Why Abstinence-Only is the best message to teens

In Sheryl McCarthy's July 7 column in Newsday on Abstinence-only sex-ed being a failure, she quotes Dr. Scott Spear, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and chair of the national medical committee of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, "As scientists we're saying we don't want politics to trump what's healthy and safe for young people."
It isn't politics that is leading the agenda for abstinence. It's morality and traditional community standards combined with the wisdom of the obvious. The abstinence approach is 100 percent effective, every time it's used. Can condoms, patches, sponges, sprays, diaphrams, and pills match that effectiveness? Of course not.
Now, I'm not going to suggest that a chairman or committee under the auspices of Planned Parenthood would actually want young women to experience unwanted pregnancies that might be resolved with an abortion in a Planned Parenthood clinic, as that would be an unfounded and devisive accusation. And I don't really believe that most of the non-abstinence crowd sincerely wants that, anyway. Not most of them, at least.

So, what drives the non-abstinence crowd's desire to undermine the campaign toward an open and frank dialogue with young people about the numerous benefits of the "abstinence before marriage, fidelity within" philosophy? Do they feel hypocritical because they weren't able to uphold that value system successfully, as many of us weren't? That's no reason to abandon the standard.
We don't stop telling our kids not to snack on junk food too much just because we do it. We don't stop warning them about the health risks of smoking just because so many adults smoke. We warn against excessive alcohol consumption, even though so many adults like to get loose on booze occasionally. We admonish our young drivers about speeding, even though most of us drive 8-10 mph over the limit most of the time. You get the point.
Our own failure to flawlessly live up to some worthwhile principle or behavior doesn't nullify the value of it.
One might argue that we don't totally prohibit junk food for our kids, but promote a balance; nutritious foods and exercise to counter the occassional Ding Dong. Shall we try that approach with our young people regarding sexual experimentation?
We sure don't approve of minors smoking, "just as long as it's done in moderation and especially if they smoke filtered cigarettes", do we now?
How about providing 3.2 beer and a "safe" place for our kids to get hammered. Doesn't it beat having them sneaking around to drink and risking accidents, both automotively and gestationally? How many pampering and spineless (not to mention stupid) parents abdicate their responsibility in that manner?
Do we give our kids a radar detector for their car, racing tires and high performance brakes, and say "now, be careful Johnny. I don't want you to speed, at least not until you're a more experienced driver and can handle a car better. But, if you are going to speed, be sure to put on the seat belt and practice safe speeding". At least we're fairly consistent about seat belts!

I find this statement by Sheryl McCarthy especially derilect: "Frankly, I'm less worried about the fact that a 17-year-old girl has sex with her boyfriend than I am about whether she has thought the decision through carefully, (oh yeah, most teenagers are real thoughtful when it comes to hormones!) has chosen a caring partner, (why does that matter- it's just sex...) and is using a dependable form of birth control."
Perhaps the government-funded programs that promote abstinence are necessary if only for the reason that the rest of the world (pop culture of TV, movies, magazines, music, fashion, peers, advertising, past Democratic presidents) is preaching the consequence-free sex message and the only alternative message is with the public purse.

Lord knows, kids sure don't listen to their parents, do they?

Brad