Minnesota is joining at least eleven other states that have rejected federal funding for abstinence-only sex education, according to the Star-Tribune.

Last month, for the first time in a decade, Minnesota officials quietly said no thank you to $500,000 in federal abstinence-only money. That leaves a budget of only $331,000 for a statewide program that as recently as 2004 received $2 million.

The federal government recently changed the requirements for Minnesota Education Now and Babies Later, a statewide program aimed at 12- to 14-year-olds. The program, administered through the Minnesota Department of Health since 1998, uses both state and federal funds.

That program provided grants to educators, community organizations, churches and other groups to teach some aspects of abstinence, but not all. They emphasized the social and psychological advantages of abstinence, how to reject sexual advances and self-sufficiency.

But the federal government changed the rules:

Among other things, it required all such programs to also teach that sex outside of marriage was psychologically and physically harmful.

This article brings up several interesting points. States that used to be willing to accept federal funding for abstinence-only programs have increasingly rejected the funds, as the federal government tightened the requirements. This happened all the way back in 2005 in Maine’s case. The government also stated that its policies would now focus on unmarried adults up to 29 years in age. Before this, according to an article on BMJ’s site, published by the British Medical Association, the U.S. government used to require that educators could just focus on some of the following main points, but did not require them to teach all of them. Now the government pushes states to teach all of these points.

The rules to be taught about sexual abstinence outside marriage are:

• Abstinence provides social, psychological, and health gains
• Abstinence is the expected standard for all school age children
• Abstinence is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy out of wedlock, sexually transmitted diseases, and associated health problems
• Mutually faithful monogamy in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity
• Sexual activity outside marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
• Bearing a child out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, its parents, and society
• Lessons must also teach young people how they can reject sexual advances and how consuming alcohol and drugs increases their vulnerability. They must also teach the importance of “achieving self sufficiency” before engaging in sexual activity.

Another interesting aspect of the Star Tribune article was the claim that state school districts, after meeting basic state laws, have ultimate control over what is being taught and that there may be great differences between schools.

Despite the controversy over sex education, no one really knows what Minnesota students are learning, said state officials and advocacy groups. State law requires that schools include information on HIV and other sexual diseases in health classes, and encourage abstinence, but nothing more.

“Each school district is different,” said Brigid Riley, executive director of the Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting. “It comes down to each building and each principal and each teacher.”

But she said when budgets are tight, health education, which includes sex education, is often among the first things to go, so many children may be getting little sex education.