TO:  Washington State Senators

RE:  OPPOSE Engrossed Substitute HB 1178

 

Children should receive current and medically sound information in their sexuality education, but Engrossed Substitute HB 1178 does not provide such a guarantee; in fact, this bill may inhibit such a goal.  Please OPPOSE this bill. 

 

  1. The proponents of this bill have no evidence that it is necessary.  Young people’s testimonies of “inaccurate” information reportedly taught by abstinence educators in schools are the ONLY evidence given that a problem actually exists.  The SHARE program was accused of teaching “inaccuracies.”  A representative from SHARE testified and denied that invalid information was included in their curriculum. People’s perceptions of what they hear are not proof that that is actually what was said.  Physicians have a reason for giving patients written instructions.  What education have these young adults had that makes them experts in analyzing what is “medically accurate” and what is not?

 

  1. One of the “inaccuracies” reported in a student testimony was “I was told that condoms don’t work.”  A recent comprehensive review sponsored by the National Institutes for Health and utilizing 28 experts with specific expertise in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) or condoms found that there is not sufficient evidence for condom effectiveness for most STDs.1 

 

  1. "Medical accuracy" is a misnomer. “Medical opinion” is a more appropriate term in describing the interpretation and analysis of much of the scientific literature relevant to sex education.  Sometimes research points to a clear stand on an issue.  Other times it is not conclusive.  There may be general agreement on data, but different approaches to its usage.  There are also areas of research with conflicting study results.  Individual physicians, professional organizations, agencies, and other SOURCES of medical information can have different OPINIONS in relation to the validity and implementation of a particular study or a body of research.  The interpretation and analysis of studies are influenced by and have influence upon psychological, sociological and moral factors.

 

  1. This bill defines medical accuracy primarily by the SOURCE of information, rather than insisting on proper analysis, reporting, and use of data in accordance with objective scientific methods.  As an example, the American Psychological Association published an article in their scientific journal in which the authors concluded that adult-child sex with a willing child should NOT be classified as abuse.2  According to the definition in this bill, this study could be declared “medically accurate” because it was published in a well-known professional organization’s peer-reviewed journal.  However, other studies have demonstrated opposing findings.  In fact, the U.S. Congress unanimously denounced the authors’ conclusions in this study.3 

 

  1. This bill does not name the arbiter of “medical accuracy,” nor does it provide for an appeals process from the local level.  There must be checks and balances on the arbiter in the face of different medical opinions and a rapidly progressive medical research environment.  

 

  1. The bill calls for “medically accurate” information about sexual anatomy and physiology, reproductive health, and contraceptive failure rates, when such information is provided.  Children involved in high risk behaviors, including sexual activity, sometimes do so not for lack of knowledge, but because of inadequate family support, self-esteem, or understanding of how to avoid or mitigate peer pressure.  Many abstinence-only programs deal primarily with those latter issues; their goal is not a thorough review of every sexually transmitted disease or contraceptive device.  These abstinence programs, even if valid in every point made, would potentially be banned from schools by this bill as “inaccurate” if they did not provide complete information adherent to the same medical opinion as defined by the arbiter of “medical accuracy.” 

 

  1. This bill may CENSOR curricula, rather than ensure validity of sexuality education.  Similar legislation (RCW 28A.230.070) has been enacted to provide "medically accurate" HIV curricula, but the law has effected censorship of curricula rather than “medical accuracy.”  The Department of Health (DOH) was deemed arbiter of "medical accuracy" of proposed curricula.  Medically invalid information was found upon perusal of 2 different DOH-approved curricula.  For example, the 1992 F.L.A.S.H. curriculum published by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health contains these items, among others:

 

    1. Dental dams are recommended to “cover the labia and clitoris or the anus during oral sex…..a condom can also be cut to form a dental dam” (p. 259).4  There is no data in the medical literature or on the FDA’s website to support the safety or effectiveness of dental dams or cut condoms for oral sex and these techniques should not be recommended in any curriculum. 
    2. The third definition given for sexual abstinence includes sexual touch to orgasm without vaginal, oral, or anal intercourse (p. 355).4  Genital touch without any type of intercourse is NOT abstinence; transmission of STDs can occur.

 

Because this law mandating “medically accurate” HIV education contains no provision for an appeals process, a group of parents (Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools) was unable to remove the F.L.A.S.H. curriculum from schools.  It is still in use.  When both unapproved and approved curricula contain scientifically invalid items, that is CENSORSHIP, not accuracy. 

 

 

Engrossed Substitute HB 1178, if passed, would NOT ensure that students receive appropriate sex education; it would potentially CENSOR programs which take different approaches and leave students and parents without recourse to change curricula. 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Sharon Quick, MD

Please contact me for further information:  sharonquick@earthlink.net

 

 

1.             National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. Workshop Summary:  Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention July 20 2000.

2.             Rind B, Tromovitch P, Bauserman R. A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychol Bull. Jul 1998;124(1):22-53.

3.             H. Con. Res. 107; 1999.

4.             Reis E. Family Life and Sexual Health for Grades 11 & 12; 1992.

 

Return to Medical Accuracy