As of October 2015, the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based research organization, found that twenty-two states and the District of Columbia mandate sex education -- and eighteen require that information on contraception be provided (Toppo). With only twenty-two states and the District of Columbia mandating sex education, so many young adults and students are missing out on the proper education they need to make decisions about their sex lives. The United States is failing these young people by not mandating that sex education be taught. Forty-eight states do not mandate sex education and these kids are growing up to suffer. They are suffering from STD’s, HIV and AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, and more, but this could be changed with a
…show more content…
It is not wrong to learn both abstinence and comprehensive sex education, however; it is wrong to withhold an education from young adults with very active hormones who could be at risk for the many high-risk factors that come along with sexual intercorse. Abstinence education, according to Kekla Magoon, author of Sex Education In Schools, “means voluntarily choosing not to have sex” (8). As Magoon also implies, marriage is a big factor of why people abstain from sex, but there are many more like being able to prevent themselves for coming into contact with any of the consequences that are taught in comprehensive sex education. While the United States should be supporting programs that are encouraging people to abstain from sex, the US government and President Barack Obama are doing the complete opposite. As reported in the article “Sex Education,” of 2016, “the US government eliminated all funding for abstinence-only sex education in public schools. It is rather ridiculous to cut all funding when just six years previous to this a study was conducted, an article from the National Review, by Robert Rector, entitled “The president’s new sex ed: so long, love, abstinence, and marriage,” clearly states, “The study found that an eight-hour abstinence course …show more content…
The main problem is not that the media did not represent the case though. The main problem is that the US government and the President of the United States failed to recognize these statistics that helped prevent some young people from participating in sexually risky behavior. In the article “Sex Education,” of 2016, it is stated that, “President Barack Obama (1961-) cut all abstinence-based sex education funding from the 2017 budget. While this did not stop private institutions from providing abstinence-only education, public schools that wished to continue to teach abstinence-based sex education would not receive federal funds for it.
According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), thirty years of studies showed that abstinence-only education failed to reduce the rate of premarital intercourse or teenage pregnancies. Because of this, the Obama administration redirected sex education funding to comprehensive sex education. Part of Obama’s new budget proposal included a $4 million increase for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention
It is not wrong to learn both abstinence and comprehensive sex education, however; it is wrong to withhold an education from young adults with very active hormones who could be at risk for the many high-risk factors that come along with sexual intercorse. Abstinence education, according to Kekla Magoon, author of Sex Education In Schools, “means voluntarily choosing not to have sex” (8). As Magoon also implies, marriage is a big factor of why people abstain from sex, but there are many more like being able to prevent themselves for coming into contact with any of the consequences that are taught in comprehensive sex education. While the United States should be supporting programs that are encouraging people to abstain from sex, the US government and President Barack Obama are doing the complete opposite. As reported in the article “Sex Education,” of 2016, “the US government eliminated all funding for abstinence-only sex education in public schools. It is rather ridiculous to cut all funding when just six years previous to this a study was conducted, an article from the National Review, by Robert Rector, entitled “The president’s new sex ed: so long, love, abstinence, and marriage,” clearly states, “The study found that an eight-hour abstinence course …show more content…
The main problem is not that the media did not represent the case though. The main problem is that the US government and the President of the United States failed to recognize these statistics that helped prevent some young people from participating in sexually risky behavior. In the article “Sex Education,” of 2016, it is stated that, “President Barack Obama (1961-) cut all abstinence-based sex education funding from the 2017 budget. While this did not stop private institutions from providing abstinence-only education, public schools that wished to continue to teach abstinence-based sex education would not receive federal funds for it.
According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), thirty years of studies showed that abstinence-only education failed to reduce the rate of premarital intercourse or teenage pregnancies. Because of this, the Obama administration redirected sex education funding to comprehensive sex education. Part of Obama’s new budget proposal included a $4 million increase for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention