Abstinence-only sex education programs are still mandated in some school systems. For a time, Federal funding was targeted only at such programs. And the Republican Congress of 1996 provided an eight-point definition of abstinence-only education. It is not quite what you would expect:
Quote:
THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION
An eligible abstinence education program is one that (emphasis mine):
A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and
H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.
Source: U.S. Social Security Act, §510(b)(2).
What was the scientific or legal basis for many of these assertions? There were none, but evangelical Christianity provided plenty of justification.
Incidentally, abstinence-only sex education neither delays the initiation of sexual activity nor reduce rates of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. In other words, it does not work, but it is oh so very moral.
Republicans decry the Federal government for its "attempts to legislate morality" but are very happy to legislate sexual morality.