The limits of politics [and education]

In the American Spectator blog, there is the following observation about the limited effect of "abstinence only" [and, for that matter, any form of] sex education:

A new study suggests that abstinence-only sex-ed - subsidized by the federal government to the tune of $176 million per annum - has no effect on how likely teens are to have sex. Interestingly, it also has no effect on how likely teens are to use contraception when they do have sex; liberal critics have long posited that abstinence-only sex-ed would lead to more unprotected sex. ....

Source: American Spectator: Washington Fails at Micromanaging Teens' Lives

And then the following from Family Facts [via The Evangelical Outpost]:

Teen girls from intact families with frequent religious attendance averaged the fewest sexual partners (0.47) when compare to (a) their peers from non-intact families with frequent religious attendance (0.93), (b) peers from intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.14), and (c) peers from non-intact families with low to no religious attendance (1.55).

Source: Fagan, Patrick, A Portrait of Family and Religion in America: Key Outcomes for the Common Good, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation 2006), pp. .

Families and the peer culture have far more impact in these matters than any teacher [and I speak as a former teacher], partly because they can speak to the behaviors in terms of morality and the nature of genuine love, not merely technique and consequences.