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

[Missourian]

Pregnancy rate by state,

United States, lowest to highest.

1. New Hampshire
2. Vermont
3. Maine
4. Minnesota
5. North Dakota
6. Utah
7. Wisconsin
8. Massachusetts
9. Nebraska
10. Iowa
11. South Dakota
12. Pennsylvania
13. Idaho
14. Montana
15. Connecticut
16. Oregon
17. Washington
18. Kansas
19. Michigan
20. Alaska
21. Virginia
22. Indiana
23. Ohio
24. Rhode Island
25. West Virginia
26. Missouri
27. Maryland
28. Wyoming
29. Kentucky
30. Illinois
31. New Jersey
32. Colorado
33. Louisiana
34. Hawaii
35. Alabama
36. California
37. North Carolina
38. Oklahoma
39. Florida
40. New York
41. South Carolina
42. Tennessee
43. Arkansas
44. Georgia
45. Delaware
46. Mississippi
47. Texas
48. Arizona
49. Nevada
50. New Mexico
51. District of Columbia

Last modified: January 2010

50-State and National Comparisons | The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy -

#1

New Hampshire
Schools must provide information on HIV/AIDS and other STDs, but do not have to offer a general sex education course.




#50

New Mexico
Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs.


Worst in the nation, Washington D.C.

District of Columbia
Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information on STDs and HIV/AIDS.

State Sex Education Laws
​

Oops.



So why did the post focus in on Mississippi, when Washington DC and Nevada were at the bottom of the list?





​

 

[BDBoop]

Go, Minnesota!! WooT!!

 

[Newby]

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.

And my point is that we've degraded as a society over the last 50 years or so, hence all of our problems. What's the difference between society today and society in the 40's - 50's and earlier?

So, it's better to have hardly any 'respectable' girls, like it is today? Yeah, we've (women)really come a long way and improved our position, right? It had nothing to do with control, it had to do with people having values and respecting those values, a society that agreed on where the moral lines were drawn. All that is gone, women are sex objects today, it's everywhere you look, and you think that the female condition has improved??? You're funny... Sexual 'liberation' didn't do anything for women, it sure has been good for men tho. Look at all these women with babies and no father, not a male in sight except for the latest 'boyfriend' that's primarily hanging around for one or two reasons. Yeah, women are so much more repsected today, you go with that...

 

[Dr.Drock]

Missourian ok it works on 6th and 7th graders,, I'm only 26 so fairly young and i can't remember ever hearing ppl talking about having sex that young. Maybe 1% of the grade. But we're talking about teen-pregnancy,

And to your other post I haven't heard anyone speak out against including abstinence in sex-ed classes, it just shouldn't be the main focus. You're asking ppl to deny their natural physical instincts, that I'm sure according to you, was given to us by God when he created us.

 

[Gadawg73]

Teaching sex education has not degraded anything.
Bad parenting at home did that. No matter how hard we try to put the blame on anything other than that it always ends up the same.
Bad parenting.

 

[Dragon]

And my point is that we've degraded as a society over the last 50 years or so, hence all of our problems.

Then you are introducing a new point, a new subject of discussion, and not answering the thread premise at all, and it was disingenuous of you to pretend you were answering that premise.

So, it's better to have hardly any 'respectable' girls, like it is today?

It's better to redefine the concept of respectability so that it does not incorporate subordination and submission. It's better that women not be dominated by men. It's better that women be in control of their own sexuality, instead of having it controlled by others. If that' results in an increase in teenage pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births, it's cheap at the price. In any case, the deed is done, the change is made, and there's no going back, so it's pointless to whine about it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Seems like in the old days people were still having sex and getting pregnant in their teens. That's cuz ppl were getting married at 17, 18 years old.

These days you have ppl who take high school more seriously, way more ppl in college, women working rather than staying at home, doesn't seem very rational to compare 2012 to 1942 when everything is so different.

 

[catzmeow]

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.

My parents raised me in an abstinence-only vacuum. As soon as I got out from under their control, I went a little nuts. One of my main goals with my daughter was to raise her to be more sexually responsible than I was. What my parents did with me clearly did not work. What I did with my daughter appears to be working (so far).

 

[BDBoop]

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.

And my point is that we've degraded as a society over the last 50 years or so, hence all of our problems. What's the difference between society today and society in the 40's - 50's and earlier?

So, it's better to have hardly any 'respectable' girls, like it is today? Yeah, we've (women)really come a long way and improved our position, right? It had nothing to do with control, it had to do with people having values and respecting those values, a society that agreed on where the moral lines were drawn. All that is gone, women are sex objects today, it's everywhere you look, and you think that the female condition has improved??? You're funny... Sexual 'liberation' didn't do anything for women, it sure has been good for men tho. Look at all these women with babies and no father, not a male in sight except for the latest 'boyfriend' that's primarily hanging around for one or two reasons. Yeah, women are so much more repsected today, you go with that...

You have GOT to be kidding me. Or you travel in truly trashy social circles. There are literally millions of unmarried, sexually active women who have accomplished a great deal with their lives.

 

[Newby]

And my point is that we've degraded as a society over the last 50 years or so, hence all of our problems.

Then you are introducing a new point, a new subject of discussion, and not answering the thread premise at all, and it was disingenuous of you to pretend you were answering that premise.

So, it's better to have hardly any 'respectable' girls, like it is today?

It's better to redefine the concept of respectability so that it does not incorporate subordination and submission. It's better that women not be dominated by men. It's better that women be in control of their own sexuality, instead of having it controlled by others. If that' results in an increase in teenage pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births, it's cheap at the price. In any case, the deed is done, the change is made, and there's no going back, so it's pointless to whine about it.

It's already been 'redefined' by the media and culture today, and I disagree that it's a 'cheap price' to pay. I don't think either of my grandmothers or my mother would think that they weren't 'in charge' of their own sexuality, neither of them were 'subordinate' to anyone. You seem to confuse the ability to be a complete slut out in the open as 'being in charge of your sexuality', whatever makes you happy. What you want is a society that is free from all judgment, anyone can do whatever they want, and it's 'acceptable'. The problem is, that will never be achieved, you yourself 'judge' people. Everyone will still think that the slut is a slut, they just won't voice it, and like I said, men have benefited from the so called 'womens liberation'.

 

[Newby]

Seems like in the old days people were still having sex and getting pregnant in their teens. That's cuz ppl were getting married at 17, 18 years old.

These days you have ppl who take high school more seriously, way more ppl in college, women working rather than staying at home, doesn't seem very rational to compare 2012 to 1942 when everything is so different.

Yes, different is the correct word, certainly not 'better' in a lot of ways with regards to society.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Seems like in the old days people were still having sex and getting pregnant in their teens. That's cuz ppl were getting married at 17, 18 years old.

These days you have ppl who take high school more seriously, way more ppl in college, women working rather than staying at home, doesn't seem very rational to compare 2012 to 1942 when everything is so different.

Yes, different is the correct word, certainly not 'better' in a lot of ways with regards to society.

Better in some ways, worse in others, I'd say in terms of everyone if you include minorities and women, things are better now than they've ever been.

 

[Newby]

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.

And my point is that we've degraded as a society over the last 50 years or so, hence all of our problems. What's the difference between society today and society in the 40's - 50's and earlier?

So, it's better to have hardly any 'respectable' girls, like it is today? Yeah, we've (women)really come a long way and improved our position, right? It had nothing to do with control, it had to do with people having values and respecting those values, a society that agreed on where the moral lines were drawn. All that is gone, women are sex objects today, it's everywhere you look, and you think that the female condition has improved??? You're funny... Sexual 'liberation' didn't do anything for women, it sure has been good for men tho. Look at all these women with babies and no father, not a male in sight except for the latest 'boyfriend' that's primarily hanging around for one or two reasons. Yeah, women are so much more repsected today, you go with that...

You have GOT to be kidding me. Or you travel in truly trashy social circles. There are literally millions of unmarried, sexually active women who have accomplished a great deal with their lives.

You might want to go take a look at welfare and single mother statistics, or just watch your nightly news. You apparently live in a vacuum. I didn't say they didn't accomplish anything either, I just said that men have benefited from the acceptance of trash and filth as an every day common thing in our society, and many women have not benefited, again go look at the statistics.

 

[Newby]

Seems like in the old days people were still having sex and getting pregnant in their teens. That's cuz ppl were getting married at 17, 18 years old.

These days you have ppl who take high school more seriously, way more ppl in college, women working rather than staying at home, doesn't seem very rational to compare 2012 to 1942 when everything is so different.

Yes, different is the correct word, certainly not 'better' in a lot of ways with regards to society.

Better in some ways, worse in others, I'd say in terms of everyone if you include minorities and women, things are better now than they've ever been.

Really? How many single unwed mothers are there in poverty today as compared to the 40's and 50's? Especially minorities? Have you ever taken a good look at the black community from those years as compared to today? There was pride and respect, people were married and children were brought up with both a father and a mother. In my opinion, dem policies of welfare have brought about the inner city and the destruction of the black family. They put them right where they wanted them, in poverty and dependant upon the government and a solid voting block.

 

[BDBoop]

And my point is that we've degraded as a society over the last 50 years or so, hence all of our problems. What's the difference between society today and society in the 40's - 50's and earlier?

So, it's better to have hardly any 'respectable' girls, like it is today? Yeah, we've (women)really come a long way and improved our position, right? It had nothing to do with control, it had to do with people having values and respecting those values, a society that agreed on where the moral lines were drawn. All that is gone, women are sex objects today, it's everywhere you look, and you think that the female condition has improved??? You're funny... Sexual 'liberation' didn't do anything for women, it sure has been good for men tho. Look at all these women with babies and no father, not a male in sight except for the latest 'boyfriend' that's primarily hanging around for one or two reasons. Yeah, women are so much more repsected today, you go with that...

You have GOT to be kidding me. Or you travel in truly trashy social circles. There are literally millions of unmarried, sexually active women who have accomplished a great deal with their lives.

You might want to go take a look at welfare and single mother statistics, or just watch your nightly news. You apparently live in a vacuum. I didn't say they didn't accomplish anything either, I just said that men have benefited from the acceptance of trash and filth as an every day common thing in our society, and many women have not benefited, again go look at the statistics.

Nope. I just don't focus on the negative, and I realize that life is a lot more complicated than you would have me believe.

 

[Newby]

You have GOT to be kidding me. Or you travel in truly trashy social circles. There are literally millions of unmarried, sexually active women who have accomplished a great deal with their lives.

You might want to go take a look at welfare and single mother statistics, or just watch your nightly news. You apparently live in a vacuum. I didn't say they didn't accomplish anything either, I just said that men have benefited from the acceptance of trash and filth as an every day common thing in our society, and many women have not benefited, again go look at the statistics.

Nope. I just don't focus on the negative, and I realize that life is a lot more complicated than you would have me believe.

Yeah, it was so complicated that generations before ours managed to live without all the crap that goes on today.

 

[BDBoop]

Only the very young believe that life is not complicated.

 

[Dragon]

Really? How many single unwed mothers are there in poverty today as compared to the 40's and 50's? Especially minorities?

Are you going to suggest that poverty among blacks and Hispanics is worse today than it was in the 1950s? Are you SERIOUSLY going to go there? Really?

For that matter, are you going to suggest that poverty is worse today for women than it was in the 1950s?

You can easily be proven wrong on all of this. Now, if you cherry-pick specific statistics about poor single parents, you can create the illusion that things have gotten worse, but no one has ever claimed that gender equality, alone among all historical cultural changes, produced no downside. It's just that on the whole, the upside greatly exceeds anything bad about it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yes, different is the correct word, certainly not 'better' in a lot of ways with regards to society.

Better in some ways, worse in others, I'd say in terms of everyone if you include minorities and women, things are better now than they've ever been.

Really? How many single unwed mothers are there in poverty today as compared to the 40's and 50's? Especially minorities? Have you ever taken a good look at the black community from those years as compared to today? There was pride and respect, people were married and children were brought up with both a father and a mother. In my opinion, dem policies of welfare have brought about the inner city and the destruction of the black family. They put them right where they wanted them, in poverty and dependant upon the government and a solid voting block.

Economically i agree with you, as a society we're worse off. Owning a home was easier for every generation before this one. I wouldn't say there was ever a good economic time for minorites, black people from the 20's to 40's were grankids or great grandkids to slaves, can't see them as having gotten any inheritances or economic help or training from their families. But in terms of economics and ppl being broke now, I agree with you things are worse.

But now women can work, can go to school, and do as much as men. Total equality in the workforce and education system has been achieved. Now a woman in an abusive or miserable relationship or marriage can get out of it without society viewing her as damaged goods.

Women in the early 40's and earlier were dependent on men for the most part, I'm glad women have moved as far away from that as possible.

 

[Immanuel]

This coming from the people who want to micromanage every aspect of our life.

Yes, giving people access to birth control options is micromanaging their lives.

But I suppose the world would be a better place if every 5th high school girl was pregnant and forced to carry the baby to term at point of a gun.

Actually, I think what Avatar meant was that the left wants to micromanage everyone's lives except for in reference to their sex life. The only thing that the left does not want the government to control is our sex lives. Everything else must be under the purview of our dear leaders... i.e. our charitable giving, our retirement planning, whether or not we wear seat belts in cars, whether or not we smoke, what light bulbs we use, the usage of our own land, what we pay our employees, who we hire, whether or not we can pray in public or read scripture in public or display religious expression, owning weapons... etc. etc. etc. The list goes on.

The only three things the left doesn't want government to control is whether or not birth control is used, abortion and who we "marry". All three of those are sex life related. Why is that the only thing the left does NOT want to control?

Immie