Subject: IWG Abstinence Guideline Comments
From: Interfaith Working Group <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:36:59 -0500 (EST)

The following went out on IWG letterhead listing 3 congregations, 6 religious
organizations and 37 clergy from 13 faiths and denominations. If you are in 
the general Philadelphia area and represent a congregation or religious 
organization or are clergy, let us know if you want to be added - all faiths 
are welcome. We will also be happy to help start similar organizations in 
other areas.

February 14, 1997

Linda Johnston
National MCH Bureau
5600 Fishers Lane
18-31 Park Lawn
Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Ms.  Johnston:

     We are alarmed by portions of the guidelines for
abstinence education which we requested from your
office. We are certainly not in favor of encouraging
high-risk sexual behavior and agree with the intent of
most sections, but we have specific problems with
sections which will damage the self-esteem and
potentially endanger some students.  We believe the rest
of the guidlelines would be more effective as part of a
comprehensive program discussing the mechanics of
sexuality, sex-related health issues, birth control and
disease prevention options in addition to abstinence, 
non-heterosexual orientations, and a general survey of
moral, ethical and legal systems relating to sexual
behavior.
     We object to references of harm caused to society by
children with single parents, as well as implications
that such children have more psychological abnormalities. 
Not only does this stigmatize the children of single
parents, it encourages the preservation of abusive
marriages.  If the choice is between a single loving
parent as opposed to two parents--one loving, one
abusive-- the single loving parent is clearly to be
preferred.
     We object to the lack of mandated information
concerning birth control and disease-prevention other
than abstinence.  Should the abstinence message not
succeed, the risk of pregnancy and disease will be much
higher than if the students had received comprehensive
information about birth control methods and the risks of
specific sexual practices.  Students who go through
abstinence-only sex education and then become pregnant
will be left with four options (single  parenthood, early
marriage, adoption, or abortion) but no information
providing them with the means to make an informed
decision.
     We object to all references which suggest that
marriage is the only acceptable context for sexual
behavior:   
     1) This is not in sync with the laws of most states
or of all religions.  We must conclude that it is an
opinion based on a subset of religious belief, and is
therefore not appropriate for government mandate.  
     2) Until same-gender marriages are legally
recognized, the guidelines may psychologically damage
gay children, who will be told that there is no
appropriate outlet for their sexual feelings.  Non-
heterosexual students seem to be completely ignored, and
are likely to ignore the curriculum when they recognize
that it does not apply to them.
     3) The guidelines seem to encourage students to
marry for sex despite the fact that sex within marriage
is not automatically risk-free, early marriages have
their own psychological risks, and people should not
marry just to make sex socially acceptable.

     Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Barbara Purdom     Christopher Purdom
Interfaith Working Group Coordinators

-- 

Interfaith Working Group                Religious organizations, congregations
[email-masked]                      and clergy supporting gay rights,
http://www.libertynet.org/~iwg/         reproductive freedom, and the 
215-235-3050                            separation of church and state.