Anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers

First, the slide presentation, as you will remember I said earlier, was designed by Dr. Joseph McIlhaney of the Texas-based Medical Institute for Sexual Health and is called, "Safe Sex."

When asked, according to a November 17, 2002 Denver Post story by Marie Cocco, if people who are neither abstinent nor monogamous should use condoms, Dr. McIlhaney replied, "That's very simplistic and has proven so far not to be effective." That is a very dangerous and deadly statement and clearly out of touch with the conclusions of mainstream scientific and medical research. As such the legitimacy and accuracy of Dr. McIlhaney's materials is suspect from the outset. Dr. McIlhaney's organization is biased in favor of an abstinence-only till marriage sex education curriculum with a religious and political agenda in common with the Alpha Center's and his material contains inaccurate

and outright false information about condoms, STD's and HIV.

For example, on Dr. McIlhaney's organization's web site is this information. "For which STD's do condoms effectively reduce the transmission?" - (Answer) "Condoms provide the best (though not complete) protection against HIV and gonorrhea. They are less effective protecting against herpes type 2, trichomonas and Chlamydia. Condoms provide little protection against bacterial vaginosis and HPV (the most common STD)." The web page cited for this information was Cates and Stone, Family Planning, Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Contraceptive Choice: A Literature Update - Part I, Family Planning Perspectives, 1992.

However, nowhere in the body of that article in Family Planning Perspectives is McIlhaney's statement verified with perhaps the exception of one study from Finland that found that condoms had no protective effect against cervical human papillomavirus infections (HPV).

"When asked.if people who are neither abstinent nor monogamous should use condoms, Dr. Joe McIlhaney (provides the Alpha Center with their STD/HIV slides) replied, 'That's very simplistic and has proven so far not to be effective."

Instead the article says, "The recent scientific literature includes numerous reviews concerning the effects of different contraceptives on the risk of STD transmission. In general, they come to the same conclusion-condoms alone, spermicides alone, and combinations of mechanical and chemical methods all provide good protection against most STDs."

It goes on to say, "A 1990 review of the current literature on condoms addressed their quality, use and effectiveness. If properly used, condoms protect the wearer against infection by preventing direct contact between the penis and cervical, vaginal, or rectal secretions and lesions. They also protect his partner from exposure to infected semen, discharge or penile lesions."

And this, "A growing number of laboratory studies have found that condoms provide an impervious barrier to most sexually transmitted pathogens. In experimental settings, condoms have been shown to be effective barriers against herpes simplex virus, Chlamydia trachomatis, cytomega10virus, and HIV. In Costa Rica, women whose partners used condoms were

significantly less likely to have been infected with herpes simplex type 2 than were those whose partners used other methods, and increasing durations of condom use were associated with a decreasing risk of genital herpes."

And this, "Studies have shown that condoms have a greater aggregate protective impact on upper than on lower genital tract infections, although this difference probably reflects protection against cervical gonorrhea and Chlamydia.Three cross-sectional studies in the United States have demonstrated lower rates of HIV seropositivity among high-risk women whose partners regularly used condoms than among comparable women whose partners did not.In Florida, regular use of condoms by AIDS patients was related to a marked reduction over time in the risk of HIV seroconversion in their partners."

Clearly, McIlhaney's conclusion that condoms provide the best though not complete protection against HIV and Gonorrhea and are less effective as protection against Herpes and Chlamydia, based on this article is deliberately misleading and outright untrue.

"The Alpha Center never made a distinction between product failure rate verses user failure rate in the ability of condoms to protect a person from HIV or any particular STD and that is a crucial distinction that students should be fully informed about."

ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Dr. McIlhaney's web site page "The Facts About Chlamydia" says, "Condoms probably reduce the risk of Chlamydia transmission among sexually active people. Studies of condoms in actual use, however, show that condoms do not consistently prevent Chlamydia infection." Dr. McIlhaney offers no cite for this conclusion he makes on his web site and insinuates by that misleading statement, that the condom itself fails in actual use. That is simply untrue, as I have previously pointed out. A distinction must be made between a product failure rate, approximately 2 percent, and the user failure rate approximately 12 to 13 percent, because mainstream scientific studies have verified that with improved user rate comes not just the reduction of risk of acquiring HIV or STDs but the actual prevention of transmission.

Further, how dangerous and deceptive is it for Dr. McIlhaney's curriculum, as articulated by Andrea Barber of the Alpha Center, to say, imply, or insinuate that even perfect condom use only provides risk reduction from {all}

STDs or that condoms provide risk reduction for some STDs but won't work one-hundred percent of the time, again implying that condoms themselves fail to protect persons rather than the truth that product failure rate is approximately 2 percent. The Alpha Center never made a distinction between product failure rate verses user failure rate in the ability of condoms to protect a person from HIV or any particular STD and that is a crucial distinction that students should be fully informed about.

Our children deserve to know that so they will understand the importance of learning and adhering to correct and consistent contraceptive and condom usage. "Practice makes perfect" we tell our children about sports they engage in for example, and that is the same message sexuality education programs should be stressing when it comes to contraceptive and condom use, whether they are going to be sexually active now or whether they wait until they are in an adult committed relationship, including marriage.

"Studies of sexually active persons show that correct and consistent use of latex condoms is highly effective in preventing HIV infection and other STDS."

The World Health Organization (WHO) said in Fact Sheet # 243, "Effectiveness of Male Latex Condoms in Protecting Against Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Infections, June 2000, on their web site:

Prevention of Pregnancy
"Estimated pregnancy rates during perfect use of condoms, that is for those who report using the method exactly as it should be used (correctly) and at every act of intercourse (consistently), is 3% at 12 months. The most frequently cited condom effectiveness rate is for typical use, which includes perfect and imperfect use (i.e. not used at every act of intercourse, or used incorrectly). The pregnancy rate during typical use can be much higher (10-14%) than for perfect use, but this is due primarily to inconsistent and incorrect use, not to condom failure. Condom failure - the device breaking or slipping off completely during intercourse - is uncommon."

Disease Prevention
The World Health Organization said, "Laboratory studies have found that viruses

(including HIV) do not pass through intact latex condoms even when devices are stretched or stressed. In Thailand, the promotion by the government of 100% condom use by commercial sex workers led to dramatic increase in the use of condoms (from 14% in 1990 to 94% in 1994); an equally dramatic decline in the nation-wide numbers of bacterial STD cases (from 410,406 cases in 1997 to 27,362 cases in 1994); and reduced HIV prevalence in Thai soldiers."

The most convincing data on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV infection has been generated by prospective studies undertaken on serodiscordant couples, when one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not. These studies show that, with consistent condom use, the HIV infection rate among uninfected partners was less than 1% per year. Also, in situations where one partner is definitely infected, inconsistent condom use can be as risky as not using condoms at all."

Additionally, remember and review the evidence from (A) above, which further confirms this statement on McIlhaney's web site is a false statement. Drs. William L. Roper, Herbert B. Peterson, and James W. Curran, all of the CDC, said in the CDC HIV/AIDS Prevention Newsletter, 1993, "Studies of sexually active persons show that correct and consistent use of latex condoms is highly effective in PREVENTING HIV infection and other STDs, INCLUDING Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Genital Ulcers, and Herpes Simplex Virus infection." (I first accessed this commentary on the Safer Sex web site on June 28, 2002.)

The Alpha Center, like Dr. McIlhaney, believes and really would prefer to state plainly and outright that condoms fail to protect people from STDS or HIV, (as they did in my daughter's class in 2001: "Condoms were meant to protect you from pregnancy not HIV"). But either because the outcry by this parent and the district in 2001 was loud and clear and or they were being observed in the presentations I sat in on, they now offered statements that are half-true and half-false. It was very clear to me that all of the Alpha Center presenters, knowing who I was, struggled with how it was they framed or

phrased certain things, particularly as it related to condoms. Most evidentiary of that was the Alpha Center's Andrea Barber's presentation of McIlhaney's STD curriculum at Lesher Junior High.

In the STD presentation using Dr. McIlhaney's curriculum and slides, Barber said all of the following:

Lesher Junior High School
May 9, 2003 #1 Smith's Class:

".If a person has AIDS, a condom can prevent in some cases, won't always protect because it can slip or break. not effective.{but} if having sex using one better than not. If outside of area condom covers could contract it {speaking of skin-to-skin STDs} Condoms won't always protect you.Consistent condom use can reduce risk if used consistently 100 percent of the time. if you have made up your mind to have sex, need to do all you can to protect yourself.Condoms not always going to keep you safe - We see persons all the time at the Alpha Center who thought using a condom was safe, but it wasn't. don't put all your hope in a condom, abstinence offers the only 100 percent protection, condoms don't provide absolute protection."

"SEICUS notes that McIlhaney's curriculum says that in the manufacturing end,
(of condoms) the FDA allows 3 or 4 holes per 1,000.
that misrepresents the standards used by the FDA to determine whether a
batch of condoms can be marketed in the United States."

Lesher Junior High
May 9, 2003 #2 Smith's Class Barber said:

"Condoms are more effective with fluid STDs and less effective with direct (skin-to-skin) STDs.I Encourage condom {use} if you're going to be sexually active.Consistent every time you have sex or sexual contact, 100 percent of the time.{A condom} can't totally cover the genital area {and they} are not going to protect you from every type of disease...even perfect use only provides risk reduction from STDS. {condoms provide} risk reduction for some STDs and won't work one-hundred percent of the time.Don't want you to think a condom works 100 percent of the time."

When Barber said, "Condoms are more effective with fluid STDs and less effective with direct (skin-to-skin) STDs.{A condom} can't totally cover the genital area {and they} are not going to protect you from every type of disease," she is not being entirely forthcoming with students and misleads students by what she doesn't say and how she says it. Condoms are not less effective in

protecting a person from skin-to-skin STDs providing the condom covers the area of the skin where the infection is. Saying or insinuating otherwise is wrong, irresponsible, and dangerous.

Studies already cited in this report, show that 100 percent correct and consistent condom use does more than reduce the risk to STDs and HIV, it prevents the spread of HIV and STDs that are bacterial, viral, or skin-to-skin contact STDs providing they are present in the area covered by the condom.

By encouraging condom use if a person decides to be sexually active while at the same time making very general sweeping statements to students insinuating that a condom isn't going to protect them from "every type of disease" is dangerously misleading. It is also very confusing to these impressionable junior high students who think that "experts" their teachers bring into the classroom are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

"SIECUS also expressed great concern because (McIlhaney's) curriculum
is fear-based, uses shame and scare tactics 'to promote the message that abstinence until marriage is the only acceptable choice for adolescents."

The organization SIECUS, (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) critiqued Dr. McIlhaney's 'Safe Sex' curriculum on their web site. Regarding how the curriculum portrays condoms, SIECUS says it calls condoms ineffective and even dangerous. SIECUS makes the point I made above that there's a failure to distinguish between product failure rate and user failure rate.

For example, SIECUS notes that McIlhaney's curriculum says that in the manufacturing end, the FDA allows 3 or 4 holes per 1,000. But, says SIECUS, "that misrepresents the standards used by the FDA to determine whether a batch of condoms can be marketed in the United States. In random testing, if four condoms in a batch of 1,000 are defective in any way, the entire lot is discarded. (CDC -The Effectiveness of Condoms, Update-August 3, 1993.)" McIlhaney's curriculum says condoms have a 7.9% breakage rate and a 7.2% slippage rate. At Lesher Junior High Andrea Barber said, "If a person has AIDS, a condom can prevent {its transmission} in some cases - yes - but it won't always protect you. It can slip and break." Then Barber adds, "If you're having

sex using a condom is better than not." In and of itself those statements are at odds with each other and can confuse students and lead them to believe that since a condom "can't always protect them from HIV and STDs," why bother.

But SEICUS notes that those statistics on condom slippage and breakage are from a study published in Family Planning Perspectives that was conducted to determine failure rates for condoms. The study, says SIECUS, "actually found that 7 out of 405 condoms, or 1.7 percent, broke. This study did, however, report that 7.9% of the condoms EITHER broke or slipped off and that of the remaining condoms, 7.2% slipped off during withdrawal. The investigators attribute the slippage during withdrawal to user failure. In addition, they state that some participants reported that the condom did not remain on the penis during intercourse because it was deliberately removed, and they acknowledge that poorly worded questions could have allowed the participants to answer that the condom did not stay on without indicating that it was intentionally removed."

It is crucial that we are completely honest with our children. We should be honest and accurate about the difference between the product failure rate of a condom and the user failure rate so they come to understand that condom users are in control of the condom's effectiveness a minimum of 98% of the time.

SEICUS says, "If students were trained to negotiate condom use and to use condoms properly every time they have intercourse, these problems {slippage and breakage} could be significantly reduced."

SIECUS also expressed great concern because the curriculum is fear-based, uses shame and scare tactics "to promote" says SIECUS, "the message that abstinence until marriage is the only acceptable choice for adolescents." Information about contraceptives is for the most part omitted or portrayed as difficult to use or ineffective. SIECUS is also concerned because the 75 slides contain "erroneous statistics, exaggerated and erroneous medical information. {and} information in the text is often not footnoted, making verification of

sources difficult." SIECUS says that studies that are cited, "are often misquoted and medical misinformation about STDs and HIV/AIDS is prevalent."

SIECUS is concerned too because while the name of the organization suggests it carries out original research, "the Institute's publications are based largely on anecdotal data gathered by Dr. McIlhaney."

The 75 slides include 40 discussing STDs including HIV/AIDS that portray severe advanced cases of these diseases designed, says SIECUS, to scare teens instead of "helping them to recognize the signs of these diseases." I did witness several of these types of slides.

SEICUS notes McIlhaney's curriculum also says that pre-marital sexual activity WILL result in certain negative outcomes, including damaged family relationships, lower self-esteem and poor emotional health, inability to be normal or healthy, and infertility as an inevitable result of STDs.

SEICUS also found that McIlhaney's curriculum attempts to convince teens that they are more susceptible to STDs than adults, stating, "The cervix of a teenage girl has a lining called ectropian.that nourishes STD germs; as women reach their 20's or have a baby, the ectropian is replaced by the tougher lining of the vagina." (text accompanying slide 41). In fact, in Mr. Smith's class at Lesher Junior High on May 9, as Andrea Barber of the Alpha Center presented McIlhaney's STD slides, she said that, "teens are at a higher risk for STDs {because there are} differences in immunity. A {teen} girl's cervix is more susceptible to an STD than older women in their 20's and 30's because it is moist, glossy, and tender." That does not even sound reasonable.

SIECUS notes that such statements reveal several misunderstandings about female anatomy and inaccurately suggests that all teenage girls have a cervix with an ectropian lining. While some teenage girls do, SIECUS says, it is a normal condition that is found in pregnant women; women who have been exposed to DES in utero; women who take birth control pills; and very young women who have never been pregnant. An extropian lining

occurs when cells from the canal of the cervix spread to the outer surface of the cervix. While, says SIECUS, it is true that if this condition exists, it is easier for bacteria to thrive, vaginal cells do not eventually cover the cervix.

In the next class in Mr. Smith's room, Barber said, as she went from slide to slide, a teenage girl's "immune system is not fully grown yet and is not as good at fighting it off," it being Chlamydia and then added, "the same {is true} with other STDs." SEICUS noted the same in McIlhaney's slide text. It states that, "Teenagers in general have lower levels of antibodies, not specific antibodies to STDs, but general resistance that we all acquire from exposure to various germs as we go through life." SEICUS said this medically false statement is attributed to a doctor who "did not have any studies to prove {the assertion about lower antibody levels} but feels it is a reality." (text accompanying slide 41). I agree with SEICUS, "using speculation rather than solid, medical information in an educational program is inappropriate and unethical," and, I would add, deliberately deceptive.

"The implication that STDs can be easily detected and treated stands in stark contrast to {McIlhaney's} curriculum's repeated message that STDs are difficult
to diagnose and cause terrible lifelong consequences."

When I heard these statements, which Barber never provided any proof for, other than the slide itself, they certainly didn't sound on the surface plausible, correct or scientifically based and were statements about STDs that I had never before heard.

SEICUS also talked about the confusing message given students when abstinence-only till marriage HIV/STD sex education programs, like McIlhaney's Safe Sex slide program or The Alpha Center's H.E.A.R.T Choices program, consistently "emphasizes that sexual behavior will lead to serious STD's, infertility, and compromised self-esteem but, at the same time, in order to make the case that secondary virginity (choosing abstinence until marriage after a period of sexual activity) is a responsible, healthy choice for those who have already engaged in sexual behavior, these programs must say, as McIlhaney's curriculum states:

"What about a future partner? Might they not have STDs if they have had sex before? - Certainly, they could. So, when a couple is considering marriage, the one who has had sex (or if both have) can get tested for STD -

any diseases present can be treated." (Text accompanying slide 75)

The implication that STDs can be easily detected and treated, says SIECUS, "stands in stark contrast to the curriculum's repeated message that STDs are difficult to diagnose and cause terrible lifelong consequences."

It is the same type of confusion presented to students in the contrast between an Alpha Center volunteer wadding up a 20 dollar bill to demonstrate to students that they are valuable no matter what their past and then suggesting a few minutes later through the "Crowed Bed Game" that because of a past that includes sex before marriage with one or more sexual partners, they WILL experience a lack of fidelity and trust in their marriage, and that the marriage will or could in all likelihood end in divorce. These mixed messages are a direct result of the Alpha Center's philosophical beliefs and religious bias regarding sexuality education, marriage, abortion, and contraceptives, rather than a commitment to give our students accurate scientifically based information about sexuality, STDS/HIV/AIDS, contraceptives, and condoms.

www.LifeAndLibertyForWomen.org

info@LifeAndLibertyForWomen.org

your donations are greatly appreciated