(Cross-posted from Think it Through)

By definition, these programs are not reality-based and, therefore, have proven to be ineffective.  They deny the existence of condoms, birth control pills, and other proven ways to stay healthy and avoid pregnancy.  They are ineffective because many young people will have sex even if you warn them about the dangers, and not educating them about the number of options available to have safe sex unnecessarily places their health at risk.

You might call these "ignorance only" programs because their objective is to keep young people ignorant of the facts of sex and prevention of medical conditions that could harm them.

In 1996, Congress mandated that the federal government conduct a nationwide study over many years of the effectiveness of abstinence only programs in schools.  Mathematica Policy Research Inc, conducted the study from 1997 to 2007, and found that abstinence only classes for middle school students had no impact on their sexual activity in middle school or later in high school.

The public recognizes what the abstinence only amendment sponsor Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah fails to see - that young people need to hear all the facts about their bodies, their sexuality, medical threats, and how to prevent illness. In a Belden Russonello & Stewart survey, conducted nationwide in 2008, 71% of adults in the country disagreed that "public high school sex education programs should only teach abstinence, not other ways of preventing pregnancy and disease;" a majority of 51% disagreed strongly.

The Mathematica study and the public opinion data show that the Congress in Washington should not be subjecting our children to a program that does not work.

I have a suggestion for Senator Hatch, other Republicans, and some blue dog Democrats who feel the need to record a "yes" vote for "abstinence only" to satisfy the extreme groups in their states that want to impose their brand of morality on the rest of us.

My proposal could benefit individual Senators and cost the federal government a lot less money:  For $50,000 instead of $50 million we can start an "abstinence only" class in the senate to help Senators not to succumb to temptations of the flesh.

Although its impact on the senators will likely be the same as on early teenagers, it may mollify some voters in the belief that a senate program on abstinence only could have prevented Republican Senators John Ensign of Nevada and David Vitter of Louisiana from falling into scandals of sexual impropriety, and maybe with the right kind of instruction, Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho would still be in the United States Senate.

If we must have an abstinence only program in the health care bill to satisfy a constituency, then I would rather experiment with the egos of United States senators than with the health and lives of our children.