James Wagoner's blog

Ab-Only: Where Do We Go From Here?

2008-04-30T09:45:21-04:00

Last Wednesday, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, conducted the first-ever hearing on the effectiveness of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. It took 12 years of conservative congressional leadership and $1.5 billion before we finally achieved some public accountability for these failed programs.

Congressman Waxman deserves a great deal of credit, and our thanks, for focusing congressional attention on the biggest ideological boondoggle of the last 50 years. His committee reports have been pivotal in focusing the public's attention on the problems inherent in these programs.

The spotlight, and pressure, now clearly shifts to the House Democratic leadership to act. After the overwhelming evidence highlighting the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs presented at last week's hearing, Congress cannot replay last year's debacle when Chairman David Obey pushed to increase funding for these failed programs by $28 million.

The hearing produced a litany of rejection of abstinence-only programs from mainstream, science-based public health organizations. The American Academy of Pediatrics testified that the abstinence-only approach was not only ineffective, but could cause real harm to young people. The Institute of Medicine stated that continued support for these programs does not "comport with the evidence" and no reason existed to hamstring federal interventions by placing them in the abstinence-only straight-jacket. The American Public Health Association also rejected abstinence-only programs and cited the significance of 17 states rejecting abstinence-only dollars in the face of the enormous need for public health resources at the state level.

Supporters of abstinence-only programs tried to muddy the waters by constantly referring to a discredited Heritage Foundation report claiming that abstinence-only programs work and that the federal government spends more money on comprehensive sex education programs than on abstinence-only programs. They also turned to one of their favorite researchers, Stan Weed, whose study of a Virginia abstinence-only program raised more concerns than it addressed. Weed's support staff at the hearing included Valerie Huber, the chief lobbyist for the National Abstinence Education Association, an organization known for its misleading and inaccurate information about sex education.

Fortunately, Dr. John Santelli from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health (and a former high-ranking CDC official in the field of teen pregnancy prevention) summed it all up by explaining that abstinence has a legitimate role within comprehensive sex education which also includes birth control and condoms. However, abstinence-only programs that exclude information about birth control and condoms, have no place at the center of federal sex education policy.

So where do we go from here?

The time has come for the Democrats to correct course and stop government funding of ineffective abstinence-only programs. With the teen birth rate on the rise, with one in four teen girls contracting an STD, with 55 young people getting HIV every single day, how can congressional leaders continue to ignore the public health consensus about science-based programs?

If we listen to the experts from last week, the path for Democratic leaders is clear -- it's time to support what works. All the data, the studies, and the logic, point to one conclusion -- a comprehensive approach to sex education that includes birth control and condoms, as well as abstinence, works.

So, no more excuses. It's time to protect the health and lives of America's youth in the era of AIDS.

Dems Finalize Massive Increase for Ab-Only

2007-11-01T17:09:47-04:00

Today, we learned that the Democratic controlled Labor HHS Appropriations conference committee report includes the full $28 million increase requested by President Bush for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs. The Democrats have now granted the president and his anti-sex education zealots a whopping $141 million dollar budget for abstinence-only programs -- something they could never achieve even under a conservative Republican Congress!

Never mind the congressionally-mandated evaluation released in April showing abstinence-only programs have "no impact on adolescent behavior." Never mind the 2006 study by the Society of Adolescent Medicine which stated that these programs "threaten fundamental human rights to health, information and life." Never mind the 2004 report from Congressman Henry Waxman's (D-CA) oversight committee demonstrating that 80% of abstinence-only programs contain "false or misleading information." Never mind the 13 governors who have refused abstinence-only dollars because they see no reason to use precious state dollars to match federal funds for programs that simply do not work.

With one breathtakingly cynical move, the Democratic leadership has now stamped its brand on one of the biggest ideological boondoggles in congressional history. More disturbingly, they have placed the health and safety of young people at risk by promoting programs that spread ignorance in the era of HIV/AIDS. Placing politics before public health and ideology over science have now become bipartisan follies.

Of course, we will hear the excuses. Funding these failed abstinence-only programs is an unavoidable consequence of Chairman David Obey (D-WI) "being Obey." After all, he has long been known for his barely concealed hostility to reproductive health issues and sex education.

But increasingly, that excuse rings hollow -- particularly after it became known that the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), signed off on the increased funding. Advocates are also questioning why our sex education "champions" on the House Appropriations Committee, such as Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Nita Lowey (D-NY), and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), never offered a single amendment during the appropriations process to slow Obey's mad dash to increase funding for abstinence-only programs. Perhaps they care far more about being "appropriators in good standing with the Chairman" than they do about being authentic champions of sex education.

And why has Henry Waxman suddenly gone mute on continued funding for abstinence-only programs? In the past, he effectively used this funding as an example of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress promoting ideology over public health science. Why have there been no public statements or public hearings now that the Democrats control Congress?

And what happened to the Democrats in the Senate? At least they had cut abstinence-only programs by $28 million in their bill rather than acceding to the President's outrageous demands for an increase. Why did they cave to Obey and the House Democrats on this issue in the conference committee?

I am constantly told that it's not "politic" to call out our friends on an issue like sex education. There are bigger fish to fry. I'm not buying that anymore. Not when ten thousand young people get an STD, two thousand become pregnant and fifty-five contract HIV every single day in this country. Not when poll after poll shows this issue to be a political winner, not a loser, for Democrats. Not after Democrats exploited this issue in opposition and now, with control of Congress, act like it's an insignificant chit to be bartered away at the whim of a recalcitrant committee Chairman.

It is now time to call this what it truly is. A stunning disgrace.

It's also time to stop buying into the "dog ate my homework" excuses of our erstwhile reproductive rights champions and to start holding them accountable for what they have done to undermine the health and safety of young people in this country.

Take action and tell Congress that youth are not political tools!

Presidential Candidates and Comprehensive Sex Education

2007-07-19T08:50:00-04:00

When it comes to abstinence-only-until-marriage, the Republican presidential candidates are head-in-the-sand true believers, convoluted converts or, if you're Rudy Giuliani, you're silent -- very silent -- on the issue.

Most of the Democrats expressed perfunctory support for comprehensive sex education when asked directly on a candidate questionnaire (thank you, Human Rights Campaign!), but remain largely silent on the campaign trail. Nor do they exhibit any leadership on the issue in Congress.

On the other hand, the majority of the Republicans can't stop talking about the issue. The hardcore supporters of failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs include Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Duncan Hunter. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, the candidates run the gamut of persuasive arguments for abstinence-only from A to B.

Sam Brownback is "denialist in chief" with an entire page of his website devoted to the awesome wonders of abstinence-only-until-marriage education. He even has the temerity to use the word "data" when talking about these programs. Gee, Sam, what "data" is this? Mathematica's multi-year evaluation of abstinence-only programs mandated by Congress that demonstrated they don't work? Or maybe the 2000 Institute of Medicine report that stated the programs should be abolished because they represent "poor fiscal and public health policy"?

Mike Huckabee grew up in a society where the "Gideons gave out Bibles ... rather than school nurses giving our condoms." He does not believe in teaching "about sex or contraception in public schools." Then again, Mike probably believes that conception begins at flirtation.

Duncan Hunter, "concerned over the breakdown of values" in America, wants "equal emphasis" on abstinence, since he believes the government is overly focused on educating children on the "dangers of STDs and contraception." I wonder what government he is talking about -- Lithuania?

Then there are the convoluted converts like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Romney, during his 2002 campaign, filled out a questionnaire stating that he supported comprehensive sex education. Since that time, along with his deep commitment to his presidential ambitions, he's discovered an equally deep commitment to abstinence-only-until-marriage education. Ralph Waldo Emerson talked about consistency being the "hobgoblin of little minds." Emerson meant it as a compliment for creative thinkers. I don't think Mitt Romney fits that bill.

John McCain infamously put his foot in his mouth when he first tried to respond to a question about whether he supported condoms as part of HIV prevention. After some garbled meanderings as reported by The New York Times, McCain became a born-again, staunch supporter of abstinence-only, saying on Christian Broadcasting Network that we must "promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand, they should not be sexually active and, but on the other, here is the way to go about it." Yep, educating young people about prevention seems a "mixed message" and actually causes them to have sex -- just like umbrellas cause rain.

Rudy Giuliani is militantly mute on sex education. Having publicly supported New York City's condom distribution program when mayor, Rudy at least has the decency to avoid "pulling a Romney."

On the Democratic front, there is not a lot to say, because the candidates are not saying much. And that, my friends, is a problem. A big problem.

All of the candidates filled out an HRC questionnaire stating they would support the REAL Act, the comprehensive sex education legislation currently in Congress.

This week, during the Planned Parenthood conference, all the Democratic candidates pledged their commitment to reversing the Bush Administration conservative approach to "abortion rights, judicial appointments, sex education and contraception." In fact, Senator Hillary Clinton promised to "devote [her] very first days in office to reversing these ideological, anti-science, anti-prevention policies."

However, neither Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, nor Joseph Biden has signed on as a co-sponsor of the REAL Act. Christopher Dodd, a co-sponsor in 2006, has not signed on this year. In fact, the only member of Congress running for president who is a cosponsor of the REAL Act is Dennis Kucinich.

It should also be noted that in 2004, Clinton was approached to be the original Senate sponsor of the Family Life Education Act. After an initial expression of interest from her office, all Advocates for Youth received was a massive runaround from her staff. Eventually, Senator Frank Lautenberg sponsored the bill.

Well, there you have it -- a fairly uninspiring Democratic presidential candidate record on the sex education issue.

Clearly, we have got a lot of work to do to get these candidates informed, committed, and vocal on an issue that is not only critical to public health but central to the rights and respect we should afford young people in our culture.

If Hypocrisy Were an Olympic Event…..

2007-07-12T15:30:46-04:00

I hope that everyone saw the stinging blurb in Roll Call yesterday on our wayward friend, Senator Vitter, and his adamant support for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. If not here's an excerpt:

The lover of family values (and, apparently, escorts) was one of the chief backers of a bill to reauthorize the program that gives states money to conduct abstinence education. A letter he and a handful of colleagues sent to the committee working on the bill includes this line, rendered particularly relevant in light of the Senator's Monday confession: "These programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness," the letter reads.

Let's see if we follow this. Vitter is saying that being faithful is the best way to avoid STDs and out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Might HOH suggest another method of doing just that—namely, not hiring call girls?

As the comedians like to say, "you can't make this stuff up!"

If hypocrisy were an Olympic event, Senator Vitter would get the gold medal. And he wouldn't be the only "family values" champion lining up for the gold. Remember Randall Tobias, former AIDS Czar and defender of the abstinence-only ideology at PEPFAR? Didn't he tap into the same Madam's services as Senator Vitter?

And how about Mr. Wolfowitz at the World Bank? At a time when he was trying to undermine support for international family planning programs, wasn't he also arranging "sweetheart deals" for his live-in (as in not married) girlfriend? And who can forget the Administration's abstinence-only-until-marriage "enforcer", Claude Allen, who resigned after being charged with felony theft. And, of course, there was the famous family values champion—and two-time adulterer—Newt Gingrich.

I suppose this would all be very funny were it not for the real damage these "family-values" hypocrites have caused to real young people through their championing of discredited abstinence-only programs.

Which brings me to our Democratic "friends" in the House who just yesterday staked out their own claim in the hypocrisy Olympics by passing an appropriations bill that increases funding for these failed abstinence-only programs by 25 percent—more than the Republican House was ever able to do. And this is supposed to represent the Democratic vision of "prevention first"? Infuriating!

Beyond Shame: Democrats Sell Out Youth

2007-06-07T09:00:00-04:00

Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—they'll give them a $27 million increase—the first in three years!

Shame on Congressman David Obey for brokering this "deal;" shame on Congresswoman Nita Lowey for agreeing to it; and shame on those other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee who have already promised not to offer any amendment that would cut funding for abstinence-only programs and thus "upset" the deal.

In one inglorious motion, the Democrats have sold the health and well-being of young people down the proverbial drain, delivered a public slap in the face to evidence-based public health, and made a mockery of their "prevention first" message.

Consider this irony. The first domestic policy the Democrats will endorse on the prevention front will be to fund abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for young people up to the age of 29! Good work, gang. You make me proud to be a Democrat—NOT!

And consider this second irony. The Democrats will now become one of the largest funders of an ultra-conservative network that is clearly hostile to its policies and candidates (See an in-depth article in The Nation.)

The funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs represents the worst of cynical, "inside-the-beltway" deal-making. Whose interests were protected at the expense of young people's health and lives? Whose politics were advanced by including this "sweetener" for conservatives in an appropriations bill threatened with a Presidential veto? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Now is the time for advocates to hold these Democrats accountable. It would be the height of hypocrisy to go mute when this kind of damage is done to young people because "our friends" are in power.

We cannot afford to play the "never mind" game.

Never mind the Society of Adolescent Medicine report that stated abstinence-only programs "threaten fundamental human rights to health, information and life"; never mind the congressionally-mandated Mathematica study released in April showing that abstinence-only programs simply do not work; never mind the research showing that young people who take "virginity pledges" are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. Should we really ignore it all because these Democrats are "our friends" and we shouldn't publicly criticize our "friends?"

To hell with that! Over the next few weeks we need to mount a campaign to reverse this policy even if it means publicly dinging our "friends." After all, with friends like these, who needs conservative Republicans?

I urge everyone to take action. Tell the Democratic leadership that it is time to END funding for failed abstinence-only programs today!

Abstinence-Only a Failure: Spotlight Now on Democrats in Congress

2007-04-16T08:55:00-04:00

James Wagoner is the President of Advocates For Youth.

The release of the 10-year evaluation of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs on Friday (if you can call the posting of the report on an obscure government website on a Friday afternoon a "release"), puts a big, bright spotlight on Democrats in Congress, particularly the appropriators.

Congress asked for this evaluation back in 1997. Do these programs work to protect young people? Ten years and over $1.5 billion dollars later, they got their answer. No, they don't. Period.

Now, you might be wondering why Congress went ahead and spent all that money over all those years with no evidence of effectiveness? You might wonder why Congress didn't halt these programs after the Institute of Medicine, the nation's leading authority on public health, called for their elimination back in 2000 or when the Society of Adolescent Medicine reported that the efficacy of abstinence-only programs was "near zero."

You might also wonder why Congress didn't take the hint when ten states issued negative evaluations; when eight governors refused abstinence-only funding; when the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) slammed the programs for lack of oversight and violations of the Public Health Service Act; or when the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics called for a different approach—one that includes abstinence and contraception?

Why did Congress ignore each and every sign that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs weren't working and continue appropriating money? Was there some "back room" deal among Members? Was the health and well-being of young people in this country traded off for a "bridge to nowhere", an increase in the fennel crop subsidy, or a study on the mating habits of the pup fish?

So many questions. So few answers.

But now there is a new Congress. Surely, the "new bosses" won't be the same as the "old bosses?" Surely, back room deals won't dictate whether millions of young people continue to be subjected to programs that don't work. Surely this Congress won't deprive youth of essential information necessary to protect their health and lives in the era of AIDS.

For the millions of young people, and adults, in this country who care about honest sex education and watch what our leaders do, it is now "put up or shut up" time for the Democrats who run Congress.

The real test will be what happens in the appropriations committees where there is over $113 million allocated to the most extreme abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Democrats should de-fund these programs now. But early signals from these committees are not encouraging. There is a real possibility that Democrats will continue the funding for these failed programs—programs that constitute one of the biggest ideological boondoggles of the last fifty years. These early signals should make us all concerned—very concerned.

We were told that things would be different with a new Congress. We were told that public health policy would be directed by science and common sense, not politics and ideology.

There is still plenty of time to get things right. But it will take a significant mobilization of our community. With all that is at stake, it's time to get busy!

Media Watch: ABC’s Desperate Hypocrisy

2007-03-12T09:00:00-04:00

James Wagoner is the President of Advocates For Youth.

It's no secret that ABC hosts one of the most popular shows on television, Desperate Housewives. It's also no secret that the show's popularity is driven in large part by sex—lots and lots of sex. All kinds of sex! Desperate HousewivesConnected and unconnected; protected and unprotected; healthy and unhealthy; bonded and unbonded. Well, you get the point.

What few people realize, however, is that ABC's "anything goes" approach to the show's content stands in stark contrast to the network's policy of censorship when it comes to the show's advertising. While the network relies on sexual content to propel ratings, it bans the advertising of condoms around the show!

Why? Does ABC honestly believe that the condom, the most effective disease prevention tool for sexually active people, is too controversial? Oh, and broadcasting images of bondage is not?

As public health advocates, we are constantly bemoaning the fact that the U.S. has the highest rates of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease in the western world. Part of our problem is that our culture is terminally conflicted around sexuality. We celebrate the sensational aspects of sex and sexuality while entangling the public health aspects of the issue in a straightjacket of fear, shame and denial.

Rubbing salt into this social wound, the January 15 episode of Desperate Housewives implied repeatedly that condoms are ineffective. Yet, according to the CDC condoms are "highly effective" when used correctly and consistently, particularly in preventing pregnancy and HIV.

We understand that a show like Desperate Housewives is designed to entertain. But with an audience of more than 20 million people, it also has the responsibility to get its facts right. That the network further compounds the error by prohibiting condom advertising because it fears controversy—is shameful and hypocritical.

Let's stop this nonsense. Shows such as Desperate Housewives are enormously popular. Their sexual content drives ratings up—ratings that ABC then uses to sell its advertising time. ABC should lift its ban on condom ads around these shows. Otherwise, the network will continue to set the standard for hypocrisy when it comes to sex, culture, and public health.

Rights, Respect, Responsibility: Why Vision Matters

2007-01-18T08:00:00-05:00

James Wagoner is the President of Advocates For Youth.

Robert F. Kennedy once said, "Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not." I like this quote because it challenges those of us working in the reproductive health field to ask the vision question - - the question that begins with "why not?"

Why not a society where young people are valued rather than stereotyped, prized as assets rather than discounted as liabilities? Why not a society where sexuality is viewed as a normal, positive aspect of being human, of being alive, rather than as forbidden fruit to be locked away in a fortress of shame, fear, and denial? Why not a society where public policy is based on science and research rather than politics and ideology? Why not a society where values, morality, and character are used to infuse sexuality with meaning - with its truly human dimension - rather than misused to deny young people information that could one day save their lives.

Over the years that I worked in this field, I've asked myself "why can't we place youth at the center of our vision, mission and work?" I think about the young people I have met and the leadership they bring to these issues. I am inspired by the passion and hope of Mimi Melles and Haben Fecadu, members of Advocates' International Youth Leadership Council, who led a coalition of youth activists at the 2006 UN Special Session on HIV/AIDS. I marvel at the power and charisma of Jalan Washington and Cherrell Edwards, members of the Young Women of Color Leadership Council, who work on a daily basis to raise public awareness about the impact of HIV on their peers. And then there is Adaku Utah from the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, fighting for comprehensive sex education in the Chicago school system and Megan Cuilla of the Odyssey Center in Spokane, Washington, advocating for the rights of GLBTQ youth. On a daily basis, I have witnessed the power of partnership between adults and youth to move us towards a society that:

Recognizes youth's Rights to accurate and complete sexual health information, confidential reproductive and sexual health services, and a secure stake in the future.

Respects young people. Valuing young people means ensuring they participate in developing programs and policies that affect their well being.

Fulfills its Responsibility to provide young people with the tools they need to safeguard their sexual health, so they can in turn meet their responsibility to make good decisions about their sexual health.

At Advocates, we work to make this vision more than rhetoric. Rights, Respect, Responsibility has become the core values that animate and direct our organization's external efforts while defining and inspiring our internal culture. This vision has transformed our work over the last nine years. Young people are now at the very center of our programs and policies rather than being cast as mere "end users" of our services. A human rights framework buoys a steadfast organizational commitment to evidence-based public health. I have seen that a positive approach to sexuality delivers strong public health outcomes. Rights, Respect, Responsibility provides a platform for shifting societal norms to promote the well-being of youth in a holistic framework.

I couldn't be more excited about 2007. I feel there is a new wave of collaborative energy and commitment in our field. There is so much we can do together. We can stand up for what we know is right. The change starts today!

Editor's note: Watch Advocates For Youth's Rights, Respect, Responsibility video below, which provides a fascinating insight into sexual health attitudes by interviewing European and American teens.

Rights, Respect, Responsibility on Vimeo

Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage: A Wedge Issue Among Conservatives?

2006-11-09T08:00:00-05:00

James Wagoner is President of Advocates for Youth.

Recently, people were stunned when they learned that the new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) guidelines for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs encouraged grantees to target unmarried adults up to the age of 29.

With the government's own center of health statistics documenting that over 95% of adults in their late 20's have already had sex, public disbelief quickly turned to outright disdain for a government program that seemed to be so drastically - and willfully - out of touch with reality.

As participants in the effort to draw attention to this "29-year-old-virgin campaign", my colleagues and I were surprised to discover that conservative talk radio hosts were among the more outraged audiences. They were all over this story and eager to discuss how the campaign violated core conservative values by promoting big government, wasteful spending, and intrusion into personal choice. Oh, and I shouldn't leave out the "just plain nuts" reaction either.

It seemed to me that the criticisms were driven by a deeper, underlying disconnect with the "social engineering" philosophy behind these efforts - the goal is to transform majority behavior in the culture to fit tidily within the dictum that there should be no sex outside of marriage. And here, the traditional conservatives have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Back in 1996 when the program was authorized by the Welfare Reform Act, a legislative history was created to clarify the law's purpose and intent. The authors stated:

"Regardless of how one feels about the standard of no sex outside marriage, we believe both the statutory language and, based on our talks with the Members of Congress who wrote this provision and their staffs, the intent of Congress is clear. This standard was intended to align Congress with the social tradition - never mind that some observers now think the tradition outdated - that sex should be confined to married couples. That both the practices and standards in many communities across the country clash with the standard required by the law is precisely the point....the goal of the abstinence education programs is to change both behavior and community standards for the good of the country".

There you have it. This policy is out of touch by design! Targeting 29-year-old adults with abstinence-only messages is not a bureaucratic aberration - it is a logical consequence of the program's intent.

Preaching abstinence to these adults is lunacy from a public health perspective. We should be focusing on condoms, birth control, and emergency contraception. But from a religious right ideological point of view, it makes perfect sense. And the deep divide between these religious right conservatives and traditional "small government" conservatives has been surfaced and highlighted by these new regulations. Stay tuned!