I'm not sure what schools are doing today when the critics refer to the failure of "abstinence-based" curricula.
I just remember that value-neutral, non-judgmental, "don't have sex until it seems RIGHT to you" sex ed was an abysmal failure BEFORE the abstinence-based programs improved the stats.
In schools where traditional values and chastity and monogamous marriage are promoted as giving the greatest safety to one's emotional, physical, and future economic well-being --the teen pregnancy/abortion rates declined after having steadily increased under liberal ("elitist" --promoting moral relativity) sex educators in years prior.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't urge those who insist on being sexually active to use condoms.
But there needs to be a strong emphasis on the limitations of condoms --when it comes to hpv --broken hearts --lost self-esteem from feeling "used and dumped," and the possibility that the condoms will fail or the guy will fail to use the condom despite a girl's intentions to be safe.
Girls are putting themselves at great risk to start early sexual activity. Men and women have not changed that much--boys still refer to sluts and girls suffer when the label fits--and boys become jerks thinking they can bed and not wed.
Sex educators should not suggest as they do that early sex activity is harmless as long as you use condoms.
The AIDS crisis would end tomorrow if all young people valued chastity and monogamous marriage.
There are people yet today who wait for marriage because of their faith and upbringing. There are many others who at least commit and remain faithful during and after their courtship, whether or not they are virgins at the altar. Chastity and virtue are still possibilities in a sex-saturated culture.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible