Abstinence-Only Sex Education Debate Has High Financial Stakes, Washington Times Opinion Piece Says

By proposing to reduce funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, "the Obama administration has reignited America"s sex education debate," Washington Times columnist Cheryl Wetzstein writes in an opinion piece. She says that the "usual answers" she receives from abstinence-only opponents when she asks about their criticism of the programs is that abstinence-only education "doesn"t work, it leaves kids ignorant about how to use birth control, it doesn"t serve gay kids, and (off the record) it"s just a return to the bad old days when unenlightened, sex-hating harpies ran sex education." According to Wetzstein, some proponents of abstinence-only programs believe that another factor -- which is "never mentioned" in the sex education debate -- "is how sexually active youth are part of the market for certain commercial sex- and disease-related products, and abstinent behavior reduces that market share."Wetzstein reports that she recently spoke with Pam Mullarkey, founder of Project SOS, who is "furious" that Presdient Obama"s budget proposal would reduce funding for abstinence-only programs and increase money for teen pregnancy prevention. Mullarkey claims that abstinence-only opponents "have spent so much money trying to destroy abstinence education" because "it directly costs them big bucks" if teens abstain. Wetzstein writes that she has "dim hopes for the survival of abstinence education as we"ve know it," concluding, "But should Congress decide to "follow the money," as Mrs. Mullarkey suggests, who knows what might turn up" (Wetzstein, Washington Times, 5/19).