Doublespeak has become a staple in modern politics. Though the term itself never appears verbatim in George Orwell’s 1984, it has become associated with the novel’s depiction of how language can be used to obscure and distort reality. Despite the book’s fictional nature, doublespeak has become so commonplace that many people constantly need to second-guess what words actually mean.
One example is the language of the Positive Prevention PLUS curriculum, which President Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funded through several Teen Pregnancy Prevention grants in 2023. These federal grants were originally intended to support the implementation of comprehensive sexual health programs through 2028.
What the Curriculum Actually Teaches
However, several questions immediately arise: What does “Teen Pregnancy Prevention” actually entail? What is included in “comprehensive sexual health,” and why is it necessary for schools to educate teenagers about it?
To its credit, the curriculum is upfront in some areas about its intentions. For example, an FAQ on its website states:
“Is Positive Prevention PLUS an abstinence-only curriculum? No. Per California State Law, Positive Prevention PLUS emphasizes sexual abstinence as the only 100% sure method for avoiding STDs or an unplanned pregnancy.
However, to prepare students for their future lives as sexually healthy and responsible young adults, the Positive Prevention PLUS curriculum also provides information on contraception and access to community reproductive health services.”
However, the way in which abstinence is “emphasized” leaves room to wonder if it was ever part of the goal at all. Repeatedly, the curriculum encourages children to choose to have sex when they feel they are ready with a trusted partner. When it does attempt to encourage abstinence, it is always paired with how to manage the aftermath in case sexual activity does happen. Rather than encouraging prevention of sexual activity itself, the curriculum seems more concerned that teenagers have access to resources such as birth control.
The student workbook states: “To avoid unplanned pregnancy, it is important to abstain from sexual activity or to use birth control consistently and correctly.” (Student Workbook, p. 8)
This language also reveals the curriculum’s underlying worldview on abortion. Elsewhere, abortion-related content is presented in clinical and bureaucratic language, portraying it as safe, legal, and accessible healthcare.
“In all states, people at any age can purchase some type of emergency contraceptive pills over-the-counter without parental consent and without a prescription.” (Student Workbook, p. 26)
“Abortion is a safe procedure when done under medical supervision.” (Teen Pregnancy: Choices and Responsibilities PowerPoint, Slide 15)
The curriculum also encourages students to accept LGBTQ+ identities and relationships as legitimate expressions of family life.
“What is family? Possible responses include:
• …a same-sex couple raising their child/ren.
• any combination of adults or child/ren who live together in a caring, supportive relationship” (Teacher’s Manual, p. 170)
The Pushback
It is no surprise, then, that when President Donald Trump’s HHS announced in late June 2026 that it would end these federally funded programs ahead of schedule, the decision was met with pushback framed in similarly evasive language. Critics quickly characterized the move as an attack on teen pregnancy prevention—a description that omits the curriculum’s sexually explicit content.
Rachel Fey, interim co-CEO of Power to Decide, argued that the decision denied young people “the high-quality sexual health education they need and deserve.”
Linguistic Warfare
This type of disingenuous language allows activists not only to disguise morally contested worldviews as neutral education but also to portray any criticism as an attack on young people’s rights. Framing objections to sexually explicit material as opposition to education itself is Orwellian in nature.
Although “doublespeak” is not Orwell’s own term, it captures the same kind of deception illustrated through the Party’s use of “Newspeak” in 1984. Forced labor camps were called “joycamps,” while the institution where citizens were imprisoned and tortured into submission was known as the Ministry of Love. These labels did not deny the Party’s conduct outright; they simply reframed it.
Given how common this type of language has become, “newspeak” has even found its way into Merriam-Webster, where it is defined as “propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings.”
Biblical Clarity Amidst Confusion
What are Christians to do in the midst of such confusion? Two exhortations may be helpful:
First, Christians must grow in discernment about what the labels actually mean. We can no longer assume we live in a high-trust society where institutions speak honestly about programs such as Positive Prevention PLUS. Parents, especially, should carefully examine what their children are being taught, since public schools are among the primary recipients of this type of funding.
Second, Christians must continue to affirm what Scripture clearly says, in the way it says it. God has no intention to be confusing or deceiving to those who read His Word. A Biblical sexual ethic does not require layers of modern jargon. Genesis 1:27 says that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” There is no room for more obscurity or sophistry. The categories God has established for sex and gender are sufficient and need no further explanation.
In an age of doublespeak, speaking clearly about God’s Word is not merely an exercise in linguistic honesty; it is an act of faithfulness. Despite the opposition that may come, Christians must not be intimidated by evil, no matter how strategically sophisticated it becomes.