June 18, 2003



March 3, 2004

Dear Member of Congress:

The undersigned organizations are writing to strongly urge you to convey to the Appropriations Committee your opposition to any new funding for abstinence-unless-married programs in FY 2005. Abstinence-unless-married programs have not been proven effective, and they depart dramatically from what the vast majority of parents would like to see taught in sex education classes. Nevertheless, funding has increased dramatically since the first abstinence-unless-married programs were created by the 1996 welfare law – with cumulative funding topping $1 billion by the end of FY 2004. Moreover, the President’s budget request proposes doubling funding for abstinence-unless-married programs in FY 2005 to $273 million.

The President’s request for a 100 % increase to abstinence-unless-married programs is in stark contrast to the overall increase requested for domestic discretionary programs—a mere 0.1%—leaving proposed funding for most public health programs that provide primary health care services to underinsured and uninsured low income Americans stagnant at best. We urge members to request that no new money be spent on these programs. Instead, the President’s proposed $138 million increase should be devoted to chronically under funded public health programs such as the Title X family planning program, breast and cervical cancer screening and treatment programs, and STD prevention initiatives – all of which struggle to provide basic health care to low-income Americans.

Consider the following:

➢ Currently there are three separate federal programs dedicated to abstinence-unless-married education. Two are discretionary programs funded through the Labor-HHS bill and the third is a $50 million entitlement program funded through the welfare bill that flows to states through the maternal and child health block grant. The largest abstinence program is an earmark for Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) programs funded at $75 million in FY 2004.

➢ Under the President’s budget for FY 2005, funding for the restrictive CBAE programs would soar by nearly 150 percent to $186 million. A second smaller stream of funding that is part of the budget for the Adolescent Family Life Act would double under the President’s budget request from $13 million to $26 million.

➢ Federal funding for abstinence-only programs has been skyrocketing, despite the fact that not a single, scientifically sound study has shown abstinence-unless-married programs to have a long-term beneficial impact on young people’s behavior. A recent evaluation in Minnesota found that sexual activity actually doubled among junior high school students taking part in an abstinence-only program. The independent study, commissioned by the state's health department, recommended broadening the program to include more information about contraception. Indeed, considerable scientific evidence already demonstrates that certain types of programs that include information about both abstinence and contraception help teens delay sexual activity, have fewer sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they begin having sex.

➢ Funding “parity” between Title X health care services to teens and abstinence-unless-married education has been an oft-stated goal of the Administration. While we continue to believe that comparing education efforts and medical services compares apples to oranges, the Administration appears to have adopted the more ambitious goal of seeking funding parity between abstinence education for teens and the entire national family planning program (flat-funded at $278 million in the President’s request for FY 2005), which serves between 4 and 5 million women each year and covers expensive medical services, and abstinence education for teens.

➢ Parents overwhelmingly oppose abstinence-unless-married mandates. A January 2004 poll from NPR/ Kaiser Family Foundation/ Harvard Kennedy School of Government showed that a majority of parents want abstinence to be major piece of a sex ed curriculum. However, only 15 percent of parents believed that schools should censor information about condoms and contraception and teach only abstinence.

➢ Education is one of our most powerful prevention tools, yet abstinence-only programs censor information about contraception. Under program requirements, educators are forced to withhold vital information about pregnancy and disease prevention from our young people. The only information about contraception that can be discussed is failure rates. Further, the law sets forth specific messages to be taught, including that sex outside of marriage – for people of any age – is likely to have harmful physical and psychological effects. This is government-sponsored censorship and it is a threat to young people’s health.

➢ Some abstinence-unless-married programs have raised serious constitutional and civil liberties concerns. In July 2002, a federal court enjoined Louisiana's federally funded abstinence-unless-married program, holding that the program habitually funded projects that conveyed religious messages in violation of the constitution. 

➢ Abstinence-unless-married programs can do harm by undermining contraceptive use. Research indicates that while some teens promising to abstain from sex until marriage delayed sexual activity by an average of 18 months, they were more likely to have unprotected sex when they broke their pledge than those who never pledged virginity in the first place.

➢ Abstinence-unless-married programs ignore clear realities. Nationally, 90 percent of Americans engage in sex by age 25. Over 60% of young people will have had sexual intercourse before graduating from high school. 900,000 women younger than 20 become pregnant each year and 80 percent of these pregnancies are unintended. These statistics suggest that programs should recognize both parental hopes and societal reality.

➢ Half of the 40,000 new cases of HIV infection in the U.S. every year occur in young people under the age of 25, yet abstinence-unless-married programs deny information to young people about contraceptive methods proven to help prevent the transmission of many sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

➢ Major medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, strongly believe in teaching young people about both abstinence and contraception.

Once again, we urge you to oppose any increase in funding for abstinence-unless-married programs in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill and to support vital public health programs that are severely under funded.

Sincerely,

AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth & Families

AIDS Foundation of Chicago

Alaska Pro-Choice Alliance

Alliance of Dupage Advocates for Pregnant and Parenting Teens

Allies Linked for the Prevention of HIV and AIDS

American Association for Health Education

American Association of University Women

American Civil Liberties Union

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Americans for Democratic Action

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals

American Psychiatric Association

American Social Health Association

Basic Rights Oregon

Blue Mountain Clinic

California Alliance Concerned with School Age Parenting and Pregnancy Prevention

Catholics for a Free Choice

Center for Law and Social Policy

Center for Reproductive Rights

Center for Women Policy Studies

Coalition of Labor Union Women

Connecticut Coalition for Choice

Family Planning Advocates of New York State

Family Planning Association of Chelan-Douglas Counties

Family Planning Council, Philadelphia

Feminist Majority Foundation

Gay Men’s Health Crisis

Girl’s Best Friend Foundation

Girls Incorporated

Hyacinth AIDS Foundation

Human Rights Campaign

Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health

Illinois PTA

Juneau Pro-Choice Coalition

NARAL Pro-Choice America

NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado

National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health

National Council of Jewish Women

National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

National Organization of County and City Health Officials

National Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Parenting and Prevention

National Partnership for Women and Families

National Women's Health Network

National Women’s Law Center

Northwest Women’s Law Center

Our Bodies Ourselves

Pennsylvania Coalition to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

People For the American Way

Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health®

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Planned Parenthood of Connecticut

Planned Parenthood of East Central Illinois

Planned Parenthood of Greater Indiana

Planned Parenthood of New York City

Planned Parenthood of the Inland Northwest

Planned Parenthood of South Central New York, Inc.

Population Connection

Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing

Reproductive Health Technologies Project

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law

The Alan Guttmacher Institute

The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

Women’s Opportunity and Resource Development, Inc.

YWCA of the USA

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download