Breaking Down Myths About Comprehensive Sex Ed

The following post was written by Julie, a Planned Parenthood Arizona intern and an Arizona State University student majoring in biological anthropology and women and gender studies. She has a passion for reproductive health, and hopes one day to pursue medical school and become a provider for an organization like Planned Parenthood.

teensOpponents of sex education take many forms. Some are large organizations with a broad mission of promoting conservative values, while others are small, local groups who work to establish abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in schools. They cite anything from “reversing the decline in moral values in our nation” to “restraining evil by exposing the works of darkness” as a mission statement, but they all share a common theme: the mischaracterization of sexuality education programs through inaccurate descriptions of research, and the use of fear tactics to promote their own agenda.

Below, you’ll find some of the common myths that opponents preach about comprehensive sexuality education, plus the research-based facts that debunk them.

Myth: Sex education only encourages teens to have more sex.

Fact: Evidence shows that teens who receive sexuality education wait longer to have sex and have fewer partners than teens who don’t. Young people going through puberty are naturally curious about their sexuality, especially when they’re bombarded with sexual imagery through TV, movies, and the Internet. Comprehensive sex education doesn’t pique their interest, it gives them the tools to understand and interpret the sexual messages they receive on a daily basis.

Myth: Premarital pregnancy and STD rates have skyrocketed since sex education began in the 1960s.

Fact: This is a blatant untruth that opponents of sexuality education can’t even back up with data. Teen pregnancy rates increased slightly in the mid-20th century, but CDC reports show that national averages have been on a steady decline since then. In fact, states that require comprehensive sex education in their classrooms have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy in the country. The numbers don’t lie — comprehensive sex ed works. Continue reading

Mythbusting: Does Abortion Cause Breast Cancer?

breast-examNew England Journal of Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association. Annals of Internal MedicineJournal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong. But how can most laypeople differentiate between these medical journals? The dry, pithy titles seem to tell you exactly what’s underneath their covers. So if I told you that, according to a study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, abortion increases risk for breast cancer, would you believe me? Well, why not? The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which publishes the journal, sounds legit.


Health decisions must be guided by reliable evidence, and when agenda-driven policies misinform, patients cannot make informed decisions.


Except that AAPS is infamous for its agenda-driven views, and its journal is used to deny climate change and the dangers of secondhand smoking, promote the debunked idea that vaccines cause autism, advocate for closed borders in overtly racist anti-immigration pieces, reject the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, and perpetuate a far-right political worldview. The organization opposes any government involvement in health care, including the FDA, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, and regulation of the medical profession.

Medical journals, like all scientific journals, are where researchers share and critique each other’s work. Before anything is published it undergoes “peer review,” in which experts evaluate studies for quality — good study design, reasonable interpretation of results, etc. The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, however, has been criticized for placing ideology over the presentation of meticulously gathered scientific evidence, and is not indexed in academic databases like MEDLINE. In 2007, AAPS joined conservative organizations in filing a lawsuit against the FDA, arguing against emergency contraception’s over-the-counter status. So, when the journal publishes articles purporting a link between abortion and breast cancer, we should all be raising our eyebrows in collective skepticism.

You might have heard abortion opponents’ claims that abortion can raise one’s risk for breast cancer later in life. So let’s get something out of the way right now: The very best scientific evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. Prominent medical organizations, including the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the World Health Organization, have all examined the entirety of the research and found that the largest and most methodologically sound studies fail to reveal a link between abortion and breast cancer. Yet still opponents of abortion include this factoid in misinformation campaigns to instill fear into people making difficult, private decisions, often during periods of vulnerability. Continue reading

Mythbusting: Does Emergency Contraception Cause Abortion?

Plan BThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported recently that one in nine sexually active women, or 5.8 million women, has used emergency contraceptive pills, such as Plan B. Emergency contraception is a woman’s back-up method to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and women report using it when they feel their contraceptive method has failed, such as a broken condom, or they do not use a regular contraceptive like birth control pills.


The latest scientific evidence shows that Plan B works mainly by delaying ovulation — not by affecting a fertilized egg.


Some conservative politicians have been stating publicly that emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), such as Plan B, cause abortions. They may believe that life begins at conception (fertilization of the egg by the sperm) and argue that ECPs disrupt a fertilized egg’s ability to implant in the uterus, which they consider equivalent to abortion. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and experts from the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health consider a pregnancy to be established when a fertilized egg settles itself on the wall of the uterus — implantation. A woman is most likely to become pregnant when she ovulates, which is usually about two weeks before her next period. Sperm can live for up to three days. So, if an egg is fertilized, there are still possibly six to 12 days before the implantation may take place.

When ECPs were first developed and information about them was submitted to the FDA for market approval, the drug manufacturers included mention of every possible mechanism on how the pill might work to prevent pregnancy. This included wording about preventing or delaying ovulation, making the sperm or egg less able to meet, and possibly preventing implantation. However, the latest scientific evidence has shown that ECPs such as Plan B mainly work by delaying ovulation — Plan B does not affect implantation and has no effect on existing pregnancies. Several prominent researchers have stated that if in fact Plan B disrupted implantation, it would be 100 percent effective at preventing a pregnancy, and that is not the case. Continue reading