States with ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed programs rank highest in teen pregnancies

[UpAndAbout]

The state with the lowest rate of teen pregnancies is New Hampshire, which requires comprehensive sex ed in schools that includes information about condoms and other forms of birth control in addition to abstinence.

The power of knowledge, allowing each individual to make informed, intelligent decisions about his personal life.

No wonder conservatives are opposed to it.

how in the HELL is a 15 year old becoming pregnant and then going on welfare making an "intelligent" decision. Give me a break!!! Kids don't BELIEVE you when you tell a young girl that when some guy gives the the classic, ages old line "if you LOVED me, you'd do it" is just a lot of bullshit or "Now I've got blue balls, I could die" crap. When you are unable to deal with the consequences of your decision yourself, you've no business doing the deed. It's that simple. A 15 year old could not get a driver's license, register to vote, go in the military, then why in God's name do we further compound the issue by allowing, encouraging even, her to keep the baby and go on welfare. A 15 year old doesn't have a clue how to take care of herself, let alone baby. And unfortunately it's always the baby, the innocent one, who suffers.

And since when are liberals in favor of someone making their one decision about his personal life? I suppose if the decision means government dependence, it's ok huh?

 

[UpAndAbout]

Good post, anyone who's the least bit in touch with the real world knows abstinence-only has no chance in hell of working. I have no idea why people keep pretending it does, it's not like unprotected teenage sex is some new phenomena. If you're younger than most rocks, unprotected teenage sex has been abundant in your generation.

Why don't we compare today's teen pregnancy rate with 50 - 60 - 70 plus years ago, when sex education wasn't even an idea. Why do we have an issue with it today, but not back then? Apparently 'social policies' that we've supposedly 'evolved' into (I'd call it regression) over the last 50 to 60 years aren't very good.

Absolutely! it was definitely taboo to have sex out of marriage, live together before marriage and certainly have a baby out of wedlock. There was no birth control back then, so likely as not the girl would get pregnant. if she DID get pregnant, there would be the "shotgun" wedding or they'd ship the girl off to some distant place to have the baby and give it up for adoption.

 

[Newby]

Good post, anyone who's the least bit in touch with the real world knows abstinence-only has no chance in hell of working. I have no idea why people keep pretending it does, it's not like unprotected teenage sex is some new phenomena. If you're younger than most rocks, unprotected teenage sex has been abundant in your generation.

Why don't we compare today's teen pregnancy rate with 50 - 60 - 70 plus years ago, when sex education wasn't even an idea. Why do we have an issue with it today, but not back then? Apparently 'social policies' that we've supposedly 'evolved' into (I'd call it regression) over the last 50 to 60 years aren't very good.

Absolutely! it was definitely taboo to have sex out of marriage, live together before marriage and certainly have a baby out of wedlock. There was no birth control back then, so likely as not the girl would get pregnant. if she DID get pregnant, there would be the "shotgun" wedding or they'd ship the girl off to some distant place to have the baby and give it up for adoption.

There were consequences, that was the bottom line, and it worked as a great deterrent. Today, there are not only no consequences, but you're given every kind of help imaginable.

 

[BDBoop]

1972.... we were well on the road to corruption as a society by then. Try the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's... it all started in the 60's, the same period where those in charge today were in their teens (teach your parent's well, because they're all naive morons), and based on where we're at today, I'd say it's not much of a coincidence that we're in the shape we are with those people in positions of power today.

I think what you view as 'corruption' the rest of us view as evolution.

Only your type would see kids having sex, and kids having babies as 'progress'.

Yes that's what I was talking about.

Numbnutz.

 

[Newby]

I think what you view as 'corruption' the rest of us view as evolution.

Only your type would see kids having sex, and kids having babies as 'progress'.

Yes that's what I was talking about.

Numbnutz.

Your words sweetie, not mine. The topic was teens having babies, get with the program.

 

[Dragon]

Why don't we compare today's teen pregnancy rate with 50 - 60 - 70 plus years ago, when sex education wasn't even an idea.

Because it introduces too many variables not relevant to the discussion and muddies the waters (which is of course why you want to do it).

Okay... thanks for the laugh anyway...

And thank you for the unfortunately typical non-response.

 

[Dragon]

1972.... we were well on the road to corruption as a society by then. Try the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's... it all started in the 60's, the same period where those in charge today were in their teens (teach your parent's well, because they're all naive morons), and based on where we're at today, I'd say it's not much of a coincidence that we're in the shape we are with those people in positions of power today.

I think what you view as 'corruption' the rest of us view as evolution.

Only your type would see kids having sex, and kids having babies as 'progress'.

Democracy results in more money being spent on elections than was ever done by ancient monarchies.

Emancipation of the slaves resulted in more uncertainty about their future and employment possibilities for the freedmen and their descendants.

The 19th Amendment resulted in some women casting votes irrationally, whereas before they could vote no women did that.

All changes, however beneficial, have at least some undesirable consequences. Increases in teen pregnancies since the 1950s results from greater gender equality and less tendency for teenage girls to be seen as "ruined" if they lose their virginity, or forced to marry someone they might not want to if they do; it results from cultural changes that have made life freer, more pleasant, and less brutal for most people. If an increase in teen pregnancy resulted as a consequence, it was well worth it.

 

[Gadawg73]

I think what you view as 'corruption' the rest of us view as evolution.

Only your type would see kids having sex, and kids having babies as 'progress'.

Democracy results in more money being spent on elections than was ever done by ancient monarchies.

Emancipation of the slaves resulted in more uncertainty about their future and employment possibilities for the freedmen and their descendants.

The 19th Amendment resulted in some women casting votes irrationally, whereas before they could vote no women did that.

All changes, however beneficial, have at least some undesirable consequences. Increases in teen pregnancies since the 1950s results from greater gender equality and less tendency for teenage girls to be seen as "ruined" if they lose their virginity, or forced to marry someone they might not want to if they do; it results from cultural changes that have made life freer, more pleasant, and less brutal for most people. If an increase in teen pregnancy resulted as a consequence, it was well worth it.

And as a result of that teen pregnancy is at an all time low since the 40s I believe along with the highest graduation rate ever for girls from high school.
And colleges, medical and law schools are ALL now predominantly female.
That is what the right wing male was afraid of all along.

 

[catzmeow]

I have found, in raising my own teenagers, that providing them with as much information as I can is really the best policy. There were a lot of good reasons for my daughter to wait to have sex. None of them had anything to do with religion.

 

[UpAndAbout]

Only your type would see kids having sex, and kids having babies as 'progress'.

Democracy results in more money being spent on elections than was ever done by ancient monarchies.

Emancipation of the slaves resulted in more uncertainty about their future and employment possibilities for the freedmen and their descendants.

The 19th Amendment resulted in some women casting votes irrationally, whereas before they could vote no women did that.

All changes, however beneficial, have at least some undesirable consequences. Increases in teen pregnancies since the 1950s results from greater gender equality and less tendency for teenage girls to be seen as "ruined" if they lose their virginity, or forced to marry someone they might not want to if they do; it results from cultural changes that have made life freer, more pleasant, and less brutal for most people. If an increase in teen pregnancy resulted as a consequence, it was well worth it.

And as a result of that teen pregnancy is at an all time low since the 40s I believe along with the highest graduation rate ever for girls from high school.
And colleges, medical and law schools are ALL now predominantly female.
That is what the right wing male was afraid of all along.

Not MY "right wing" husband - he loves women and thinks it is wonderful so many are doctors and lawyers and engineers, etc. He just drools over Amy Matthews on DIY. I am actually the bread winner now and even before he retired, I STILL made more than him. So THAT theory of your doesn't pan out. A REAL man is not threatened by a strong woman -- I don't care what political party he hails from.

If Ann Romney had wanted to work outside the home, she would have. Raising five children is a job in and of itself, if you do it right. As Jackie Kennedy was quoted: "If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do well matters very much."

 

[Newby]

Because it introduces too many variables not relevant to the discussion and muddies the waters (which is of course why you want to do it).

Okay... thanks for the laugh anyway...

And thank you for the unfortunately typical non-response.

Okay, would you mind naming some of those 'variables' that you're referring too? Nothing 'muddies the water', you just have no explanation as to why people didn't act like government leeches during a time that respect and consequences played a large role in the social discourse. Our 'anything goes' society will be our downfall eventually.

 

[Newby]

Only your type would see kids having sex, and kids having babies as 'progress'.

Democracy results in more money being spent on elections than was ever done by ancient monarchies.

Emancipation of the slaves resulted in more uncertainty about their future and employment possibilities for the freedmen and their descendants.

The 19th Amendment resulted in some women casting votes irrationally, whereas before they could vote no women did that.

All changes, however beneficial, have at least some undesirable consequences. Increases in teen pregnancies since the 1950s results from greater gender equality and less tendency for teenage girls to be seen as "ruined" if they lose their virginity, or forced to marry someone they might not want to if they do; it results from cultural changes that have made life freer, more pleasant, and less brutal for most people. If an increase in teen pregnancy resulted as a consequence, it was well worth it.

And as a result of that teen pregnancy is at an all time low since the 40s I believe along with the highest graduation rate ever for girls from high school.
And colleges, medical and law schools are ALL now predominantly female.
That is what the right wing male was afraid of all along.

Of course you have statistics to back that up, that claim that teen pregnancy is at an all time low since the 40's? Seriously?

 

[uscitizen]

Those states just need to pay Bristol Palin a quarter million to promote abstinance only programs for them.

 

[Gadawg73]

I have found, in raising my own teenagers, that providing them with as much information as I can is really the best policy. There were a lot of good reasons for my daughter to wait to have sex. None of them had anything to do with religion.

Well said and the same with my 18 soon to be 19 daughter.
Abstinence is a great thing but teaching it as the only form of sex education and birth control is like saying the only way to not have an insurance claim is park your car in the garage and never drive it. Why take driver's education as if you drive you can get killed!
What amazes the hell out of me is why do all these religous folks come out of the wood work on what THEY want taught in school. If they are having problems with their own kids over this, that IS NOT my problem and they need to teach them at HOME and not at school if they just want a religous abstinence policy only.

 

[BDBoop]

Those states just need to pay Bristol Palin a quarter million to promote abstinance only programs for them.

Works for her.

 

[Gadawg73]

Democracy results in more money being spent on elections than was ever done by ancient monarchies.

Emancipation of the slaves resulted in more uncertainty about their future and employment possibilities for the freedmen and their descendants.

The 19th Amendment resulted in some women casting votes irrationally, whereas before they could vote no women did that.

All changes, however beneficial, have at least some undesirable consequences. Increases in teen pregnancies since the 1950s results from greater gender equality and less tendency for teenage girls to be seen as "ruined" if they lose their virginity, or forced to marry someone they might not want to if they do; it results from cultural changes that have made life freer, more pleasant, and less brutal for most people. If an increase in teen pregnancy resulted as a consequence, it was well worth it.

And as a result of that teen pregnancy is at an all time low since the 40s I believe along with the highest graduation rate ever for girls from high school.
And colleges, medical and law schools are ALL now predominantly female.
That is what the right wing male was afraid of all along.

Of course you have statistics to back that up, that claim that teen pregnancy is at an all time low since the 40's? Seriously?

Since 1984, not 1948, sorry about that.
Declining for the last 28 years and still declining.
Want to wager on that? Declining since 1984.

 

[Dragon]

Okay, would you mind naming some of those 'variables' that you're referring to?

The original assertion in the OP is that, under today's social conditions, abstinence-only education appears to result in more teenage pregnancies than complete sex education curriculum and access to birth control. Bringing up a bygone era compares something under today's social conditions to something under quite different ones, in which gender equality hardly existed, and female sexuality remained under the control of men in large degree, and kept girls under close scrutiny while encouraging boys to sow wild oats, which meant that boys did this not with respectable teen girls but with prostitutes, older women, and girls who weren't respectable.

So in addition to the original variable of abstinence-only versus sex-ed with contraceptives, we have a sexually restrictive, gender-unequal culture that keeps female sexuality under male (and in teen years, under family) control, versus a sexually more permissive, gender-equal culture that allows boys and girls equal liberty to explore their sexuality. That doesn't give you a good comparison between abstinence-only and sex-ed with contraceptives, because it introduces too many differences between the two circumstances being compared.

 

[Gadawg73]

Since 1991 some states teen births ARE ONE HALF now what they were then.
Washington DC is included in the data,they were the highest and in 1991 there were 110 teen births per 1000 teen girls 15-19 years old and in 2000 there were FORTY EIGHT!

 

[Missourian]

A study has shown that while the U.S. is currently enjoying a steady decline in the number of teen pregnancies, states with sex ed and health classes that stress “abstinence-only” education rank the highest in the numbers of underage pregnancies, according to a post at Think Progress.

The current rate of teen pregnancies, about 35 per 1,000 girls between the ages of 15 and 19, is the lowest on record since the CDC began to track these statistics in 1940. The CDC attributes the improvement to pregnancy prevention efforts and education.

However, 37 states currently mandate that all sex education include information on abstinence, 26 of whom insist that abstinence be taught as the main method of pregnancy prevention. Studies have indicated that abstinence-only programs may end up deterring contraceptive use among teens who do have sex, whereas teenagers who have been taught a comprehensive sex ed curriculum are “60 percent less likely” to become pregnant or get someone else pregnant.

Additionally, a 2007 federal study indicated that abstinence-only education ultimately had “no impacts ” at all on rates of sexual abstinence.

The two states with the highest rates of teen pregnancies are Mississippi and New Mexico. Neither state requires that sex ed be taught in schools. Mississippi law stipulates that when sexual education is taught, that abstinence be the main method of contraception proscribed by educators, whereas New Mexico has no rules about reproductive health criteria at all.

The state with the lowest rate of teen pregnancies is New Hampshire, which requires comprehensive sex ed in schools that includes information about condoms and other forms of birth control in addition to abstinence.

States with ‘abstinence-only’ sex ed programs rank highest in teen pregnancies | The Raw Story




Religion fail.

"According to a POST from ThinkProgress..."

The POST lol cites a 2007 study the poster likes, while ignoring a 2010 study that doesn't support his/her opinion.

Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths

February 02, 2010|By Ashley Hayes, CNN

An abstinence-only education program is more effective than other initiatives at keeping sixth- and seventh-graders from having sex within a two-year period, according to a study described by some as a landmark.


The study, published in the current issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, indicated that about one-third of the preteens and their young teen classmates who received an eight-hour abstinence lesson had sexual intercourse within two years of the class.


By comparison, more than half of the students who were taught about safe sex and condom use reported having intercourse by the two-year mark, and more than 40 percent of students who received either an eight- or 12-hour lesson incorporating both abstinence education and safe sex reported having sex at two years.


Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths - CNN​

 

[Dragon]

There is no contradiction between the 2007 and the 2010 studies. The 2007 study shows that abstinence only is inferior at PREVENTING TEEN PREGNANCY. The 2010 study shows that abstinence only is best at DELAYING TEEN SEX. As delaying teen sex is one thing while preventing teen pregnancy is another, these results in no way contradict each other.