through the rain-shining 1 A.M.

streets. I bite back words which long

to be said, knowing I must not shatter your

moment, fragile as a spun-glass bird,

you, the moment, poised on the edge of

flight, and I am, on the ground, afraid.

On the Defense

2007-11-20T11:59:00.000-08:00

I am sorry that the abstinence-only until marriage initiatives have not worked to decrease the number of teens who are sexually active. I am sorry that they have not worked to decrease the rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. I take no pleasure in seeing "the opposition" to R.E.A.L. sexual health education go down in flames. That doesn't mean, however, that I can appreciate the aggressively defensive posture that the abstinence-only crowd is now taking.

On November 7, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released a definitive study showing that abstinence-only programs don't work. Instead of responding with a sincere, "how can we improve," stance, the abstinence-only crowd has released a plethora of editorials and letters to the editors that misquote research studies, twist facts, attack supporters of comprehensive sex ed, and downright lie in an attempt to defend themselves and discredit the critics. There have been a few examples of this approach in the pages of The Daily Oklahoman lately.

I don't get it. If the abstinence-only folks were truly in it to benefit teens and keep them healthy, you'd think they would be open to evaluation and positive criticism. Hmmmm. Maybe they really aren't in it for the kids.

They Like Us

2007-11-15T12:58:00.000-08:00

I was recently invited to provide an educational program for two classes in a rural Oklahoma high school. It was the first time we had been invited to the school. The teacher of the two classes had met me when she worked for another agency. She asked me to cover just a little about everything--STIs, HIV, pregnancy risks, safer sex, sexual decision-making, abstinence--so her students would understand the complexity of sexual decision-making. She also wanted the students to have their questions answered with the most current, factual information.

I left my office at 6:30 a.m. to give me some wiggle room in case I got lost driving to the high school. (I did make one wrong turn, but I figured it out in time to keep me from driving to Texas by mistake.)

I reached the school about 20 minutes early. A large man unlocked the front door to the school. After looking me over and asking me how he could help, he stationed me just outside the principal's office. Immediately the principal of the school came out of his office to ask me how he could help. Both these men acted a bit gruff and suspicious. The principal left, I assume, to find the teacher who had invited me to her classes. During the next ten minutes, several teachers hurried through the halls, eyeing me with interest. Some of them also asked how they could help me.

I usually don't get nervous in my job, but anxiety started to build within me as one teacher after another asked who I was and how they could help. What were they thinking? What were they going to do?

Finally, a student introduced herself and guided me to the correct classroom.

The atmosphere of the classroom was a bit chaotic as students were rushing in and trying to figure out why I was there and what I would be like. Eventually things settled down, and the teacher began to introduce me.

Then the phone rang. My heart stopped. I just knew that one of the other teachers had spoken to the principal about the appropriateness (or rather, inappropriateness) of teaching students about sex and of inviting ME to be the speaker.

Instead, it was one of those other teachers asking if his students could also attend my talk. That was followed by another teacher calling with the same sort of request.

It turned out that I was more than welcome to the school, and that the teachers and students were all very happy and appreciative that I was there. Most of the students ended up staying for both class sessions. It was wonderful!

On by trip back to the office, I had some time to reflect on the experience. It is so easy to internalize all the garbage that the anti-sex ed minority throws at us. But in the real world, kids are hungry for good information and teachers and parents want the kids to have access to that good information. That is what Get R.E.A.L. Oklahoma! is all about.

I am looking forward to returning to that rural high school. They made me feel appreciated and reminded me how important it is to not jump to conclusions based on stereotypes. They sure didn't, and it was great.

2007-11-05T06:50:00.000-08:00

Kay Holiday is a dear, longtime friend to many of us in the fields of sexuality education, HIV services and HIV prevention, teen pregnancy prevention, lgbt support, and other public health work. Kay was kind enough to share the following story for this blog. What an inspiration! Thank you, Kay.

I’ve just returned from Hyderabad, India for a 10-day mission trip and had an amazing experience with more than 100 Banjara women (Banjara is an Indian tribal group). I spoke to these women in two different settings outside Hyderabad, which is located in south central India. One setting was a women’s conference sponsored by several moderate Baptist groups. These beautiful and sweet-spirited women were from rural villages (thandas) and most would be considered uneducated by US standards – few spoke English.

I gave my testimony about my son living with HIV disease, then started with some trepidation in my “HIV 101” presentation – complete with condom demonstration and distribution. There were some stunning questions from the Banjara women: Why must my husband wear a condom if we are married

I had the good fortune of having one mature Indian woman there who was my ally – she had been doing some HIV education in her village, so she was my ‘bridge’ in communication. Although I had an interpreter, she was an unmarried woman – which created a cultural barrier at certain key moments. When I was doing the condom demonstration and said, “put the condom on the erect penis,” she couldn’t say the words.

Another stroke of luck was that the interpreter, who is a homeopathic physician, brought some HIV/AIDS prevention posters, written in their language, so I used the posters in small groups. That created animated conversation and many questions – the interpreter and I went from group to group, answering questions that the women were too embarrassed to ask earlier.

Most women knew someone in their village who had AIDS or who had died of AIDS, leaving orphaned children. One woman told about a young woman in her village, who has AIDS, and has been banished to a small hut away from the village. Such accounts made me think I had traveled back in time 15 years. The Times of India that very week had reported an 11-year-old boy in West Bengal being banned from his school because he was HIV positive. In the small groups, we discussed the myths they had heard in their villages – and I hope they heard my answers as I tried to dispel the myths: the food vendor who cut his finger, bled into the dal and gave AIDS to two girls who ate the dal; the husband and wife who were infected from a mosquito.

It’s a terrible situation in India because antiretrovirals (medications to treat HIV disease) are not always available. When talking with two Indian physicians who treat AIDS patients in Hyderabad, I learned they primarily treat the opportunistic infections and antiretrovirals are not even used until the person’s T-cell count is below 200, which indicates a very weakened immune system!

Culturally, at least in the rural areas, MSM (men who have sex with men), is not acknowledged. During my presentation, I explained that HIV can be transmitted ‘”from female to male, from male to female, from male to male, and female to female.” I received many quizzical looks; then in small group sessions, one woman said, “I don’t understand the ‘male to male’ that you were saying.” I explained there are some men who have sex with men and those men might be married to women, and her reply was, “Oh, no, we don’t have that here.”

Therefore, take an over-populated country, with tremendous poverty and gender disparity (and thus, little condom negotiation), no effective treatment for early HIV detection, limited prevention efforts, no acknowledgement of MSM – the results: a known recipe for a pandemic.

My emotions ranged from gratitude for such an attentive audience and honest questions and true concern about the disease they see taking their villagers, paired with a helpless sense of pending disaster for the people of India. I hope my brief efforts in India touched some lives and hearts – I truly needed to be reminded of the story of the man walking along the beach, trying to throw all the starfish which had been washed up on the beach back into the ocean so they could survive. A passerby asked him why he was doing that….that it really made no difference. The man picked up one more starfish, threw it back into the ocean and said, “It does to this one.” My hope is that I made a difference to just one woman.

Another Article about Abstinence-Only: Will Our Congress Ever End Its Pork-Barrel Support?

2007-10-26T12:52:00.000-07:00

Although this story is a few weeks old, it is worth sharing.

Nicholas Bakalar of the New York Times back in mid-August wrote an article on an analysis of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs which was published in the August 4 issues of The British Medical Journal. The analysis covered 13 studies involving more than 15,000 young Americans. The conclusion? Abstinence-only programs for HIV prevention do not work.

No surprise here.

Most of the programs were based in schools and directed at children in grades five through eight. One was intended for adults ages 18 to 21. There were various control groups, including some in modified programs and in some cases in no program at all.

Compared with those control groups, abstinence-only programs had no significant effect in either decreasing or increasing sexual risk behavior.

Seven of the trials tracked sexually transmitted infections, finding no significant short- or long-term benefit to abstinence-only programs. None of the programs made any significant difference in preventing pregnancy, reducing unprotected sex, or delaying sexual initiation.

"It appears that this evidence base is frequently neglected in debates over abstinence-based prevention," said Kristen Underhill, the lead author and a research officer at the University of Oxford.

The published study is available at www.plosmedicine.org.

I am all for abstinence within the context of true, comprehensive sexuality education. I also believe that there are many benefits to abstinence education (and comprehensive sex ed) beyond intended changes of risk behaviors.

However, it is foolish for our federal and state officials to continue to funnel millions of dollars into abstinence-only education under the premise that it works to reduce risk behaviors. It does not reduce risk behaviors. So why not fund a comprehensive approach for a decade or so? Comprehensive sex ed has never had the chance to prove itself on a nationwide basis, unlike abstinence-only ed.

It is difficult for me to even call abstinence-only-until-marriage a type of sex ed. It doesn't teach young people about sexuality and sexual health at all. Its primary goal is to indoctrinate youth into the cult of virginity.

What's it going to take to change this picture?

More than 27 Years of HIV/AIDS and Counting

2007-10-23T09:07:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I had a terrific opportunity to talk to a group of college students about HIV disease. The group was a bit smaller than we had hoped, probably due in part to the cold and rainy weather. It nonetheless was a very good meeting.

HIV is often on my mind, since I daily read research and news updates from listserves and since many of the educational programs I do are focused on preventing the spread of the disease.

During my final preparations for the college group, I thought about how most of the audience I was to see had never known a world without HIV. That is a very different experience from my own.

HIV first appeared on my own radar screen when I was in graduate school. It was the early 80s, and there were stories here and there in the alternative press that people with very rare infections, cancers, and other diseases were being seen in hospitals on the east and west coasts. I read these stories with interest, but it was pretty easy for me to distance myself from whatever was happening those many miles away. My biggest concerns in those days were about readings, papers that would soon be due, and how I was going to pay for tuition and textbooks and still have enough left for rent.

As time went on, this unusual syndrome was given a name -- AIDS -- and it was affecting more and more people. In 1985, scientists identified a virus that was believed to be causing AIDS, and a test for antibodies to HIV was soon developed.

At that time in my life, there was great debate among my friends about whether or not to get tested. On the one hand, knowledge is power. Learning your HIV status could be seen as the first step in finding a way to treat and eventually cure it. On the other hand, getting tested was very, very scary. If you found out you had HIV, there really wasn't a lot you could do about it back then. It was kind of like getting your palm read, and having the palm-reader shake her head no and say nothing but, "Tsk, tsk. I'm so sorry."

I tended toward the latter, frightened group. I had heard the horror stories about people testing positive, then losing their jobs, their homes, and dying alone. It was easiest to just deny the whole thing--not just testing, but the whole thing.

My denial was strong, but it was effectively confronted by fabric, thread, grief and love. I don't remember the year -- was it 1987 or 1988? Whichever, the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt was brought to Oklahoma City.

For those of you not familiar with the NAMES Project, it is a giant quilt made of panels honoring people who have died of AIDS-related illnesses. Back then, there were already thousands of panels that had been lovingly (and, I imagine, sometimes angrily) made by family and friends of people across the country who had been lost to the disease.

The quilt was displayed at a building at the fairgrounds, and my partner and I decided that we needed to see it while it was in town. The experience changed my life. We spent nearly four hours, going from panel to panel, reading quotes and learning about the people whose lives the panels honored. Although the immensity of the quilt (and the disease) had an impact on me, what hit close to home was that there were more than a dozen panels honoring not just names, but friends I had made back in college. They had been my friends.

The quilt made HIV personal to me. It became clear that I needed to quash my denial and become involved. The changes that were needed to address HIV were made serious and immediate to me. I have to admit that it took me several weeks to get past my guilt for having been so much in denial.

Well, over the past 20 years or so of involvement, I have had the privilege, and it's truly been a privilege, to meet hundreds of people living with HIV--from a 15 year-old girl who learned she was HIV positive when she gave birth to her son, to a 30 year-old guy who was denied health insurance when a routine insurance physical exam found him to have HIV, to a 60 year-old health care worker who became infected while she was caring for the victim of a car accident (back before universal precautions and occupational safety standards were in place nationwide). So many people with so many different experiences in the world and with HIV. My life has been enriched in ways I never could have imagined.

And in these 20 years, I have learned the incredible power of KNOWLEDGE and HOPE. Maybe my college-aged audience yesterday has never known a world without HIV. That's even more reason for them to know as much as anyone else about the virus. They need to know and practice what they can do to prevent transmission. They must learn how to compassionately respond to this pandemic. They need to understand the complexity of living with HIV in today's America. Hopefully, they will never experience the tremendous losses that many of us "older" folks have experienced. And hopefully, they--WE--will never lose hope. Hope gives us purpose and faith and encouragement.

That is what has been on my mind this week. Thanks for reading!

The HPV Vaccine: Information Empowers Us All

2007-10-18T11:32:00.000-07:00

One of our student interns at Planned Parenthood is the parent of a girl. In order to help make a decision about whether or not she and her husband want their daughter to get vaccinated for HPV, my intern did some terrific research on the vaccine and the infection. Her findings are shared below.

Cervical cancer is the second leading type of cancer for women worldwide. Each year, about 10,000 women are stricken with this illness, and close to 4,000 women, unfortunately, die from the disease. One of the most prevalent causes of this cancer is the Human Papilloma Virus, usually referred to as HPV.

HPV is a sexually transmitted infection affecting approximately 50 percent of all sexually active males and females. In its active phase, HPV could cause genital and/or upper respiratory tract warts. It is mostly asymptomatic and usually goes away without medical intervention. However, there currently is no known cure for the disease, meaning that once contracted, it stays in the body (often in an inactive or dormant state) for a person's lifetime.

The scientific discovery of the HPV vaccine is a medical breakthrough due to its ability to prevent most genital warts and most cases of cervical cancer (CDC, 2007). It is not intended to replace periodic screenings, since the vaccine does not protect against all types of cervical cancers. If used early, the vaccine provides protection against the types of HPV that cause most cases of genital warts and cervical cancers.

Girls 11 to 12 years of age (or before they become sexually active) are highly recommended to receive this vaccination. When given to girls or women before they become sexually active, the vaccine is almost 100 percent effective. It is less effective if given after the initiation of sexual activity.

As with any vaccine, some side effects have been noted in some persons after receiving this shot. These mild symptoms may include:

pain, redness, swelling, or itchiness at the area of injection;
a mile or moderate fever (less than 102 degrees F).

And, as is the case with most vaccines, it is important to notify a physician if the person experiences a high fever, behavioral changes, difficulty breathing, hives, paleness, weakness, dizziness, or any increases in heart rate.

The HPV vaccine is give in a three-dose series. After the first injection, the second is given two months later, with the final injection given six months later.

Any persons who are or may be pregnant, experiencing moderate or severe illness, compromised immune systems, or have suffered an allergic reaction to a previous dose of this vaccine may need to wait or avoid taking the shots.

This vaccine is only available for girls or women. Although sexually active boys and men may contract HPV, studies and success rates regarding the vaccine have been limited to female participants only. More testing is needed for the vaccination to become available for boys or men.

In case you are wondering, our intern and her husband have decided to vaccinate their daughter when she turns the recommended age. It just goes to show you how accurate information can help people make important decisions about their (and their children's) sexual health. Instead of listening only to the opposition which claims that the HPV vaccine is unproven, potentially dangerous, and a threat to a woman's virginity, our intern turned to reliable sources of information. She and her husband weighed the potential pros and cons, then made a decision in which they were confident. That's the way it should be!

Welcome to Get R.E.A.L. Oklahoma!

2007-10-16T14:05:00.000-07:00

It's time for Oklahomans to Get R.E.A.L. about educating parents, teens, and whomever else about responsible sex education. Watch for posts and valuable information soon.