State spurns federal
sex ed money
Objecting to
abstinence mandates, Jersey forgoes $800,000
BY CAROL ANN
CAMPBELL, Star-Ledber from the Web, October 25, 2006
The Corzine administration said
"thanks, but no thanks" to federal abstinence education money yesterday, saying
new rules will not let teachers talk about contraception. Teachers also
must say sex within marriage is the "expected standard of human sexual
activity."
A letter yesterday by state health and education officials to the federal
government says the strings attached to the money contradict the state's own sex
education and AIDS education programs.
The state has taken the money, about $800,000 each year, since 1997. But
state officials said new federal rules give them far less flexibility in
creating such programs than in past years.
"Some of the elements required are inconsistent and violate our own educational
standards," said Health Commissioner Fred M. Jacobs.
New Jersey is the fourth state so far to reject the abstinence education money,
after California, Pennsylvania and Maine.
Education Commissioner Lucille Davy also signed the letter, which was sent to
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Levitt. The letter
says the state will not apply for abstinence money for the 2006-2007 school
year.
The state had distributed the money to nine community organizations, such as the
Camden County chapter of the American Red Cross and Catholic Community Services,
which serves Newark, Irvington and South Orange. The groups run programs,
some in schools, for about 11,000 children age 10 through 14.
In the past, Jacobs said the state adhered to several, but not all, of the
elements in the Title V federal abstinence education program. For
instance, the state adhered to section C, which teaches that abstinence from
sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy and
sexually transmitted diseases. It supported section G, which teaches young
people how to reject sexual advances, and section H, which teaches the
importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
But Jacobs said new guidelines require the organizations to follow all sections,
including one that teaches that monogamous in marriage is the only expected
standard and that sex outside of marriage is likely to have harmful
psychological and physical effects.
"Monogamy is not a bad idea, but having the government of New Jersey dictate
these things for families is not something we wish to do," Jacobs said.
"It isn't the function of state government to create standards (for sexual
activity)."
Also, the state's AIDS Prevention Act permits schools to discuss contraception.
The state's rejection of the money could have political implications two weeks
before Election Day.
"The state's stand draws attention to the Bush administration's very
conservative and traditional positions on sex education, which are probably
deemed unrealistic at the least and inappropriate by many residents of New
Jersey," said David Rebovich, managing director of the Rider University
Institute for New Jersey Politics.
Some health educators welcomed the move.
"I personally feel that withholding medically accurate information to young
people only does damage in the long run," said Janet Lamonico, a health teacher
at JP Stevens High School in Edison.
Danene Sorace, director of Answer, a Rutgers-based office that promotes
comprehensive sex education, agreed.
"It is a small pot of money, but it is still significant as far as we're
concerned because that $800,000 is going to programs that are really
ill-conceived," she said.
Conservatives, however, said the state was foolish to forgo the money.
"We should take a step back and try a new approach," said Marie Tasy, executive
director of New Jersey Right to Life.
"What we have now is not working, as reflected by the rates of abortions and
high incidence of sexually transmitted diseases."
Carol Ann Campbell covers medicine. She may be reached
at ccampbell@starledger.com or (973) 392-4148. John Mooney contributed to
this report.
|
