79-07-B6
- Main Page \ Reagan Radio Commentaries \ 1979
| << Previous Broadcast | Next Broadcast >> |
Sex Education[edit]
Transcript[edit]Do you remember when we were told that the increase in the divorce rate and the number of children born out of wedlock were problems sex education in the schools could solve? I'll be right back. Recently a Los Angeles newspaper editorialized about "the increasing birthrate among unwed teenager mothers", calling it a "personal disaster for them and their children and a social disaster for the country." The writer then confirmed his opinion by citing statistics developed in a two- year study by a task force of the House Select Committee on population. The figures are indeed sobering; one million adolescent girls get pregnant each year and a third of them have abortions. Of the 600,000 who gave birth last year almost half, 250,000, were under 17 years of age. About 70 percent of the pregnant girls do not finish high school and 90 percent of those under age 15 drop out of school. In 1976 about half of the public funds expended for "Aid to families with dependent children", $4.6 billion, went to mothers who first gave birth as teenagers. Births among unwed teenagers have more than doubled since 1960 and the rate of births to girls under 15 has increased 33 percent in the last 10 years; 50 percent of unwed mothers are in their teens. The editorial went on to support proposals by a member of Congress to increase funds to extend family planning services to more teenagers and for an extension of sex education in our schools. It was pointed out that these proposals could lead to a saving of money because so many of these teenage mothers became dependent on welfare. I've never been against saving tax dollars, but I wonder if our first concern shouldn't be for saving these girls from tragedy which could very well affect their entire lives. I'm not sure that more sex education, as it is presently t aught, is the answer. Please note that I said, "as it is presently taught". I'm sure all of us are aware of the importance of young people knowing, as we used to say, "the facts of life" . But in our concern lest "sex education" in the schools violate religious beliefs, have we been teaching sex as a purely physiological function, like eating when you are hungry? Can we completely divorce sex education, as I'm afraid we do, from any association with moral behavior without implanting in young minds that it has no more significance than eating a sandwich -- so why not? A California scholar has written an essay, "Turning Children Into Sex Experts". The author says "The seventh grader in my city is advised to set for himself a purely 'personal standard of sexual behavior.' No religious views, no community moral standards are to deflect him from his overriding purposes of self-discovery, self- assertion and self-gratification." A judge has advocated lowering the age of consent to 13 because youngsters are more sexually active these days. Before we accept the Congressman's idea that more sex education is an answer to teenage pregnancy, shouldn't we ask if anyone has done a comparison of the situation before there was such education in the schools and after. I've had a report from one district that the venereal disease rate among young people in that district went up 800 percent in the first few years after sex education became a party of the curriculum. Before we do more of what we are doing, why don't we find out if what we are doing is part of the problem. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
Details[edit]
| |||||||||||
Added Notes[edit] |
