I realize this more Taranto's shtick - and, indeed, I stole this one from him. But, I loved this USA Today headline about the recent study that "abstinence-only" sex education neither increases nor decreases sexual activity (nor incidence of "unprotected sex") among teens is "Study: Abstinence doesn't delay sex". Really? I would've loved to have known that at, say, 15. I think I could've provided some counterpoints.
Megan McArdle makes an interesting point. The coverage has focused on the fact that "abstinence-only" sex education doesn't delay the first sexual activity, a finding that anyone who was a teenager at some point shouldn't be shocked at. Moreover, in fact, as, she notes, "The kids didn't have sex any later, but they also weren't any less likely to use birth control. If this study is correct, it implies that all sex-ed is useless..." She expresses a lack of surprise at this result, though her commenters do suggest that perhaps she's drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence.