As much as I didn't want to wander into the PCC debate that has played out in these pages recently, I take issue with some of the assertions made not about the PCC's program in particular, but about abstinence-based sex-ed in general. The too-often-repeated canard that abstinence-based education doesn't work, and in fact leads to increased rates of teen pregnancy, STD infection, and even abortion is, well, just that, really. It's a falsehood.
The Heritage Foundation, in 2010, conducted a meta-analysis of 22 separate studies of abstinence-based education, 16 of which were focused specifically on teaching abstinence, and a further six programs that emphasized virginity pledges. They found that in 17 of these, youth who received abstinence-based education showed significant positive results – including delayed sexual initiation, lower teen pregnancy rates, and lower rates of STD infection – when compared to youth in the same region who received general sex-ed. What's more interesting is that none of the other five studies showed a negative correlation between abstinence; the worst that could be said is that the positive correlations weren't large enough to be considered statistically significant.
The Journal of the American Medical Association found, further to this, that comprehensive abstinence-based programs resulted in delayed sexual initiation in youth, and also served to reduce the average number of sexual partners for those youth that did become sexually active. The JAMA analysis didn't look at pregnancy or STD rates.
Again, this isn't really about the PCC program in particular; it's about abstinence-based education in general, and the fact that – contra various tired old canards – it does actually work. Not that this should surprise.
I did a couple of quick Google searches before writing this letter, to confirm that, yes, modern feminist authors are still writing, in 2015, about the pressure young women feel to be sexy, and to have sex from a young age. They identify this as a problem – as well they should, because it is. You'd think, then, that sex-ed, which offers an affirmative message about how these young women can actually choose not to have sex and that this is a totally valid/ok/great thing for them to choose, would be a welcome thing.
But, hey, this is 2015. Maybe sex-ed should be about safe-Snapchatting and how to spot jerks on Tinder.
Kenneth Kully, St. Albert
