Shakira, a young Muslim woman is helping and encouraging young women to be sexually abstinent. Shakira got pregnant at age eighteen and disappointed her family but despite her able to complete her nursing degree. With this experience she decided being abstinent will not only be beneficial for her son in the future but also that she would help other young girls to be sexually abstinent. Shakira leads abstinence workshops at Mosques in New Jersey where she lives. She also helps her peers in college while studying for her doctorate degree. She believes that all youth need to learn the emotional and spiritual benefits of sexual abstinence. Emotionally youth practicing sexual abstinence have higher self-esteem compared to sexually-active youth. The spiritual benefit of saving sex until marriage is that you are guarding your temple where God dwells.


According to a new survey commissioned by the Americans Speak Out organization, interviewed people of all racial backgrounds across the United States do not like the current Sex Education Policy. The current Sex Education Policy encourages and normalizes teen sex. Sex education is also being taught to children as young as ten years old. President Obama’s administration also funds this Sex Education Policy and he also has cut Abstinence Education funding. Sixty percent of teens, according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) are not sexually active and are staying abstinent. The people who participated in the survey said teens should be encouraged to wait for sex just as many teens are educated about the effects of smoking and underaged drinking.  Teens should be informed that condoms offered limited protection from pregnancy and STDs (Sexually Transmitted Diseases) and other forms of contraceptives offer none.  The Federal Sex Education Policy is harmful and presenting false information to teenagers. When the majority of teens in U.S. are staying abstinent should sex education be encouraging abstinence? Yes. The Trump administration need to be aware and changes need to occur in the current Sex Education Policy. 

Abstinence-only programs Might work, Study Says

Read the Original Article

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 2, 2010; 

Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can persuade a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for U.S. efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

The findings are the first clear evidence that an abstinence program could work.

"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."

The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After falling for more than a decade, the numbers of births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing.

The Obama administration eliminated more than $170 million in annual federal funding targeted at abstinence programs after a series of reports concluded that the approach was ineffective. Instead, the White House is launching a $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work -- a program the administration on Monday proposed expanding to $183 million.

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex."

The study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully designed approach comparing it with several alternative strategies and following subjects for an extended period of time, considered the kind of study that produces the highest level of scientific evidence.

"This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. "I've always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap."

Longtime critics of the approach praised the study, saying it provides strong evidence that such programs can work and might merit taxpayer support.

"One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire," said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.

"No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention," said Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program is equivalent to many other well-designed abstinence curricula that are thorough, tailor their messages to students' ages and provide detailed information.

"For our critics to use marriage as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

The study released Monday involved 662 African American students from four public middle schools in a city in the Northeastern United States. It was conducted between 2001 and 2004.

Students were randomly assigned to go through one of the following: an eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching them other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising. The abstinence-only portion involved a series of sessions in which instructors talked to students in small groups about their views about abstinence and their knowledge of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. They also conducted role-playing exercises and brainstorming sessions designed to correct misconceptions about sex and sexually transmitted diseases, encourage abstinence and offer ways to resist pressure to have sex.

Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared with about 52 percent who were taught only safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who learned about other ways to be healthy did.

The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.

"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," said Jemmott, adding that he thinks the program would be equally effective among other age and racial or ethnic groups.

"There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms," he said. "This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer."

Like a Virgin: The Press Take On Teenage Sex 


The chain reaction was something out of central casting. A medical journal starts it off by announcing a study comparing teens who take a pledge of virginity until marriage with those who don't. Lo and behold, when they crunch the numbers, they find not much difference between pledgers and nonpledgers: most do not make it to the marriage bed as virgins.

Like a pack of randy 15-year-old boys, the press dives right in.

"Virginity Pledges Don't Stop Teen Sex," screams CBS News. "Virginity pledges don't mean much," adds CNN. "Study questions virginity pledges," says the Chicago Tribune. "Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds," heralds the Washington Post. "Virginity Pledges Fail to Trump Teen Lust in Look at Older Data," reports Bloomberg. And on it goes.

In other words, teens will be teens, and moms or dads who believe that concepts such as restraint or morality have any application today are living in a dream world. Typical was the lead for the CBS News story: "Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study."

Here's the rub: It just isn't true.

In fact, the only way the study's author, Janet Elise Rosenbaum of Johns Hopkins University, could reach such results was by comparing teens who take a virginity pledge with a very small subset of other teens: those who are just as religious and conservative as the pledge-takers. The study is called "Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers," and it was published in the Jan. 1 edition of Pediatrics.

The first to notice something lost in the translation was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the National Institutes of Health. Today she serves as health editor for U.S. News & World Report. And in her dispatch on this study, Dr. Healy pointed out that "virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general -- a fact that many media reports have missed cold."

What Dr. Healy was getting at is that the pledge itself is not what distinguishes these kids from most other teenagers. The real difference is their more conservative and religious home and social environment. As she notes, when you compare both groups in this study with teens at large, the behavioral differences are striking. Here are just a few:

- These teens generally have less risky sex, i.e., fewer sexual partners.

- These teens are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy, or to have friends who use drugs.

- These teens have less premarital vaginal sex.

- When these teens lose their virginity they tend to do so at age 21 -- compared to 17 for the typical American teen.

- And very much overlooked, one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste -- amid much cheap ridicule and just about zero support outside their homes or churches.

Let's put this another way. The real headline from this study is this: "Religious Teens Differ Little in Sexual Behavior Whether or Not They Take a Pledge."

Now, whatever the shock that might occasion at CBS or the Washington Post, it comes as no surprise to parents. Most parents appreciate that a pledge of virginity -- a one-time event that might be made at an emotional moment in a teen's life -- is not some talisman that will magically shield their sons and daughters from the strong and normal desires that grow as they discover their sexuality. What these parents hope to do is direct these desires in a way that recognizes sex as a great gift, which in the right circumstances fosters genuine intimacy between a man and a woman and at its freest offers the possibility of new life.

This is not the prevailing view, of course. And these parents know it. Far from conformists living in a comfortable world where their beliefs are never challenged, these families live in an environment where most everything that is popular -- television, the movies, the Internet -- encourages children to grow up as quickly as possible while adults remain locked in perpetual adolescence.

Nor do these families believe their children are better than other kids. Unlike the majority of health experts and their supporters in the press, however, they don't believe that the proper use of the condom is the be all and end all. For these parents, the good news here is that the striking behavioral differences between the average American teen and the two teen groups in this study show that homes and families still exert a powerful influence.

That, alas, is not something you're likely to read in the headlines. For when it comes to challenging the conventional wisdom on issues of sexuality, the American media suddenly become as coy as a cloistered virgin.

Read this article at the Wall Street Journal Website

A Dangerous Precedent Abuilding in California - By Paul M. Weyrich (October 25, 2007) 

There is terrible news from California. On October 12, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law three bills which, the opposition argues, introduce the radical homosexual agenda into educational institutions. Unquestionably the traditional purpose of public education is to teach reading, writing, mathematics and other fundamentals necessary for well-rounded intellectual development. Instead, these institutions apparently will become miniature laboratories for redefining nature, implementing “gender theory” and experimenting with the effects of sexual lifestyles. 

The first bill, SB 777, evidently bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as discriminating against or critical of homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality or other alternative lifestyle choices. It prohibits any classroom instruction or school-sponsored activity that “promotes a discriminatory bias” against “sexual orientation” and “gender,” which includes cross-dressing, sex changes and any other behavior “not stereotypically associated with one’s assigned sex at birth.” Forget any book, reference or teaching aid which shows marriage as only between a man and a woman (the definition California voters approved several years ago); materials which say people are born male or female (not in-between or subject to change); sources which fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures; and sex education materials which fail to offer the option of sex changes. In addition, homecoming kings can now be either male or female, as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify (potentially especially pernicious to young girls). Such an attempt to redefine language to suit one’s political and sexual interests would make George Orwell proud. 

AB 394 requires the State Department of Education to monitor adherence to anti-discrimination and anti-harassment requirements involving “actual or perceived gender identification and sexual orientation” in local schools. Schools must adopt policies which prohibit discrimination and harassment based upon sexual identity or orientation and a process to receive and investigate complaints in these cases. Schools also will have to provide classroom handouts (including some specifically for parents) and display information in the halls, lounges and on websites that specifically address “bias-related discrimination and harassment” against homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality or other “alternative lifestyle choices.” 

The final bill, AB 14, prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches. This means that day-cares, preschools, after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, job programs and others must all teach and accept homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and all the other sexualities. It also forces every hospital in California, even private and religious hospitals, to adopt policies of support for the aforementioned sexualities and opens up non-profit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members who engage in any such sexual conduct. 

Governor Schwarzenegger rejected a bill to authorize same-sex marriage. Also, a year ago he vetoed bills similar to SB 777, AB 394 and AB 14, stating that existing state law already provided penalties for discrimination. Why he reversed himself now is unclear. He has not held a press conference or issued a statement on this legislation. But the harm his decision will do is clear if the law becomes effective on January 1, 2008 and is interpreted and implemented literally. It would turn California’s children over to those who want to indoctrinate them in perversion in order to validate their own lifestyle choices. Homosexual advocates are aware that there is no more captive audience than schoolchildren, both because they are impressionable and because education is compulsory, and have pursued their agenda aggressively through state legislators and bureaucrats. In California they may have succeeded in implementing intolerance for what, in every human society and culture, has been the understanding of men, women, marriage, sexuality and nature. 

Those parents who can afford to pull their children from public schools and place them in private schools or homeschool them will probably do so. But most families cannot afford to do so. They will be forced to send their children to schools which expressly contradict their values. Multiple studies have shown the disastrous effect the breakdown of marriage has had on the poor¬e.g., it keeps them in a vicious cycle of poverty. Now the Government of California plans to do more harm to the poor. 

Sex has no place in educational institutions. It belongs at home, where parents have a responsibility to teach their children about it. But California’s politicians, intent upon using the power of law and manipulating public institutions to deny nature, control thought, speech and action, and force their perversion on others, want sex everywhere in public schools. 

The Capitol Resource Institute in California has launched a referendum campaign to overturn SB 777. The group will need to secure 433,971 valid voter signatures within 90 days to qualify for the June 2008 ballot. 

If the referendum is unsuccessful, be prepared for some momentum to spread east because California’s resources and population make California enormously influential. Textbook publishers will take note of this new legislation and amend their books accordingly in order to stay in business in the State. 

We must make Americans aware of what is happening and be prepared to fight it. Either that or we must be prepared for the “tolerant” left to begin persecuting those who advocate social and cultural positions opposed to theirs. This is as gross an abuse of power as I have ever seen. 

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.