"Irresponsible and dangerous"

Planned Parenthood has launched a new tactic against abstinence education advocates. We are now "irresponsible and dangerous". Guess the false accusations that our programs are not science- or evidence-based didn't work. That's what happens when a bad argument is pinned to a biased, unscientific study--the Waxman Report.

There is absolutely nothing dangerous or irresponsible about encouraging adolescents to remain sexually abstinent with every medical, social science, economical, legal, cultural and historical fact at our disposal. To add, in the correct setting, moral and relgious values only bolsters the other arguments.

Unmarried sex is dangerous and irresponsible. To say that the right to partake in it trumps responsibility for the health dangers to self, partner and all the subsequent partners of each is ridiculous.

Responsibility cannot be tied to condom use because that is only a theoretical solution. That's what "consistent and correct usage" infers. There is no actual proof that condoms work because "correct" use has never been scientifically studied through observation and use of test/control groups. The science of "consistent" use is an answer to a "Yes or No" question. There are direct linkage studies/surveys that prove people lie when asked that question. In other words, during the study time frame, a person claims consistent condom use but deveolps a new STD acquired through intercourse.

There are several problems with promoting condoms for protection or risk reduction.
1. Correct usage is a developing concept. The videos and curriculums used in schools often teach 6-8 steps in correct condom use. However, at the last Wisconsin Sexual Risk Prevention Institute held in August at Alverno College, 17 steps were now involved.
2. "Correct" condom use is last "taught" in ninth grade before the vast majority of students are sexually active. Will memory serve them? Is it respopnsible to rely on that?
3. Studies are showing consistent condom use decreases with length of time with one partner and when one has multiple partners, either in close sequence or as a serial monogomist. Reality is disproving the condom theory.
4. Existing STIs and HIV generally don't go away without treatment (there are a few exceptions). If you have them, you will give them. Even if after you tire of messing around and find someone you love and adore. Even if you want to have a baby, making condoms moot.
5. Condom ad campaigns can't convey correct usage so it is inferred that consistent use is sufficient. That is not true; using a condom is not always better than not using one.
6. Whenever one method is promoted, there is a tendency to not sabotage that message with "the whole picture". Truth should always precede and support message. If abstinence education does not use the whole truth to support its message, it is as quilty as comprehensive sex education would be. However, to criticize abstinence education for teaching that condoms are risky at least and dangerous at worst when truth backs that up is wrong.

Teachers, parents, mentors and medical personnel have to ask themselves whether the children in their care will be completely safe, healthy and happy if they follow their advice and if they have given them enough information to make that choice.