The program, entitled “Heritage Keepers Abstinence Education,” made it onto the “evidence-based” list some time this month, according to RH Reality Check. And in fact, it’s not a new program at all:

[O]ne of the “new” programs is actually an old, dis-proven and dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage program.[...]

Perhaps the Administration realized that the inclusion of Heritage Keepers Abstinence Education on this select list would call into question its commitment to young people and their sexual health. Once again, they have succumbed to the political pressure of social conservatives and allowed the ideology of the right to prevail over the health and well-being of the nation’s youth. The Obama Administration’s endorsement of this abstinence-only-until marriage program runs in direct contradiction to its stated commitment to the health and well-being of young people and, quite possibly, its promise to uphold science and evidence.

There have been many studies that prove abstinence-only education to be ineffective. In states that teach abstinence-only curricula, teen pregnancies are higher. One study found that teenagers who receive some type of comprehensive sex education are 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. The Administration’s endorsement of this program is really tacit support for a completely ineffectual program that is bad for women.

– A ban on abortion coverage in policies obtained through a health insurance exchange, set to be created under the federal health care reform law starting in 2014. The only exceptions would be in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity.

– A woman seeking an abortion must undergo an exam and consult with a doctor alone, away from her friends and family. The doctor must determine whether someone is pressuring the woman into the procedure. Doctors who break the law could be charged with a felony.

– Teachers in schools that offer sex education must stress abstinence as the only sure way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Declares that sex education teachers do not have to address contraception. That’s a dramatic shift from current state law, which requires teachers to instruct students on birth control options.

Among the 47 other bills, Walker approved the repeal the state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which had offered individuals legal recourse to fight wage discrimination based on race, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation or other factors. According to the Daily Beast, “in the two years the law was in effect, not a single equal-pay lawsuit was filed,” but employers responded to the law by increasing their workplace diversity. In 2009, Wisconsin ranked 36th for gender-parity. A year later, “it had climbed to 24th,” as the gender pay gap narrowed significantly, the U.S. Department of Labor found.

Walker, who could be recalled from office in the next two months, may also be considering a presidential bid. During a recent interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, he said that “God’s got a plan for us” that may include “bigger things” than his current job. “Who knows where it might be, beyond just serving as Governor of this state,” Walker told David Brody.

This is most evident from the American Family Association’s latest attempt to justify abstinence-only education. A study in the American Journal of Health Studies found that students who took a particular abstinence-only class were apparently more likely to perform well standardized math exams. AFA’s go-to abstinence expert, Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association, explains the significance of these findings:

HUBER: The researchers were suggesting that it was probably because there are a number of character qualities that are necessary to remain abstinent that also have … usefulness in other areas of their lives. We’ve been seeing for a long time that abstinence education isn’t just about saying ‘no’ to sex; it’s saying ‘yes’ to a lot of things in the future, and it positively impacts a person’s life — not just in that very singular area of sexual activity.

There are numerous flaws with Huber’s conclusions:

First, the study did not actually evaluate the actual effectiveness of the abstinence-only class, so any assumed benefit from the class (such as lower teen pregnancy rates, etc.) remains undocumented.

Second, the study focused only on one specific type of peer-educator based abstinence-only education, which means the results cannot be generalized to other curricula, which are usually taught by adults.

Further, the only conclusion the researchers drew from the study was that students may have benefited from having peer educators. There is nothing to indicate that students developed “character qualities” from the teaching of the class. If anything, the research suggests it was the mentorship students received from their peer educators that made a difference, not the lessons learned.

Finally, the study only compared students who took this one particular abstinence-only class with students who had no sex education class of any kind. None of the results offer insight into what impact comprehensive sex ed or sexual literacy approaches might have. In fact, the researchers conclude the article by admitting that “studies that compare the influence of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs on academic performance would be very informative for interpreting the findings presented herein.”

Of course, the most compelling point surely remains that sex ed courses should be evaluated for the impact they have on students’ understanding of sexual health, not for how they impact math and English test scores.

Utah State Rep. Bill Wright (R) (Photo Credit: Al Hartmann, The Salt Lake Tribute)

Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) has not taken action yet on the recently passed abstinence-only/”don’t say gay” bill, but its proponents continue to defend it, even though it doesn’t enjoy popular support. Among other things, the bill prohibits “instruction in, or the advocacy of” homosexuality, but its sponsor, State Rep. Bill Wright (R), explained that homosexuality has “nothing to do with health,” except when it comes to abstaining from it:

WRIGHT: That has nothing to do with health. Homosexuality does not relate to sexuality. It’s a whole different thing… I can write the curriculum really simply. If you’re homosexual you have a high degree of [contracting] some STD. What else do you need to know? What else do I need to teach?

There are many answers to Wright’s question, but the most obvious lesson many young people need to hear is simply that “homosexuality is normal.” The entire goal of sex education is helping kids learn about their own bodies, the changes they’re experiencing, and how to make responsible decisions now that they’re being flooded with hormones. Wright wants an entire group of students — who are already stigmatized for what makes them different — to be deprived of the vital affirmation they need and deserve. If he honestly believes that “homosexuality does not relate to sexuality,” perhaps he’s not the best authority to be dictating sexuality curriculum.

• Sexual health is best “encouraged” through abstinence-only education.
• Social science research supports “the benefits of reserving the expression of human sexual activity for marriage.”
• There is an “interrelationship between teen sexual activity and exposure to other risk behaviors such as smoking, underage drinking, drug use, criminal activity, dating violence, and sexual aggression.”

The bill is intended to reduce teenage pregnancy, but would surely have the opposite effect. Recent studies show that states with abstinence-only education requirements have the highest teen pregnancy rates. Young people who take virginity pledges have sex at the same rates as those who don’t, but are more likely to have unsafe sex when they do.

By limiting all conversations about sexuality to “abstinence until marriage,” this bill could have the same effect as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, condemning gay youth to a life of chastity and invisibility. Proponents may add amendments to incorporate the intended anti-gay censorship into this “family life education” curriculum or may still take up it separately, but either way, the results will reinforce anti-gay school environments. A new report from the Williams Institute examines the “Don’t Say Gay” bill’s harmful impacts:

• Hostile environments created by bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender nonconformity lead to adverse health effects for LGBT youth.
• Anti-gay stigma has been shown to be related to increases in violence against LGBT youth and adults, as well as to lower levels of health.
• Harassment based on sexual orientation and gender nonconformity is widespread with LGBT youth at heightened risk.
• Research shows that states and locales that promote LGBT-inclusive school policies help reduce teen suicide, and enhance the health and well-being of LGBT youth.
• Laws with negative and discriminatory impact on the LGBT community could have a negative economic impact for business and the state economy.

The House Education Subcommittee could begin considering the abstinence-only bill as early as tomorrow.

Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R-UT)

In recent years, Utah has earned a reputation for being one of the reddest states in the country. Indeed, less than 35 percent of 2008 voters in the Beehive State cast their ballots for the Obama-Biden ticket. But a new poll by Brigham Young University shows even Utahans are not backing the growing “abstinence-only” push by the right-wing.

In recent weeks, the state legislature passed HB 363, a bill to prohibit Utah schools from teaching students about contraceptives and to permit school districts to skip sex education entirely. The bill passed easily in the Republican-dominated state legislature (the GOP has 22 of 29 seats in the state senate and 58 of the 75 seats in the state house). Republican Gov. Gary R. Herbert has not yet said whether he will sign the bill.

Utahans, according to the BYU poll, would prefer that he veto the measure. Of those surveyed, 58 percent said they believe “”Public schools in Utah should teach about the use of contraceptives.” Only 30 percent said they should not. Only among those identifying as “strong Republicans” was there widespread (68 percent) opposition to the idea.

Chris Karpowitz, a political science professor at the university, told the Salt Lake Tribune:

The thing that was interesting to us was such a strong majority believed public schools should teach about contraceptives… Utah is a fairly conservative place, and you might have assumed that this would have gone in the other direction.

I think it means the governor has a tough decision to make, and he has to decide whether he’s going to side with the strongest Republicans who seem to have the most opposition to this — and that’s an important group for any Republican governor in the state of Utah — or is he going to side with the larger majority that seems to support this.

Hebert’s quandary is a microcosm of the challenge the Republican Party faces nationally: appeal to a narrow but vocal base that wants to pursue a culture war against contraception and women or focus on the real struggles of working families.

During Tuesday’s short debate in the Senate, Sen. Ross Romero (D) pointed out that the bill will likely deprive many young people of sex education if they don’t have parents who provide it at home. He offered an amendment that would have allowed teachers to still answer questions about homosexuality, contraceptives, or sex outside of marriage so that gay teens are not deprived of vital information about their identities, but the amendment was defeated. Sen. John Valentine (R) summed up Republican lawmakers’ attitudes on the matter:

VALENTINE: I recognize that some parents do not take the opportunity to teach in their own homes, but we as a society should not be teaching or advocating homosexuality or sex outside marriage or different forms of contraceptives for premarital sex.

The effects of this legislation could be disastrous for Utah’s young people. Numerous studies have shown that abstinence-only education is completely ineffective. The success of such programs has been evaluated by how many participants take a virginity pledge, but studies show that students who take the pledge are still just as likely to have sex. Worse yet, those who take the pledge are less likely to use condoms and birth control. Essentially, teaching abstinence-only sex education increases the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections.

Additionally, the restrictions on discussing homosexuality will proliferate anti-gay stigma. Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin School District stands as a shining example of how misguided a strategy it is to marginalize LGBT students and treat them as invisible. As they struggle to make sense of their identity and the way others may mistreat them, these students will now find no support from their teachers and administrators. It’s telling that lawmakers like Valentine think such outcomes are good for society.

For the younger set, there’s Damsels in Distress, a decidedly odd-looking comedy about a group of college girls (played by actresses way too old for the setting) out to save their classmates from the scourges of depression and cads with donuts and tap-dancing. The movie’s quirky enough that I can’t tell if there’s an abstinence metaphor or there will be an abstinence subplot here. But there’s still something interesting about a college sex comedy framed around a very different framework and with characters who have very different priorities:

Then, there’s Save the Date, which doesn’t have a formal trailer yet, but is one of the movies from Sundance that’s stuck with me most closely. Alison Brie and Lizzy Caplan play sisters Beth and Sarah, the former about to get engaged to Andrew (Martin Starr) a drummer in a rock band, the latter shaken by an unexpected proposal from Kevin (Geoffrey Arend), the frontman for that same band. When Sarah breaks up with Kevin, she embarks on casual relationship that turns into something more serious. To a certain extent, it’s a movie with very conventional themes: love can show up at surprising times! Marriages are more important than weddings! But it’s interesting to see those themes play out in a setting and with semi-bohemian characters who might have rejected marriage in another generation of movies:

Bridesmaids let it be known that sometimes women go a little crazy in the process of planning a wedding, even when they’re happy for the bride. Bachelorette, which also stars Caplan along with Kirsten Dunst and Isla Fisher apparently goes much darker, exposing a group of women who get decidedly vicious when the least conventionally attractive of their number gets engaged before they do. I’ll be curious to see if the movie is honest in its darkness or an occasion to paint all women as catty, status-obsessed, jealous, and willing to tear each other up:

Then, there’s Friends With Kids, a riff on the recent crop of professional-ladies-having-babies-with-friends-or-anonymous-donors movie, but starring Jennifer Westfeldt instead of Jennifer Aniston or Jennifer Lopez. The fact that Adam Scott is co-starring along with her doesn’t make it any more charming when his character picks up Megan Fox, who is 13 years younger than he is and clearly in the movie to make Westfeldt’s character anxious. Unconventional family arrangements can still founder on stale gender tropes:

Smashed may be the most genuinely original movie in the bunch, if only because it’s the rare film, Hollywood or otherwise, about the end of a relationship rather than the beginning of it. It’s also the rare movie in which an actress, in this case, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, is allowed to go to some genuinely dark and uncomfortable places:

They risk dragging the whole affair down to some bawdy, rowdy distraction. They risk embarrassing themselves and the conservative movement. They risk the perception premised on their own actions that conservative men of a certain age think that good manners and decorum around women of the same age is unneeded or unwanted. This is not to say CPAC cannot and should not be fun. This is not to say that CPAC cannot and should not be a party. But it is to say that I hope the college groups bussing in students next year, the out of college set there to network, and CPAC itself encourage behavior we all too often don’t talk about anymore in our society — the behavior of gentlemen. Eat, drink, smoke, be merry, but be chivalrous too. There really is, regardless of your age, no need to play the cad at CPAC to score points with conservative ladies.

And Melissa Clouthier takes her sisters in the movement to task for how they dressed and presented themselves:

Women will be future leaders, too, and I was dismayed to see how many of them either looked frumpish or like two-bit whores. First, are these young people being taught anything by their parents? I was at another service-oriented gathering of young women where the girls were in tight bandeau-skirts (you know, the kind of tube-top skirts that hookers wear on street corners?). They were sitting with their mothers. What is going on here?…I cannot even tell you how many girls have told me that all they want is to get married and have babies. They do not seem to make the connection that a young man is not interested in getting married and making babies with a girl who is so easy as to have a one-night stand over a CPAC weekend (or any other weekend.)

If there’s one thing I agree with conservatives about, it’s this: conservatism’s survival as a modern family-values movement depends less on passing policies that restrict the sexual and reproductive rights of Americans and more on building an alternative cultural framework and narrative, and convincing people to actually base their lives on its tenets. This is an effort that tends to work well in closed communities. It’s much easier to, for example, choose not to have sex until you’re married if you’re surrounded by people who are making that same choice, and who are providing reinforcement that such a decision is not only moral, but will provide you with the most benefit. The idea that waiting to have sex will make sex better because you’ll have reserves of the hormone oxytocin are part of arguing that making a conservative lifestyle choice will actually yield better results.

Events like CPAC are disconcerting because they suggest that the movement is doing poorly at selling conservative ideals of sexual ethics on a broad scale. Whether the conference has consciously tried to cultivate a party vibe or not, it’s clearly no longer an environment that reinforces values like chastity, conservative self-presentation through family, and dating as a pursuit of marriage. And of course that’s disconcerting to commentators like Erickson and Clouthier. It’s utterly unsustainable for conservatives to govern one way and live another if they truly want a society based on their stated and legislated values. But calling women sluts and exhorting men to be gentleman seems unlikely to bring the two back into alignment.

After months of union-busting and eliminating public sector jobs, Walker is now focused on his latest “jobs” idea: forcing public schools to teach abstinence-only sex education, Mother Jones reports:

[W]alker and the GOP-led Legislature have a plan: First, they curtailed collective-bargaining rights and threatened to lay off government workers, including teachers, cops, and firefighters. Then Walker called a special jobs-focused session of the Legislature, which he dubbed “Back to Work Wisconsin,” to pass even more “job-creating” laws. At the top of the jobs agenda? Gutting the state’s sex ed standards and replacing them with abstinence-only education.

A bill launched during Walker’s jobs session and nearing passage in the Legislature would repeal significant portions of the state law that requires schools to provide comprehensive, scientifically accurate, and age-appropriate sex ed. [...]

Republicans hold big majorities on the education committee and the Assembly overall, so the bill is expected to pass easily.

Multiple studies have confirmed that abstinence-only education does not decrease sexual activity among teens, but alarmingly reduces the number of teens who have safe sex. Virginity pledge programs increase pledge-takers’ risk for sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancy. Yet social conservatives continue to insist it’s the only morally acceptable sex curriculum. Abstinence-only programs jeopardize public health, and substitute religious dogma for science and sound policy.

The Healthy Youth Act just took effect this school year, and has been hailed as “an incredible public health victory in the state,” in the words of Sara Finger, executive director of the Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health. Yet Wisconsin Republicans want to remove requirements that schools teach about “the health benefits, side effects, and proper use of contraceptives.” The repeal legislation also nixes the recommendation that schools teach about “puberty, pregnancy, parenting, body image, and gender stereotypes.”

The new law would require instructors to “identify the skills necessary to remain abstinent” for their students. It does not specify what those “skills” might be, but Tamara Grigsby, the Democratic assemblywoman who wrote the Healthy Youth Act, puts it bluntly: teenagers are “having sex, whether we like it or not. I would hope that a responsible public policy would be to give them comprehensive and accurate information about how to protect themselves rather than pretending it’s not happening.”

Kate Sheppard notes that at a Wisconsin Right to Life convention, Walker praised a district attorney who claimed that teachers who taught the new curriculum were promoting the “sexualization—and sexual assault—of our children.” The DA also threatened those teachers with criminal charges.

One of the biggest surprises was a December 2009 study, conducted by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, which included information on sexual activity.

While the study’s primary report did not explore religion, some additional analysis focusing on sexual activity and religious identification yielded this result: 80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex – slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults, according to the teen pregnancy prevention organization.

This surprisingly high percentage should land a blow to the political canon of the religious right-wing. As chief proponents of abstinence-only education, religious right-wing organizations insist that delaying sex until marriage “is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and out-of-wedlock pregnancy.” Health experts, however, note that evidence suggests such programs “are even harmful and have negative consequences by not providing adequate information for those teens who do become sexually active.” Studies have not found that abstinence-only programs cut pregnancy rates, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), or even the age when sexual activity begins.

Without proper sexual education, sexually active young adults are more likely to have unintended pregnancies or contract STDs. Family planning health centers like Planned Parenthood, however, are dedicated to addressing these needs. Indeed, Planned Parenthood’s chief services are sexually transmitted diseases testing and treatment as well as contraception. These services help Planned Parenthood prevent “more than 620,000 unintended pregnancies each year.”

Because unintended pregnancies are the primary reason women seek abortions and at least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, the religious right might appreciate the important role such centers play helping preventing the chief evil of abortion. Instead, right-wing Christian organizations are dedicated to defunding and demolishing places like Planned Parenthood.

The policies that the religious right and its Republican champions often tout may play well at the pulpit. But, as more and more Christians abandon long-held stances on sexual intercourse, these policies will be an increasingly outdated and even dangerous position for the faithful.

This is surely one of the most bizarre lessons Hollywood rom coms teaches us about sex: You can only be open about your sexual desires with someone if you’re not dating them. In Friends With Benefits, Jamie and Dylan are delighted by the fact that they can speak freely about their wants and needs—like where they do and don’t like to be touched—because, it’s implied, they could never be that open with a significant other. Jamie is relieved that she doesn’t have to limit sex to a location with good lighting, the way she would with someone she was dating. In other words, Hollywood still wants us to think that honesty about sex is impossible in romantic relationships. When you’re having sex with a friend, you don’t have to fake orgasms, withhold constructive criticism of sexual technique for fear of offending your lover, or camouflage your repulsive body with flattering lighting. When you’re having sex with a romantic partner, however, those things are par for the course.

However much we may say the evangelical myth that if you wait to have sex until you get married the sex’ll be better is precisely that, a myth, we really do buy into a modified version of it in our pop culture when we assume that sex will automatically be awesome if you have it with someone you’re in love with because of…spontaneous synchronicity, or something like that. In The 40 Year Old Virgin, Andy may be quick to the finish line when he finally consummates his marriage, but when they have sex a second time, it’s implied to be a tantric, transcendent experience. You don’t need practice to make perfect, just true love.

The movie’s sexual politics aren’t perfect, but the scene in Chasing Amy where Alyssa*, Banky, and Holden talk about what it’s like to sleep with someone who won’t give you feedback and directions may be the most honest romantic comedy scene ever filmed:

Maybe the idea of other movies is that the quest for love is so overwhelming and titanically difficult that it only seems fair that sex should come easy. But that’s not true, and even if characters sleep together before they’re married, the romantic comedy promise that falling into bed is as easy as falling out of it is just another myth, and one that’s rooted in some considerably conservative assumptions.

*Probably the first significant movie with a character with my name. Came out when I was 13. I had some cognitive dissonance.

And yet lawmakers were willing to forego that prohibition to accept over $2.5 million in ACA money to fund abstinence-only sex education, even though the program offers students very little by way of health-related information. The New York Times delved into Scott’s rationale for rejecting millions in federal cash and refusing to pursue millions more in grants made available under the health law:

“In interviews, Mr. Scott, a Republican, and state legislative leaders were clear about their rationale. They said they detested everything about the federal health law, which was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in a case filed by the state. Unless ordered to do otherwise by an appellate court, they said, they had no intention of putting it in place, even if that meant leaving money on the table.

“There are a lot of programs that the federal government would like to give you that don’t fit your state, don’t fit your needs and ultimately create obligations that our taxpayers can’t afford,” said Mr. Scott.”

The abstinence program that Scott is willing to support, however, is not working. Florida ranked sixth among states for its teen pregnancy rates in 2009. Among 2008′s teen mothers, 57 percent reported they weren’t using birth control, and 45 percent thought they couldn’t become pregnant. Furthermore, Florida had the fourth largest population of people living with HIV in the nation, with a 2006 HIV-incidence rate of 45.9 among 16-19 year-olds–nearly twice the national rate at that time.

Scott’s refusal to accept most ACA health grants has drawn sharp criticism from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. As she put it, ”there are some newly elected officials on the Republican side that have decided that their political ideology is more important than anything — more important than the health needs of their citizens, more important than the economic stability of the economy, more important than the future of jobs in America — so I think it is very unfortunate for citizens of Florida,” Sebelius said. “It is very troubling.”

–Sarah Bufkin

Indeed, abstinence programs have been shown time and again to be unsuccessful in preventing teen pregnancies. (HT: Ben Smith)

If anything, characterizing the sex-engineering link in this manner seems overwhelmingly more likely to reduce interest in engineering than to reduce interest in sex.