Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs:

Violate Human Rights

Access to comprehensive, medically accurate information about sexual health—including reproductive health and HIV/AIDS—is not only a major public health concern, it is recognized as a human right. At the most basic level, several international agreements recognize that all people have the right to “seek, receive and impart information of all kinds,” including information about their health.¹ Young people, in particular, are often both most in need and least likely to receive this information. Denying young people access to comprehensive sexuality education stands in direct violation of major international agreements that require governments to provide unencumbered, non-discriminatory access to education about sexuality, including HIV prevention.

On the international stage, the United States has repeatedly endorsed the right to education about sexuality through its participation in forging consensus agreements such as the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD PoA),² the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action,³ and the Millennium Development Goals. The United States has also signed, though not ratified, three international treaties that establish a right to health education and information: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ⁴ the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, ⁵ and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.⁶ The human rights treaties ratified by the United States—the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) —also address this issue. CERD specifically provides for equal access to information regarding health, while the ICCPR sets out a more general right to information.

Adolescents have been a special focus of concern as the international community addresses health and human rights. The approach reflected in many international documents is one that reaffirms the rights of adolescents to accurate information that will enable them to make informed decisions about their health. For example, the most comprehensive agreement on sexual and reproductive rights, the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD PoA) , requires governments to ensure that information and services are available to adolescents “to help them understand their sexuality and protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and subsequent fertility.”⁷ The most comprehensive agreement on the rights of young people, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Child's Convention) , likewise requires governments to “ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health.”⁸ The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Child's Convention, specifically states in its general comment on HIV/AIDS that children have the right to access adequate information related to HIV/AIDS prevention.⁹

Despite these formal agreements, however, the United States' record demonstrates a disturbing failure to comply with its international obligations. Indeed, the current Administration has sought to undermine the global consensus that access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information is a basic human right.

Rights of Women and Girls
In addition to basic guarantees for all people to the highest attainable standard of health and free access to information, several agreements promise freedom from harmful gender stereotypes that are often reinforced by abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women states that governments must take all appropriate measures to:

“modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.” ¹⁰

Many abstinence-only-until-marriage programs foster gender stereotypes pertaining to sexuality, and these stereotypes exacerbate the vulnerability of women and girls. Furthermore, promoting marriage as a protective factor denies the fact that women remain vulnerable in marriage, especially in areas of the world where the fastest growing rate of HIV-infection is among married monogamous women.¹¹

Rights of LGBT Individuals
International law and human rights standards require that all people, without discrimination, have access to vital HIV-prevention information. In addition, some jurisdictions in the U.S. have state laws specifically protecting the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.¹² By definition, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. These programs typically deny or ignore the very existence of LGBT individuals. By offering marriage as the only answer to risk for HIV and ignoring the fact that same-sex marriage remains illegal in most places, these programs wrongly teach that there is no way for LGBT individuals to be sexually active and remain safe. In fact, when same-sex sexual behavior is addressed, these programs often suggest that it is inherently wrong and to blame for the AIDS pandemic.

This reinforces existing social stigma and prejudice against LGBT individuals. In fact, in the areas of the world hardest hit by the AIDS pandemic and most reliant on foreign aid, homosexual acts are often criminalized. In these places and the U.S., LGBT individuals are routinely discriminated against, marginalized, and even assaulted. Ending AIDS requires that the human rights of LGBT individuals are respected, and that the human rights violations that keep these communities hidden and beyond the reach of prevention efforts are ended. The U.N. Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights advises that countries enact anti-discrimination and protective laws “to reduce human rights violations against men having sex with men, including in the context of HIV/AIDS, in order, inter alia, to reduce the vulnerability of men who have sex with men to infection by HIV and to the impact of HIV/AIDS. These measures should include providing penalties for the vilification of people who engage in same-sex relationships, giving legal recognition to same-sex marriages and/or relationships.”¹³

The global community already recognizes the centrality of sexual and reproductive health and rights to building a better world. Rather than investing in a human-rights approach to sexual and reproductive health and HIV prevention that addresses the needs of the whole person, the Bush Administration is ignoring the evidence and proliferating policies and programming that undermine these global efforts. By funding and advancing abstinence-only-until-marriage programs domestically and internationally, the Administration is promoting censorship and misinformation in direct violation of international human rights standards.

Violate U.S. State Constitutional Guarantees

Many state constitutions include positive rights to health and to adequate education that parallel international human rights standards. These provisions create affirmative state obligations to protect the public health and provide an adequate education to state residents. While no litigation has yet challenged abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and programs on these grounds, state and local government programs that use federal and/or state funds to jeopardize the public health by providing inaccurate, incomplete, and biased health and sexuality education clearly violate the spirit of these state constitutional guarantees.

These provisions may provide yet another route through which advocates can work to curtail the continued expansion of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

Violate Separation of Church and State

In the U.S., federal law does not permit government-funded programs to convey religious messages or impose religious viewpoints or practices. Nonetheless, many abstinence-only-until-marriage programs do precisely that by using taxpayer money to endorse religious beliefs and underwrite religious activities. In fact, many federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs contain religion-based teachings about “proper” sexual behavior and values in violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of the separation between church and state.

The curricula used in many abstinence-only programs were developed by religious groups whose views on sexual orientation, non-marital sex, contraception, and abortion are by no means universal. Yet, it is only because of intense public pressure and legal challenges, such as those brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that some domestic programs have removed their overt proselytizing. 

Since the very beginning of federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, advocates and experts have questioned the religious tenor of these programs. Soon after Congress passed the first federal measure to promote “abstinence education,” the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA), a lawsuit was filed that challenged the programs for violating the Constitution's mandate of separation of church and state. Of particular concern:

• grant applicants were required to explain how they would involve religious organizations (among other groups) when providing services;
• religious organizations were allowed to receive funds; and
• program goals coincided with certain religious beliefs.

In her decision on the case, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that “public funds may not be used to endorse [a] religious message.”¹⁴

Despite the outcome of the AFLA court case, violations still occur. And lawsuits continue to be filed. Two of the most notable, recent lawsuits involved the Louisiana Governor's Program on Abstinence (GPA) and the Pennsylvania-based Silver Ring Thing.

Louisiana Governor's Program on Abstinence (GPA)
In 2002, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the use of taxpayer dollars to fund religion in the Louisiana Governor's Program on Abstinence (GPA). The ACLU demonstrated that the governor's programs had granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to programs that used the funds to support religious activities and promote religious messages. Among the cited examples were programs that:

• presented “Christ-centered” theater skits,
• held a religious youth revival, and
• produced radio shows that “share abstinence as part of the gospel message.”

A federal district court found the GPA funds were being used to convey religious messages and advance religion, in violation of the Constitution's requirement of separation of church and state, and ordered Louisiana officials to stop this misuse of taxpayer dollars. Although the GPA agreed to stop using public money to “convey religious messages or otherwise advance religion in any way” and to closely monitor the activities of all grantees, the ACLU has found that the governor's program continues to feature religious materials on its official website, www.AbstinenceEdu.com . State-appointed experts still advise readers, for example, that:

• Abstaining from sex until entering a loving marriage will . . . [make you] really, truly, ‘cool' in God's eyes.
• God chooses this one sin [sex outside of marriage] above all others as the most destructive to your soul and spirit.¹⁵

Silver Ring Thing
Most recently, the ACLU settled a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in a case challenging federal funding of religious activities in the Silver Ring Thing, an abstinence-only-until-marriage program aimed at young people. Over the past three years, the federal government awarded more than one million dollars to the Silver Ring Thing.

The Silver Ring Thing describes its mission as “offering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the best way to live a sexually pure life.” During the Silver Ring Thing's flagship three-hour program, which takes place across the country, members testify about how accepting Jesus Christ improved their lives, quote Bible passages, and urge audience members to ask the Lord Jesus Christ to come into their lives.¹⁶ Participants then sign a covenant “before God Almighty” to remain virgins. Each young person who successfully completes the program earns a silver ring inscribed with a Bible passage reminding them that, “God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin.”

As a result of the lawsuit, HHS agreed that it will not fund the Silver Ring Thing's abstinence-only-until-marriage program as it is currently structured, and that any future funding is contingent on the Silver Ring Thing's compliance with federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds to support religious activities.  In addition, HHS agreed to closely monitor any future grants to the program until September 30, 2008.

Despite lawsuits like these, many abstinence-only-until-marriage programs continue to use federal funds to promote religious viewpoints and practices. This is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Violate Freedom of Speech

Also in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, federally funded abstinence-only-until marriage programs restrict young people's access to much needed health information and limit their learning to only the “approved” messages put forth by the government in the eight-point definition of “abstinence education.” Recipients of federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds and the teachers who provide federally funded health education to their students essentially operate under a gag order that censors the communication of vital information.

In order to receive funding, grantees must offer programs which have the “exclusive purpose” of teaching “that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity” and “that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects .” (See What Programs Must Teach for the full eight-point definition.)

• Recipients of federal funds and the teachers in the classroom may not provide youth with any information that is inconsistent with this very narrow eight-point definition.
• Programs funded with federal abstinence-only-until-marriage dollars are not permitted to discuss contraceptive and disease prevention methods except in the context of failure rates.
• Teachers who operate under federal abstinence-only dollars may not provide information about contraceptive use—even if a student explicitly asks for this information—and often fear disciplinary action for talking about sexual health issues, including answering students' questions.

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs prohibit teaching full and complete sexual health information. Because of these strict requirements, vital health information is censored, leaving young people at risk of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

References

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), article 19; Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), article 13.
2. Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, Egypt, 5-13 September 1994, para. 8.25, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1 (1995), accessed 24 June 2005, <http://www.unfpa.org/icpd/icpd_poa.htm>.
3. Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women, 15 September 1995, A/CONF.177/20 (1995) and A/CONF.177/20/Add.1 (1995).
4. Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 24(2)(e).
5. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 24 (20 th session, 1999), article 12: Women and health, accessed 18 July 2005, <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/
   recomm.htm#recom24>.
6. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), GA Res. 2200 (XXI), 21 UN GAOR, 21 st Sess., Supp. No. 16, at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966), art. 12.
7. Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, Egypt, 5-13 September 1994, para. 8.25, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.171/13/Rev.1 (1995), accessed 24 June 2005, <http://www.unfpa.org/icpd/icpd_poa.htm>.
8. Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 24(2)(e).
9. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 3 (2003) HIV/AIDS and the rights of the child, 32 nd Sess. (2003), para. 16.
10. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 24 (20 th session, 1999), article 12: Women and health, accessed 18 July 2005, <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/
    recomm.htm#recom24>.
11. For more information, please see Comprehensive Sexuality Education is HIV Prevention , (Washington, DC: SIECUS, January 2005), <http://www.siecus.org/inter/FS_WomenHIV-AIDS.pdf>.
12. Issue Maps: Antidiscrimination Laws , Lambda Legal (2005, accessed 16 May 2006, <http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/
    states/antidiscrimi-map>.
13. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, “HIV/AIDS and Human Rights-International Guidelines (from the second international consultation on HIV/AIDS and human rights,” 23-25 September 1996, Geneva), U.N. Doc. HR/PUB/98/1, Geneva, 1998, para. 30(h).
14. Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 622-23 (1988) (O'Connor, J. concurring).
15. Ibid.
16. American Civil Liberties Union , ACLU Announces Settlement in Challenge to Government-Funded Religion in the Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Program the “Silver Ring Thing,” Press Release published 23 February 2006, accessed 27 March 2006, <http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/
    24246prs20060223.html>.

.