The following article by Norman Wells was published in the Guardian on 7 December 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/07/comment.sexeducation
Polly Toynbee claims the small reduction we have seen in teenage conception rates “may be partly due to easier emergency contraception from local pharmacies” (Sex education works, so why is it not compulsory?, December 4). However, international studies have consistently shown that increased access to the morning-after pill has reduced neither abortion nor unintended pregnancy rates.
Our own study, which Toynbee dismisses as “a spurious story” and “evidence-proven nonsense”, reveals that not a single primary care trust was able to cite any evidence that the confidential provision of the morning-after pill in pharmacies has contributed to a reduction in under-16 conception rates.
This may sound counterintuitive. After all, if the morning-after pill works at all, it stands to reason that it does prevent at least some unwanted pregnancies from developing, and thus prevents at least some abortions. However, there is also evidence that the ready availability of contraception results in some young people becoming sexually active who would not otherwise have done so.
For almost a year following Victoria Gillick’s appeal court victory in 1984, under-16s were unable to obtain contraception without parental consent. The sex-education establishment and contraceptive industry protested that teenage pregnancy rates would rocket. But they didn’t. While under-16 attendances at family-planning clinics went down by a third, teenage conception rates remained the same, suggesting that the restriction on contraceptive services to under-16s led to a fall in underage sexual activity.
But not everybody regards less teenage sexual activity as a positive outcome. Some are wedded to the notion of “children’s reproductive-health rights” – a euphemism for the “right” of children to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse, with confidential access to contraception and abortion. Toynbee herself is dismissive of any attempt to discourage teenage sex, and even goes so far as to say: “It is good news … that more pregnant teenagers are opting for abortions.”Bearing in mind the long-term trauma experienced by many women after an abortion, this is hardly a cause for celebration.
“Abstinence teaching doesn’t work,” Toynbee asserts, while sex education “taught well” can serve as the panacea for any number of social ills. But this all prompts the question as to what “work” and “taught well” mean.
The organisations demanding compulsory sex education in all schools share a strong hostility towards teaching children the positive benefits of saving sex for marriage. Separating sex from marriage has not only led to high rates of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and abortions, but is also a major contributory factor in divorce and family breakdown, with all the associated human misery and adverse social consequences. Young people need to hear that there is a better way.
Schools must remain accountable to parents who bear the primary responsibility for their children’s care and nurture; and parents must retain the freedom to withdraw their children from sex-education lessons they believe will do more harm than good.
· Norman Wells is the director of the Family Education Trust and co-wrote, with Helena Hayward, the report Waking Up to the Morning-After Pill.