|
November 12, 2007
A pattern has emerged. Five easy
steps, repeated each year, continue to promote the notion that adults
should forget teaching teens the benefits of remaining sexually
abstinent until marriage.
Step one: Those in favor of
promoting contraception to our young people as "safe and protected
sex" publish a Report suggesting sexual abstinence for teens is an
impossible ... and possibly undesirable ... goal.
Step two: The liberal media
quickly skims for any phrase that might give them a justification
... no matter how slight ... to print bold headlines declaring that
abstinence education is a failure.
Step three: Repeat "Step
Two" ad nauseam.
Step four: Experts fully and
thoughtfully analyze said Report, revealing glaring errors,
omissions, and inaccuracies in the report. Press releases are
issued: the Report fails to qualify as research and is demonstrated
to be a thinly disguised political tract controlled by bias.
Step five: The liberal media
ignores their own prejudiced reporting of flawed "research." No
headlines appear to retract their errant headlines. The media could
take responsibility and announce, "We goofed," "We messed up," "We
were wrong." But they don't.
The latest report to trigger this
five-step pattern, Emerging Answers 2007, was issued with
great fanfare this month by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and
Unplanned Pregnancies. Written by Douglas Kirby, Ph.D., it was quickly
raised on high by the liberal media ... ad nauseam ... and used to
"prove" that ... you guessed it ... teaching sexual abstinence to
teens is a failed enterprise.
Now that the media has finished its
part in this charade and departed for other urgent news flashes,
thoughtful experts will be able to take the time to analyze Dr.
Kirby's work and put forward their responses. I offer the following
Emerging Questions for their consideration:
- Why is researcher bias ignored?
The introduction to the report states, "Dr. Kirby thought it
important to also note that ETR Associates also developed and
continues to market several of the curricula reviewed in
Emerging Answers 2007." Plainly speaking, Dr. Kirby makes money
selling the curricula he helped write and is now "researching."
Listed as the sole author of the
report, Kirby also gives credit to his Research Associate for
"important contributions" ... none other than an ETR Associates
employee of eight years. Further, ETR staff Lori Rolleri and Karin
Coyle are thanked for helping determine the topics covered by the
report and creating its "balance."
Amazingly, The National Campaign
announces these conflicts of interest with thanks to Dr. Kirby for
his admission, as if the admission absolves both of them from any
professional or ethical challenges. Would this work for the tobacco
industry?
-
Why do The National Campaign and Kirby
continue to isolate and address only one of many consequences of
teen sex ... teen pregnancy? Throughout the report, teen pregnancy
is identified as the target for educational programs and the basis
for Kirby's evaluation. If there are fewer pregnancies, the program
succeeds? No matter how much sex adolescents are having? No matter
the age of the adolescents having sex?
This emphasis on teen pregnancy is a
foundational research bias. It defines what will be accepted as
"success" by the researcher. Consider an 11-year-old who is sexually
active. One program may prevent pregnancy by helping her become
sexually abstinent. Another program may inject her with Depo Provera.
Which approach is successful?
-
Where are the many positive
evaluations of abstinence-until-marriage programs and curricula?
These exist. Could their exclusion from Kirby's "balanced
consideration of topics" have anything to do with the research bias
set up from the outset in the design of the study favoring
contraception for adolescents?
- Why is medically accurate
information on STDs minimized and even mischaracterized in its
importance for teens, suggesting that "protecting" teens from
pregnancy is the same as "protecting" teens from STDs? Kirby refers
to "behavior that affects the transmission of STDs" and to
"protection against pregnancy and STD" as if such "protection"
actually exists.
Behavior doesn't cause STDs.
Bacterium and virus are the culprits. The research on their
individual infectivity for the major STDs is clear. Condoms have a
limited ability to prevent STDs. Chemical contraceptives have NO
effectiveness.
In good time, the answers to these
and other Emerging Questions will emerge. They will be
developed by experts in the field of teen sex who will finally be able
to review the full 204-page report in detail. Their answers will shed
great light on teen sex and truly effective ways to intervene.
Most likely, "Programs That Work"
will actually include many abstinence-until-marriage programs
overlooked by Dr. Kirby and The National Campaign. These abstinence
programs will focus on teen sex as an inherently risky behavior and
will teach teens the truth about the many negative consequences, in
addition to pregnancy, related to teen sex.
When that time comes, one great
question remains: Will the press take note, much less care? Never mind
the ad nauseam. Will the truth, when it fails to conform to media
bias, ever make even one headline?
**********
June 5, 2006
Kaiser Embraces
Abstinence Education?
See Archives
for past editorials.
_____________________ |
