On the recordMarch 22, 1994
I rise in strong opposition to the gutting Unsoeld substitute and in strong support of the Doolittle amendment, which would encourage teenagers to practice abstinence as the best method of birth control and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. Our antidrug education programs tell young people that drug abuse is dangerous and that alcohol use is inappropriate for minors, who do not have the judgment or maturity to make responsible decisions in this area. We tell kids to just say no to drugs and alcohol abuse. It is a simple, clear message that young people can understand. It conveys the values we want to transmit about drug abuse. Why then, in the face of an AIDS epidemic, and with the explosion of teenage pregnancy and illegitimacy, don't we use the same message in our sex education classes? What's wrong with telling young people to just say no to sexual activity when they are too young to engage in it responsibly? This is not an issue of attempting to force one sectarian viewpoint on our public schools. Virtually every major religious tradition I can think of discourages premarital sex. Why? Because it makes sense. Teenagers who engage in early sexual activity are far more likely to become pregnant. They are more likely to drop out of school. They become vulnerable to deadly killer diseases like AIDS.
Source
govinfo.gov




