Background:
The hidden epidemic of STD acquisition has extensive societal implications, particularly regarding adolescents¹. The proven effectiveness² of comprehensive sexuality education in STD prevention is hopeful, but the federal government provides financial incentives for abstinence-only programs that are not empirically supported and have been tied to actually raising STD infection rates³. Schools are undoubtedly an effective medium for prevention efforts, but to reach the school level, policy must first pass through the state.

Objective:
The objective of this investigation is to understand the role of the state as an actor in the sex education policy process. This study will attempt to answer how and why states have reacted differently to federal mandates regarding sexuality education.

Method:
Data will be collected from the CDC SHPPS 2000 report⁴, the Alan Guttmacher Institute's brief on state sex education policies⁵ , and SIECUS's summary of state acceptances of federal abstinence-only funds⁶. These data sets will be examined together to respond to the aforementioned research questions.

Result:
The results of this investigation will provide a descriptive explanation of how different states have reacted to the federal abstinence-only mandate and can be combined with information state and local policy decision-making literature to address why these choices were made despite empirical evidence.

Conclusion:
In addition to the disconnect between research and practice, public demand and federal, state, and local supply regarding sex education are also divided. A vast majority of adults support comprehensive sexuality education⁷, yet social, cultural, and political norms are not conducive to their adoption. This research aims to better understand the political process involved in order to modify these unfortunate circumstances.

Implications:
The results of this investigation can be combined with state adolescent STD data as a means of policy assessment. Future research may focus on assessing which states are more vulnerable to pressure groups and political issues.