State Health Dept. in sex-ed dilemma

The state Department of Health has found itself in a tough spot on that most controversial of subjects: whether abstinence should be the only pregnancy- and disease-prevention method promoted in its sex-education programs.

To secure federal grant money from the Abstinence Education Program, the health department has to promise to promote only abstinence — not contraceptives or condoms. Last year, it received $800,000, which was used for an abstinence-focused advertising campaign and a media-literacy program that teaches kids how to resist sex-saturated media messages.

State law requires it to apply for the money, the only federal grant available to the health department for sex education.

But for the first time, the department is also bound by a new state law requiring that any sex-ed materials used in schools, including those developed by the Department of Health, teach not only abstinence but other methods of "preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."

At issue in obtaining the grant, then, is whether including those other methods is the same as promoting them.

"We have what appear to be competing laws," said Donn Moyer, spokesman for the Department of Health. "We're required by one law to apply for abstinence-only grants and by another law to include medically and scientifically accurate information in sex-ed materials."

Earlier this year, the health department applied for the grant. But it still hasn't heard from the grant providers, the Abstinence Education Program in the Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Fanning the controversy over the place of abstinence in teen sex-ed programs, a Washington Post story Sunday said at least 14 states are refusing to apply for the abstinence-only matching grants, and quoted officials from those states complaining that abstinence-only programs don't work. The whole program expires this year unless Congress reauthorizes it.

The story also quoted unnamed federal officials saying that Washington state and Ohio had applied but were "effectively making themselves ineligible" by stipulating they would use the money for "comprehensive sex education."

Some abstinence-only providers have accused the state of a bad-faith effort. If the state had really wanted to make sure it got the money, they say, then it would have earmarked the money for abstinence-program providers. "They wrote the application so they won't get the money," said LeAnna Benn, co-founder and national director of Teen-Aid, a Spokane-based nonprofit abstinence program. "It's about getting rid of groups who are committed to abstinence."

State officials vigorously deny the accusation. "We did make a good-faith effort," said Marla Russo, adolescent-pregnancy prevention coordinator for the state Department of Health. "We would welcome the money."

Kenneth Wolfe, spokesman for the Administration for Children and Families, said late Wednesday no final decision had been made about Washington's application. "It's one of two states that have problematic applications," he said. "Abstinence has to be taught with abstinence funding."

Russo says the health department is committed to "science-based, medically accurate work — what has been proven in the literature to be effective, whether that's water programs or teen-pregnancy prevention."

Moyer, the health department spokesman, said his agency's position hasn't changed throughout the controversy: "Our message has consistently been that abstinence education is a very important part of a comprehensive sex-education program, and leaving it out would be irresponsible — just as it would to ignore medically and scientifically accurate information.

"We're in the middle," he added. "This is a polarizing issue with people with strong opinions on both sides."

Carol M. Ostrom: 206-464-2249 or costrom@seattletimes.com