Permissive Sex Ed Linked to Higher Pregnancy, Abortion Rates.

"Indeed, during the safe-sex, condom mania of the 1980s, teen birthrates increased. However, after the advent of federal abstinence programs in the mid-1990s, the birthrate of girls under 18 began an unprecedented, long-term decline. The birthrate of girls ages 15 to 17 dropped by a third: from 3.5 births per 100 girls to 2.1.

"Although it would be inaccurate to attribute all of this decline to abstinence education, it’s quite odd to suggest that the push to teach abstinence somehow increased teen births. (Incidentally, over a dozen scientific evaluations show that abstinence programs reduce teen sexual activity.)

"True, CDC data show that socially conservative Southern states (which tend to favor teaching abstinence) have higher teen birthrates than liberal Northeastern states. This is so even when white, black, and Hispanic girls are considered separately.

"But an almost identical state-by-state variation existed in 1990, before abstinence programs were a factor. As the CDC report indicates, state variation in teen births is heavily affected by long-term socioeconomic and cultural differences. What’s more, a state’s teen birthrate can be strongly influenced by the teen abortion rate. States with permissive sex-ed policies tend to have substantially higher rates of teen abortion."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...r-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-robert-rector

- - - Updated - - -

"...the CDC report lauds California, New York, and New Jersey for relatively low teen birthrates. But it isn’t because those states have low pregnancy rates, it’s because they lead the nation in promoting abortion among teenage girls.

Contrary to the breathless claims of Planned Parenthood, there is no evidence that states with liberal sex-ed policies have lower teen-pregnancy rates. In fact, the evidence suggests that, after adjusting for important racial differences among states, those with liberal sex-ed policies actually have higher rates of pregnancy for girls under 18.

Sex-ed programs promoted by Planned Parenthood and its allies in the Obama administration teach that it is okay for teens to have sex as long as they use a condom. Virtually no parents support this idea. Even teens tend to disagree with it. But Planned Parenthood’s message to teens is brutally simple: Hook up, have sex, but use that condom; if it doesn’t work out, we’ll fix things with a taxpayer-funded abortion."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251283/permissive-sex-ed-linked-higher-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-robert-rector
Also, what a coincidence that California and New York aren't required to submit abortion data to the feds. So pretty much whatever what PP and the CDC want to say...well, there's no way to verify it. How convenient!

 

I checked out "National Review", all the articles are ultra conservative. Biased. Fundamentalists believe they can keep teen-agers from having sex by using the threat of pregnancy. Now in millions of years that has never kept teen-agers from having sex, so I don't know why they insist on continuing that avenue. That is why they don't want their teens to know birth control or abortion even exists, and they certainly don't want them to know how or where to get them.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/24/us-teen-pregnancies-idUSTON47250120080324
(Reuters Health) - Comprehensive sex education that includes discussion of birth control may help reduce teen pregnancies, while abstinence-only programs seem to fall short, the results of a U.S. survey suggest.

Using data from a 2002 national survey, researchers found that among more than 1,700 unmarried, heterosexual teens between 15 and 19 years old, those who'd received comprehensive sex ed in school were 60 percent less likely to have been pregnant or gotten someone pregnant than teens who'd had no formal sex education.

Meanwhile, there was no clear benefit from abstinence-only education in preventing pregnancy or delaying sexual intercourse, the researchers report in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

The study found that teens who'd been through abstinence-only programs were less likely than those who'd received no sex ed to have been pregnant. However, the difference was not significant in statistical terms, which means the finding could have been due to chance.

http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/...-education-impact-rates-of-sexual-abstinence/

The authors conclude,

“…increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.”

Other studies appear to support the overall conclusion:

Kohler et al. (200 found that teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or to get someone pregnant than those who received no sex education. “There was no evidence to suggest that abstinence-only education decreased the likelihood of ever having sex or getting pregnant.”
Mathematica researchers (2007) found abstinence-only programs have “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence.”

 

I'm sorry you don't understand how to investigate information. The articles are sourced. Check out the sources.

 

Checking your source now. I'm sure it's *unbiased*. That seems to be really important, so I'm sure you would only use an unbiased source. Back in a flash.

 

"Decisions on Evidence" = a retired educator's BLOG.

Shocking.

And Reuter's is famously left wing.

So please provide some other source. I don't accept those.

 

It may come as a big surprise to you that your acceptance or nonacceptance of my sites is of little importance to me. I know that YOU will not change your mind regardless of the quality of proof provided, so my challenging your assertions is primarily for the benefit of lurkers who may not have minds set in concrete. Oh, and BTW, don't you think a retired educator might know something of real value about young people? The question here is whether we are going to give young people the information they need to protect themselves, or are we going to hide our heads in the sand and pretend they won't have sex just because we say so.



http://www.unc.edu/~jones16/service learning article.pdf

Among fully industrialized countries, the United States has the highest rate of
teen pregnancy. The rate of teen pregnancy in the United States is almost twice that of
Great Britain, four times that of France and Germany, and over 10 times that of Japan.
US taxpayers spend $7 billion a year on teen pregnancy....
2
There are not only great differences in sex education between regions of the
United States. There are also differences between the United States and other countries.
Other developed Western countries with lower pregnancy rates than the United States
have more comprehensive sex education programs and greater acceptance of sexuality.
Those countries also provide teenagers greater access to different forms of birth control

Another reason that teen pregnancy rates are higher in the United States is that teens here
are less likely to use contraceptives, have shorter relationships, and have more sexual

 

Seriously? And your offering is from Heritage Foundation? Are you for real?

 

I love how you just "attach" something at the end, as if it's established by whatever it is you sourced prior. Kindly provide the supporting evidence for that last comment. I think I've asked about 15 times since coming to this site for supporting evidence..and I think maybe I've gotten it one time. Usually that's a pro-abortionist's cue to exit the building, and be replaced by new blood....until they likewise are asked for corroborating evidence. But I'm glad that we understand each other now, and I can rest assured that you have no interest in providing any sort of corroboration for your propaganda. It's nice to have it all on the table.

......

 

and to date you have never supplied a single piece of evidence that is not directly lifted from a pro-life site, or maybe had the words re-arranged a little by yourself in order to make it look better.

It will never change, you state pro-choice evidence is biased, we state pro-life evidence is biased . .until someone comes up with evidence from a 100% non-biased source and even then I suspect one side or the other will still insist it is biased.

You state that pro-choice people are not interested in the truth, TBH honest most are not interested in your interpretation of truth.

 

There's no interpretation of truth. That's where pro-life and pro-abortionists part ways.

 

im fresh out of public school and i can guarantee that they do NOT teach abstinence. that is a fallacy.

 

Of course it is.

 

Check the link, it's there.

 

That link doesn't support that last comment. Sorry.

 

Prove it is a fabrication

There is no absolute truth . .you are deluded if you think otherwise

 

Yes, it does. You're wrong again.

 

It may not have been in the state you live in, however there are 11 states that have no sex or HIV education apart from Abstinence

Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Texas
Virginia

of those states almost half rank in the highest teenage birth rates - four of them in the top six

Mississippi (1)
Arkansas (3)
Texas (4)
Louisiana (6)
Arizona (12)

 

Link?

BTW, the OP in this thread is mine, and it links to National Review, which is not a right to life site.

That was hard.

Also, Pasithea herself commented on the fact that I use links that aren't exclusively right to life sites.

Incidentally, I've reported your trolling as such. Is there an ignore feature?

- - - Updated - - -

Link?

BTW, the OP in this thread is mine, and it links to National Review, which is not a right to life site.

That was hard.

Also, Pasithea herself commented on the fact that I use links that aren't exclusively right to life sites.

Incidentally, I've reported your trolling as such. Is there an ignore feature?

 

To quote you, what has this to do with the OP

Isn't it always the case that those who do not want to answer seek to silence those who ask

I'm sure there is, the last refuge of a coward to ignore

 

"True, CDC data show that socially conservative Southern states (which tend to favor teaching abstinence) have higher teen birthrates than liberal Northeastern states. This is so even when white, black, and Hispanic girls are considered separately.

"But an almost identical state-by-state variation existed in 1990, before abstinence programs were a factor. As the CDC report indicates, state variation in teen births is heavily affected by long-term socioeconomic and cultural differences. What’s more, a state’s teen birthrate can be strongly influenced by the teen abortion rate. States with permissive sex-ed policies tend to have substantially higher rates of teen abortion. For example, the CDC report lauds California, New York, and New Jersey for relatively low teen birthrates. But it isn’t because those states have low pregnancy rates, it’s because they lead the nation in promoting abortion among teenage girls.

"Contrary to the breathless claims of Planned Parenthood, there is no evidence that states with liberal sex-ed policies have lower teen-pregnancy rates. In fact, the evidence suggests that, after adjusting for important racial differences among states, those with liberal sex-ed policies actually have higher rates of pregnancy for girls under 18."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...r-teen-pregnancy-abortion-rates-robert-rector

 

Not really. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them. There's no point in arguing with people who lie and distract. I'm not interested in silencing you..ignoring you and silencing you are two different things. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

 

True, CDC data show that socially conservative Southern states (which tend to favor teaching abstinence) have higher teen birthrates than liberal Northeastern states. This is so even when white, black, and Hispanic girls are considered separately.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/table/pone-0024658-t002/

 

They had higher teen birthrates before they started teaching abstinence.

And they have lower abortion rates. So the pregnancy rate is not higher, and the abstinence program apparently is completely unrelated to it.

 

That quote was from your article. But, since you insist.

1 New Hampshire 33
2 Vermont 40
3 Maine 43
4 Minnesota 43
5 North Dakota 45
6 Utah 47
7 Wisconsin 47
8 Massachusetts 49
9 Nebraska 50
10 Iowa 51
...

41 New York 77
41 South Carolina 79
42 Tennessee 79
43 Arkansas 80
44 Georgia 80
45 Delaware 83
46 Mississippi 85
47 Texas 88
48 Arizona 89
49 Nevada 90
50 New Mexico 93

7 of the 10 states with the highest teen pregnancy rates are "conservative"
2 of the states with the lowest rates are "conservative"

Data is from 2005