Informationsmarktverzerrung durch Fundamentalismus am Beispiel der USA

Kapitel 3: Sexuelle Aufklärung und AIDS

2. Sexualerziehung

von Margarete Payer

mailto: payer@payer.de

Zitierweise / cite as:

Payer, Margarete <1942 - >: Informationsmarktverzerrung durch Fundamentalismus am Beispiel der USA. -- Kapitel 3: Sexuelle Aufklärung und AIDS. -- 2. Sexualerziehung. -- Fassung vom 2005-03-23. -- URL: http://www.payer.de/fundamentalismus/fundamentalismus032.htm

Erstmals publiziert: 2005-03-23

Überarbeitungen:

Anlass: Lehrveranstaltung an der Hochschule der Medien Stuttgart, Sommersemester 2005

Copyright: Dieser Text steht der Allgemeinheit zur Verfügung. Eine Verwertung in Publikationen, die über übliche Zitate hinausgeht, bedarf der ausdrücklichen Genehmigung des Verfassers.

Diese Inhalt ist unter einer Creative Commons-Lizenz lizenziert.

Dieser Text ist Teil der Abteilung  Länder und Kulturen von Tüpfli's Global Village Library

0. Übersicht

• 1. Statt eines Motto
• 2. Zeittafel
• 3. Die Debatte über Sexualerziehung
• 4. Auseinandersetzungen vor Gericht
• 5. CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention

1. Statt eines Motto

Abb.: Die verlorene Welt (©IMSI)

[Quelle: Frank, Thomas <1965 - >: Was ist mit Kansas los? : wie die Konservativen das Herz von Amerika eroberten. -- Berlin : Berlin-Verl., 2005. --  302 S. ; 22 cm. -- Originaltitel: Whats the matter with Kansas (2004). -- ISBN: 3-8270-0608-2. -- S. 104f. -- {Wenn Sie HIER klicken, können Sie dieses Buch bei amazon.de bestellen}]

2. Zeittafel

1871

The Comstock Laws classify contraceptives and abortifacents as obscene and prohibited the sharing of contraceptive information.

Abb.: Robert Minor (1884 - 1952): Karikatur auf Anthony Comstock (1844 - 1915). -- 1915
[Bildquelle: http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/visual_arts/satire/minor/index.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-21]

1939

The Supreme Court rejects the Comstock Laws.

1961

1st American Conference on Church and Family run by the National Council of Churches – sets up an informal committee to study human sexuality.

1964

Out of the committee formed in 1961, the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) is created.

1981

Congress passes the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) which provides funding for the teaching of abstinence as the only option for teenagers.

1983

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit Kendrick v. Sullivan claim that AFLA constituted a federal endorsement of a particular religious point of view, going again the 1^st Amendment.  The Supreme Court ruled that the statue was constitutional, but litigation continues concerning the way the program is administered.

1988

Center for Disease Control (CDC) begins funding for HIV education programs.

1993

A settlement is reached prohibiting AFLA-funded education programs from including religious references or from taking place in churches or parochial schools.

1996

Federal government passes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Act, welfare reform legislation that made federal funds available to states over a five-year period to support programs that promoted abstinence.

2001

Surgeon General David Satcher releases his report titled The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior.  This document states that it is too early to tell if abstinence-only education is effective, yet the author maintains that sex education is vitally important.

Quelle: Jill Staats. -- http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/%7Eccarrera/engl122fs/timeline.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-16

3. Die Debatte über Sexualerziehung

Debate in the United States Most parents in the U.S. feel that teenagers should remain sexually abstinent, but should have access to contraception. Ninety-five percent of adults in the United States and 85 percent of teenagers think it's important that school-aged children and teenagers be given a strong message from society that they should abstain from sex until they are out of high school. Almost 60 percent of adults also think that sexually active teenagers should have access to contraception. (Source: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/genlfact.htm)). A 1997 study found that about 48 percent of high school students are sexually active. In the U.S. some advocates including President George W. Bush have successfully worked toward the introduction of "abstinence-only" curricula. Under such instruction, teens are told that they should be sexually abstinent until adulthood and/or marriage, and information about contraception is not provided. Opponents argue this approach denies teens needed, factual information and could lead to unwanted pregnancies and propagation of STDs. Some curricula are advocated on the grounds that they are intended to reduce sexual disease or out-of-wedlock or teenage pregnancy, but no abstinence-only program has ever been shown to reduce teen sexual activity, pregnancy, or STDs. A curriculum ostensibly aimed at reducing pregnancy among high school students, which advocates the use of condoms, could potentially lower the pregnancy rate. Proponents of this view argue that sexual behaviour after puberty is a given, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized. They hold that conventional or conservative moralising will put off students and thus weaken the message. In turn, opponents of comprehensive sexuality education object that curricula which fail to teach moral behaviour actually serve to prevent children from making informed decisions; they maintain that curricula should include the claim that conventional (or conservative) morality is "healthy and constructive", and that value-free knowledge of the body may lead to unhealthy and harmful practices. In December of 2004 Henry A. Waxman a United States Congressman from California released a report (http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf) that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those Americans arguing that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth are often ignored in sex education classes. This means that information about safer sex practices for oral sex and anal sex are not discussed nor are their different risk levels for diseases. Some people do not support including this additional information because it might be seen as approving of their "lifestyle". Supporters of including GLBT issues as an integral part of comprehensive sexuality education argue that this information is still useful and relevant. Also, abstinence-only sex education programs that advocate that youth should abstain from sex until marriage ignore and marginalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, who might not be able to marry their partner due to legal restrictions. Proponents of abstinence-only education sometimes say that this is a good thing, as it prevents students from being exposed to the “sin” of homosexuality/bisexuality and the immorality associated with it, thus preventing moral corruption of society. Opponents of abstinence-only education would say that this viewpoint is religious-based and thus has no basis in American public education; and furthermore, that sexual orientation cannot be learned and is not a choice (http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html), so exposure to homosexuality and bisexuality could only cause a lesbian, gay, or bisexual person to be more self-accepting and could not cause a straight person to “turn” lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Scientific study of sex education The debate over teenage pregnancy and STDs has spurred some research into the effectiveness of different sex education approaches. In a meta-analysis, DiCenso et al. have compared comprehensive sex education programs with abstinence-only programs [1]. Their review of several studies shows that abstinence-only programs not only did not reduce the likelihood of pregnancy of women who participated in the programs, but that 'abstinence- only' actually increased it. Four abstinence programs and one school program were associated with a pooled increase of 54% in the partners of men and 46% in women (confidence interval 95% 0.95 to 2.25 and 0.98 to 2.26 respectively). The researchers conclude: "There is some evidence that prevention programmes may need to begin much earlier than they do. In a recent systematic review of eight trials of day care for disadvantaged children under 5 years of age, long term follow up showed lower pregnancy rates among adolescents. We need to investigate the social determinants of unintended pregnancy in adolescents through large longitudinal studies beginning early in life and use the results of the multivariate analyses to guide the design of prevention interventions. We should carefully examine countries with low pregnancy rates among adolescents. For example, the Netherlands has one of the lowest rates in the world (8.1 per 1000 young women aged 15 to 19 years), and Ketting & Visser,[4] have published an analysis of associated factors. In contrast, the rates are: 93.0 per 1000 in the United States (85.8/1000 in 1996 [1] (http://www.ethesis.net/clb/clb.htm)) 62.6 per 1000 in England and Wales, and 42.7 per 1000 in Canada 15.1 per 1000 in Belgium (1996 [2] (http://www.ethesis.net/clb/clb.htm)) We should examine effective programmes designed to prevent other high risk behaviours in adolescents. For example, Botvin et al. found that school based programmes to prevent drug abuse during junior high school (ages 12-14 years) resulted in important and durable reductions in use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana if they taught a combination of social resistance skills and general life skills, were properly implemented, and included at least two years of booster sessions. Few sexual health interventions are designed with input from adolescents. Adolescents have suggested that sex education should be more positive with less emphasis on anatomy and scare tactics; it should focus on negotiation skills in sexual relationships and communication; and details of sexual health clinics should be advertised in areas that adolescents frequent (for example, school toilets, shopping centres)." [footnotes omitted] Also, in answer to the criticism of conservatives, a US review, "Emerging Answers", by the National Campaign To Prevent Teenage Pregnancy examined 250 studies of sex education programs [2]. The conclusion of this review was that "the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that sex education that discusses contraception does not increase sexual activity". Regarding abstinence-only programs, the summary notes: "Emerging Answers says that the jury is still out about the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. That is, current evidence about the success of these programs is inconclusive. This is due, in part, to the very limited number of high-quality evaluations of abstinence-only programs available and because the few studies that have been completed do not reflect the great diversity of abstinence-only programs currently offered. However, the early evidence about abstinence-only programs is not encouraging. Fortunately there is currently a high-quality, federally-funded evaluation of abstinence-only programs under way which should offer more definitive results soon." There is a movement separate from school-based programs to encourage sexual abstinence; scientific research on these programs indicates decreased use of contraceptives among participants (see sexual abstinence). [Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-08 <gekürzt>]

4. Auseinandersetzungen vor Gericht

"Cases Dealing with Sex Education / by Amber Kaminsky Cases concerning sex education in America often deal with the First Amendment. Cases are brought against the unconstitutionality of some sex education programs mostly against the clauses referring to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The following cases are instances in which sex education has come under question in the court system. Medeiros v. Kiyosaki, 1970 Parents sought to enjoin state Board of Education officials from continuing a film series that was part of the family life and sexuality education curriculum. An "excusal system" was in place to exempt students from the program. The plaintiffs claimed that the film series interfered with their state and federal constitutional rights to privacy and to the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court of Hawaii upheld the trial court's dismissal of the complaint. Pointing to the excusal system, the appeals court held that the film series did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights because it was not compulsory or coercive. Hobolth v. Greenway, 1974 A parent filed a class action suit against the school system seeking to have a state statute authorizing local school boards to offer sexuality education courses declared unconstitutional. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the suit, holding that offering sexuality education courses is constitutional where, as in this case, neither the establishment of the course by the local school board nor attendance at the course by students was compulsory. Smith v. Ricci, 1982 Plaintiffs sued state education officials to enjoin enforcement of a Board of Education regulation requiring local school districts to institute a sexuality education and family life program. The plaintiffs claimed that the regulation violated the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that where there is no compulsion to participate in a program, the program cannot infringe upon the right to free exercise of religion. In addition, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the education program would violate the establishment clause by instituting secularism as a religion, finding that the regulation did not require that a secular perspective be stressed to the exclusion of religious viewpoints. Ware v. Valley Stream High School District, 1989 Members of the Brethren, a closed religious community, filed a lawsuit against the state commissioner of education in which they claimed that state regulations requiring primary and secondary public schools to provide extensive instruction about AIDS violated their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The New York Court of Appeals held that there were insufficient facts in the record to demonstrate whether exposure to the AIDS curriculum was contrary to the Brethren's religious beliefs or posed a threat to the community's continued existence. Coleman v. Caddo Parish School Board, 1994 A parents' group sought to enjoin the parish school board from using "Sex Respect" and "Facing Reality," claiming that these sexuality education curricula violated a state statute prohibiting sexuality education materials from including religious or subjective moral beliefs or factually inaccurate information, counseling or advocating abortion, or asking students about their personal beliefs or practices. Statements in the challenged curricula included that "no one can deny that nature is making some kind of a comment on sexual behavior through the AIDS and herpes epidemics" and that "[i]t's often the girls who are starved for male affection because they didn't have a good relationship with their father who get involved in sex outside of marriage." The Court of Appeals permitted the school district to continue teaching the curricula after the portions that violated the statute were removed. Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc., 1995 Two students and their parents filed a lawsuit against a School Committee, school officials and an AIDS educator in which they claimed that their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion were violated by a mandatory AIDS and sexuality education program at a high school assembly. In affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss the case, the appeals court held that parents do not have a fundamental privacy right to restrict the flow of information within public schools by dictating exactly what schools teach to students. The plaintiffs' free exercise claim was thus rejected. [Quelle: http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/%7Eccarrera/engl122fs/cases.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-16]

5. CDC's National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention

Webpräsenz: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/nchstp.html. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-16

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recognized as the lead federal agency for protecting the health and safety of people. National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHSTP) provides national leadership in preventing and controlling human immunodeficiency virus infection, sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis.

Da die "HIV Health Education and Risk Reduction Guidelines" des CDC medizin-soziologisch vernünftig sind und auch sonst das CDC medizinisch vernünftige Ratschläge gegeben hat, sind das CDC und seine Guidelines unter Beschuss der Fundamentalisten gekommen. Es ist eine Revision der Guidelines im Gange, die wohl in Richtung "Abstinence only" geht. Aus den heute noch gültigen Guidelines:

"Effective training plans for Health Education and Risk Reduction staff: Provide basic HIV, STD, and tuberculosis (TB) health education information. Provide bleach use instruction. Increase knowledge of substance use/abuse. Provide orientation to human sexuality, including diverse lifestyles and sex practices. Enhance sensitivity to issues for persons living with HIV/AIDS and STDs. Recognize cultural diversity and enhance cultural competence. Provide an orientation to the agency, community, and available community resources. Include ongoing professional development for staff. Provide opportunities for role play, observation, and feedback, including the use of video replay where possible. Provide training in the dynamics of community and agency collaboration. Enhance basic health education concepts. Provide orientation to community resources. Identify additional sources for updated information. Build communication skills (e.g., active and reflective listening, clear speaking). Provide for regular updates on analyses and programmatic interpretations of data. Provide training on program planning, operations, and supervision. Provide orientation to safer sex guidelines. Provide training on developing HIV/AIDS publications and resources. Enhance basic knowledge of family planning and contraception. Increase knowledge of treatment and therapy for people living with HIV and AIDS. Provide training on crisis intervention. Provide training on street and community outreach. Provide ongoing discussion on grief and bereavement. Provide training on confidentiality and privacy." [Quelle: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/HERRG/considerations.htm. -- Zugriff am 2005-03-16. -- Hervorheungen von mir]

Zu Kapitel 3.3.: Informationsmanagement der Fundamentalisten: Abstinence only