The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform received testimony from a variety of panelists Wednesday to determine the effectiveness of federally funded Abstinence-Only programs in the nation's public schools. 

The government has spent up to $1.3 billion over the last ten years to fund the programs, which advocate abstinence until marriage and avoid teaching students about contraceptive use such as condoms and birth control, often undermining the effectiveness of such methods and dissuading teenagers from their use.

Panelists included members of the medical community, youth educators, the Department of Health and Human Services as well as Rep. Lois Capps (D-California) and Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), who were on opposing sides of this often partisan issue.

The debate surrounding abstinence-only education tends to focus on the effectiveness of teaching youth to hold off sexual activity until marriage and whether this method reduces incidents of teenage pregnancy and lowers the chances of teenagers contracting sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS and Human Papilloma virus. There is a wide-ranging consensus that these programs are primarily based on ideology, not scientific evidence, and that they persistently contribute to misleading young people about the benefits of contraception to reduce the risk of becoming infected.

"Abstinence-only programs teach only abstinence," said Committee Chairman Henry Waxman in his opening statement. "In federally funded abstinence-only programs, teenagers cannot receive information on other methods of disease prevention and contraception, other than failure rates."

He went on to cite statistics that show 1 in 4 teenage girls in the United States has a sexually transmitted disease, 30% of girls become pregnant before the age of 20, and that thousands of young adults become HIV-infected each year.

"If we're serious about responding to these challenges," Waxman continued, "we must base our policy on the best available science and evidence, not ideology."

What followed then was a seemingly endless string of statements by the various committee members as well as Rep. Capps, a longtime public health worker who supports a more comprehensive approach to sex education, and Sen. Brownback, an enthusiastic proponent of the abstinence approach.

But perhaps the most striking testimony came from two youth representatives who experienced abstinence-only education first-hand in their respective public school careers.

Max Siegel is a 23-year-old gay man who contracted HIV at the age of 17 by having unprotected sex with a man six years his senior. Siegel is currently a policy associate for the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Family.

He cited his experiences in Junior High School, where he was taught about abstinence-only by his gym coach who often seemed "visibly uncomfortable...[conveying] to us that sexuality was not to be discussed extensively in an educational setting."

"Even if it were," Siegel continued, "[he] made it clear that only one kind of sexuality—heterosexuality ending in marriage—was acceptable to talk about. Already aware of my sexual orientation, I found no value in his speech. It did not speak to me and my life. It might as well not have happened.”

"My classmates and I required non-judgmental, practical information that was tailored to our individual needs. Unfortunately, this abstinence-only lecture was the only education I received on the subject. As such, I was ill-equipped to make responsible decisions about my sexual health."

While Siegel acknowledged that abstinence-only did not force him to have unprotected sex, it did contribute to a mentality that made it difficult for him to approach the topic of condom-use with his sexual partner.

"My coach could have told me that gay people have value and that delaying sex could benefit me too, " he said. "He could have talked to me about how essential condoms were to stopping the spread of infection...how to navigate weighty topics such as emotions, love and condom use within a relationship."

Another young panelist, 21-year-old Shelby Knoxx was also present to offer up a dose of youth perspective. Having been raised in a Southern Baptist Family in Lubbock, Texas, she talked about the high rate of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among young people in her community. At fifteen she was coaxed by her church to undergo a virginity pledge, stating that these types of pledges and abstinence education were predominantly targeted at girls under the assumption that they had to keep themselves "pure" to avoid disappointing their families and future spouses.

"Some of my friends...were having sex," she said, "but taking the pledge to appease their suspicious parents or to inoculate themselves against the slurs reserved for those whose refusal to pledge was seen as a de facto admission of sexual sin."

She went on to state that while purity pledges have traditionally been part of church-based abstinence programs, they have quickly spread into secular school-based programs, creating an environment where teenage girls increasingly engage in risky behavior, like  oral and anal sex, because they believe such activities provide "a loophole in their pledge."

The same pastor who presided over Knoxx's purity pledge taught a more secularized abstinence program at her high school, where he downplayed the effectiveness of condoms, calling them "flimsy pieces of latex".

"We were all too intimidated or embarrassed to ask for clarification," said Knoxx. "But it seemed as if sex with a condom was equivalent to sex without one."

She cited a demonstration used by her pastor in which he "pulled an often squirming and reluctant—and always female—volunteer onto the stage, took out a toothbrush that looked like it had been used to scrub toilets, and asked if she would brush her teeth with it."

The student would answer 'no', and in response to the same question regarding a clean toothbrush, would answer in the affirmative. Upon this, Knoxx stated, her pastor would turn to the assembly and announce: "If you have sex before marriage, you are the dirty toothbrush."

This demonstration, Knoxx said, "left little doubt as to our worth as a future spouse or partner if we were to engage in sex before marriage."

Despite the compelling testimonies of Knoxx and Siegel, committee members often seemed more interested in a mind-numbing array of conflicting statistics and study results than in the experiences of the two young panelists. And while their contributions to the hearing were duly acknowledged by members from both sides of the aisle, the discussion descended at points into tired, partisan squabbling.

At one point, Republican committee member Mark Souder from Indiana called the Chairman to task for having only one proponent of abstinence education—Dr. Stan Weed, director of the Institute for Research and Evaluation—present on the second panel.

"Let me say something, Mr. Chairman," he said, turning to Rep. Waxman. "We have six witnesses on the majority side—and one on the minority side. This is as stacked a panel as I have ever experienced as a staffer or a member in the House."

He also sternly criticized Knoxx and Siegel for their testimonies, calling them largely "irrelevant to this debate" because he saw their experiences as the result of localized abstinence education that had little to do with federally funded programs.

"Abstinence education programs coming out of Washington...have to meet certain criteria," he said. "They generally aren't random at a local level. That a church came into an independent program is not likely a federal program."

Knoxx replied by stating the pastor who taught at her school "was operating within a secular capacity within the school."

But Souder did not relent, commenting on what he viewed as an "ideological" bias from the panelists. Once again addressing the Chairman, he stated bluntly: "This was represented as a scientific panel. Mr. Siegel and Ms. Knoxx have been very articulate, but they are not scientists...it was false representation."

Chairman Waxman offered his own sharp rebuke to Rep. Souder.

"We have accepted every witness that has been recommended to us from the Republican side of the aisle," he said. "In matter of fact, we have never turned down a request from the Republicans on any witness at any hearing."

"I just think that an attack on people's views, calling them ideological when they are scientists and medical professionals," Waxman continued, "is trying to turn the tables by calling them ideological when in fact I think you're attacking them from an ideological perspective."