Started as an attempt to curb teen pregnancy rates, abstinence-only education has come to dominate the American public school system. Abstinence advocates have used the overall decline in teen pregnancies to justify these programs, despite the lack of empirical evidence to support this correlation. In addition to the ineffectiveness and scientific fluency of abstinence-only education, these programs carry with them a markedly religious agenda that ultimately affects the minds and self-esteem of the adolescents they target. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Support for abstinence-only education began with the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) of 1981. Commonly called the “Chastity Act,” this piece of legislation promoted abstinence as the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV and unplanned pregnancies. It limited funding for family planning services and expressly prohibited grants to projects that were in any way related to abortion (Perrin and Bernecki). Almost immediately, the AFLA raised controversial issues against it. In 1983, a lawsuit was filed against the law, arguing that it violated the separation of church and state by supporting a religious view of sex education. Just two years later, it was declared unconstitutional by a district court judge. This decision, however, was overturned by the Supreme Court and new provisions were imposed on the law instead. These included the absence of religious references, a requirement of medical accuracy, a principle of self-determination regarding the provision of contraceptives to adolescents, and a ban on presenting programs at church shrines during school hours (Perrin and Bernecki). In 1992, the Senate made a decision to deny funding to the American Teenage Study on Sexual Behavior. This was partly caused by pressure from a group of conservative senators, although the Senate had been warned that religion had been allowed to dictate the law. These senators managed to present the study as a “reprehensible” investigation, intended only to “legitimize homosexuality and other sexually promiscuous lifestyles” (Remez). This victory has had a detrimental effect on the study of adolescent sexual activity, allowing the continuation of the idea that "sex" is just vaginal intercourse. ” abstinence-only education clause (Perrin and Bernecki). Absent in the original sex education law, this Title V clause is followed by others of a similar, suspiciously religious theme. The most notable of these are the specific “standards” that the law imposes on both adolescents and adults. The former are expected to abstinence until marriage, while the latter are expected to have a faithful and monogamous relationship “in the context of marriage” (Perrin and Bernecki). . The law even goes so far as to claim that premarital sex will most likely cause physical or psychological harm. In fact, the only positive aspect of Title V is the stipulation that the programs will teach students how to refuse sexual advances, as well as the dangers of drugs and alcohol in relation to sexual intercourse. Interestingly, abstinence-only programs that are taught in public schools today also have a tendency to go against the provisions of the AFLA. In a 2004 study conducted by the Committee to Reform theHouse government, many abstinence-only programs have been found to teach false information, as well as blur the lines between religion and science (Alford). Some of these falsehoods include that women who have abortions are more likely to commit suicide; up to 10% of women will become infertile following the operation; condoms fail in 31% of cases; and that pregnancy can result from contact with another person's genitals. Despite the inclusion of atrocious misinformation in curricula, the prevalence of this approach to sexuality education has increased dramatically in recent decades. From 1988 to 1999, the percentage of sex education teachers who taught abstinence as the only way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy jumped from 2 percent to 23 percent. Between 1995 and 2002, the number of students receiving formal birth control education decreased by about 20 percent for both genders; and in 2002, one-third of students of both sexes had received no education in forms of birth control (Alford). Since 1997, the federal government has allocated more than $1.5 billion to fund abstinence-only education. influenced by evangelical Christian organizations, allowing these organizations to insinuate the belief that sexual activity outside of marriage is morally wrong. This source of funding blurs the lines between church and state and undoubtedly allows religious references banned by the AFLA to slip through. Even with the prevalence of abstinence-only education in American schools, these programs do not reflect the beliefs of the majority of the population. About 92 percent of Americans believe in teaching contraception as a form of sex education, and 83 percent believe that protection and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy should be taught, regardless of whether the student is sexually active ( Perrin and Bernecki). Most adolescents believe that abstinence-only education is ineffective. In fact, there is no concrete evidence that abstinence-only education has any effect on the problems it addresses. The few rigorous studies that have been conducted on abstinence education have failed to provide any evidence of effectiveness, suggesting that abstinence-only education has no significant value (Perrin and Bernecki). Another question to address is what exactly is defined as “abstinence”? Abstinence until marriage programs focus only on vaginal intercourse, without taking into consideration other sexual acts other than coital sex. This narrow definition of sex leaves open gaps that abstinence-only education is unable and unwilling to address: oral sex, anal sex, and mutual masturbation. As the programs originally formed to address rising teen pregnancy and birth rates, these gaps in the material can be somewhat explained. by the fact that acts such as oral and anal sex are not related to pregnancy. However, efforts to expand scholarship on these topics often face the same political barriers as comprehensive sexuality education. While this can be partly attributed to the perceived difficulty of getting parents to talk about their children's sexual habits, it also finds its basis in political doubts. Abstinence-only-until-marriage education is not only ineffective, but it psychologically disservices adolescents. Despite the original provisions imposed on these programs that required them to be free of.