Elliot, Emma “What Your Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Abstinence.” ​concernedwormen.org.

1 Dec. 2005. ​https://concernedwomen.org/images/content/cwa_abstinence_brochure.pdf​. Jul. 17

2020.

In ​What Your Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Abstinence​, Emma Elliot states eight

different claims to then explain why that claim is not true. In order to argue that abstinence based

education should be taught in school’s, Elliot makes several different statements on why it is

best. To argue against the claim of abstinence education being ineffective, Elliot mentions a

program for young girls whose goal is to lower high-risk behavior, like sexual activity, and 80

percent of the participants in the program were less-likely to have sex. Elliot states that by

teaching condom and contraceptive use, it is sending a mixed message to youth. Attributing the

decline of teen pregnancy to abstinence based education, Elliot mentions the rate of teen

pregnancy dropped 28 percent between 1990 and 2000.

In this article, Elliot provides eight claims and eight good arguments in order to

contradict each claim. Elliot provides good information which elaborates on the perspective of

abstinence-only based education, and why it is better and more effective then what she calls

“safe sex” education. For those interested in the best method for sexual health education, Elliot

discusses why abstinence based education is the way to go when educating youth on sexual

health, her information does seem credible.

Although Elliot does provide some statistics and cites her sources, the article seems to

take a very opinionated stance on the matter. When Elliot makes statements such as, “When

abstinence is taught, the message gets through powerfully.” It makes me question the credibility
of the article. However, because of the sources Elliot provided, I decided to trust the article’s

credibility. Elliot was able to provide information to support the claim that abstinence education

is beneficial, however my stance on the matter still leans towards a more comprehensive based

sexual education system.

Blonigen, Julie. “Ten Good Reasons to Oppose Public School Sex Education.”

Catholicparents.org. 22 May 2016.

https://www.catholicparents.org/category/cpo/education-cpo/sex-education/​. Jul. 22 2020

Julie Blonigen writes on Catholic Parents sex education section, ​Ten Good Reasons to

Oppose Public School Sex Education. ​Blonigen points out that, because parents are the primary

teachers of their children, it should be their right and responsibility to teach sexual morality to

their children. Parents do not know what is being taught in sexual education classrooms,

Blonigen states, meaning there is no way for parents to control what their children are being

taught. Blonigen mentions that because there is not a suitable level of readiness for sexual

education, public school sexual education classes break down the natural modesty of boys and

​ lonigen
girls. In a study titled ​The Economics of Family Planning on Underage Conception, B

states evidence found from the study says that greater access to contraception is associated with

an increase in underage conceptions. Lastly, Blonigen argues that sexual education in schools

undermines religious faith of many students by having an authority figure teach and contradict

what they have been taught by their religion

 Reaching out to primarily catholic parents, Blonigen does well in stating why sexual

health education should be completely abolished from school systems. Blonigen provides a

parents perspective on sexual education in order to point out that it should be the parents who

provide sexual health education and morality. Because of the lack of sources, I am apprehensive

of the credibility of this source. Blonigen tends to use defensive language when it comes to

describing sexual education in schools, making the article lean more on the opinionated side.

Although I have considered Blonigen’s view on the matter, I still disagree with her

stance. I believe that if youth are taught that abstinence is the only answer, there will still be

those who will be sexually active sooner rather than later, so teaching them that it is wrong to use

contraceptives will only create a more dangerous environment that will result in more unplanned

pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. I was surprised to learn that those who believe

in abolishing public sexual health education and abstinence only education, also believe it is

wrong to use contraceptives.

Ciccone, Joshua. “Sex Ed Should Stay Out of Schools​.​” Mnrepublic.com. 18 Mar. 2018.

https://mnrepublic.com/3279/opinion/sex-ed-should-stay-out-of-schools/​. Jul. 23 2020.

​ iccone
In March of 2018, Joshua Ciccone writes ​Sex Ed Should Stay Out of Schools. C

states that sex education should be abolished from being taught in public schools, under any

circumstances. Ciccone argues that schools have been turned into state-run machines for

brainwashing generations into thinking something is normal if it is taught in schools. In 2014,

Fremont, California had five district high schools who used the book ​Your Health Today​ by

McGraw Hill in their 9th grade curriculum, which Ciccone says included topics such as asking if
a partner had STD’s. Ciccone quotes a parent, Asfia Ahmed, who was opposed to the book being

used as, “It assumes the audience is already drinking alcohol, already doing drugs, already have

multiple sexual partners.” By allowing schools to teach sexual education, Ciccone says that is

where the state initiates a divide between parent and child.

In this article, Ciccone does well in providing the general audience of news sources of

information on what parents do not want taught in schools and why sexual education should not

be taught in public schools. By sharing the parents perspective and providing information that

shows public education may contradict some parents’ beliefs, the article presented good insight

on why sexual education should be abolished from public schools curriculum. The article

provided good, credible sources which helped back up the credibility of the article.

As mentioned before, I can see and understand the stance of parents wanting the sole

responsibility to teach their children sexual education, however I still disagree. Although

Ciccone provided good, credible information, it is important to continue sexual education in

schools. It is naive for parents to continue to think that because their children are taught

premarital sex is wrong, they will abstain until they are married.

Blanton, Natalie. “Why Sex Education In The United States Needs An Update And How To Do

It.” 10 Oct. 2019.

https://scholars.org/contribution/why-sex-education-united-states-needs-update-and-how-do-it​.

Jul 24 2020.

In her article in October of 2019, Natalie Blanton shares the flaws of the current sexual

education curriculum and how it can be fixed. In ​Why Sex Education In The United States Needs
An Update And How To Do It,​ Blanton states that many get information on sex from peers, social

media, and sexually explicit content on the internet. Close to 750,000 teens in the U.S. will

become pregnant within the next year, and half of the 20 million new cases of sexually

transmitted diseases will be diagnosed in youth people ages 15 to 24, says Blanton. Blanton

shares that of the 38 states that have sex education laws, 30 promote abstinence until marriage,

and only 8 states include all components of a comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive sex

education not only discusses that abstience is the most effective way to avoid unintended

pregnacy and sexually transmitted infections, but it also equips students with shame-free topics

such as human development, sexual health, relationships and more. (Blanton)

This article provides ample information on topics that are important to implement into the

sexual education curriculum of the U.S.. Blanton provides perspective and evidence to those who

may oppose comprehensive sexual education. Although there were statistics provided, the

sources were not cited well if they were cited at all, making me question the credibility of the

article.

This article provides information which effectively contradicts opposing views. Blanton

provides evidence that shows the benefits of adding comprehensive sexual education to public

schools curricula. By providing youth with the knowledge to say no as the most effective option,

but also giving youth the tools to stay safe if the first choice does not happen is an important step

in preventing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. In the case of sexual

health, it is important to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Thomson, Brooke. “Comprehensive Sex Ed in U.S. Schools: A Brief History.”

annexteenclinic.org 13 June 2018.

https://annexteenclinic.org/2018/06/13/comprehensive-sex-ed-in-u-s-schools-a-brief-history/​ Jul

27 2020.

In June of 2018, Brooke Thomson explained a bit of the history on sexual education in

the U.S., and also provides information on why a comprehensive sexual education is important,

in her article ​Comprehensive Sex Ed in U.S. Schools: A Brief History.​ Beginning with limited

comprehensive handouts in 1912, public schools began using a five part series of sexual

education after teaming up with the American Medical Association in the 1950’s. (Thomson)

Conservative and religious groups, Thomson explains, argued that teaching youth about sex only

encourage risky sexual behavior, although there was data to show teens who receive a

comprehensive sexual education are more likely to abstain from or delay sexual activity.

Thomson states the socioeconomic status of youth plays a large role on the type of sexual

education you receive. Thompson elaborates by explaining the more liberal the state and the

wealthier the community, youth are more likely to receive a comprehensive education.

The article does a great job of providing evidence and describing why a comprehensive

education is important and more beneficial than that of an abstinence-only based education.

Posted on The Annex clinics website, Thomson is most likely reaching out to those interested in

learning about sexual health education. Although Thomson does well by providing evidence for

each statement, there is no citing done for each source, which makes me question whether the

article is credible or not.

 With the information provided, Thomson reaffirms my belief that it is important to

implement sexual health education that is comprehensive and provides the tools for youth to

make better decisions for not only themselves but their peers as well. I would have appreciated

more citing of sources, as the arguments presented were great, however they were not backed by

the proper sourcing. I will have to do research on the facts and statistics provided by Thomson.

Donovan, Megan. “The Looming Threat to Sex Education: A Resurgence of Federal Funding for

Abstinence-only Programs?” Guttmacher.org. 30 Mar. 2017.

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2017/03/looming-threat-sex-education-resurgence-federal-fundi

ng-abstinence-only-programs​. Jul 27 2020.

In March of 2017, Megan Donovan began her article by claiming that abstinence only

focused education is stigmatizing, yet the United States has spent about $2 billion dollars on

abstinence only programs. Donovan states that by forcing educators to teach abstinence only

until marriage, it forces educators to provide incomplete and possibly harmful information to

youth. Donovan provides information that states that 95 percent of Americans have sex before

marriage. The average age you begin sexual activity is around the age of 17, however they do not

get married until around their mid to late twenties. (Donovan) By creating a shameful

environment, Donovan argues that abstinence-only programs ignore the needs of youth who are

sexually active, and also reinforce the stigmatization of individuals on sexual orientation or

gender identity. Donovan also states that by providing comprehensive sexual education it can not

only increase the delay sexual activity amongst youth, but once they do become sexually active,
the comprehensive education provided can help youth to have healthy, mutually protective

relationships.

Donovan does a very great job in providing evidence of why a comprehensive sexual

education is beneficial for youth. With the many sources Donovan uses, she also does well in

citing her sources. Donovan uses many examples of federal involvement and influence of sexual

health education, which shows the aim of her audience to more politically involved individuals

who are also interested in public sex education. Because Donovan does well to provide facts and

statistics and cite those sources, I believe the credibility of the article can be trusted.

In this article, Donovan provides concrete evidence for the benefits of comprehensive sex

education from varying perspectives. Donovan points out the benefits of not only teaching

abstinence, the use of condoms and contraceptives, but also inclusivity of sexual orientation and

gender identity. By reading this source, my view on the topic was reaffirmed with other

information I hadn’t quite thought about the importance of including it.