Within two months, the federal government has thrown two devastating blows at students in Wisconsin public schools and universities.
First, effective Jan. 1, the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 nullified pharmaceutical company contracts that formerly allowed college health services to distribute birth control at prices below the retail rate. Then, the federal moral authority taunted Gov. Jim Doyle with $600,000 in funding, provided he institute abstinence-only education in classrooms statewide.
Thankfully, our governor had the sense to turn down the federal dollars. In doing so, Wisconsin joined five other states rejecting Title 5, Don't-You-Dare-Have-Premarital Sex funding. Advocates of the abstinence-only program, curiously titled ""Special Programs for Regional and National Significance,"" seem to believe the only significance of sexual education is to avoid perverting the Bush Administration's moral agenda.
Yes, abstinence is the only way to completely prevent pregnancy and transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. Certainly teenagers who opt to postpone sex until marriage avoid emotional damage associated with casual or drug-influenced encounters. However, abstinence-only education fails to account for the fact that comprehensive sexual education is a public health issue. It is not a moral issue.
Regardless of morals, religion or—you guessed it, abstinence-only education—many teenagers have premarital sex, unprotected sex and sex in positions that make churchgoers and even missionaries uncomfortable.
According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, teenage pregnancy costs the United States a minimum of $7 billion annually. It makes no sense that in rejecting the Bush Administration's moral agenda, Wisconsin must also lose $600,000 in federal aid that could offset the rising cost in birth control.
In a truly secular world, Wisconsin could use the Title 5 money to relieve the financial burden of students at state universities who want to responsibly reduce the risk of pregnancy. Unfortunately, opting out of Bush's moral agenda means losing money, increased risk of pregnancy and fewer resources to offset treatment costs for other health issues.
We hope someday the federal government emulates leaders such as Doyle who recognize access to birth control and comprehensive sexual education as a basic public health issue. What the United States needs is a health agenda, not a misdirected ""moral"" one.
