The sound of crickets chirping - media's response to new abstinence study

Whenever a new study is published that "proves" once and for all abstinence until marriage programs don't work, you hear about it on the news. Both headlines and bloglines across the nation scream "Abstinence-only programs don't work - fund Comprehensive Sexuality Education programs instead!"

But when a study shows that abstinence until marriage programs do work, all you hear are the sounds of crickets chirping...

For example, last week the study "Abstinence" or "Comprehensive" Sex Education? was released. The study found the following:

We have found that well-designed and well-implemented abstinence education programs can reduce teen sexual activity by as much as one half for periods of one to two years.

The study further criticizes the recently published Mathematica study, which is promoted by the media and the left as the be-all-and-end-all final-word-on-the-issue study proving that abstinence until marriage programs don't work. Yet, as of today, I haven't found any mainstream or alternative press stories on this new study.

This isn't a new problem, for example, contraceptive and abortion friendly organizations like the Guttmacher Institute and researchers like Dr. John Santelli are able to create headlines across the country with their studies and statements, without question as to the accuracy of their work. It's almost as if they wave a magic wand and create headlines...

Now, when a report on this issue is produced from researchers like Dr. Stan Weed, there seemingly aren't many headlines from the press or left leaning blogs.

I wonder what the Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy thinks about this study - they were pleased with the findings of the Mathematica study - I'll bet they won't be to thrilled about this study.

On that note, I mentioned Dr. John Santelli - read this summary of a report produced by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which criticizes two of his and his co-author's works... I've read many of his studies and cite them often in articles I write, and I find this critique to be on the money. Unfortunately, the media treats his studies as if they are infallible, and as soon as he makes statements, headlines across the nation report echo his words and conclusions.

You may wonder why pro-life advocates even use his studies, despite the problems mentioned in the critique. One reason is that using the contraception lobby's own data and research eliminates the claim of bias on our part - after all, how can they argue against their own work? ;-)

Read more at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061304.html
h/t lifesite.net