Senior Government and Economics Projects, Acalanes High School
Don't wanna be here? Send us removal request.
Text
Infographic - Blog Post #9
Works Consulted
Armstrong, Aria. “Abstain from Abstinence-Only Sex Ed.” CNN, Cable News Network, 9 Sept. 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/health/sexual-education-abstinence/index.html.
McCammon, Sarah. “Abstinence-Only Education Is Ineffective And Unethical, Report Argues.”NPR, NPR, 23 Aug. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/23/545289168/abstinence-education-is-ineffective-and-unethical-report-argues.
Planned Parenthood. “What Is the Definition of Abstinence & Outercourse?” Planned Parenthood, National - PPFA, www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/abstinence-and-outercourse.
Rudulph, Heather Wood. “11 Facts About Sex Ed in the U.S. That Might Surprise You.”Cosmopolitan, Cosmopolitan, 9 Oct. 2017, www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/advice/a6329/sex-ed-facts/.
Santelli, John. “Abstinence-Only Education Doesn't Work. We're Still Funding It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 21 Aug. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/21/abstinence-only-education-doesnt-work-were-still-funding-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8197716cf14c.
“The Truth about Abstinence-Only Programs .” Advocatesforyouth.org, Advocates for Youth, www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/409-the-truth-about-abstinence-only-programs.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Civic Action Assessment of the Issue - Blog Post #8
As I've researched my issue more and more, I’ve seen the lack of action in Government, and the amount of work that needs to happen in the community of citizens.
For myself in a community of people, I see myself as having to make an effort to change our attitudes about a certain issue. I’m tired of people advocating for change, but never actually going out to making an effort to change it. Regarding my issue, I can at least make an effort to go and educate those that may be under educated on my issue.
I have learned in this class about civic responsibility, that citizens can have a big impact on the future of our society, and the outcomes of our future. Through actions like protest and supreme court cases, we have a heavy influence on the people that we entrust to make the right decisions.
I do feel like it is my obligation help address my civic issue. Right now, it’s not, what I like to call, a headliner issue, meaning that its not an issue that government finds urgent. So, I feel like part of my civic action as a citizen is to inform people of how important of an issue this is. Maybe not in CA, but in other parts of the US, and even around the world.
I have tried to be as publicly involved as I can, trying to educate people on my matter, who may not be well informed. Over the past few weeks, I ran a survey on the state of Sex Ed in our country, asking students which one they thinks prevents unwanted pregnancies and STI’s between Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Ed. While most people were well educated on the issue (because most of my participants were surveyed from schools around the Bay Area), some students still answered that Abstinence-Only education prevents more unwanted pregnancies and STI’s than Comprehensive education, which is NOT TRUE! However, I feel like I can probably be more civically involved. I’m hoping to be, in general, more vocal with my disdain for how the government has treated the issue. Later this year, when I head to the east coast for college, I know the environment and state of Sexual Education in the country will be different (and probably less progressive), So, I am hoping I continue my outward support for the issue, and not back down in the sight of opposition. Not only that, but to educate and direct people to resources that they might not know about, like, Planned Parenthood places, or sexual health clinics.
Overall, this project has been very informative to me on how much our government has NOT been active on this issue, and its my duty, and our duty as citizens to lead the change we want to see in the US.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
The 3 P’s Assessment: Parties, Political Interest Groups, and PAC’s - Blog Post #7
The positions of each of the different parties is pretty bleak; almost none of the parties have any position on my issue. The Republican party has almost no reference to Abstinence-Only education. Its probably because most Republicans support Abstinence-Only education even though its completely wrong. Also, to Republicans, its not one of those headliner issues that the would rather put their focus in, like Defense of Security. The Democratic party DOES have an education tab, but it has no explicit information about Abstinence-Only education. It has a pretty general mission statement, asserting that education is equal, and should give all children an equal opportunity at succeeding, but again, it is pretty general. The Libertarian and Green party don’t have any information, most likely because it is not a headliner issue, just like the Republicans. Cant really stand by or agree with any group because they don’t have an open stance on the issue. However, I know Democrats tend to support Comprehensive learning, while Republicans tend to support more abstinence, because of roots in Religion and the set rules regarding sexual conduct. So for that reason, I would have to support Democrats because they aren’t tied to any religion that sort of guides them to the morals they have.
The national interest group I will be analyzing today is Popular Action International. PAI advocates for all women to have access to contraception and abscess to tools to prevent HIV/AIDS. This organization:
- Believes in global access to contraceptives and COMPREHENSIVE sexual education
- Believes that the US should be at the forefront of this action
- Wants Trump out of his Presidency for initiating the Global Gag Rule which “forces foreign NGOs to choose between receiving U.S. global health assistance and providing comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care”.
- Believes women are at the center of this argument
I could find no legislation that they have supported, however, currently, they seem to be against a lot of the actions Trump has reinstated. This interest group is located at in Washington D.C, and they do not host any local meetings around me, so it does not seem like I will be attending any meetings any time soon. It does not seem like they have any volunteering opportunities, but they do have internship opportunities, which seem very comparable.
The state intent group I will be analyzing today is the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Planned Parenthood aims to provide access to information and tools to help one be sexually active and prepared to be a mother. So besides providing abortions and classes on how to deal and make decisions regarding mothers, they also provide access to contraceptives and are willing to help teens with difficult and discrete decisions regarding their sexual lifestyle. This organization
- Aims to provide a sexually safe climate for women and teens
- Promotes education and funding to the fields of sexual health
- Supports sexual freedom for women
- Provides access to items like abortions and birth control for ones that need it.
Planned Parenthood has supported numerous pieces of legislation over the years sing 1974 (Sexual Revolution). They have supported legislation that “ensured that students who receive sex education in schools receive accurate information on abstinence, human sexuality, contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in an age-appropriate manner”. There are Planned Parenthoods located almost anywhere in the Bat Area. I know there is one in Walnut Creek, and they ofter are open to providing information about Sexual Health that one might not receive in school. There are volunteering opportunities that involve being a “advocate”, which I assume means marching in their protests.
Both of these interest groups seem very involved in the work they do, and the goals they are trying to achieve. However, PAI works on a more global scale, trying to give access to women all over the world and believes America should be at the forefront. Comparatively, Planned Parenthood also strives for similar goals, but they do it on a more city/state wide level.
There aren’t really any PAC’s regarding my issue. All of the PAC’s on education are about academic curriculum and not sexual curriculum. And the PAC’s on health are about medical and pharmaceutical companies. So nothing really jives on the between and pinpoints or regards sexual education.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Executive Action Assessment of the Issue - Blog Post #6
Directly on Donald Trump’s Website, he has not clarified his stance. But from previous research, he has redirected more funding to Abstinence-Only Sexual Education. He believes it is the most effective method to combat unwanted pregnancies and STI’s. He also believes it is cheaper than the amount of money we spend on Comprehensive programs, and overall, puts his faith in them. However, I disagree with his position. States with no enforcement on Abstinence-Only curriculums have seen a massive increase in unwanted pregnancies and STI’s, as well as a generally under-educated mass of teens. Furthermore, programs that teach Comprehensive curriculum have less of an issue with adolescent pregnancies. States with a high number of adolescent and unwanted pregnancies also see more attempted abortions and pregnancies carried to term, and those costs are higher than funding Comprehensive curriculum.
The Department of Education manages issues regarding Abstinence Only Curriculum. According to their page, their mission is to “...promote student achievement and preparation for competition in a global economy by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access to educational opportunity”. Indirectly, it relates to my issue. In the mission statement, it says that they want to “ensure equal access”, which really is not the case for Abstinence Only Curriculum. I cannot find any program or service that would address my issue, in part because am unable to find where that is in the site.
Overall, I am generally dissatisfied with the amount of progress the Executive Branch has put towards my issue. Trump’s redirection of funding to support Abstinence Only curriculum and the Executive Cabinets silence and supportiveness of Trump’s decisions has shown to me that the Executive administration really does not know how to dress this issue. I don’t think the funding is the most important part of why Im so dissatisfied as much as the general cluelessness of him. It frustrates me to know that a man who does not know any thing about Sex Ed curriculum and how much more adolescents are informed on the issue, is in charge of passing bills and directing funding. However, decreasing funding to the department of education would not be the answer either. What would help, is a redirection of funding back to Comprehensive curriculum.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Legislative Action - Blog Post #5
Congressman Desaulnier has nothing to say on the issue of Abstinence-Only Sex Ed, however Kamala Harris was clarified her stance on Abstinence-Only eduction. She states that Abstinence-Only Sex Ed has only proven ineffective in response to Trumps redirection of funding to Abstinence-Only eduction. Harris and Desaulnier both have NOT sponsored any bills pertaining to the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein has both supported the idea of comprehensive sexual education and introduced and sponsored bills pertaining to the issue. There is no official title to the bill, but it aims to provide HIV/AIDS prevention programs with more flexible funding to make the most effective and comprehensive sexual lesson plan to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. While it does not directly barre the teaching of Abstinence-Only sex ed, it would aim to redirect that funding from Abstinence-Only to comprehensive.
Federally, there are bills that do pertain to my issue. One of them, the “Abstinence Education Reallocation Act of 2013″ or hr718-113 requires that all sex ed that is taught to any adolescent must be medically accurate and evidence based, however, can also teach the benefits of refraining from non marital sex, and well as teaching the benefits of sexual abstinence as optimal. This will have a negative impact on the progressiveness of sexual education. So far right now, we have made it barely legal and minimally required to teach comprehensive sex ed. Making also teaching abstinence only education legal, provides a loophole for those schools to teach Abstinence only and moreover, call it “optimal”. I would vote “nay��� on this vote because it goes against everything I feel like we should be doing with the argument of sexual education. We should be trying to teach comprehensive sex ed in more schools and making it a requirement (or at least an option). This only destabilizes the already slippery slope we are on. It was introduced February 25th, 2013. However, it has only reached the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. After that, the House has not voted on it and the President has not signed it. Overall, my optimal satisfaction would be when we completely demolish the teaching of Abstinence-Only education, and require comprehensive sex ed to be taught, and direct all of our funding to that. However, I am happy that the government at least recognizes that making Abstinence-Only sex ed an option, will only lead to bed things in the future.
After the announcement of Trumps redirection of funding to Abstinence-Only programs, people on Facebook began to host live streams to educate teens on Comprehensive sex ed, with the hashtag #SexEdLive. This article published on CNN’s website titled “Advocates counter abstinence-only push with Facebook Live sex ed” by Jessica Ravitz, brings in some light after the terrible news of Trump. The intended audience is not just teens who SHOULD be watching these videos, but teachers too to see how even though it might be a blow to what they are doing in the classroom, that people with the same mindset can fight back against the decision of Trump. The bias of Ravitz is obviously on the pro side of all of this; she supports what these people are doing in helping fill those knowledge gaps. The significance of the article is to show the public push back against the announcement, and to display how much Trump really doesn't know about Sex Ed and the people that need it. I completely agree and support what this article is bringing light to. I find it amazing that people can do the smallest favor and have it make the biggest impact, especially at an extremely prevalent time.
Link to the article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/health/teen-pregnancy-prevention-abstinence/index.html
1 note
·
View note
Text
State Action - Blog Post #4
Both State Senator Glazer and Assembly Member Baker have no current stance on the issues of Abstinence Only Sex Education. Therefore, I have sent the following emails to them:
The Honorable Steve Glazer,
The issue I am concerned about is Abstinence Only Sexual Education in California. I am concerned about it because Abstinence Only Sexual Education puts teens in California at risk for STI’s and unwanted pregnancies. It also keeps them uninformed and an sexually unaware and disadvantaged compared to those who have all-round sexual education. I am currently a senior at Acalanes High School and I am researching this issue for my senior Government class. Please clarify your stance on this issue. Tank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Tsuyuki
And the same email to Assembly Member Baker:
The Honorable Cathrine Baker,
The issue I am concerned about is Abstinence Only Sexual Education in California. I am concerned about it because Abstinence Only Sexual Education puts teens in California at risk for STI’s and unwanted pregnancies. It also keeps them uninformed and an sexually unaware and disadvantaged compared to those who have all-round sexual education. I am currently a senior at Acalanes High School and I am researching this issue for my senior Government class. Please clarify your stance on this issue. Tank you so much for your time.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Tsuyuki
A current bill in California is AB-51934. The bill was first introduced on January 12, 2018. The last major action of the bill was it being "referred to Com. on ED” on January 29th, 2018. I feel very strongly about this bill. I think that by teaching these things in school, we not only destigmatize sex, but also provide children with safe and healthy options. This bill should be something both Senator Steve Glazer and Assemblywoman Cathrine Baker should support. It mandates grades 7-12 must be taught comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention, as well as information of sexual harassment and sex trafficking. It also would make it legal (but optional) to display the potential risks of sharing explicitly sexual material through social media.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Constitutional Issues - Blog post #3
One case regarding the issue of Abstinence-Only Education is the California Superior Court Case of American Academy of Pediatrics v. Clovis USD, decided on May 4, 2015. In this case, the American Academy of Pediatrics with numerous other institutions filled a case against the Clovis Unified School District, claiming that only teaching Abstinence-Only Education not only violated California’s sex ed laws, but also put teens at risk by not teaching them proper sexual health and protection. During the time of accusation, Clovis was using a textbook that failed to mention contraception, and how to protect against sexually-transmitted infections. They were also showing a video in which a woman who has had sex with someone outside of her monogamous relationship is compared to a dirty shoe, and enforces the fact that once men are sexually aroused, that they are unable to control themselves. Even though this did not take place in the Supreme Court, the judges still were arguing whether or not giving these children abstinence-only education put them in a medically disadvantaged situation compared to children with medically-accurate information. This, in a larger sense is in violation of the 14th amendment. The Fresno Superior Court ruled that Clovis’ sex ed was out of compliance with California’s state laws. Because this was not decided in the Supreme Court, it didn’t set a legal precedent for the states, but rather showed a reinforcement of California’s sex ed laws. I agree with the courts decision, that kids should be taught comprehensive sex ed. Giving kids abstinence only education locks them into one option: onot having sex. And with the average teenager’s increased sex drive, it does not seem logical. Giving them options; not only to educate them on contraceptives, but how to defend against STI’s, will help them stay healthy throughout their life.
Most recently, Trump has decided to spend millions of dollars from the federal budget to fund Abstinence-Only Sexual Education. The author of this article is Matthew Facciani. The context of this article is Trump, Abstinence Only education, and the federal budget. The intended audience is people who value the importance of comprehensive sex ed, mainly educators and organizations. The bias of this author is clearly not in agreeance with what Trump has done. He thinks we should be directing our money towards comprehensve sex ed, and not abstinence only.The significance of the article is that it displays how uneducated Turmp is on this matter, and how he does not understand what is best for children and sexual health. I agree with the article that Trump’s spending is not a step in the right direction.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Economic Assessment of Issue - Blog Post #2
The people affected by this issue are mainly individuals. However, I’m pretty sure there are organizations that economically benefit from producing and organizing Abstinence-Only content. The resolution of this issue is mainly a want, but given the time and resources, should be treated as a need. If anything, teaching abstinence-only education does to some extent, keep people from being put in the crossfires of STDs and pregnancy. However, it shouldn’t be the only option we give children. By teaching kids just to not have sex, In the case that they do, they are not equipped to protect themselves against STDs and pregnancy. A resource that would be needed to resolve this issue is a redirection of funding from Abstinence-Only organizations to more well-rounded sexual education organizations. Also, a more mandated and regulated set of laws that require schools to teach well rounded sexual education is necessary. A factor of production that would be necessary for this issue to be resolved is by far labor. We need more people to go out and produce and organize sex ed that doesn’t leave out other forms of birth control and protection. If anything, economic incentives will be the most influencing factor when it comes to swaying the public. Most Abstinence-Only education comes mainly from Conservatively biased organizations. So politically, it would be impossible to change the ideals of republicans to a more democratic like state. However, economically, if we gave well-rounded sexual education more funding, and paid more money to schools who participated in teaching well-rounded education, resolving the issue would probably go much faster. In doing this though, there would probably be massive uproar from conservative public, leading to some parents pulling their kids out of school, ultimately resulting in a lost of money to the school. On the other hand, moving towards a more universal sexual education is worth it in my opinion. The Abstinence-Only curriculum argument tends to be that things like contraceptives and how sex works should be taught at home, however, studies show that people learn most formal sexual education at school. And of the only thing those children are being taught is not to have sex, that is essentially, the only thing they are learning. Kids and volunteer-organized organizations would probably benefit the most from this because of the more well rounded education they would be learning/teaching. Also, businesses that sell and manufacture contraceptives and protection would benefit as well due to new education about the benefits of using them. It’s these people who would probably also benefit from the solution. This issue is not the result of an externality. An externality is an effect caused by the workings of a business, which abstinence-only education is not. It is the cause of major funding to a republican ideal. Like I have said above, the issue is going to most likely have to be solved through government subsidies and a redirection of money. It is least likely that it be solved through a psychological break through of republicans to believe in the democratic ideal, therefore, making economic incentives the most likely option.
Subject: This graph comapares how much funding we direct to either Abstinence-Only Programs and Evidence-Based (Well-Rounded) Programs.
Sources: The true source of this graph is from both the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, and the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States.
Context: This graph is part of a larger article about how the basis of sexual education has changed just through funding, through out the years.
Audience: People like me trying to prove not only how most of the US agrees with Evidence-Bases Sexual Education, but also those trying to prove that Abstinence-Only Education receives funding.
Perspective/Bias: This author obviously sees the that Abstinence-Only education needs to be pushed out of schools, and holds a very liberal perspective on the issue. In the article, they glorify the actions the government has taken to reduce the amount of Abstinence-Only education in the US.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Getting Started - Blog Post #1
The blog that I followed was a blog focused on pushing back against Abstinence Only sexual education. It looks like the author is someone who likes to remain anonymous, however, is very vocal about removing Abstinence Only Education from society. The intended audience for this is probably people who agree with that same opinion. Just by the way that its written, it seems as if this person is is posting as if they are talking to someone who agrees with them. Obviously, this person has a huge bias, towards advocating for more well rounded Sex Ed, including Contraception and Abortion. I do really want to follow the blog, despite the name “Impregnated with Innocence”, because it advocates for something that I agree with, and also does it in a way that does poke fun at the other side. However, I understand that people might be put off at the minor hostility of the author to the other side. The significance of this blog is to both advocate for a more well rounded sexual education, and to report on social and political current events regarding the issue. I do agree and stand by most of what this person is saying.
~ TWITTER ACCOUNTS I’M FOLLOWING AND WHY ~
- Abstinence Education (@aec_tweet): This account advocates for spreading Abstinence Only Education around the US. I’m following this account because I’m interested in how the other side packages and pitches its perspective to high school student. I’m also interested in seeing what schools they target (i.e. high income or low income area schools, etc.).
- Heritage Keepers (@abstinenceworks): This account is an account that outright advocates for Abstinence Only education. Unlike the account above, Heritage Keepers doesn’t go around to high schools, and rather just ridicules any news about well-rounded sex ed.
- Access Birth Control (@AccessBC): This account is the complete opposite of those above and advocates not only for more well rounded education, but for contraceptives. This blog more accurately represents my own personal views.
- Planned Parenthood (@PPFA): Planned Parenthood is not only one of the biggest providers of reproductive health care, but also one of the most accessible people of basic sexual health and education.
- Everyday Feminism (@EvrydayFeminism): This blog, while not directly related to Abstinence-Only education, does advocate for it through empowering women to take control of their own sexual respect and merit.
1 note
·
View note