Ideology, not science, has been driving America's response to the devastative problem of teen pregnancy and STD/HIV infection. Investment of taxpayer funds in abstinence-only programs conflicts with scientific and medical research: abstinence only programs have never been proven effective and may result in riskier behavior by teenagers. This is unacceptable.

Montana teens need access to scientifically-accurate information to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases if and when they become sexually active. It's a public health issue.

A new study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found abstinence-only-until-marriage programs may unintentionally be encouraging alternate forms of sex, such as oral and anal sex, that are at higher risk of STDs in order for teens to keep their "technical virginity" in tact. The study also showed that those taking abstinence pledges were less likely to use condoms when they did engage in sexual activity.

The Journal of Adolescent Health study found that just 2 percent of youth who never took a "virginity pledge" said they had had anal or oral sex but not intercourse, compared with 13 percent of "consistent pledgers."

Other recent studies, such as the congressional report prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., have concluded that abstinence-only programs provide misinformation to teens about the effectiveness of contraception and condoms in preventing pregnancy and STD infection.

The report finds that over 80 percent of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two thirds of abstinence grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. For example one program tells young people that "you can get AIDS through sweat and tears" and "you have to perform 10 different steps to put on a condom." Students in these programs were also less likely to use contraception when they did have sex and were less likely to seek STD testing.

The abstinence-only curricula also treats stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact. One curriculum teaches that women need "financial support," while men need "admiration." Another instructs: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."

Widespread problems with the accuracy of abstinence-only curricula may help explain why these programs have not been shown to protect adolescents from sexually transmitted diseases and why youth who pledge abstinence are significantly less likely to make informed choices about precautions when they do have sex.

Responsible sex education programs, on the other hand, have demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex, reduced frequency of sex, and increased condom and contraceptive use. The common sense approach, where abstinence is an important part of sexual education along with information about how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy, allows educators to prepare teens with the necessary information to live healthy lives is the kind of policy we all should be able to agree on.

Jessica Rhoades is executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana.