From: Interfaith Working Group Subject: IWG Abstinence Guideline Comments 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 iwg@libertynet.org and clergy supporting gay rights, http://www.libertynet.org/~iwg/ reproductive freedom, and the 215-235-3050 separation of church and state.