Valladares 1 Rachel S.

Valladares Carlstrom Response Paper #3 December 1, 2008 Sex Education In the United States the government doesnt always fund sex education. Some states are not required to teach any sex education. The states that are funded are only allowed to teach abstinence-only sex education, rather than comprehensive sex education. This means that students are learning the measures to be abstinent, the reasons why they shouldnt have sex, and education on HIV/AIDS and STDs. Theyre not being given a comprehensive sex education, which would mean they would learn about contraceptives. There are no exact federal laws on the matter, except that a comprehensive sex education program is not taught. 32 of the states are not legally required to teach any sex education if they do. Some do so on their own terms, but if they so desired, they wouldnt have to. Thats pretty shocking. The majority of the states are required to teach an abstinence-only program. Surprisingly, California is one of the states not required to teach any sex education. However, the school systems have decided to. The only problem is that they must follow the law, upheld by the other states and only teach abstinence-only programs. This program includes teaching students how not to contract HIV/AIDS, STIs and STDs. Students are also taught about contraception. This is the only small bright side. Contraception education is required in Georgia, California, Oregon, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Delaware. This makes only 9 states that are required to teach contraception. The theory of abstinence-only programs is that parents think if their kids dont know how

Valladares 2 to prevent pregnancy, then theyll abstain. This is the pro side to that. Another pro would be kids staying innocent a bit longer. Abstinence-only programs also teach kids that sex leads to disease and pregnancy. It supposed to dissuade them from practicing. These are all the beliefs behind that. The con side is that without proper information, children will still experiment and if they dont know how to protect themselves, then they will contract a disease. The pro to comprehensive sex education is that young people will know how to protect themselves from illness and disease. They will also be able to avoid unwanted pregnancy. The oppositions theory is that this knowledge, given to early, will lead young people do start having sex sooner. Joe Biden is for comprehensive sex education, but only so long as it is given at age appropriate times. He also believes that prevention methods should be science based, rather than the more religiously acceptable methods. John McCain is against comprehensive sex education. McCain is known for criticizing Obama on his views on the matter. Hes all abstinence-only education. Barack Obama is all about comprehensive sex education, wanting children to be informed and to be gradually learning from an early age. Sarah Palin is known for saying "I am opposed to explicit sex education." This can be taken many ways. It does mean shes conservative in her viewpoints, but its not a cement declaration. I personally believe that sex education in both its forms should be taught to students. I remember the teaching I was given at my school and I got a little bit of both. I wish it would have been a little more in depth and thats where comprehensive programs come into the picture. I also believe as Joe Biden does, that programs should be age appropriate. Other than that, I dont have a problem with a comprehensive method being taught. I think its positive and will only

Valladares 3 benefit those who are ignorant on how to protect themselves from disease and pregnancy. It can only do good.