Abstinence-only programs have consumed more than $1.5 billion in government funding over the past decade, yet there is still no reliable evidence that they work. What's wrong with abstinence programs, and what can we do about it?

For nearly thirty years, controversy has raged over how to approach sex education in public schools. The primary division is between those advocating an abstinence-only approach and proponents of comprehensive sex education.

Abstinence advocates believe that teenagers should be taught only that it is in their best interest to abstain from sexual activity, preferably until marriage. They claim that including information about contraception (beyond failure rates) sends "mixed signals" which undercut the importance of the abstinence message and implicitly condone teen sex. Supporters of comprehensive education, however, insist that since some adolescents will inevitably choose to have sex, all teens should be provided with as much information as possible, including specifics on condoms and contraceptives and instruction in how to use them correctly. Since the election of George W. Bush, abstinence-only programs have had the advantage, receiving more than $1.3 billion in taxpayer money.

Abstinence-only programs teach that abstaining from sexual activity is the only completely effective method of preventing STDs and unplanned pregnancy, a fact that opponents do not dispute. However, abstinence-only programs also include more questionable material. A 2004 congressional report found serious problems with many of the most commonly used curricula.

Examples include:

• pervasive and offensive gender stereotyping: one curriculum listed "domestic support" as being one of the top five things men need in a relationship, and "financial support" as one of the top five needs of women;

• distortions about the effectiveness of condoms at preventing pregnancy and STDs-the curricula studied consistently inflated the failure rate of condoms and denied that they offered protection against HIV infection; and

• outrageous claims about the benefits of abstinence: one curriculum insisted that everything from embarrassment, jealousy, and heartbreak to poverty and suicide could be avoided by remaining abstinent.

These programs might be merely laughable, were it not for the fact that they generally replace more responsible comprehensive programs in middle and high schools. There is solid evidence that comprehensive programs reduce the rates of STD transmission and unintended pregnancy without increasing rates of teen sex. Indeed, studies indicate that teens who have access to good, complete information make better decisions about their sexuality, often choosing to delay sexual activity longer than those who have not had training. Additionally, when recipients of comprehensive education do choose to have sex, they are far more likely than other teens to correctly and consistently use condoms and contraception.

The evidence is equally compelling that abstinence-only programs simply do not work. Earlier this year, the Mathematica Policy research firm published the results of a congressionally commissioned and funded study of the effectiveness of four highly touted abstinence programs. Unsurprisingly, the study showed that none of the programs had any impact at all on rates of sexual activity among participants. Teens who had been part of the abstinence programs had sex just as soon, and with just as many people, as those in the control group.

Abstinence-only advocates should have been upset. However, in a conference call to supporters after the Mathematica report was released, a leading abstinence researcher told listeners: "The other spin I think is very important is not [program] effectiveness, but rather the values that are being taught." He stated that whether or not the programs actually work is a "bogus issue." Such statements tend to prove what abstinence-only opponents have always suspected: that in the minds of abstinence-only advocates, preventing pregnancy and disease is not really the goal. Rather, it is a convenient justification for trying to impose a specific moral code on teens.

It is time for advocates of real sex education to stand up. The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the Western industrialized world. Polls show that parents overwhelmingly support comprehensive sex education for their children. And abstinence-only programs are a proven failure. We may finally be reaching a watershed moment: one of the main funding sources for abstinence-only programs is scheduled to expire at the end of June, and bills to fund comprehensive sex education programs have been introduced in both the House and Senate. Abstinence-only programs have betrayed a generation of American teens. Enough is enough.