The Pros And Cons Of Heritage Keepers

Heritage Keepers is an abstinence based curriculum used across the schools of America. One of their textbooks reads, “Females need to be careful with what they wear, because males are looking! The girl might be thinking fashion, while the boy is thinking sex. For this reason girls have an added responsibility to wear modest clothing that doesn’t invite lustful thoughts” (Harvard School of Public Health). Another curriculum titled I’m in Charge of the FACTS explains, “Young persons may sense affection and even infatuation for a member of the same-sex. This is not the same as ‘being’ a homosexual. Any same sex ‘sexual experimentation’ can be confusing to a young person and should be strongly discouraged”(Harvard School of Public Health). The

Abstinence-only education fails to present students with adequate information regarding pregnancy prevention, thus decreasing contraceptive use and increasing unplanned pregnancies. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the states Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana - each of which require abstinence education provision- possessed the three highest teen birth rates in the year 2020. It is important to note that this data was retrieved prior to the recent revocation of the constitutional right to abortion in the 2022 court case Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization. Though it is important to consider the role of reproductive rights within sex education. Abstinence-only education has been known to misinform its students concerning the implications of abortion. One curriculum claimed that abortion can increase the chances of premature birth in a subsequent pregnancy up to 300%. Which, as explained by the Harvard School of Public Health, is simply untrue. Abortion poses no consequences to future fertility. It is an extremely safe procedure, and if anything poses less risks than a live delivery. Other curricula inaccurately insinuate that abortion causes increased suicide rates, sterility, and ectopic pregnancy. These programs do not provide enough or accurate information regarding reproductive health,

Nevertheless, there are no existing federally funded comprehensive programs. When it comes down to it, one means of sex education provides enough medically accurate information to teach safe sex, while the other instructs that all sex is disgraceful with both a lack of information, and an abundance of misinformation. One holds no bias and presents students with strictly factual information, while the other maintains sexist ideals. One properly educates students of the importance of consent, while the other blames the victims and excuses the perpetrators of sexual violence (rhetorical devices). The superiority of a comprehensive based sex education is so evident, it begs the question, why is abstinence-only sex education still in use? Abstinence-based programs are heavily rooted in religion, yet not all students share the same religion or are even religious to begin with. It is unjust to have religious principles dictate classroom teachings, especially when said religious principles are in place of scientific fact. A comprehensive sex education would not only halt the negative repercussions of abstinence-based sex education, but actually educate students in an appropriate manner. As high school students, we can advocate for change within our district and