William Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, called the memo "an utterly desperate and disingenuous response to a crumbling program. The language is clear: If you get this money from the government, you teach only one thing: abstinence."
Though most states publicly say they will continue to apply for the grants, a growing number are said to be privately considering giving up the aid -- or trying to find ways to fund a broader curriculum.
In Colorado, state senators last week passed a measure that would force school districts to incorporate science-based material in their sex education courses. Districts could still teach abstinence, but they would also have to include information on such topics as the benefits and possible medical effects of different types of contraception.
Smith said: "The question state leaders are starting to ask is, 'How much of this is really about teaching kids, and how much of this is simply pushing forward a social policy favored by President Bush and the conservative right?' "
Title V grants emerged out of the 1996 overhaul of welfare programs, after Congress determined that abstinence programs should focus solely on the social, psychological and physical health benefits of chastity.
Initially, there was a public and political uproar when Congress set aside $50 million a year for states to build abstinence education programs. But when the money became available in fiscal 1998, most states had their hands out.
Not in California. State lawmakers determined that the state's abstinence-only program had not been effective.
"We realized that we should be teaching abstinence but we shouldn't withhold other information," said U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), who was a state legislator at the time. Lee is part of a congressional bipartisan effort that recently reintroduced a bill to help pay for sex education that teaches abstinence and contraception.
Indeed, how states can use the Title V money, which they are required to match with $3 for every $4 received, has long been a heated issue.
Health and Human Services endured enormous criticism by governors last year after it issued a document underscoring and clarifying key rules for states that took federal abstinence grants. Among the points that unsettled some state officials: Applicants "must not" promote contraceptive or condom use, nor even "refer to abstinence as a form of contraception."
