I chose to investigate sexual education because it is a policy area that hits close to home. Sexual Education is an issue with many facets, but it falls under the larger umbrella of reproductive freedom. Many people would consider themselves either pro-life or pro-choice, but there is also a middle section that is less defined. This section is present because of cases like rape, health difficulties, or future health of the baby. With education, it is less black and white in the eyes of the general populace. Further, sides are frequently taken due to religious beliefs. Education is typically a more local issue, but it has a large impact on the rate of pregnant teens, which ultimately funnels into the debate over abortion. More specifically, the federal government has to take action on both abortion and sexual education because of their inter-connectedness. With that said, the focus of my policy is primarily the need for comprehensive sexual education. I work for the American Civil Liberties Union, and within this I am a part of TACL. The point of this group is to focus on civil liberties for students. With the passage of the abstinence only bill in Tennessee, I feel as though my liberties have been taken. I believe that you cannot stop students from doing what is natural by not teaching them about it or teaching them about protection. Studies show that in states with abstinence only education laws, the pregnancy rate is much higher. I want to focus my research on education about safety and reproduction. If no one teaches a student about how to protect him or herself from STIs or pregnancy, the chances of them avoiding this are much smaller. I can see why lawmakers think that if you don’t teach a student about options other than abstinence it will cut down their sexual activity, but with television and media, all students are aware of these activities. It is not realistic to think that students will go through high school and never involve themselves in sexual activity just because they did not learn about it in school. Furthermore, it does not prepare them for life past high school if they do not know how to protect themselves. The benefit to education about sexual protection in high school is that students learn about safety for both themselves and the opposite sex. Every person should be responsible for knowing how to protect his or her partner also. It is not only a woman’s responsibility to protect herself, but instead it is dual responsibility for the man and woman to protect each other. A man is just as responsible for pregnancy as a woman and that is how it should be taught. Without education, men can get a false sense that it is not their problem if they get a woman pregnant. Education is a necessary resource for both the protection of equality and protection of the body. Lastly, we live in an overpopulated world and AIDS runs rampant. What separates America from some of the developing countries is our education. Education cuts back on disease and helps to prevent STIs. We have the capability of providing formal sexual education and helping to protect our citizens from incurable diseases. The improvement in other countries has been clearly linked with increased knowledge and choice. We should provide our young people with this knowledge to make a better tomorrow. Education is a privilege, but it is one that sustains our country. All students deserve to be educated. It is our right. Sexual Education is a complex issue because of the many facets. There is the religious bias and also the issue of implementation. Also, it is difficult to monitor each classroom to ensure that the material is taught appropriately. Further, there is wide disagreement regarding the correct way to teach such a sensitive topic. Proponents of comprehensive sexual education say that it is completely necessary and abstinence only education can be incorrect and distort information. They say that educating young people thoroughly helps them to make good, healthy choices about sex and relationships. Teens who receive sexual education at home and in school are more likely to postpone sexual experimentation longer than their peers. When it is presented as a serious but healthy adult activity, teens are more likely to wait than if it is presented as a social taboo. Education helps them to make the best decisions for themselves rather than just listening to peer pressure and not knowing what they can do for themselves. Furthermore, with the threat of HIV/AIDS, the topic is even more relevant. Proponents of sex education think that those who promote abstinence-only education are denying reality. Young people are having sex and proponents say that they need to be able to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and disease. Those who support sexual education say that abstinence should be included, but it should not be the sole message. They say that there is a significant difference between education and promotion. They assert that telling adolescents that sex outside of marriage will inevitable lead to disease, pregnancy, emotional devastation, or a combination is inaccurate and can have harmful affects for years. Not talking to students honestly and openly about sex puts them in a position where they don’t feel that they can ask questions to protect themselves. Further, it sends a bad message to teens by marginalizing them, and instead they should help them navigate through the world and learn to make healthy, responsible, and informed choices. Supporters of abstinence education say that abstinence is the only 100% foolproof way to prevent pregnancy and STI infections. Therefore, they say that it is the only method that should be presented to students. They say that teaching students about safer sex just gives them a sense of false security. Abstinence supporters say that teaching a mix of comprehensive and abstinence education gives students a mixed message. Supporters say that telling kids that sex should happen in the confines of marriage and then following that with information on how to use birth control is counterproductive. Further, they say that physical problems, emotional problems, and life-long relationship problems can emerge from sexual activity. They also say that teens that engage in sexual activity are more likely to engage in other behavior such as drinking and smoking. They believe that comprehensive sex education encourages sexual activity in teens. They believe that it has a large impact on society and what we are lacking is not knowledge about sex, but instead we are lacking values. They want to tell teenagers that sex is not an appropriate activity. They believe that teens have too causal of an attitude toward sex and morals. In terms of print media, there were not as many sources trying to affect public opinion. The New York Times only had 2 articles in the past year. CNN only had 1 article and Washington Post only had one article. There were 2 articles from Fox News and 5 From Associated Press. The Huffington Post had 116 articles. The major source of print media was definitely the Huffington Post, although they did run one of the Associated Press articles. Sexual Education was treated more favorably then unfavorably in my opinion. There were quite a few articles talking about comprehensive sex education. This could impact the public by releasing more information that is pro sex education. If more information with this viewpoint reaches the public, then they will be more likely to be educated from that perspective and therefore more likely to support that side. If more information is being put out that supports sex education, then policy makers might think that comprehensive sex education is the most popular stance. They might form their policy agenda with this viewpoint in mind. The article “You Can’t be Neutral On a Moving Train.” from the Huffington Post says, “When religious conservatives in Utah tried to pass a bill banning sex education in public schools, over 40,000 Utahans signed a petition urging the governor to veto the bill -- and he did.” The majority of the print media is more liberally focused. NPR ran the majority of the stories dealing with sex education on the radio. There were articles supporting each side, including “Abstinence-Only Education Works According to New Study,” but there were more in support of comprehensive sex education. There were also articles about religious organizations trying out sex education, which is definitely shining a favorable light on my topic. NPR is widely listened to and since more are pro-sex education, people might lean toward this viewpoint. NPR tends to be slightly more liberal, and the listeners tend to be more liberal, so it may not affect the listeners very much. At least it may not change their viewpoint. As for policy makers, it was mostly even coverage and since it is slightly liberal, I don’t think it has as much affect. The Sean Hannity Show only had 4 hits for sex education. All of the articles were about who should retain control over sex education: parents or schools? All of the videos came from Sean Hannity. They were definitely not favorable. Based on the ratio of hits, I’d say that the public gets more information on a liberal standpoint of the issue. I don’t think it has as much impact on the general public, because they aren’t running enough stories. Because the topic isn't as popular as some others, it is not really covered and thus not affecting the public or policymakers as much. As a side note, Parks and Recreation, has done numerous pieces dealing with sex education this year. One major effect that the media does have on the public is more directly related the mindset of teenagers then sex education law itself. Most TV shows promote sexual or promiscuous behavior. One popular show is Jersey Shore, and everyone on it is engaging in sexual behavior. Another show would be the Secret Life of an American Teenager or Family Guy. Gossip Girl is another popular example. Even shows that don’t seem to have tons of promiscuous behavior still have at least a few episodes where it is quite prominent. Furthermore, researchers for the Kaiser Family Foundation found that only 14% of shows depicting sex also contained references to safe sex. This same study shows that 7 in 10 television shows watched by teens now contain some form of sexual content. There were 3,780 sexual scenes found in 1,000 of the shows sampled. Furthermore, the study found that teens see about 6 sexual scenes per hour when watching prime time. The study also linked the increase of media consumption with sexual content to the age that teens start having sex. Thus, broadcast media might not currently have as much to say about sexual education in schools, but they are having a large impact on the general public and the way teens view sex. Sex Education is a very broad topic and because of this there were a lot of websites with either articles about sex education or they were dedicated to sex education. Most of the sites either gave an overview or were pro-sex education. This could give the general public and policymakers more information regarding the benefits of sex education and not give as much of an opposite argument. Any arguments against were generally coming from religious resources. The Advocates for Youth site, which promotes sexual education, has a sex education resource center and a large part of the site is dedicated to sex education. The Science Daily does an overview of the sex education topic. Planned Parent also comes up and the University of California at San Francisco has an extensive scientific report of comprehensive sex education vs. abstinence only. These websites put out statistical and factual information that can help policy makers to make the best decision for the populace. According to the 2012 Democratic Party Platform, the Democratic Party supports evidence-based and age appropriate sex education. Their platform says, “The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives.” Ontheissues.org also shows that the Democratic Party supports comprehensive sex education. The issue is not front and center but each side does take a specific stance. The Huffington Post did an article on the Republican Party Platform in 2012. The Republican Party platform issues “a renewed call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education, as that is the only way to protect against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases. Branching off of that, the party opposes school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling and related services for abortion and contraception.” This quote was posted in the article, but came directly from the Republican Party Platform 2012 under the header, Consumer Choice In Education. The interest groups can file lawsuits, educate, go public, or involve themselves in electioneering. There haven’t been very many lawsuits recently, but we have seen a large increase in public education. The American Civil Liberties Union is one interest group that promotes sex education. They have put out press releases, videos, web pages, and other resources to let teens and parents know about sex education. NARAL Pro-Choice America works more specifically on reproductive choice, but they also work on sex education. The purpose is to protect a woman’s right to choose. They accomplish this through “lobbying Congress to convince your elected representatives to support your right to choose, organizing women and men to make sure that lawmakers hear from the pro-choice people they represent, connecting what happens in Congress or in the states to how it affects your ability to make private decisions, like choosing legal abortion, working with our state affiliates to advance ideas that are good for women's freedom, fighting back against the bad ideas that threaten our privacy, and using the political process to elect lawmakers who share our pro-choice values and defeat candidates who don't.” Essentially, Pro-Choice America also uses electioneering and lobbying to promote sexual education. They put out a yearly report called “Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States”. They overview what laws have been put in place on the topic of reproductive freedom on a state and federal level. They also put out a large number of press releases. Advocates for Youth champions efforts to help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health. Advocates believe it can best serve the field by boldly advocating for a more positive and realistic approach to adolescent sexual health. Advocates for Youth has three core values. The core values are Rights Respect. Responsibility. For rights, they say youth have the right to accurate and complete sexual health information, confidential reproductive and sexual health services, and a secure stake in the future. For respect, they say that youth deserve respect. Valuing young people means involving them in the design, implementation and evaluation of programs and policies that affect their health and well-being. Finally, for responsibility, they say that society has the responsibility to provide young people with the tools they need to safeguard their sexual health, and young people have the responsibility to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. They put out policy publications, press releases, and they have a research center. They also put out a lot of information to parents and educators including a curriculum. They have compiled tons of information regarding current policy and tons of information on how to advocate. There is also a sex education research center with endless facts and reliable databases and sources. They also have a youth activism group and other resources for teens. They don’t put out any reports to policymakers but they do provide many resources. There have also been a number of polls that show how the general populace feels about sex education. In a Pew Research “Daily Numbers” poll, findings showed that 78% of Americans favor providing birth control information in sexual education classes. Among them, 72% of white Protestants, 79% of white Catholics, and 92% of secular people support providing birth control information. Among 18-24 year olds, there is the highest amount of support at 83%. It is 81% for people age 25-64, but 65+ only shows 65% support. 76% of Americans also favor teaching abstinence, but also providing birth control information. 85% of Protestants, 78% of white Catholics, and 62% of secular people support this. Ages 18-24 show 75% support and ages 65+ show 71% support. One of the reasons the results may look like this is that those who support abstinence education typically don’t support birth control education. Also, there may be a lower percentage that supports abstinence education while also providing birth control information because studies have shown that many of the curriculum programs with abstinence education give misinformation. Regardless, this poll shows that a majority of Americans support sexual education that encompasses birth control (i.e. comprehensive sex education). This poll also shows that fewer voters over the age of 65 would support comprehensive sex education. These voters may tend to be more conservative and would not support my policy. Those voters could affect the policy agenda by not supporting comprehensive sex education. With that said, there is still a majority in support of birth control education. According to an NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Kennedy School of Government poll with a 3% margin of error, 67% of students grade 7-12 (7-8=72% and 9-12=65%) felt that money should be used to fund comprehensive sex education programs rather than abstinence only. Furthermore 66% of students thought it should be required and not optional. Being a 39-page report with many different polls, I cannot cite all that relate to my topic. These polls show a different perspective; they show that students want sex education in their schools. All of the polls showed that students wanted very comprehensive sexual education and they want it to be mandatory. Since students can’t vote, it doesn’t affect policy agenda as much, but if the students want it then clearly something needs to be done. Even though they cannot vote, they can advocate and many students do. Advocating can affect policy agenda heavily. Also, they might affect their parent’s views, which would also affect policy agenda. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a majority of Americans (55 percent) believes that giving teens information about how to obtain and use condoms will not encourage them to have sexual intercourse earlier than they would have otherwise (39 percent say it would encourage them), and 77 percent think such information makes it more likely the teens will practice safe sex now or in the future (only 17 percent say it will not make it more likely). When it comes to the general approach to teaching sex and sexuality in schools, Americans divide almost evenly. Respondents were asked to choose which of two statements was closer to their belief: (1) "When it comes to sex, teenagers need to have limits set; they must be told what is acceptable and what is not." Or (2) "ultimately teenagers need to make their own decisions, so their education needs to be more in the form of providing information and guidance." Forty-seven percent selected the first statement; 51 percent selected the second. Parents of seventh and eighth graders were more likely to choose the first statement (53 percent) than the second (45 percent); parents of high school students were evenly divided. Conservatives were much more likely to choose the first statement over the second (64 percent to 32 percent), as were evangelical or born-again Christians (61 percent to 35 percent). Liberals and moderates were more likely to choose the second statement over the first (61 percent to 37 percent for liberals and 56 percent to 42 percent for moderates). This could clearly have an effect on public policy because the general views are split so close to the middle. This shows that liberals are more likely to support comprehensive sex education because you cannot just trust that kids will be abstinent and they would rather prepare for their involvement in sexual activity. A President who is Democratic would likely adopt a policy agenda that follows what the liberals think rather than the conservatives because they are the voting base. According to the NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll, in spite of the fact that only 15 percent of Americans say they want abstinence-only sex education in the schools, 30 percent of the principals of public middle schools and high schools where sex education is taught report that their schools teach abstinence-only. In H.R. 1364, which went to the committees House Energy and commerce and House Energy and Commerce-Health, sex education was the main topic. It was introduced on 03/04/09, but that is as far as it got. It amends title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) of the Social Security Act to expand provisions for abstinence education to allow states to provide other sex education. It also defines the term "sex education" to mean education about the functional, structural, or behavioral aspects of human reproduction and education about abstinence or contraception. Finally, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a pilot program to make grants to public and nonprofit entities to provide: (1) substance abuse treatment services in the form of long-term counseling; (2) substance abuse prevention services to individuals who are less than 21 years of age; and (3) services that facilitate interaction between individuals receiving treatment for substance abuse and individuals receiving prevention services in a manner that enhances both such services. In S.2365, which went to Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, sex education was the topic. The Parents' Rights Empowerment and Protection Act (PREP Act) - Requires each preschool and elementary and secondary school that receives federal funds to obtain the affirmative, informed, written consent of a child's parent before requesting information from, or conveying information to, such child on topics relating to sex or sexuality. It requires parents, upon their request, to be given an opportunity to review such information as well as a description of the context of, and need for, its request or conveyance. It subjects individuals and schools to civil liability and fines for violating these consent and disclosure requirements. Also, it makes noncompliant schools ineligible for federal funds for one year following a violation. Finally, it amends the General Education Provisions Act to direct administrators of surveys, analyses, or evaluations that require students to reveal certain personal or familial information to obtain the prior consent of adult or emancipated students and prior written consent of minor students' parents. S. 578 went to the Senate Finance Committee and were introduced on 03/14/11, but it didn’t get any further. It amends title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) of the Social Security Act to: (1) eliminate the abstinence-only education program, (2) rescind unobligated FY2010 and 2011 program appropriations, and (3) reprogram such rescinded appropriations for the personal responsibility education program (PREP) for FY2012-FY2014. S. 2185 was introduced on 03/11/12 but it didn’t go further. It was assigned to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. It authorizes the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to award grants for qualified sexual risk avoidance education to youth and their parents. Requires eligible education to meet certain criteria, including: (1) being age-appropriate, medically accurate, and evidence-based; (2) having as its sole purpose the teaching of the skills and benefits of sexual abstinence as the optimal sexual health behavior for youth; and (3) teaching the benefits of refraining from non-marital sexual activity, the advantage of reserving sexual activity for marriage as a key factor in the prevention of poverty and the preservation of physical and emotional health, and the foundational components of a healthy relationship and the advantages of bearing children within the context of a committed marital relationship for healthy marriages. It gives priority to programs that serve youth ages 12 to 19 and that will promote the protective benefits of parent-child communication regarding healthy sexual decision-making. SB 3310 was brought to the floor on 4/5/2012 and went to the Education Committee. This bill requires that a family life education curriculum, among other things and to the extent that the topic and the manner of communication are age-appropriate:
(1) Exclusively and emphatically promote sexual risk avoidance through abstinence, regardless of a student's current or prior sexual experience; 
(2) Encourage sexual health by helping students understand how sexual activity affects the whole person including the physical, social, emotional, psychological, economic and educational consequences of non-marital sexual activity; 
(3) Provide factually and medically-accurate information;
(4) Encourage students to communicate with a parent, guardian, or other trusted adult about sex or other risk behaviors;
(5) Address the benefits of raising children within the context of a marital relationship and the unique challenges that single teen parents encounter in relation to educational, psychological, physical, social, legal, and financial factors; 
(6) Discuss the interrelationship between teen sexual activity and exposure to other risk behaviors such as smoking, underage drinking, drug use, criminal activity, dating violence, and sexual aggression; and
(7) Educate students on the age of consent, puberty, pregnancy, childbirth, sexually transmitted diseases, and the financial and emotional responsibility of raising a child.

It also says that instruction of the family life education curriculum may not: 

(1) Promote any gateway sexual activity or health message that encourages students to experiment with non-coital sexual activity; 
(2) Provide or distribute materials on school grounds that condone, encourage or promote student sexual activity among unmarried students;
(3) Display or conduct demonstrations with devices manufactured specifically for sexual stimulation; or
(4) Distribute contraception on school property; provided, however, medically-accurate information about contraception and condoms may be provided so long as it is presented in a manner consistent with the provisions described above and clearly informs students that while such methods may reduce the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases or becoming pregnant, only abstinence removes all risk. Committee meeting notes were not available, but all 9 committee members passed the bill. It passed with 31 yea and 1 no. Bill Clinton supports sexual education, but he put a focus on parental consent. In 1996 he signed the welfare reform bill containing a provision stating that $50 million would be specially earmarked each year for sex education programs that followed abstinence only curriculum guidelines. Hillary has full support for comprehensive sexual education. Now Clinton has a greater support for comprehensive sex education. I think that at the time it was more favorable to highlight parent involvement. There was less scientific evidence showing the benefits of sexual education and it was likely more controversial. From a democratic-party standpoint, he drifted from what his party normally stood for. He was already a liberal candidate so he was risking the loss of his most liberal voters. I think it was not a good choice because it could’ve distanced some of his voters. George W. Bush said, “Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education funding. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion.” He was consistent with the Republican Party Platform in that he emphasized abstinence education and did not support contraception or abortion education. I think that this was the natural choice for his candidacy. I don’t think he really risked many votes because most of his voting base would’ve supported this view anyway. Barack Obama supports comprehensive sex education and has cut funding from abstinence programs and put the money into comprehensive sex education and teen pregnancy programs. His viewpoint is consistent with his view on abortion and other health and education topics. He is also consistent with the party platform. I think he chose this because it is supported by most of his voters. He did try to make more of a compromise though by creating a budget plan that was open to all methods and left some decisions to local governments and schools. With that said, he has tried to get rid of funding for misleading, incorrect, or biased abstinence curricula. I think he took a slightly more compromising view because he hasn’t really had a majority and has to be bipartisan with a lot of his decisions. I think he didn’t alienate voters because he supports comprehensive sex education, but the slightly more compromising view was helpful to him in terms of people who would not normally vote democratic or support comprehensive sex education. In the case, ACLU of North California vs. Clovis Unified district, Central Valley teenager Taylor Ghimenti learned in her 9th grade sex education class that HIV-AIDS could be spread by kissing — a medically inaccurate statement. Taylor was taught only about abstinence as protection against sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies and given no information about condoms or contraception. Mica Ghimenti, her mother, wanted to change the Clovis Unified School District's high school sex education curriculum. The lawsuit alleges that the district is violating state law by teaching only about abstinence. The lawsuit against Clovis Unified, which serves 39,000 students in Fresno County, alleges that the abstinence-only curriculum is risking young people's health by denying them accurate information about how to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies. The final ruling has not come out yet. In the case, Maria Sulewski v. Erie County Health Department, Maria sued because her job was reassigned for refusing to teach 5th and 6th grade students about contraceptives. She is a Roman Catholic Nurse and would not do it because it violates her religion. The county's health board approved a $12,500 settlement. Sulewski received $5,000, with $7,500 going for her legal expenses, and was given her school nurse job back. In return, Sulewski dismissed her lawsuit and promised not to pursue any other claims against the health department, who maintain there was no wrongdoing and that the payment was not an admission of liability, but "solely paid to preclude additional litigation expenses." ACLU vs. HHS challenged federal funding of religious activities in a nationwide abstinence-only-until-marriage program, the Silver Ring Thing. Silver Ring Thing is a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit that promotes abstinence until marriage through its Web site, brochures, videos and seminars. Teenage graduates of the program, after signing a covenant "before God Almighty" to remain virgins, receive a silver ring inscribed with a Bible passage that the group renders as "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of sexual sin." The ACLU accused the Bush administration of spending federal tax dollars on an abstinence education program that promotes Christianity. Filed in federal court in Boston, the lawsuit alleges that the programs and educational materials distributed by Silver Ring Thing are "permeated with religion" and use "taxpayer dollars to promote religious content, instruction and indoctrination." In the settlement, HHS agreed that it will not fund the Silver Ring Thing’s abstinence-only-until-marriage education program as it is currently structured, and that any future funding is contingent on the Silver Ring Thing’s compliance with federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds to support religious activities. The Education department could be responsible for potential oversight in this department. State and local education departments in addition to the national education department could be responsible. There would need to be substantial budgetary support for comprehensive sex education. Obama is implementing this in the budget currently. Statistics show that most parents support comprehensive sex education, but there would have to be local hearings and parental committees to decide what comprehensive and scientifically accurate curricula is appropriate for their community. No one can be exempted from this policy. There is up to date research available that shows how successful comprehensive sex education is. Among teens aged 18-19, 41% report that they know little or nothing about condoms and 75% say they know little or nothing about the contraceptive pill (National Survey of Family Growth). In addition, many sexually experienced teens (46% of males and 33% of females) do not receive formal instruction about contraception before they first have sex (Center for Disease Control). With this in mind, if 86% of the decline in teen pregnancy rate between 1995 and 2002 was the result of dramatic improvements in contraceptive use, then clearly the teens need to be educated about these contraceptives so that they will protect themselves (American Journal of Public Health). Just because there has been a decline does not mean that the problem is solved, but the efforts to drop the rate by increased knowledge of contraceptives will add to the 86% decline for these same reasons. More than half (55%) of 7th-12th graders say they have looked up health information online in order to learn more about an issue affecting themselves or someone they know (Kaiser Family Foundation). The websites teens turn to for sexual health information are often inaccurate. For example, of 177 sexual health websites examined in a recent study, 46% of those addressing contraception and 35% of those addressing abortion contained inaccurate information (Journal for Adolescent Health). Teenagers are searching for the information; there is no way to avoid them finding something and high exposure to sexual content on television means that they are receiving this information regardless. The media glorifies sex and it can’t be hidden from teenagers by avoiding the topic or not teaching it. If comprehensive sex education is taught, at least students are receiving accurate and beneficial information. Further, comprehensive sex education is necessary, but it is also necessary that it is correct and effectively taught. Thirteen states require that the information presented in sex education classes be medically accurate and factual. However, a recent review of 13 commonly used abstinence-only curricula found that 11 had incorrect, misleading or distorted information (Guttmacher Institute). It is necessary that information be presented accurately and in an unbiased way. Abstinence can still be stressed in the curriculum, but the students do need to be aware of alternative forms of control. It is extremely difficult to stop a teenager from doing what they choose to do, especially by avoiding the topic. Conversation, information, and knowing how to be mentally and physically healthy are the best way to support this generation of teenagers. I want to implement a comprehensive sexual education course that promotes abstinence, but also educates about condoms and other forms of birth control. The populace must contact their policy makers and the media will likely play a large role. The Education Department will be in charge.