In the Oct 27th Newsweek an article entitled "Just Saying No to Abstinence Ed will run and its writer, Laura Beil, makes a few really good points that seem obvious, but are not really out there. She discusses an organization in East Texas called Virginity Rules, which sponsored various road-side billboards promoting abstinence until marriage, one of which was a collection of girls in white evening gowns and tiara's proclaiming to be "waiting" for their Prince Charming. This organization, which has just lost its federal funding, has been promoting abstinence for nearly ten years, and they fit right in in East Texas. I was shocked to discover that approximately 95 percent of Texas Public Schools only teach abstinence education. In today's society, I feel it is necessary that teens experience sex education. We live in a society today where teen pregnancy, sexual transmitted infections and AIDS are common terminology and prominant in the main-stream media. It seems absurd to me that a public school system would fail to educate its students about the consequences of unprotected sex.
As I have said in the past, I attended a small, private Christian school for my primary education. Abstinence was the only education we recieved, and it was mostly "sex is something for married people to know about" and that was about it. I was lucky, I had parents who openly discussed any questions I had growing up, but many of my classmates were not. It wasn't until an Advanced Placement Biology course was established in my school that the reproductive chapter became anything more than a quickly-skimmed overview that was forgotten soon after.
I feel that schools and organizations can promote abstinence while still providing sex education. I don't see why the two paths seem to be forced to butt heads. Yes, abstinence is a more personal choice and less scientifically based, but why not make it a personal and educated choice?
Furthermore, I feel that by providing more funding to abstinence-only education systems, the government is sensoring what students learn in school. It's just like the creation/evolution debate. Both the personal/faith-based and scientific stances should be taught side by side. Education is, simply put, learning, and simply being told not to participate in sex until marriage is not educating someone, its limiting their knowledge.

I'll go ahead and be the bold one who says that Palin's daughter's pregnancy actually DOES apply to the election. Now don't take that the wrong way. I do not think it should be a constant topic of discussion in the media until November (or longer if McCain wins), and I do believe Bristol has a right to privacy over the matter.

However, Palin is known to be a strong supporter of abstinence-only education. Let's just take a look at the statistics. Abstinence-only education is the only type permitted in school systems throughout Texas, and the state spent more than $17 million backing the program. Students are not educated on ways to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases but are only told not to have sex. Get real. While it is a very honorable decision to choose abstinence, it is not the choice many teenagers make.

So with all the money Texas invested in this program, federal studies report that 52.9 percent of Texas high school students have had sex compared to the national average of 47.8 percent.
Sounds like that plan really worked...it apparently did for Sarah Palin's daughter, too.

Seriously though, the abstinence-only programs teach the failure rates associated with contraceptives. People don't want to teach students about the positive aspects because they think it is giving them a nod of approval to have sex. Kids are going to have sex no matter what you teach them, so you might as well teach them how to be safer.