Category Archives: Birth Control

One Stop Shopping

This week, experts around the nation are convening in Washington, D.C. to review grant proposals submitted for federal abstinence education funding.  There are still many misconceptions about what students learn in abstinence programs.  This week’s column is dedicated to a consideration of what we teach our students and how we teach it.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

August 8, 2005

Comprehensive sex education…it’s being sold all over America.  The best thing about comprehensive sex education, we parents are told, is that it teaches our children everything.   That’s right…everything.

It teaches children how to say no…and then it teaches them that they can pleasure each other with mutual masturbation.

It teaches children how to say no…and then it teaches them how to put on a condom.

It teaches children to ask their parents…and then it hands them the address to the nearest clinic where they can get birth control and abortions without telling their parents.

It teaches children that some people save sex until marriage…and then it teaches children that marriage isn’t for everyone.

What is the true message comprehensive sex education gives our teens?  This is only clear when put into context with a real child.

In my first interview with an expert who had been teaching comprehensive sex education for over thirteen years, I came to the end of the hour totally perplexed.  “Safe sex”, perfect use, neutral values, healthy attitudes?  In a moment of frustration, I asked this expert about “my Daughter Debbie.”  What if “Daughter Debbie” sat in on your sex education class?

It’s a simple question, and I have tagged it the Ultimate Test Question for all sex education programs.  If you want to know what all the fancy talk and clever rationales mean, just ask someone about “your own Daughter Debbie.”

13-year-old Daughter Debbie

OK, so, what do you really teach?

What if my 13-year-old Daughter Debbie sat through all of your lessons on sex education and came to you as you were packing to leave with this question:

My boyfriend is at the high school.  He’s 16, and we’ve been talking about having sex.  It seems like if we use a condom we’ll be safe.  I’ve talked it over with some of my friends, and they’re already having sex.  We’re mature.  We know what we’re doing.  Everyone says if we use a condom that we’ll be safe.  I’m thinking I’m going to go ahead…What do you think?

In every interview with every adult who teaches comprehensive sex education, I have concluded with this question.  Not one of these adults would express any opinion to Debbie in answering her question.

At best, several said they would do a quick re-run of all the lessons and options presented.  They might encourage her to talk with “someone she trusts.”  I suggested that Debbie had chosen them as a trustworthy person.  They said she needed someone else.  I mentioned her boyfriend and her girlfriends.  Well…they paused.  And silence set in.

Thinking perhaps I had caught them off-guard, I suggested a possible response:  “As gently and quietly as possible, what if you told Debbie that ultimately she would have to make up her own mind, but that since she had asked you, you would have to say you would not recommend having sex at this point in her life.  Could you tell her that?”

“No,” came the quick reply each time.  “We don’t teach values.”

Most of these educators had been in “the business” for more than ten years.

Consider this additional fact concerning Daughter Debbie.  At 13, she and her sixteen year-old-boyfriend are considering the kind of sex called statutory rape in many states.

Can we really call it conscionable sex education to deny her the wisdom of our counsel—especially when she asks us?  “No, Debbie, I do not believe it is wise for you to begin having sex with your boyfriend.  Can I offer you some help in dealing with this problem?”

One stop shopping that sells children anything they want at any time in their lives is the core of the problem with sex education in America.  If we fail to place a value on sex, if we fail to discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate, if we fail to make value judgments, then we have no reason to be surprised when our children become pregnant and infected with STDs.

One stop shopping…educators who give our children a free pass to do whatever they want when they feel they are ready to do whatever they want…and educators who give them the tools to do it…are they part of the solution…or part of the problem?

One stop shopping…if we tell Daughter Debbie that she can buy anything in the store whenever she wants and that we will write the check for her…then we shouldn’t be surprised if she buys sex with her boyfriend.

 

One Stop Shopping was first printed April 16, 2004

See Archives for more past editorials.

Medically Accurate Cowards

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

July 11, 2005

We’ve all seen it.  The television commercial where a magic pill is sold, the cure to some terrible medical problem.  The lady smiles.  The man takes her hand gingerly.  The sun sets, leaving a warm glow in the air just as the announcer lowers his voice.  As an afterthought, he remembers to tell us, “Valipuck may cause drowsiness, nausea, limping, coughing, gagging, financial ruin, blindness, skin rot or death.  Consult your physician.”

Magazines are luckier.  They have the whole back page of Valipuck’s ad to describe in the smallest font possible why the medicine they are selling to cure you could possibly leave you worse off than you were.

This is the age of medical liability, where undisclosed side effects of drugs can include financial ruin for drug companies.  One gets the feeling they are rushing to make the list of terrible possibilities longer than a person has time to read…just so you won’t.

There is only one serious exception to the “tell them everything” rule used by drug companies.  Without any compromising “fine print” disclosures, condoms are pushed on us from every possible angle, promising us unqualified “protection” from every consequence of sexual promiscuity.

On June 1, NBC and WB networks announced they would be running a series of four commercials “touting the importance of condom use in the prevention of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).”  Their message is the all-encompassing promise we have come to expect from condom pushers, “Other than abstinence there is only one way to protect yourself.  Use a condom every time.”

Jim Daniels, vice president of marketing for Trojan, assures us his “respectful and tasteful” ads will get out an “important health message.”  So, Jim, what about the fine print?  What about the medically accurate truth about condoms?

One month after Jim’s tasteful ads, the Kaiser Family Foundation filled out the missing information on condoms.  “According to a 2004 World Health Organization bulletin and a 2001 NIH report, individual studies have demonstrated that condom use reduces the risk of infection for:

  • Gonorrhea by 39% to 62% in women and 49% to 75% in men;
  • Chlamydia by 29% to 90% in women and 33% in men;
  • Genital herpes by 30% to 92% in women and less in men, though no numbers were given;
  • Trichomoniasis by 30% in women and significantly less in men, though no numbers were given;
  • Syphillis by 40% to 60% in both sexes;
  • Pelvic inflammatory disease by 55%; and
  • Genital ulcers by 18% to 23% in both sexes.”

Wow!  With odds like these, who needs enemies?  Any way you slice it, the flip side of these numbers is clear evidence of the serious risk for contracting life-changing diseases even when using a condom.  And this is even before disclosing that there is no evidence that condoms prevent infection by human papillomavirus, the cause of over 97% of cervical cancer cases.

Giving teens a choice between abstinence and condoms is like giving a five-year-old a choice between a pea shooter and a six-shooter loaded with four live bullets.

Jim, speaking for Trojan, tells his potential customers that they have two choices, abstinence or condoms.  He lays the two options out in either/or fashion as “protection”.

But there is only one way for Jim…or anyone…to promote condoms as “protection” in the same sentence with abstinence.  Just shut the door and push the medically accurate facts under the carpet, behind the wall, and into the round filing cabinet.

While drug companies heap their medically accurate facts on us, it will take an act of Congress to get the same disclosure on condoms…literally an act of Congress.  Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is one of many who are insisting that condom packaging labels be revised to tell the full truth about condoms and their failure to provide the level of “protection” promised by advertisers.

Meanwhile, opponents to this labeling change are running full speed away from full disclosure, saying it “might undermine the public’s confidence in condoms.”  If we weren’t in the midst of an epidemic of STDs we might be laughing at a surprising irony: for the most part, opponents to medically accurate information on condoms are the same people who support laws requiring medically accurate information in sex education.

Any way you add it up, this is a formula for selling the people a lie.  It has worked for thirty years, but it won’t work forever.  Eventually, truth always comes to light.  Just ask the makers of the Pinto and cigarette industry CEOs.  Truth is only one class action lawsuit away from the surface.

Securing medically accurate information on condoms is not a battle for the coward.  In Congress, in classrooms, and in the courts…we are in debt to those who have the courage to lead the fight.  Thanks to them, no matter what it takes to make it happen, the truth about condoms is on its way.

February 14, 2005:  All the Condoms in the World

April 30, 2004:  Condoms: A Failure to Protect

See Archives for past editorials.

Abortion Recall

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

July 4, 2005

Six hours in the airport…

Surrounded by restless, cranky children and their restless, cranky parents…

Our flight is delayed again…and I have finished my book.

This is the time when boredom overtakes good manners, and I begin to read the newspaper in the hands of the woman across the aisle.  My eyesight is just good enough to pick up the headlines:

Massive Drug Recall Spurs Questions

I have two hours in the airport to find a way to move into the seat next to the woman and finish reading the story over her shoulder.  It only takes five minutes.  Next to her, a restless business executive rises, checks his watch, and heads for the nearest lounge.  I slip into his seat and begin reading.

The massive drug recall announced on the front page of USA Today papers is actually spawned in a small New Jersey community.  Able Laboratories has suddenly pulled off the market millions of doses of drugs.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced “serious concerns” that drugs produced by Able Laboratories “were not produced according to quality assurance standards.”  Over 295 products are included in the recall.

Drug recalls…food recalls…medical device recalls…the FDA website list of recalls, withdrawals and alerts in the last 60 days is five pages long.  Consumers are told to beware of bed systems, sulfites in dried vegetables, Mariani brand fancy golden raisins, undeclared soy nets in Catherine’s Finest Pecan Caramel Clusters, BetacTM, pet treats, implantable cardiac defibrillators, Elegant Gourmet cookies, Xigris, almonds…and more.

A recall of raw almonds due to reports of Salmonella Enteriditis in 2004 alone necessitated the recall of over 40 products from companies around the world:  Royal Food International, GKI Foods, Sahadi Fine Foods, Apple Valley, Fort Fudge Shop, Jeppi Nut and Candy Company…and more.

And it should be no surprise that recalls can launch a flurry of lawsuits.  At www.finddruglawsuits.com consumers are told “Lawyers Investigating.”  You can click on the link and “find out about the drug recall.  You may be able to get Cash back!”  The list of “cash cows” over the years is extensive:  Accutane, Celebrex, Ephedra, Fen-Phen, Lamisil, Viagra, Vioxx…and more.

Whole industries have collapsed as their products are challenged.  Cigarettes, once the chic statement of Bogart and Bacall, after a twenty year campaign succeeded in uncovering the truth of research hidden and denied by tobacco companies, are now called “cancer sticks” on late night television.

Protecting billions of dollars of corporate profit, the temptation to hide product defects is enormous.  Yet, truth does eventually surface…as Ford found out.  Court cases documented that between 1971 and 1978, the Ford Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths.  Ford puts the figure at 23; critics say the figure is closer to 500. The auto manufacturer did manage to survive the litigation, but not before being ordered by a California jury to pay a record-breaking judgment of $128 million.

With such an extensive record of drug and product recalls in America, one must wonder why discussions of abortion remain so simplistic.  “Are you for abortion?  Or against it?”  Did we ever ask, “Are you for tobacco?  Or against it?”  We simply laid out the facts about tobacco and let people enforce the truth, if needed, through the courts.

Are you for the Pinto?  Or against it?  How can you know the answer to the question unless someone tells you the truth about the design flaw in the fuel tanks that causes them to rupture and explode into fire, killing the people you love?

Abortion is more than politics.  It is a product.  It is a product that has survived without question over thirty years in America.  It is sold to consumers as a wonderful solution to their problems.

Yet, when a courageous editor is willing to challenge the liberal bias of his industry, stories expose the underbelly of abortion that many wish to deny.  Women die from abortion, both surgical and chemical.  Babies survive from abortion, even if maimed.

Abortion is linked to high rates of infertility, fueling a billion dollar industry for women who finally do wish to bring their pregnancies to term.  And battles over the link of abortion to breast cancer are clouded by the knowledge that even scientists and researchers can hide the truth about products for the sake of the corporate bottom line.

Don’t be surprised if one day, when we are able to discuss abortion and the complexities of what it means to have courts protect the sale of this surgery because they are “for abortion”…don’t be surprised if one day, the truth rises from the ashes of people who suffered because we failed to ask the right questions.

An abortion recall…it’s not as far-fetched an idea as you might think.

June 25, 2004:  Unplanned Joy

January 15, 2005:  The Pregnant Elephant in the Room

SIECUS Redefines Humanity

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

May 9, 2005

 

Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.                                  Thomas Sowell

 SIECUS is on the warpath.  If it could have its way, abstinence education would be outlawed.  That’s right.  While parents and legislators are working to develop ways to restore healthy sexual boundaries for our children, SIECUS is mustering its troops for an all-out assault on abstinence education.

SIECUS has a better idea.  As its name implies, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States is fighting to regain control of the definition of “healthy sex” first set forth in 1964 when Mary Calderone left her position as medical director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to organize and lead SIECUS.

Fortunately for all of us, SIECUS has had forty years to spell out what it wants our children to learn.  At its initial press conference on January 9, 1965, Mary Calderone set out their plan.  SIECUS would “perhaps take positions on problems of sexuality in America.”

On the surface, SIECUS assures the public it wants children to develop a healthy respect for their sexuality.  It even suggests that SIECUS is “for abstinence,” too.  But the devil is in the details.  And we can be grateful that its long-time executive director Debra Haffner took time to spell out her ideas for raising teens.

A passage from Debra Haffner’s article “Safe Sex and Teens” in the September-October 1989 SIECUS Report is quite open about what it wants for our children.  “Colleagues and I have fantasized about a national ‘petting project’ for teenagers….A partial list of safe sex practices for teens could include: Talking, Flirting, Dancing, Hugging, Kissing, Necking, Massaging, Caressing, Undressing each other, Masturbation alone, Masturbation in front of a partner, Mutual masturbation.  Teens could surely come up with their own list of activities.”

Based on magazine ads, movies and television…yes…teens “could surely come up with” quite a list of sexual activities.  But is that what we want our children to do?  Indulge in sexual promiscuity?

Even more amazing than the list of extracurricular sex suggestions from Haffner’s article is the general premise of SIECUS that these activities are a form of abstinence from sex.  In fact, some creative educators actually coined a special word for this brand of abstinence…outercourse…as opposed to intercourse.

In the old days, before enlightenment by the likes of SIECUS and Planned Parenthood, these “outercourse” activities were just the types of activities that led many a teen into intercourse.  If avoiding intercourse is their true goal, one has to wonder why Haffner and her colleagues felt that empowering teens to explore highly charged eroticism is preferable to abstinence.

The history of SIECUS provides endless examples of this type of sexual conundrum…having more sex to avoid having sex.  In 1977, Time began its article, “Cradle-to-Grave Intimacy,” quoting Mary Calderone saying that a child has a fundamental right “to know about sexuality and to be sexual”.

“Cultivating” the sexuality of children was of prime importance to Calderone and others.  Adopting a Kinseyan philosophy that children are sexual from birth, few in this circle of “sexperts” saw any need to restrict the sexual behaviors of people…and children.  Their concerns actually focused on repelling any attempts to limit or restrain sex, seeing these as repressive and counter to human design.

In 1981, Calderone co-authored The Family Book about Sexuality that asserted, “The major effects of such incidents [molestation] are caused not by the event itself but by the outraged, angry fearful, and shocked reactions of the adults who learn of it….It is these immoderate reactions which may cause whatever psychological damage occurs.”

Today, SIECUS guidelines for sex education are 112 pages long.  Read carefully.  You will find Calderone’s and Haffner’s same philosophy on sex underlying the core ideas of SIECUS and the activities they recommend for children.

Is it any wonder that SIECUS would take offense at abstinence education?  Programs that encourage teens not to engage in sex and that present information demonstrating abstinence until marriage is the healthiest and happiest choice…SIECUS never has been fond of limiting sex.

Knowing SIECUS is the surest way to understand the reasons for their attacks on abstinence. And know this…it is also the surest way to understand the value of restoring the natural definition of human behavior.

Sex is a magical gift of bonding and procreation between a husband and wife.  Until then?  For our teens?  Abstinence is a choice that protects and empowers.

 

 May 2, 2005:  Who Is SIECUS?

November 19, 2004:  KINSEY: Brave New World?

 

Who Is SIECUS?

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

May 2, 2005

SIECUS has been at the forefront of attacks on abstinence education this past year.  Precious inches in mainstream newspapers have granted special privileges to claims by SIECUS that abstinence education is harming children.

Abstinence educators have used this as a positive opportunity to direct people to medically accurate information supporting their curricula as well as to research proving the successes of abstinence programs.  Yet an obvious question remains.  Who is SIECUS?

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) had its official beginning in 1964.  But its history is best understood by going back to the 50s when two influential people were stirring the beginnings of the American sexual revolution.

In 1948, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published by Alfred Kinsey.  It spent 43 weeks, just short of one year, on The New York Times bestseller’s list.  Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, followed in 1953.

At the publication of his books, Alfred Kinsey became a cultural icon validating virtually uninhibited sexual behaviors of all kinds.  Only decades after his ideas had made their way into mainstream media and college courses did the truth about his so-called research come to light.

Fully documented today by reputable researchers, Kinsey has been shown to be a man driven by his own extreme sexual urges to rewrite definitions of healthy human sexual behavior by manipulating data and violating basic tenets of sound research. For a starter, to “prove” “open minded” acceptance of data, members of Kinsey’s staff were expected to engage in homosexual, adulterous and promiscuous sex.  Things got worse.

Under Kinsey’s firm guidance, pedophiles were coached on how to record molestation of children, data from prostitutes was generalized to represent sexual behaviors of married women, and male data relied heavily upon prisoners including sex offenders.  Still locked  behind closed doors at Indiana University, this data was “analyzed” by a Kinsey team lacking any experience in statistics and has ever since been unavailable for independent analysis by outside experts.

As Americans were eagerly reading Kinsey, a New Yorker was building an enterprise that would change the face of America and sex forever.  In 1953, Mary Calderone began work as medical director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Politically a libertarian, she pushed for non-judgmental attitudes about sex.  In her preface to Sexuality and Human Values, a Siecus book she edited, Calderon had little good to say about religion, characterizing it as a “mythology” or “shibboleth” set “to hem sex in with attitudes and restrictions that prevent its full flowering.”  She exhorted scientists and religionists to “make it possible for human beings to realize their erotic potential in full and responsible conscience.”

Given an emphasis on eroticism, it is not surprising that Calderone was also a strong advocate for abortion.  Editor of Abortion in the United States (1958), she pleaded for years with the American Medical Association (AMA) to establish a Task Force Report and Resolution dealing with the responsibility of physicians to be a source of population control.

Kinsey and Calderone, each working to unlock “erotic potential” as the goal of normal sexual behavior absent the “repressive” norms of traditional morality and accommodated by legal abortion, needed only one thing to break the bonds of sexual restraint. It arrived in 1960.

Frank B. Colton, a biochemist with G.D. Searle and Company, directed research leading to the discovery of Enovid, the first oral contraceptive.  In 1960, a drug supposedly designed to help married couples plan their families, leapt across this artificial barrier and exploded full force into the American culture.

Only four years after arrival of the birth control pill, SIECUS was born.  Mary Calderone left her position with Planned Parenthood to become both the executive director and secretary of SIECUS.  Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the Kinsey books on sexual behavior, joined the group of founders on the SIECUS Board.

Given the history of the founders of SIECUS, it is no surprise to learn where their seed money came from.  Years later Christie Hefner wrote, “Through the Playboy Foundation, Hefner put his money where his mouth was.  It made the initial grant to establish an Office of Research Services” for SIECUS in the late 60s.

At its initial press conference on January 9, 1965, Mary Calderone stated SIECUS would “perhaps take positions on problems of sexuality in America.”   Indeed, it did back then.  And it does today.

If you want to understand the positions SIECUS takes today on abstinence education, there is no better way to illuminate their statements than with the light of Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and Mary Calderone.  Like dominoes, in a predictable chain-reaction, one push toward “erotic potential” in 1964 has led today to an automatic reaction against abstinence.

Return next week to get a closer look at the ideas that formed SIECUS and defined the “erotic potential” at the core of its existence:  SIECUS Redefines Humanity.

 November 19, 2004:   KINSEY: Brave New World?