Statistics: Teen Sex Risk Increasing
A few years of abstinence-only "education" have had their effect. The CDC has a new survey out.
It's easy not to get pregnant. Birth control pills are easy to get, condoms are easy to get and they block the spread of disease, too. But nearly three quarters of a million American girls and young women under twenty got pregnant in 2004.
Only about two percent of the pregnancies occurred in girls under 14 years old. Looking at Census statistics, we can see that the 2005-2007 American Community Survey estimates that about 26.5 percent of American females are under twenty years old, with about 6.9 percent age 14-19. Playing loose with the numbers, if there are 300 million people in the country and half are women, then there are about 10,350,000 girls in the 14-19 range, and 729,000 of them got pregnant in 2004, for a rate of approximately seven percent.
If a classroom has thirty students and half are female, then there is a pregnant girl in every high school class and every class in the first two years of college, on average.
It is not surprising that STD rates would correlate with pregnancy. Young people who are not protected from pregnancy are also not protected from syphilis, HIV, HPV, and other diseases that can be spread through sexual intercourse.
The last number is worrisome, too, though there is no context for it in this article. 100,000 girls and young women had to go to the emergency for sexual assault, including 30,000 between the ages of ten and fourteen. Each of those cases was unique and different, some went for injury and trauma and some went because of the risk of pregnancy, but those numbers are frightening. It hurts just to imagine a little girl being raped so severely she has to go to the hospital. This AP article does not elaborate, for instance we don't know if that number is going up or down, but there simply should not be a hundred thousand young American girls and women suffering from that. Education needs to change attitudes as well as behavior.
Birth rates among U.S. teens increased in 2006 and 2007, following large declines from 1991 to 2005, according to a new U.S. government study.
It found that previously improving trends in teens' and young adults' sexual and reproductive health have flattened or may be worsening in some cases.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researchers analyzed national data from 2002-2007. Among their findings:
- About one-third of adolescents hadn't received instruction on methods of birth control before age 18.
- In 2004, there were about 745,000 pregnancies among females younger than age 20. This included an estimated 16,000 pregnancies among girls aged 10 to 14.
- Syphilis cases among young people aged 15 to 24 have increased in both males and females in recent years.
- In 2006, about one million young people aged 10 to 24 were reported to have chlamydia, gonorrhea or syphilis. Nearly one-quarter of females aged 15 to 19, and 45 percent of females aged 20 to 24 had a human papillomavirus (HPV) infection during 2003-2004.
- From 1997 to 2006, rates of AIDS cases among males aged 15 to 24 increased.
- In 2006, the majority of new diagnoses of HIV infection among young people occurred among males and those aged 20 to 24.
- From 2004 to 2006, about 100,000 females aged 10 to 24 visited a hospital emergency department for nonfatal sexual assault, including 30,000 females aged 10 to 14.
"This report identifies a number of concerns regarding the sexual and reproductive health of our nation's young people," Janet Collins, director of CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said in a news release. Pregnancy, STDs on the Rise Again Among U.S. Teens
It's easy not to get pregnant. Birth control pills are easy to get, condoms are easy to get and they block the spread of disease, too. But nearly three quarters of a million American girls and young women under twenty got pregnant in 2004.
Only about two percent of the pregnancies occurred in girls under 14 years old. Looking at Census statistics, we can see that the 2005-2007 American Community Survey estimates that about 26.5 percent of American females are under twenty years old, with about 6.9 percent age 14-19. Playing loose with the numbers, if there are 300 million people in the country and half are women, then there are about 10,350,000 girls in the 14-19 range, and 729,000 of them got pregnant in 2004, for a rate of approximately seven percent.
If a classroom has thirty students and half are female, then there is a pregnant girl in every high school class and every class in the first two years of college, on average.
It is not surprising that STD rates would correlate with pregnancy. Young people who are not protected from pregnancy are also not protected from syphilis, HIV, HPV, and other diseases that can be spread through sexual intercourse.
The last number is worrisome, too, though there is no context for it in this article. 100,000 girls and young women had to go to the emergency for sexual assault, including 30,000 between the ages of ten and fourteen. Each of those cases was unique and different, some went for injury and trauma and some went because of the risk of pregnancy, but those numbers are frightening. It hurts just to imagine a little girl being raped so severely she has to go to the hospital. This AP article does not elaborate, for instance we don't know if that number is going up or down, but there simply should not be a hundred thousand young American girls and women suffering from that. Education needs to change attitudes as well as behavior.
posted by JimK at 8:58 AM
41 Comments:
what's changed in the last few years is that the media has turned on the abstinence movement, which had significantly reduced teen sexual activity since 1991
when kids see their parents and teachers publicly saying they expect kids to have sex, the results are obvious
note that the ridicule of abstinence programs preceded the rising teen pregnancy, not the other way around
face it, you guys are part of a movement that has made things worse
now, comp sex ed is resurgent and we are getting the same result we had when comp sex ed first was introduced in the 70s
healine in today's Washington Post:
"OBAMA APPROVAL RATINGS DECLINE ON CENTRAL ISSUES"
details:
"It usually doesn't happen this quickly in Washington. But President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are finding that the old maxim that what goes around, comes around applies to them, too. Less than six months into his term, Mr. Obama's top initiatives are in serious jeopardy and he has himself and his congressional allies to blame.
Their high-pressure tactics in promoting and passing legislation, most notably the economic "stimulus", have backfired. Those tactics include unbridled partisanship, procedural short cuts, demands for swift passage of bills, and promises of quick results.
With large majorities in Congress and an obsequious press corps, Mr. Obama was smitten with the idea of emulating President Franklin Roosevelt's First 100 Days of legislative success in 1933. Like FDR, Mr. Obama tried to push as many liberal bills through Congress in as brief a time as possible.
He made a rookie mistake early on. He let congressional Democrats draft the bills. They're as partisan as any group that has ever controlled Congress. They have little interest in the compromises needed to attract Republican support. As a consequence, what they passed -- especially the $787 billion stimulus -- belongs to Democrats alone. They own the stimulus outright.
That makes them accountable for the hopes of a prompt economic recovery now being dashed. With the economy still faltering and jobs still being lost, Mr. Obama's credibility is sinking and his job approval rating is declining. Republicans, who had insisted the stimulus was wasteful and wouldn't work, are being vindicated.
The political fallout that mattered most, however, has been among Democrats in the House who will face tough re-election fights next year. They're in a state of near-panic over the lingering recession. Their confidence in Mr. Obama is fading, and they no longer believe in quickly passing the president's agenda.
For Mr. Obama, this is a potentially disastrous turn of events. On Capitol Hill, delay favors the opposition and tends to lead to defeat. The longer a bill sits around, the more its contents are dissected and the less likely it is to pass. Mr. Obama realizes this fact, which is why he is pressing for a quick vote on his health-care reform.
His plan has been to exploit the economic downturn to enact his entire agenda, not just the stimulus. The president's position, which he repeated again this week, is that his health, energy and education reforms are necessary to create a sustainable economic recovery. It's a clever political argument, but it makes little economic sense and few people buy it.
That's not all. The stimulus is such a large increase in spending that it turned the deficit into a political issue. There is a growing national wariness to adding billions (or trillions) to the budget.
Had Mr. Obama and Democrats proceeded differently, they'd have better odds now for enacting their agenda. They are victims of their own tactics."
"Republicans hold 41% of the seats in Congress. That's a position of weakness, but not completely powerlessness. Rather than ignoring GOP proposals, Democrats might have been better off giving Republicans 20% of the stimulus funds to spend. Republicans probably would have spent it on tax reforms that encourage economic growth. Had that happened, the stimulus might have provided a mild boost to the economy by now.
Or what if Democrats had heeded Republican advice and trimmed the size of the stimulus? The economy wouldn't be any worse for it, but the deficit and public fear of it would be smaller.
During the presidential campaign last year, Mr. Obama said he was committed to bipartisanship. But congressional Democrats aren't, as he surely knew. They rejected input from House Republicans on the stimulus -- without a peep of protest from the president. Minor concessions to three Republicans gave them the 60 votes to pass the bill in the Senate.
The president's vow of bipartisanship wasn't the only promise to crumble. Democrats said they'd give Republicans (and the public) 48 hours to read a bill before a vote. But the final version of the 1,071-page stimulus package was unveiled in the House at 1 a.m. on Feb. 13 and passed later that day after one hour of substantive debate. Every Republican voted no. The Senate vote came 16 hours after the three renegade Republicans agreed to an amended version of the stimulus.
In urging fast action, Mr. Obama sounded apocalyptic: "If we do not move swiftly to sign the [stimulus] into law, an economy that is already in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. . . . Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Homes will be lost. Families will go without health care."
Once the stimulus passed, Democrats said the impact would be practically instant. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) predicted "an immediate jolt." Economic adviser Larry Summers said, "You'll see the effects almost immediately." White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said it would "take only weeks or months" to be felt.
A similar sequence of appeals, claims, promises and a speedy vote was followed when the cap and trade bill, which would put a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions, came before the House on June 28. The bill's architect, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), presented a crucial 300-page amendment at 3 a.m. It passed 16 hours later.
But even that was not fast enough. Mr. Waxman was irritated by House Republican leader John Boehner's hour-long address in opposition. As Mr. Boehner spoke, Mr. Waxman demanded he be cut off. He wasn't, but after Mr. Boehner finished, Mr. Waxman asked the presiding officer, who was then Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D., Calif.), how long the "two minute speech" had lasted. "The customary amount of time" for the minority leader, she replied.
Mr. Waxman's testiness won't make final passage of cap and trade easier. Nor will the Obama administration gain from its crude attempt last week to punish -- and silence -- Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) for saying the stimulus should be cancelled. Four cabinet members wrote to his governor, Republican Jan Brewer, to ask if she wanted to forfeit stimulus money for her state.
Mr. Obama's health-care and energy initiatives, the core of his far-reaching agenda, were bound to face serious opposition in Congress in any case. Hardball tactics and false promises have only made the hill he has to climb steeper. Now he may lose on both. The president and his congressional allies should have known better."
That's a nice little fictional narrative Anon has written. Too bad it is factually inaccurate.
Check out the facts.
Prior to 1997, the US government spent about $9 million a year on abstinence-only education funding. In 1997, the level rose to $50 million a year, and during the Bush/Cheney regime, that funding level was more than tripled.
Henry Waxman's report on abstinence education funding reported:
Under the Bush Administration, federal support for "abstinence-only" education programs has expanded rapidly. The federal government will spend approximately $170 million on abstinence-only education programs in fiscal year 2005, more than twice the amount spent in fiscal year 2001. As a result, abstinence-only education, which promotes abstinence from sexual activity without teaching basic facts about contraception, now reaches millions of children and adolescents each year.
States rejected abstinence-only money when the federal government changed the rules on how it could be used to include unproven teaching. Stateline.org reported:
The decision not to reapply [for federal abstinence-only funding for the state of Maine] hinged on two factors, according to Dr. Dora Anne Mills, the state’s public health director. An independent evaluation of the ad campaign found that it was having limited success in reaching kids and in affecting their decisions about sex. And federal policy-makers recently tightened the strings on how the money could be spent.
States previously were allowed to emphasize different ways of promoting abstinence, such as highlighting the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and encouraging discussions between parents and children.
This year, Mills said, Maine was under pressure to tell teens that sex outside of marriage was unacceptable and that couples should be economically self-sufficient before they have sex. She said the federal government’s insistence on emphasizing these messages could alienate teens and violate the state law requiring comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education.
...Mills said Maine’s success in reducing teen pregnancies also led to the decision to reject the funds. Maine has the third-lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country, according to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), a New York-based education and advocacy group that promotes comprehensive sex education.
Maine’s teen pregnancy rate has dropped by 50 percent in 20 years. Mills called this one of the biggest public health successes in the country, and said contraception as well as abstinence had played a role.
“We were in a position of having to turn our backs on proven programs that we have been using for quite a while, versus accepting these (new) standards that we think may actually be harmful to our children,” Mills told Stateline.org.
Not only that, but the the CDC reports
The percentage of high schools in which teachers taught students how to correctly use a condom in at least one required course decreased from 49.5% in 2000 to 38.5% in 2006.
Anon's little fairy tale is unsupported by the facts. The facts support Jim's contention that "a few years of abstinence-only 'education' have had their effect."
Repair link for Stateline.org
"Anon's little fairy tale is unsupported by the facts. The facts support Jim's contention that "a few years of abstinence-only 'education' have had their effect.""
The fairy tale is all Anon-B's.
Abstinence education wasn't begun by the Federal government.
Comp sex ed has been around since the 70s, when it resulted in the almost overnight explosion of teen pregnancy.
"Maine was under pressure to tell teens that sex outside of marriage was unacceptable and that couples should be economically self-sufficient before they have sex. She said the federal government’s insistence on emphasizing these messages could alienate teens."
Here we go around the mulberry bush...
You notice how Anon-B complains that others can't support their positions with stats but she always tossing off these kind of unsubstantiated claims.
Teens could be "alienated"?
As opposed to their aversion to some crazy old bat in the front of the room demonstrating how to use a condom?
There is ample support from nationwide statistics. Whenever comp sex ed, taught in a valueless manner, is resurgent, teen sexual activity increases.
More on the collapsing Obama presidency and why Americans are growing increasingly furious woth him:
"It's not surprising that the much-ballyhooed "economic stimulus" hasn't done much stimulating. President Obama and his aides argue that it's too early to expect startling results. They have a point. A $14 trillion economy won't revive in a nanosecond. But the defects of the $787 billion package go deeper and won't be cured by time. The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn't engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise, designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies and signal support for fashionable causes.
As a result, much of the stimulus's potential benefit has been squandered. Spending increases and tax cuts are sprinkled in too many places and, all too often, are too delayed to do much good now. Nor do they concentrate on reviving the economy's most depressed sectors: state and local governments; the housing and auto industries. None of this means the stimulus won't help or precludes a recovery, but the help will be weaker than necessary.
How much is hard to determine. By year-end 2010, the package will result in 2.5 million jobs, predicts Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. But as Zandi notes, all estimates are crude. They involve comparing economic simulations with and without the provisions of the stimulus. The economic models must make assumptions about how fast consumers spend tax cuts, how quickly construction projects begin and much more.
Depending on the assumptions, the results vary. When the Congressional Budget Office made job estimates, it presented a range of 1.2 million to 3.6 million by year-end 2010. Whatever the actual figures, they won't soon mean an increase in overall employment. They will merely limit job losses. Since late 2007, those have totaled 6.5 million, and there are probably more to come."
"On humanitarian grounds, hardly anyone should object to parts of the stimulus package: longer and (slightly) higher unemployment benefits; subsidies for job losers to extend their health insurance; expanded food stamps. Obama was politically obligated to enact a campaign proposal providing tax cuts to most workers -- up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. But beyond these basics, the stimulus plan became an orgy of politically appealing spending increases and tax breaks.
More than 50 million retirees and veterans got $250 checks (cost: $14 billion). Businesses received liberalized depreciation allowances ($5 billion). Health-care information technology was promoted ($19 billion). High-speed rail was encouraged ($8 billion). Whatever the virtues of these programs, the effects are diluted and delayed. The CBO estimated that nearly 30 percent of the economic effects would occur after 2010. Ignored was any concerted effort to improve consumer and business confidence by resuscitating the most distressed economic sectors.
Vehicle sales are running 35 percent behind year-earlier levels; frightened consumers recoil from big-ticket purchases. Falling house prices deter home buying. Why buy today if the price will be lower tomorrow? States suffer from steep drops in tax revenue and face legal requirements to balance their budgets. This means raising taxes or cutting spending -- precisely the wrong steps in a severe slump. Yet the stimulus package barely addressed these problems.
To promote car sales and home buying, Congress could have provided temporary but generous tax breaks. It didn't. The housing tax credit applied to a fraction of first-time buyers; the car tax break permitted federal tax deductions for state sales and excise taxes on vehicle purchases. The effects are trivial. The recently signed "cash for clunkers" tax credit is similarly stunted; Macroeconomic Advisers estimates it might advance a mere 130,000 vehicle sales. States fared better. They received $135 billion in largely unfettered funds. But even with this money, economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that states face up to a $100 billion budget gap in the next year. Already, 28 states have increased taxes and 40 have reduced spending, reports the Office of Management and Budget.
There are growing demands for another Obama "stimulus" on the grounds that the first was too small. Wrong. The problem with the first stimulus was more its composition than its size. With budget deficits for 2009 and 2010 estimated by the CBO at $1.8 trillion and $1.4 trillion (respectively, 13 and 9.9 percent of gross domestic product), it's hard to argue they're too tiny. Obama and congressional Democrats sacrificed real economic stimulus to promote parochial political interests. Any new "stimulus" should be financed by culling some of the old.
Here, as elsewhere, there's a gap between Obama's high-minded rhetoric and his performance. In February, Obama denounced "politics as usual" in constructing the stimulus. But that's what we got, and Obama likes the result. Interviewed recently by ABC's Jake Tapper, he was asked whether he would change anything. Obama seemed to invoke a doctrine of presidential infallibility. "There's nothing that we would have done differently," he said."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
problem:
Teen Sex Risk Increasing
explanation:
the TTF factor
The sexual assault figures are shocking.
I haven't checked my calendar yet, but we must be getting close to a full moon again. The loonies are on the rampage once more with all of their hair-tearing and breast-beating and prognostications about the failures of sex education. On top of that, they can never stick to the topic at hand: "Statistics: Teen Sex Risk Increasing".
These various Anonymi in their various guises must be A.D.D. - they simply cannot focus on what the topic is to be discussed...and then, the few times they manage to do it...continue to rant and rave about SEX...showing their own ignorance and sex-phobic delusions.
Yes...good question: "When will they ever learn?"
Living out their childhood fantasies to be PIRATES is getting to be quite tiresome!!
Citizen
Here's the CDC Stats on Sexual Assault
I had no idea.
"Education needs to change attitudes as well as behavior."
how about if such crimes receive the same type of sentence as Bernie Madoff?
hey "citizen", could we get an example of this?:
"continue to rant and rave about SEX...showing their own ignorance and sex-phobic delusions"
just a quote or two showing what ranting and raving you're talking about
Sybil quotes:
"Maine was under pressure to tell teens that sex outside of marriage was unacceptable and that couples should be economically self-sufficient before they have sex. She said the federal government’s insistence on emphasizing these messages could alienate teens."
And responds to that quote:
Here we go around the mulberry bush...
You notice how Anon-B complains that others can't support their positions with stats but she always tossing off these kind of unsubstantiated claims."
Speaking of the unevoloved, those of us who have mastered reading and comprehension realize the speaker of the words Anon quoted was Dr. Dora Anne Mills, Maine's public health director. Further, those who can both read and comprehend realize that Maine’s teen pregnancy rate has dropped by 50 percent in 20 years using a comprehensive approach to sex education, which includes both the abstinence message and the proper use of contraceptives message.
TTF exists to encourage MCPS and other public school systems to teach sex education that works for all teens as it has for Maine's teens, namely comprehensive sex education which contains information helpful to both the abstinent and the sexually active. To omit either message means leaving about half of high school seniors unprepared. Maybe leaving half of our high school seniors unprepared is acceptable to Sybil, but most parents prefer the comprehensive approach in our public schools.
yes, that was the speaker
we all know that, devolved Anon-B
you were posting the comment because you support it
and it's a comment without basis or substantiation
the notion that teens will be alienated by the idea of sexual morality is an insult to teens
Maine didn't begin comp sex ed twenty years ago
that's when they began to add in a abstinence message
emphasizing that message will produce more benefits
despite what lunatic NEA members "think"
Andrea- not anon
The joke(or maybe the fact) going around on the internet that if you are looking for the more interesting forms of sex(putting it politely as best I can), look for a girl with a purity ring.
Maine didn't begin comp sex ed twenty years ago
that's when they began to add in a abstinence message
Guess what they "add"ed the abstinence message to! Including both abstinence and contraception in the same sex education program **is** comprehensive sex ed.
it's a comment without basis or substantiation...
...despite what lunatic NEA members "think"
Oh brother, Sybil. Dr. Mills is from Maine's Department of Health, not the NEA. Her comment was based on over 20 years of data on the teen pregnancy rates in the state of Maine, which by law, uses a comprehensive sex education approach stressing both abstinence and contraception. And now "Maine has the third-lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country."
Compare that to this statement from the Jackson Free Press:
Mississippi had the third highest teen birth rate in the country in 2000, with African Americans outnumbering white and Hispanic populations almost two to one. And with resources coming almost exclusively from the federal government, the programs here [in Mississippi] are strictly abstinence-only programs.
There is an interesting interactive map that was published earlier this year by USA Today found here. It shows Mississippi's teen pregnancy rate continuing to climb by significant amounts as Mississippi continues to try to solve its teen pregnancy rate problem with the same, ineffective abstinence-only programs. The accompanying story explains:
The highest teen birth rates are in the South and Southwest; Mississippi is highest with 68.4 per 1,000, followed by New Mexico, with a rate of 64.1 and Texas, with 63.1. The lowest rates are in the Northeast. New Hampshire had the fewest teen births with 18.7 per 1,000. Vermont, with 20.8 per 1,000, and Massachusetts, with 21.3 per 1,000, were also low. Decreases were noted in New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia.
Pinning down the reasons that rates have increased so widely isn't easy. Some blame a more sexualized culture and greater acceptance of births to unmarried women. Others say abstinence-only sex education and a possible de-emphasis on birth control may play a part. And just where abortion fits into the puzzle won't be known until late this year or early in 2010, when 2006 abortion data will become available from the New York City-based Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that has been tracking abortions since 1974. Government abortion statistics are based on voluntary state reports and do not include every state.
Sarah Brown, CEO of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, says she is less inclined to believe abortion is driving higher teen birth rates and suggests that increases in high-profile unmarried births in Hollywood, movies and even politics is a significant factor for impressionable teens.
"In the last couple of years, we had Jamie Lynn Spears. We had Juno and we had Bristol Palin.
Those three were in 2007 and 2008 and not in 2005 to 2006, but they point to that phenomenon," she says.
I doubt abortion is making a difference between Maine's and Mississippi's teen pregnancy rates as both Maine and Mississippi have only one abortion clinic in the state, but who knows what the data will show when it comes out.
Yay! Mississippi is Number One!
"Dr. Mills is from Maine's Department of Health, not the NEA."
Never said she was from the NEA. I was saying NEA members agree that discouraging sexual activity outside of marriage would alienate teens.
"Her comment was based on over 20 years of data on the teen pregnancy rates in the state of Maine, which by law, uses a comprehensive sex education approach stressing both abstinence and contraception."
No, it wasn't. Her comment was that EMPHASIZING sexual activity is only appropriate within marriage would alienate teens. That isn't the opposite of comp sex ed and hasn't been tried in Maine during the last two decades. She has no basis for evaluating an approach she hasn't tried.
As for the difference between Maine and Mississippi, have you considered demographics? Higher teen birth rates are seen among lower income populations.
When you're born on third base, that doesn't mean you hit a triple.
Her comment was that EMPHASIZING sexual activity is only appropriate within marriage would alienate teens.
Bristol Palin thinks that the abstinence message is not realistic for teens. She told Greta Van Susteren:
BRISTOL: No. I don’t want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is, like — like, the — I don’t know how to put it — like, the main — everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it’s not realistic at all.
For teens who are sexually active, becoming abstinent is "not realistic at all." They need to be taught the serious consequences of sexual activity like unplanned pregnancy and STDs, and they need to be taught all the ways to prevent those consequences from occurring.
Higher teen birth rates are seen among lower income populations
The US Census Bureau reports the rankings of average per capita incomes in 2007 in various states were:
Mississippi ranked 50th at $28,845
Maine ranked 35th at $33,722
Connecticut ranked 1st at $54,117
Mississippi and Maine are similar in average per capita income. Both rank in the lowest 30% and well below the levels at the top.
So where will you spin off to next?
it's the poverty level of the teens, not the general population, that matter, Anon-B
regardless, Maine's teen pregnancy rate went down after they moved in the direction of abstinence emphasis
when they were encouraged to add marital fidelity as a reason for abstinence, there was no reason to think it wouldn't work
"Bristol Palin thinks that the abstinence message is not realistic for teens."
And her opinion is relevant because?
"BRISTOL: No. I don’t want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is, like — like, the — I don’t know how to put it — like, the main — everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it’s not realistic at all."
These sounds like Anon-B trying to explain something.
"For teens who are sexually active, becoming abstinent is "not realistic at all.""
Sure, it is.
"They need to be taught the serious consequences of sexual activity like unplanned pregnancy and STDs, and they need to be taught all the ways to prevent those consequences from occurring."
And it needs to be emphasized that only abstinence actually works unless you make sure to do everything perfectly.
Which is what is not realistic.
If you really want teenagers to stop having sex, you need to bring reality front and center to them. Make “Child Rearing 101” a required class in high school. After suitable course work for preparation, make them take care of a young child 24/7 (with supervision of course). Have it disrupt every aspect of their lives for at least an entire month while they change diapers, feed them at 3am, and keep them home from partying with their friends on Friday and Saturday nights. Make sure they can’t graduate high school without passing this course, but don’t let them go anywhere near a child without watching at least 2 seasons worth of “Super Nanny.”
I think we’ll see teen birth rates plummet overnight. Who knows, we might even raise a generation of kids who know something about parenting, and take it seriously once they finally decide to be one.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
it's the poverty level of the teens, not the general population, that matter, Anon-B
That's preposterous!
Pray tell how you envision "the poverty level of the teens" being unrelated to the per capita income of the general population of state residents.
You spun out on this one.
These sounds like Anon-B trying to explain something.
It's actually Sarah Palin's firstborn daughter submitting to a one-on-one interview on FOX NEWS with Greta Van Susteren back in February, 2009, which would have been the last semester of her senior year of high school. Instead, she was interviewed as the daughter of a new political figure because she had just became a single teen mom, and Greta asked her to share her experiences with FOX viewers.
And it needs to be emphasized that only abstinence actually works unless you make sure to do everything perfectly.
Uh, guess what Anon, abstinence only works if you practice it perfectly each and every time too. One slip up and, well, ask Bristol about the risk of pregnancy. Bearman and Bruckner found abstinence pledgers were more likely to substitute oral and anal sex for intercourse to preserve virginity, were less likely to use condoms when sexually active, and were less likely to be tested and know their STD status, which could lead to further spread and damage public health.
As for the effectiveness of condoms, the CDC reports
...Incorrect use diminishes the protective effect of condoms by leading to condom breakage, slippage, or leakage...
So an incorrectly used condom still offers some protection over not using one at all, that is, incorrect condom use offers more protection than incorrect abstinence practice.
"Pray tell how you envision "the poverty level of the teens" being unrelated to the per capita income of the general population of state residents"
Oh, OK.
How about if families with kids have an above average income but elderly population, which is higher in Maine than Mississippi, has more modest means and holds down the per capita income?
See, Anon-B, you just have to put on your thinkin' cap.
Who knows, it might work!
"These sounds like Anon-B trying to explain something.
It's actually Sarah Palin's firstborn daughter"
I know. I was just remarking on how the pattern of argumentation sounds so similar to you.
Confused teen, Anon-B.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
"Uh, guess what Anon, abstinence only works if you practice it perfectly each and every time too."
Well, that's wrong, assuming this isn't attempt at humor.
You either are abstinent or you are not.
Using condoms, however, can be done right or wrong.
The kind of kids who are promiscuous in high school are the same ones who would tend to not pay attention in class.
You could still teach this for the cant few who would be helped but presenting it within the framework of marriage would lessen the corruption on other kids of authority figures implying that they are expected to practice teen promiscuity.
How about if families with kids have an above average income but elderly population, which is higher in Maine than Mississippi, has more modest means and holds down the per capita income?
Did you or some high school kid write this one? Have you got some facts to back up your poorly worded suppositions or are you just spinning?
Let's see data showing the ages and per capita incomes of parents of school aged offspring differ in Mississippi and Maine. According to your guess here, such parents in Maine should be older and richer than such parents in Mississippi. Then show us research documenting that age of parent is a contributing factor in teen pregnancy.
Once again, no one is holding their breath.
You either are abstinent or you are not.
Using condoms, however, can be done right or wrong.
That's right, and the CDC tells us that when used properly, condom use is 98% effective and with typical use, condom use is 80something% effective at preventing unplanned pregnancy and STDs.
The kind of kids who are promiscuous in high school are the same ones who would tend to not pay attention in class.
Typical high school students, promiscuous and not, abstinence-pledgers and not, were evaluated and analyzed by Bearman and Bruckner, who found:
The gap between pledgers and nonpledgers for high-risk behavior was statistically significant, with 2% of virgins who did not pledge reporting engaging in anal or oral sex, compared with 13% of those who did pledge (Washington Post, 3/19). According to Bruckner, the pledgers' increased likelihood of substituting oral or anal sex for vaginal intercourse puts them at risk of contracting STDs, according to Bruckner. Among virgins, boys who had pledged abstinence were four times as likely to have engaged in anal sex as those who did not pledge, and pledgers overall were six times as likely to have engaged in oral sex as teens who were virgins but did not take a pledge, the study found.
Apparently kids in pledge class learn that vaginal intercourse is to be avoided, but the data collected by Bearman & Bruckner indicates that a statistically significant number of abstinence-pledging teenagers (compared to nonpledging teens) behave as if they define abstinence as avoiding vaginal intercourse by engaging in oral and/or anal sex instead. Holding this belief leads teens who take the pledge to become infected with and carry STDs.
Further, Bearman and Bruckner found teens who made virginity pledges...were less likely to get tested for STDs. If they don't get tested, and don't know they are carrying an STD, they will not know that they are spreading that STD to others by engaging in "typical" abstinence.
You could still teach this for the cant few who would be helped but presenting it within the framework of marriage would lessen the corruption on other kids of authority figures implying that they are expected to practice teen promiscuity.
I'm not sure who the "cant few" are, but here in MCPS, classes on human sexuality are optional. No "authority figures" may teach human sexuality content to any student under 18 years of age unless the parent/guardian gives consent. Countless studies have documented that learning about contraceptives does not increase sexual activity in teenagers, but it does increase condom use when they become sexually active.
See:
- Sally Guttmacher, et al., “Condom Availability in New York City Public High Schools: Relationships to Condom Use and Sexual Behavior,” American Journal of Public Health 87 (September 1997): 1427-1433;
- Susan Blake, PhD et al., “Condom Availability Programs in Massachusetts High Schools: Relationships with Condom Use and Sexual Behavior,” American Journal of Public Health 93.6 (June 2003): 955-961.
In contrast to the findings that condom instruction increases condom use but not sexual activity, don't forget Bearman and Bruckner found:
teens who made virginity pledges were less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience.
"Anonymous" -What is the basis for your spouting crap like this?: "I was saying NEA members agree that discouraging sexual activity outside of marriage would alienate teens."
Please cite specific NEA Policies and/or New Business Items (adopted yearly by the 10,000 elected delegates at the Delegage Assembly)which support this bizarre and cockamamie idea or yours.
I suppose you are one of those lunatics who think the NEA is a subversive "communist" (or is it "fascist" or "socialist") organization.
You have exhibited your hatred of teachers here over and over and over again. It seems you have a little problem (no doubt going back to your days as a "student") that needs some professional help. It's much too obvious that your elevator doesn't go to the top floor. Get a life!!
RT
I was assuming NEA would tend to agree with Maine's Director of Public Health, RT.
Do you disagree?
Saying "NEA members think..." is like saying "Christians think...."
It's meaningless.
Where did the claptrap about "elderly people in Maine bringing down the average income, therefore the Anonymote's hypothetical about the success of abstinence education being related to income is meaningful" come from?
Please, sweetums, if you're going to say things, research them first. Many thanks to Bea who provides sources and stats. I hope she doesn't wear out on that.
actually, I raised questions that might explain this anomaly in Maine
could be that the young people in Maine come from wealthier families that tend to have a lower teen pregnancy rate
in order to really have a meaningful test, you'd need to know what programs teens have been involved in and what the pregnancy rate is among those teens
more Federal money doesn't mean more kids in programs necessarily
what we do know is that since the public attack on abstinence started with teachers, liberal parents and leftist congressmen in the media vociferously talking about how they expect kids to be sexually active, teen pregnancy rates have begun climbing like they did back when comp sex ed programs were first introduced in th 70s
You use the same methods of discussion and vocabulary as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. Do they say these sorts of things about sex-ed, or is it just a feature of extreme conservatives in general?
"Anonymous"...you will never stop lying, will you? Where did you come up with this idea:? "what we do know is that since the public attack on abstinence started with teachers".
It's getting so bad that every time I read your blather I feel like there is a diminishing dedication to intelligent discourse on your part.
"we" do NOT know that the public attack on abstinence started with teachers! That's just a figment of your imagination and uyour intense on-going hatred of teachers. Grow up!
RT
"Where did you come up with this idea:? "what we do know is that since the public attack on abstinence started with teachers"."
I actually observed this personally, RT.
Teachers were actually complaining that they wanted to do condom demonstration in schools.
Not long after I observed this, MCPS said they were pursuing this because teachers requested it.
I do say, teachers are absolutely horrid, aren't they?
Dr. "Anonymous" - it seems to me that it is pretty hard to generalize (more than one, hundreds, thousands, millions?) having observed maybe one or even two teachers ("Teachers were actually complaining that they wanted to do condom demonstration in schools")
There are approximately 12,000 teachers in MCPS. Did you interview (or observe) all of them? or maybe 50% of them? perhaps maybe 76? or two? And, if you actually observed them, who gave you permission to intrude into any teacher's classroom to monitor curriculum and the language used by the teacher to articulate that curriculum?
CRC spokespersons have always been guilty of resorting to sweeping generalities to back up their own weak arguments.
btw...referring to condoms, as allowed in the curriculum, is not an "attack on abstinence". It's providing comprehensive family life and sexuality education.
RT
It's true that there may be some teachers support abstinence education. They are few and far between.
CRC uses generalities?
Why does that not bother you when TTFers do it?
It's one of their most used rhetorical techniques.
Your objection rings hollow.
NEA has an official position on sex ed.
Tell us about it.
The nation's largest teacher's group is attacking abstinence education programs in a new report it co-sponsored.
The attack is designed to persuade Congressional lawmakers to cut funding for abstinence education, which studies have shown is achieving its intended results in reducing sex and teen pregnancies.
The National Education Association (NEA) and the anti-abstinence group SIECUS co-sponsored the new report, its fourth annual one attacking abstinence programs.
The report reviews abstinence education curriculum and claims it is "riddled with messages of fear and shame, gender stereotypes, and medical misinformation that put young people at risk."
"These reviews provide an excellent portrait of the types of abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula used in programs funded by the federal government," said William Smith, vice president for public policy at SIECUS.
The groups reviewed WAIT (Why Am I Tempted?) Training, Why kNOw, and Heritage Keepers, three abstinence-only-until-marriage programs located in more than a dozen states across the nation that have received more than $6 million in federal funding.
The NEA-SEICUS report slams the programs for encouraging students to have sex only after marriage, to be concerned about the failure rates of condoms and other forms of birth control to dress modestly, and to know about the basics of fetal development.
However, a study conducted by a University of Pennsylvania researcher in August found that teaching abstinence education to young teenagers in public schools reduces their sexual behavior.
The study found that abstinence helped delay the starting point at which teenagers begin having sexual relations.
The Penn researchers studied 662 African-American students in 6th and 7th grade from inner-city schools in Philadelphia.
They found that those who were taught abstinence were less likely to have had sexual relations in a 24 month followup compared to those who were taught about safer sex through the use of condoms but didn't mention abstinence.
Meanwhile, a June 2005 study by the US Department of Health and Human Services reveals that abstinence education works.
According to the interim report, teens who participated in abstinence programs had an increased awareness of the potential consequences of sexual activity before marriage, thought more highly of abstinent behaviors, and less favorable opinions about sexual activity before marriage than did students who were not in abstinence programs.
"Students who are in these [abstinence education] programs are recognizing that abstinence is a positive choice," HHS Assistant Secretary Michael O'Grady said.
"Abstinence education programs that help our young people address issues of healthy relationships, self-esteem, decision-making, and effective communications are important to keeping them healthy and safe," O'Grady added.
Polls also show that Americans strongly back abstinence education programs.
A January 2004 Zogby International poll showed that, out of the 1,004 parents surveyed across the nation, 96 percent said abstinence is best for teens.
Only 39.9 percent thought that abstinence and contraception should be combined in a single class.
ACTION: Send your complaints about the NEA's attack on abstinence to: NEA, 1201 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-3290. (p) (202) 833-4000, (f) (202) 822-7974
actually, I raised questions that might explain this anomaly in Maine
This "anomaly" in Maine is what every state hopes for, namely to be the state with the the lowest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation. We should be asking and analyzing how they did it so we can model sex education programs in states like Mississippi (the state with the highest teen pregnancy rate) after Maine's successful programs.
For the last 20 years, Maine's teen pregnancy rate has dropped by 50%. Since 2002, Maine has required their sex education programs "teach teenagers everything from self-restraint to contraception." Maine's sex ed programs combine the abstinence message with the contraception message and the HIV/AIDS prevention message.
For seven years Maine accepted federal abstinence money to help them present the abstinent message portion of their programs within the state. When the federal rules changed and they "would have had to focus sex education programs financed by the money on abstinence exclusively," they decided to decline the money so they would not have to change their programs from the proven programs that had brought down the teen pregnancy rate.
Maine's results demonstrate that teaching teens all three of these important messages -- abstinence, contraception, and HIV/AIDS prevention -- equips them with a powerful combination of knowledge and skills they can use to protect themselves from unplanned teen pregnancy and worse.
I'm grateful to have my children educated in Montgomery County because MCPS uses a similar approach.
"This "anomaly" in Maine is what every state hopes for,"
Maine doesn't seem to be doing anything different from any other of a number of states.
Why are they the only ones with this experience?
Try looking at demographics.
In most places, sex ed, of any version, hasn't had much of an impact at all.
The National Vital Statistics Reports produced a report documenting the sudden reversal in the teen birth rate in 2006, after declining each year from 1991-2005, entitled Births: Final Data for 2006
The NVSR report states:
Teenagers—The birth rate for teenagers aged 15–19 years rose 3 percent in 2006, interrupting the long-term decline that had extended from 1991 through 2005. The rate in 2006 was 41.9 births per 1,000 females aged 15–19 years, up from 40.5 in 2005. The teen birth rate had dropped 34 percent from 1991 (61.8) to 2005 (Figure 3, Tables A, B, 3, 4, and 8).
The 3-percent increase in the birth rate for teenagers 15–19 years in 2006 followed 14 years of continuous, though not steady, declines beginning after 1991. The reduction during 1991–2005 averaged 3 percent overall per year; however, the declines were much steeper during 1994–2003 and slowed to about 1 percent annually beginning in 2003–2004.
The number of births to teenagers 15–19 years rose 5 percent to 435,436 in 2006, compared with 414,593 in 2005. This was the largest single-year increase in the number since 1989–1990. Births to 15–19year-olds in the U.S. peaked in 1970 (644,708) (17). (See Table 2 for 2006 data.)
Advocates for Youth has published a chart showing the federal dollars spent on abstinence-only programs (scroll nearly to the bottom for the graph).
Yearly totals were:
1982-1996 $4million
1997 $9million
1998 $59million
1999 $60million
2000 $60million
2001 $80million
2002 $102million
2003 $117million
2004 $141million
2005 $171million
2006 $176million
Looking at both sets of data, it's clear, that as more federal money was appropriated and dispersed to states to provide instruction in abstinence until marriage, the rate of decrease in the teen birth rate slowed, and then reversed. 2002 was the first year more than $100 million dollars was spent and 2003 was the last year of the "steeper decline [in teen birth rate] during 1991-2003." The average decline in teen births was 3% a year from 1991-2003, however, the decline slowed to only 1% in 2003-4 and reversed to become an increase in teen births of 5% in 2006.
The SybilAnon who has used the name "Somewhere man," among others, may want to note the NVSR report stated, "Births to 15–19year-olds in the U.S. peaked in 1970." That means the "valueless sex-ed curriculum, back in the 70s" he has complained about since at least January, 2006, which includes instruction in contraceptives, particularly condoms, actually brought the teen birth rate down from that 1970 peak.
Here's another interesting finding. Figure 5 on Page 10 in the NVSR report, shows the 10 states with the largest significant increases in teen birth in 2006 are:
Alabama
Alaska
Hawaii
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
Oklahoma
Oregon
As of 2008, each of these states was still accepting federal abstinence-only funding.
Post a Comment
<< Home