Freethought & Rationalism Archive

03-30-2003, 08:56 AM

I'm not quite sure if this is the correct forum for this or if it ought to go in PD. Mods please help!

I am on the mailing list for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and I was interested to see this article about how abstinence-only advocates are misleading people about the protection from infection accorded by condoms.

Quote:

The NIH workshop report explicitly cautions that the "inadequacies of the evidence available...should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom." Yet, condom opponents were quick to ignore the caution and jump to the conclusion they desired. In July 2001, Coburn, no longer a member of Congress, issued a press release headlined, "Condoms Do Not Prevent Most STDs" and praised the NIH report for finally exposing "the 'safe' sex myth for the lie that it is." In his new job as co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS (PACHA) and as one of President Bush's top advisors on HIV/AIDS, Coburn continues to use his influence to insist that "the American people [should] know the truth of condom ineffectiveness" and to advocate an approach that focuses exclusively on promoting abstinence for all people outside of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

Coburn's views have the support of other recent appointments to PACHA, including Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., a physician and president of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MISH), a Texas-based medical institute he founded that promotes abstinence-only sex education messages. In a monograph on condoms and STDs, billed as "the most comprehensive scientific review of the science on condom effectiveness to date," MISH provides an analysis of the workshop report that, while factually correct, nonetheless asserts that condoms do not make sex "safe enough" to warrant their promotion for STD prevention. According to MISH, because condoms are "not foolproof" and marriage is "generally safe" from STD infection, the government should be only promoting marriage and abstinence outside of marriage for STD prevention.

Public health experts also point to the withdrawal of a fact sheet on condoms from the CDC's Web site and the fact sheet's subsequent revision as another indication that condoms are being attacked at the highest levels. Members of Congress, as well as experts with the scientific, AIDS and reproductive health communities, reacted angrily when the fact sheet was pulled. "Removal of this information...strongly suggests an ideological, rather than a scientific, agenda at work," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) in an October 21, 2002, letter signed by a dozen members of Congress to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. The fact sheet was eventually revised and reposted; as with the MISH report, the new version is factually accurate but nonetheless portrays condoms in a negative light. Where the prior fact sheet concluded from the evidence that "latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV...and...can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases," the revised version emphasizes in bold letters that abstinence is the surest way to avoid STDs and warns that condom use "cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD."

This is largely a matter for American politics, but I am concerned at attempts to export this nonsense to developing countries, where it could cost many lives.

Loren Pechtel · 03-30-2003, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
I'm not quite sure if this is the correct forum for this or if it ought to go in PD. Mods please help!

I am on the mailing list for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and I was interested to see this article about how abstinence-only advocates are misleading people about the protection from infection accorded by condoms.

This is largely a matter for American politics, but I am concerned at attempts to export this nonsense to developing countries, where it could cost many lives.

From what that article says about the NIH report I suspect the authors were trying to write it in the fashion most acceptable to Washington without actually lying.

My opinion: Belongs in PD.

Glass*Soul · 03-30-2003, 01:52 PM

I have talked to people who have discontinued condom usage and have opted for unprotected sex due to being convinced by "abstinence only" programs that condom usage is pointless. rolleyes:

Trying to manipulate people is always a tricky business.

Loren Pechtel · 03-30-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glass*Soul
I have talked to people who have discontinued condom usage and have opted for unprotected sex due to being convinced by "abstinence only" programs that condom usage is pointless. rolleyes:

Trying to manipulate people is always a tricky business.

Maybe the lawyers should get these people instead of all the smokers.

Glass*Soul · 03-30-2003, 07:20 PM

Quote:

According to MISH, because condoms are "not foolproof" and marriage is "generally safe" from STI infection, the government should be only promoting marriage and abstinence outside of marriage for STI prevention.

This seems to be a double standard. We cannot promote condoms for STI prevention unless they are absolutely foolproof, yet we can pomote marriage for that purpose even though it is only generally safe?

I would like to see some statistics on the rate of STI infections among sexaully active, unmarried, consistent condom users vs. that among sexaully active, married, non-condom users. I know good and well that some married people contract STI's.

One advantage of condom usage is that it is in my control. When relying on monogomy, I can only insure that I am monogomous. I can't insure my partner is also monogomous. It requires mutual monogomy to insure no transmission of STI's.

Loren Pechtel · 03-30-2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Glass*Soul
This seems to be a double standard. We cannot promote condoms for STI prevention unless they are absolutely foolproof, yet we can pomote marriage for that purpose even though it is only generally safe?

The truth is less important than preventing the sin of unwed sex.

El_Hober · 03-30-2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glass*Soul
This seems to be a double standard. We cannot promote condoms for STI prevention unless they are absolutely foolproof, yet we can pomote marriage for that purpose even though it is only generally safe?

The problem is not the promotion of abstinence until marriage, it is the total lack of promotion for condom use should you choose to partake in premarital sex (which I think most people do).

Glass*Soul · 03-31-2003, 04:23 AM

Exactly, El_Hober.

It's a question of whether we are going to give people the best information we have and allow then to make their own decisions, or are we going to use information as a tool to manipulate people.

I suspect that for those whose main motivation is the promotion of abstinence, the loss of life associated with some unmarried, sexually active people abandoning condom usage is not only acceptable collateral damage, but perhaps ever desirable in getting their message across.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-30-2003, 01:52 PM	#3
Glass*Soul Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Beneath the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil. Posts: 985	I have talked to people who have discontinued condom usage and have opted for unprotected sex due to being convinced by "abstinence only" programs that condom usage is pointless. rolleyes: Trying to manipulate people is always a tricky business.

03-30-2003, 08:27 PM	#6
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by GlassSoul* This seems to be a double standard. We cannot promote condoms for STI prevention unless they are absolutely foolproof, yet we can pomote marriage for that purpose even though it is only generally safe? The truth is less important than preventing the sin of unwed sex.

03-31-2003, 04:23 AM	#8
Glass*Soul Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Beneath the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil. Posts: 985	Exactly, El_Hober. It's a question of whether we are going to give people the best information we have and allow then to make their own decisions, or are we going to use information as a tool to manipulate people. I suspect that for those whose main motivation is the promotion of abstinence, the loss of life associated with some unmarried, sexually active people abandoning condom usage is not only acceptable collateral damage, but perhaps ever desirable in getting their message across.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.