Abstinence-Only Education | Partial Birth Abortion | Emergency Contraception

Abstinence-Only Education

In 1981, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), which began a federal move towards abstinence-only education in schools across the country. In 1996, this movement was strengthened by a provision of the welfare reform law, which allowed the federal government to pledge $50 million a year for five years to states teaching abstinence-only curricula in their schools. In 2005, under the Bush Administration, Congress gave approximately $170 million to abstinence-only education. While most individuals agree that teens should abstain from sexual activity until they are emotionally and physically mature, critics of abstinence-only education argue that this approach distorts facts and put the health of teens in jeopardy by not providing adequate and necessary information.

Since 1996, nearly $1 billion in federal and state matched funds have been spent on abstinence-only education. However, there has not been a significant decrease in teen pregnancy or the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. The US Centers for Disease Control estimate that there are between 800,000 to 900,000 teen pregnancies in the United States each year. The Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that conducts reproductive health research, reports that roughly 4 million new STD infections occur in US teens each year. Many states struggled with the decision to apply for federal funds, finding the abstinence-only programs too restrictive, the overall tone too religious, and the information too inaccurate. Many under-funded school districts, however, remain in need of governmental assistance and adopt such programs out of economic necessity.

In states that have implemented abstinence-only education crucial health programs have been canceled, textbooks are censored, and students are misinformed and often given inaccurate information. Some falsehoods taught in these government-funded programs include: ‘condoms don’t help prevent the spread of STDs’, ‘nearly 1 in 3 (people) will contract AIDS from an infected partner with 100% condom use’, and ‘five to 10 percent of women who have legal abortions will become sterile’. Many abstinence- only programs rely solely on scare tactics, the goal being to shame or scare teens into remaining abstinent until marriage. Often these programs claim that teens are putting their lives at risk if the engage in premarital sex. Many schools hold chastity rallies, where students are encourage to pledge to God that they will remain abstinent until marriage. Contrary to these programs, researches at Columbia University determined that while these virginity pl e dges worked for some teens, those who broke their pledges were one-third less likely to practice safe sex when they did engage in sexual activity than teens who did not sign those pledges.

A more beneficial alternative to abstinence-only education is comprehensive sexuality education. In such a curriculum, students receive a variety of information on abstinence, contraception, STDs, sexual orientation, safer-sex practices, abortion, and the emotional aspects of sexual relationships. There is no evidence that students in these comprehensive sex education classes engage in sexual activity earlier than students in abstinence-only education classes. But, students with a more comprehensive sexuality education are more informed and prepared to practice safer sex once they become sexually active.

Abstinence-only programs fail to give teens necessary information about sex, pregnancy, birth control, STDs, and abortion.These programs do not take into account the reality that many teens are already sexually active and need information on how to practice safer sex. Teens cannot be responsible for themselves if they do not have all the information. Those exposed to abstinence-only programs are left dangerously misinformed and at high risk if they are to become sexually active. Statistics have consistently shown that more information about sexuality actually serves to encourage safer behavior, rather than leading to more promiscuity and risky behavior in young people. This all has lead to a battle between research, statistics, and facts versus moral, religious, and political beliefs in the fight to educate the nation’s children the “right” way.

Top

Partial Birth Abortion

“Partial Birth Abortion” is a non-medical term recently created by opponents of reproductive rights. The correct medical terms for this type of procedure are Dilation and Extraction (D&X), Intact D&X, or Intrauterine Cranial Decompression. D&X procedures are normally performed at the fifth month of gestation or later. The fetus is partially removed feet first from the cervix. The doctor inserts a sharp object into the back of the head, removes, it, and inserts a tube through which the brains are removed. The head then contracts, which allows the fetus to be removed more easily from the womb. This type of procedure makes up only 1% of all abortion procedures performed.

In 1995, Congress passed a bill banning D&X procedures. The procedure would have been illegal, except in circumstances when the procedure was necessary to save the women’s life. This bill included a punishment of 2 years in prison and/or a fine for anyone who broke the law. However, in 1996 President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill because it did not contain an exception to preserve the health of women. In 1997, Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban again, and President Bill Clinton again vetoed the bill the same year. In November of 2003 President George W. Bush did sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. The ban was stopped from being set into law by three federal courts and is currently waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The medical community that opposes the ban on these procedures, argue that such procedures are safer than alternative procedures, especially when the woman is late in the second trimester, or in the third trimester. The procedure allows the removal of the fetus without rupturing the cervix, or without performing a cesarean section. Other types of procedures require intrauterine dismemberment, which is more likely to leave tissue behind, or delivery of an intact skull, which requires more dilation.

Throughout the US, many states have passed similar bans. In June of 2000 the US Supreme Court heard the case of Stenberg v Carhart, which involved a Nebraska law that banned such procedures. The court found the ban unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote. It was found unconstitutional because the ban lacked an exception to preserve the health of women, and the ban placed undue burden on women’s right to choose abortion by using language that was too medically vague.

In October of 2003, the United States Congress passed the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban,” a federal law that outlawed the use of any abortion procedure that constituted a “partial birth abortion” as defined by Congress. President Bush signed the law in November 2003. The law was immediately challenged by Dr. Carhart in Nebraska and two other physicians in New York and California. All three federal district courts ruled that the law would be unenforceable until after trials in each of the three federal district courts.  Between June 2004 and July 2005, all three federal district courts found the 2003 “Partial Birth Abortion Ban” to be unconstitutional because the law was not sufficiently different from the law in Nebraska.  Two federal district appeals courts upheld the rulings in these cases.

In September 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, now called Gonzalez v. Carhart, and to overturn the 5 federal courts that found the law unconstitutional.

On April 18, 2007 in a stunning reversal, the Supreme Court ruled against women's health and in favor of abortion restrictions in another 5 – 4 ruling.  This decision was the first time that the Supreme Court has given Congress the right to legislate medicine and in their decision state that if there is any disagreement in the medical community about treatment options (for any condition) that Congress can now decide, instead of doctors, what treatment should be used.

Besides giving Congress the ability to ban medical procedures, the decision also overturns more than 30 years of legal precedent, including one of the main tenets of Roe v. Wade. In his majority decision, Justice Kennedy states laws restricting abortion access no longer need to include a health exception. This overturns key rulings in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart and Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

In her moving dissent (opposing) opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had this to say about the Supreme Court decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban: “Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between pre-viability and post-viability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health." ["Casey" refers to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision of 1992].

Top

Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception (EC) is a strong dose of safe and legal birth control pills. Studies have proven that EC is an effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies. EC is not a form of abortion, and only works to prevent pregnancy. They cannot interrupt an established pregnancy. EC works to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, and therefore can reduce the need for abortions.

The controversy concerning EC in the United States has grown in intensity during the last several years. Anti-choice groups have tried to spin EC as everything from a form of abortion to a drug that makes teenagers engage in promiscuity.
Access to EC has therefore become more and more challenging. While it is available directly from pharmacists in a small number of states, individual pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions based on the false assumption that ECs are an abortifacient (a medication that causes an abortion). This problem received widespread attention in May 1999, when Wal-Mart announced that it would not sell emergency contraception in its pharmacies, citing "religious convictions." Finding a pharmacy to dispense this medication may be difficult; moreover, some patients have difficulty even obtaining a prescription. Not all doctors are familiar with EC and how it works, and many patients have difficulty scheduling an appointment at their physician’s office in a timely fashion.

Women who have been sexually assaulted have a particularly compelling need for quick and easy access to EC. More than 300,000 women are sexually assaulted each year in the US. Of these, an estimated 25,000 will become pregnant as a result. A staggering number of these pregnancies could be prevented if all women who were raped used EC. However, many hospitals – particularly those that are religiously affiliated – refuse to offer this crucial treatment to any woman, or even to inform her that it is an option. EC is only effective if taken within 3 to 5 days after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure, though it is most effective in the first 24 hours. Finding a physician willing to prescribe the medication, and a pharmacist willing to fill the prescription within this time period may prove difficult or impossible for many women.

Many groups have argued that EC should be available without a prescription, and point to research that has shown EC to be not only safe and effective, but also easy to use. On December 16, 2003, the FDA held a public advisory committee meeting with a panel of medical and scientific experts from outside the federal government. This meeting was held to consider allowing the use of EC without a prescription. Although the joint committee recommended that EC be sold without a prescription, some members of the committee, were concerned about the use of EC among women under 18. Ultimately, despite the recommendation, the application to dispense EC without a prescription was denied.

In August of 2006, more than three years after the FDA’s advisory committee recommended that emergency contraception (EC) be made available over the counter for all women, the FDA finally approved “Plan B” for over the counter use for women 18 and older.  Women under the age of 18 however, will still be required to obtain a prescription for the emergency contraception.

In order to obtain EC you must go to the pharmacy and ask the pharmacist for the medication. You will then have to show photo ID that shows that you are over the age of 18. This “behind the counter” access is similar to the way cigarettes and nicotine gum are sold.

The FDA approval does not mean that pharmacies must carry the medication or require pharmacists to give out the medication.

Top