Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Americans have been so busy fighting against radical gender ideology and critical race theory in schools that one of the Left’s favourite ways to undermine parents has fallen under the radar. But the Trump administration hasn’t lost sight of graphic sex education, and parents everywhere should be grateful for it.

In a very underreported move, the president’s team went on the offensive this summer, zeroing out millions of taxpayer dollars for controversial “Teen Pregnancy Prevention” programs in favour of solid curriculum that emphasises abstinence and marriage.

$67 Million Cut from “Radical Leftist Sex Ed”

The New York Times picked up on the cuts weeks after the fact in a sob story lamenting how caught off guard local nonprofits had been by HHS’s announcement.

But frankly, no one should be surprised. The Trump administration slashed dozens of grants like this in its first term, arguing — rightly — that they only existed to sexualise children, not equip them to make positive and healthy choices.

A whopping 53 programs ended up on the chopping block, saving Americans $67 million in what the president’s budget called “radical leftist ideology.” If anything, the administration argued, the Biden- and Obama-era sex ed models have only “normalise[ed] sexual activity for minors.”

Thanks to liberal ideologues masquerading as health experts, activists like Planned Parenthood have had unlimited access to America’s classrooms, knowing if they hook kids on sex, they’re grooming the next generation of abortion customers. It’s been a great down payment on future business — until now. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) made it clear that the department is under new management where all of this is concerned, posting a list of priorities that should relieve every sane parent in America.

New Priorities for Sex Ed

First of all, the agency vows to ensure that adolescent program materials are “age-appropriate” and “do not promote harmful ideologies, such as gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology. OASH will focus on programs that do not promote material that depicts, describes, exposes or presents obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit content,” the document notes, “including content that encourages, normalises or promotes sexual activity for minors. OASH will prioritise OASH programs and funding that are in compliance with these priorities and applicable law.”

Second, OASH promises to defend parental rights “to the fullest extent of its authority under the law… including parents’ right to protect their children from exposure to content that burdens the exercise of their religious beliefs.”

Under this new criteria, NYT complains, anyone applying for taxpayer dollars “must teach abstinence,” also known as sexual risk avoidance, “as the only means to prevent teen pregnancy. Courses must stress the importance of marriage and procreation and instruct young people how to safeguard their fertility. They make scant reference to preventing sexually transmitted infections and virtually none to lesbian, gay and transgender sexuality.”

As FRC’s Quena González pointed out to The Washington Stand, “The fact that some professional sex ed providers who receive millions of dollars in federal funds are complaining that these priorities are now required to continue receiving taxpayer dollars should alarm parents and enrage taxpayers. We shouldn’t be allowing, much less paying for, schools to tell students, ‘We know you’re going to experiment, wink wink, so here’s how to derive the most sexual pleasure from underage sex.’”

Abstinence Sex Ed Requirements Receive Applause

González applauded the overhaul as an overdue change to the dangerous status quo.

“Insisting that taxpayers pay adults to teach middle schoolers — typically 11-14 years old — about ‘sexual consent,’ pleasurable condom use, or how adolescent girls can use intrauterine devices and implants to avoid pregnancy, is just plain creepy,” he said.

“Kids need to be taught that sex is a wonderful gift and a powerful expression of adult love when it is exercised within the safety of a loving marriage covenant. Sex isn’t a toy, and the harms of offering it to minors are well documented and not really debated; studies show that delaying sexual contact until marriage increases the chances of a stable marriage and decreases the chance of living in poverty.”

Valerie Huber, who’s spent decades fighting for this kind of principled approach to sex ed, had one reaction to the administration’s pivot: relief. “Mostly for the young people,” the president of The Institute for Women’s Health told TWS.

“For years, sexual risk avoidance had to justify itself while the alternative was funded as though its results were settled. That was never a research question. It was a worldview question dressed up as one.”

Now, thanks to Trump, “risk avoidance is being treated as a legitimate public health goal for adolescents, the way it already is for every other youth risk behaviour. We do not teach teenagers to smoke carefully. We tell them the truth about risk, and we help them stay at no risk or move from high risk to low risk to no risk,” she emphasised.

“Sexual health is the one place we abandoned that model, but now HHS is being consistent across all youth risk behaviours. Bravo!”

Damaging “If-it-feels-good-do-it” Messaging

Huber looked back over the last several years, lamenting the damage that the Left’s “if-it-feels-good-do-it” message has done. “When adults in authority signal that sexual activity is expected of a 14-year-old, that is not neutral information,” she insisted.

“It is permission, and for many students it is pressure.”

Under Obama and Biden, she noted, “These programs routinely positioned outside providers, including organisations whose business model depends on abortion, as the trusted adult in a young person’s life — and treated parents as an obstacle to be managed. A curriculum that teaches a 15-year-old how to obtain services without telling her mother is not a health program,” Valerie argued.

With the exception of Trump’s first term, “Students have been offered risk reduction at best and rarely offered risk avoidance,” Huber stressed, “which is the only approach that eliminates risk rather than managing it.”

Although teen pregnancies have dropped over time, she acknowledges, it was a hollow victory.

“We counted births. We counted birth control. We did not count infections, we did not count coercion, and we did not measure what happens when pregnancy prevention becomes a substitute for holistic health and thriving for young people,” Valerie said.

“We called it a win. In those same years, the emotional, social, intellectual, and spiritual health of American adolescents all declined. If your scorecard shows success while the young people on it are falling apart, you are measuring the wrong thing.”

Of course, the nonprofits who’ve been suddenly cut off from this federal gravy train are complaining that this creates an “existential dilemma” for sex ed. Some, the Times reports, are even suing HHS over the new requirements. But the reality is, there’s no “right” to taxpayer dollars — especially not for an indoctrination scheme that’s only exacerbating the problems they claim to solve.

Raising the Bar

What’s more, America needs to stop believing that young people can only meet the low bars we set. “Hand a young person a high standard and tell them you believe they can meet it, and most of them rise to it,” Huber underscored.

“What they resent instantly is the adult who tells them they cannot be expected to control themselves. They hear that for exactly what it is, which is a low opinion of them.”

The Left’s model assumes “every teenager is sexually active,” she shook her head.

“Most high school students are not. … No one argues that because some teenagers will use drugs, prevention is unrealistic and we should teach safer use instead.

“We hold the optimal health standard, and we surround it with skills, support, and honesty about risk.”

To those who say the approach isn’t proven, Dr. Michelle Cretella strongly disagrees.

“A rigorous review by the Institute for Research demonstrates that sexual risk avoidance education (SRAE) holds great promise. It aligns with the primary public health principle acknowledged by the CDC: abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent STDs and pregnancy, as condoms cannot guarantee absolute protection.”

Unlike the Planned Parenthood-style programs, “effective SRAE is medically accurate,” she told TWS, citing an article she just authored for an online medical journal.

It “discusses condoms and contraceptives and helps students commit to abstinence without decreasing contraceptive use among those who are already sexually active.”

Sex Ed: Parental Responsibility

At the end of the day, our schools were never meant to be a substitute for moms and dads, who have the ultimate responsibility to raise their children in a way that reflects their values.

It’s not the job of teachers or outside “experts” to contradict those beliefs or commandeer a parent’s authority on topics that, in all honesty, don’t belong in classrooms in the first place.

Now, instead of shipping off tens of millions of dollars to graphic programs that double as LGBT recruiting programs and abortion infomercials, the president is letting research, parents, and common sense dictate how America approaches sex ed.

And we should all be thankful for it!

___

Republished with thanks to The Washington Stand.

Image via Adobe.