• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Teen Pregnancy Rate Hits 15-Year High

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
No. Abstinece only education is a myth. It doesnt exist in public schools.

ALL states except California have accepted federal abstinence-only funding. A total of $1 Billion for Abstinence Programs has been distributed since 1998.

Only one state, California, has never accepted Title V monies.

Ohio, is perhaps the biggest purveyer of false reproductive information.

A June 2005 study by Dr. Scott Frank of Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland found that the curricula used in Ohio's abstinence-only programs--offered in 85 out of 88 counties--contain false and misleading information about abortion and contraception. It also found the curricula reinforced gender stereotypes and notions about sex that are not based in science. One program told teens they should "be prepared to die" if they use condoms because they are likely to fall off or break, according to Frank's study.

[...]

Ohio received $7.7 million in federal funds for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in 2005, among the highest in the nation.

There are surely some ignorant and pregnant teens in Ohio! Way to go Ohio!

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2932

As of about a year ago, California is one of only three states -- the others are Maine and Pennsylvania -- to refuse the federal education funding tied to abstinence.

California does NOT teach abstinence only exclusively . AFAIK no public schools do.
 
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: XMan
"While teen pregnancy is up, the percentage of teens having sex has remained stable for the past few years at 46 percent, according to the report."

Correlation in this instance, does not equal causality, IMO. Sounds more to me like lack of protection amongst though partaking, or even willfully trying to get pregnant (as is also mentioned in the article.)

Has abstinence-only education even been instituted across-the-board?

Has abstinence-only education even been instituted across-the-board?

No. Abstinece only education is a myth. It doesnt exist in public schools.

You live in Germany, maybe? Federal funding for Sex Education has an AB ONLY requirement here in the U, S of A.[/quote]

Perhaps I wasnt clear. I know ab only is taught, but not exclusively.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: XMan
"While teen pregnancy is up, the percentage of teens having sex has remained stable for the past few years at 46 percent, according to the report."

Correlation in this instance, does not equal causality, IMO. Sounds more to me like lack of protection amongst though partaking, or even willfully trying to get pregnant (as is also mentioned in the article.)

Has abstinence-only education even been instituted across-the-board?

Has abstinence-only education even been instituted across-the-board?

No. Abstinece only education is a myth. It doesnt exist in public schools.

You live in Germany, maybe? Federal funding for Sex Education has an AB ONLY requirement here in the U, S of A.

Perhaps I wasnt clear. I know ab only is taught, but not exclusively.[/quote]

to accept federal funding for sex ed., it has to be AB only. most of the country can't/won't forgo that. so technically you're right, but only a few states do with out that funding, so effectively it is AB only.

 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think every guidance counselor and nurse in the US public school system (middle school and up) should have a bowlful of condoms set out on their desk, like breathmints... right next to a stack of handouts informing students where to get other forms of birth control, as well...

Just a fYI those free condoms at most places have some of the highest failure rates. If they are name brands (durex, togan) then they might be ok but the no name or low name brands have high fail rates. Then on top of that a lot of thsoe condoms sit there a while getting hot and or near windows in some cases which only increase their failure rate. So buy new name brand condoms if you don't want a kid and/or STD.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
No. Abstinece only education is a myth. It doesnt exist in public schools.

ALL states except California have accepted federal abstinence-only funding. A total of $1 Billion for Abstinence Programs has been distributed since 1998.

Only one state, California, has never accepted Title V monies.

As of about a year ago, California is one of only three states -- the others are Maine and Pennsylvania -- to refuse the federal education funding tied to abstinence.

California does NOT teach abstinence only exclusively . AFAIK no public schools do.

You're responding to DealMonkey as though he claimed CA DID teach AO. He stated just the opposite. Read a little more carefully next time.

And, oh, now would be a good time for you to say something like: "Gee, guess my statement about AO not existing in public schools was almost totally incorrect."

 
This is great news for the pro-lifers! All the roadblocks they've thrown up to obtaining legal abortions are paying off.
 
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
No. Abstinece only education is a myth. It doesnt exist in public schools.

ALL states except California have accepted federal abstinence-only funding. A total of $1 Billion for Abstinence Programs has been distributed since 1998.

Only one state, California, has never accepted Title V monies.

As of about a year ago, California is one of only three states -- the others are Maine and Pennsylvania -- to refuse the federal education funding tied to abstinence.

California does NOT teach abstinence only exclusively . AFAIK no public schools do.

You're responding to DealMonkey as though he claimed CA DID teach AO. He stated just the opposite. Read a little more carefully next time.

And, oh, now would be a good time for you to say something like: "Gee, guess my statement about AO not existing in public schools was almost totally incorrect."

Or perhaps I was backing up what he said?
 
This would be the first "rise" in the rate since 1991. The record low was 1331,138 and recorded onely in 2005. So if this is the first rise in quite a few years, with a record low just a few years ago then any one year fluctuation is hardly an indicment of any past methods used to sucessfully lower teen births. Once again the libs get excited over what they hope is bad news

 
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This would be the first "rise" in the rate since 1991. The record low was 1331,138 and recorded onely in 2005. So if this is the first rise in quite a few years, with a record low just a few years ago then any one year fluctuation is hardly an indicment of any past methods used to sucessfully lower teen births. Once again the libs get excited over what they hope is bad news

Youre exactly right. If you look at stats from 2006 it shows a different story. I understand that was 2006, but youre correct in saying rising preggo rates are NOT a trend. If anything, LOWER teen preggo rates are the trend.

Here you go

Each year, almost 750,000 teenage women aged 15?19 become pregnant. The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy

? The teenage pregnancy rate among those who ever had intercourse declined 28% between 1990 and 2002.
? The teenage birthrate in 2002 was 30% lower than the peak rate of 61.8 births per 1,000
women, reached in 1991.
?Among black women aged 15?19, the nationwide pregnancy rate fell by 40% between
1990 and 2002.
? Among white teenagers, it declined by 34% during the same time period.
? Among Hispanic teenagers, who may be of any race, the pregnancy rate increased
slightly from 1991?1992, but by 2002 was 19% lower than the 1990 rate.
 
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
I'm sure those Gloucester Girls helped.


That story turned out to be mostly hype and legend - something Time magazine seems to specialize in these days

"Ignited by Time magazine's June 18 feature, the story exploded in the national and international media, growing wilder and wilder: Girls 16 and younger who lived in upscale Gloucester, Mass., conspired to get pregnant. When their pregnancy tests proved positive, they reportedly "high-fived" each other in celebration and fantasized about raising their babies together. A huge "spike" in the number of pregnancies at the high school, from an average of four in previous years to 17 this year, testified to a national epidemic.


None of the lurid claims in the article turned out to be true, however. Subsequent investigation revealed no pregnancy pact, no mass celebrations, no communal schemes, no pop-culture incitement. Joseph Sullivan, the principal of Gloucester High School and the original source of the story, wouldn't name his sources. The three pregnant girls located in Gloucester turned out to be 17 years old. As for the proclaimed jump in pregnancies at the high school,Massachusetts Department of Public Health reports showed that school officials had apparently overlooked the fact that births among students had been higher in previous years."

http://www.latimes.com/news/op...8jul13,0,4392044.story
 
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This would be the first "rise" in the rate since 1991. The record low was 1331,138 and recorded onely in 2005. So if this is the first rise in quite a few years, with a record low just a few years ago then any one year fluctuation is hardly an indicment of any past methods used to sucessfully lower teen births. Once again the libs get excited over what they hope is bad news

The teen birth rate by itself is certainly not enough evidence to dismiss abstinence only education, but there are quite a few studies that say it's worthless. THEY provide enough evidence to throw that garbage out.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This would be the first "rise" in the rate since 1991. The record low was 1331,138 and recorded onely in 2005. So if this is the first rise in quite a few years, with a record low just a few years ago then any one year fluctuation is hardly an indicment of any past methods used to sucessfully lower teen births. Once again the libs get excited over what they hope is bad news

The teen birth rate by itself is certainly not enough evidence to dismiss abstinence only education, but there are quite a few studies that say it's worthless. THEY provide enough evidence to throw that garbage out.

Just like everything else, there are studies that show whatever point you want to make.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This would be the first "rise" in the rate since 1991. The record low was 1331,138 and recorded onely in 2005. So if this is the first rise in quite a few years, with a record low just a few years ago then any one year fluctuation is hardly an indicment of any past methods used to sucessfully lower teen births. Once again the libs get excited over what they hope is bad news

The teen birth rate by itself is certainly not enough evidence to dismiss abstinence only education, but there are quite a few studies that say it's worthless. THEY provide enough evidence to throw that garbage out.

Just like everything else, there are studies that show whatever point you want to make.

Oh give me a break, there are a lot of studies and the majority of them say abstinence only education is ineffective. Such as this one. Are you arguing that their methodology is bad? That they are biased? Please don't tell me you're trying to make the argument that studies don't mean anything because they sometimes disagree... as that would be a terrible one.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This would be the first "rise" in the rate since 1991. The record low was 1331,138 and recorded onely in 2005. So if this is the first rise in quite a few years, with a record low just a few years ago then any one year fluctuation is hardly an indicment of any past methods used to sucessfully lower teen births. Once again the libs get excited over what they hope is bad news

The teen birth rate by itself is certainly not enough evidence to dismiss abstinence only education, but there are quite a few studies that say it's worthless. THEY provide enough evidence to throw that garbage out.

Just like everything else, there are studies that show whatever point you want to make.

Oh give me a break, there are a lot of studies and the majority of them say abstinence only education is ineffective. Such as this one. Are you arguing that their methodology is bad? That they are biased? Please don't tell me you're trying to make the argument that studies don't mean anything because they sometimes disagree... as that would be a terrible one.

I didnt say they dont mean anything. I said you can find a study to support whatever position you have, whether its correct or not.

Does the trend of lowering teen preggo rates mean AB only is working? *shrug* maybe maybe not. Does the very recent rise (albeit small in comparison) mean it's NOT working? *shrug* maybe maybe not.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Butterbean
This would be the first "rise" in the rate since 1991. The record low was 1331,138 and recorded onely in 2005. So if this is the first rise in quite a few years, with a record low just a few years ago then any one year fluctuation is hardly an indicment of any past methods used to sucessfully lower teen births. Once again the libs get excited over what they hope is bad news

The teen birth rate by itself is certainly not enough evidence to dismiss abstinence only education, but there are quite a few studies that say it's worthless. THEY provide enough evidence to throw that garbage out.

Just like everything else, there are studies that show whatever point you want to make.

Oh give me a break, there are a lot of studies and the majority of them say abstinence only education is ineffective. Such as this one. Are you arguing that their methodology is bad? That they are biased? Please don't tell me you're trying to make the argument that studies don't mean anything because they sometimes disagree... as that would be a terrible one.

I didnt say they dont mean anything. I said you can find a study to support whatever position you have, whether its correct or not.

Does the trend of lowering teen preggo rates mean AB only is working? *shrug* maybe maybe not. Does the very recent rise (albeit small in comparison) mean it's NOT working? *shrug* maybe maybe not.

Actually, if you take Africa as a example (specifically Uganda) abstinence only education empirically causes rising levels of dangerous sex and transfer of STD's. The same can be applied to teens and abstinence only eduction to them, and the rise of pregnancy.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1

I didnt say they dont mean anything. I said you can find a study to support whatever position you have, whether its correct or not.

Does the trend of lowering teen preggo rates mean AB only is working? *shrug* maybe maybe not. Does the very recent rise (albeit small in comparison) mean it's NOT working? *shrug* maybe maybe not.

No the rise or fall of teen pregnancy rates doesn't mean much of anything all by itself. I said that specifically in my first post. The studies cover much more then that however, and THAT is what shows it doesn't work.

I'm not sure what your comment about studies was meant to do other then to impugn the value of them?
 
Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Actually, if you take Africa as a example (specifically Uganda) abstinence only education empirically causes rising levels of dangerous sex and transfer of STD's. The same can be applied to teens and abstinence only eduction to them, and the rise of pregnancy.

You pull out Africa into this discussion? lol mmmmkay.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1

I didnt say they dont mean anything. I said you can find a study to support whatever position you have, whether its correct or not.

Does the trend of lowering teen preggo rates mean AB only is working? *shrug* maybe maybe not. Does the very recent rise (albeit small in comparison) mean it's NOT working? *shrug* maybe maybe not.

No the rise or fall of teen pregnancy rates doesn't mean much of anything all by itself. I said that specifically in my first post. The studies cover much more then that however, and THAT is what shows it doesn't work.

I'm not sure what your comment about studies was meant to do other then to impugn the value of them?

Im not arguing eskimo. Im simply stating that
1. So what if theres a temp rise. The trend is LOWER overall; and
2. I agree AB only (which NO public school teaches exclusively BTW) doesnt prove or disprove any of these findings;
and 3. OT, but it IS possible to find any study to support any position you have.

So...because 2 is true, 3 is irrelevant in the discussion.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Im not arguing eskimo. Im simply stating that
1. So what if theres a temp rise. The trend is LOWER overall; and
2. I agree AB only (which NO public school teaches exclusively BTW) doesnt prove or disprove any of these findings;
and 3. OT, but it IS possible to find any study to support any position you have.

So...because 2 is true, 3 is irrelevant in the discussion.

But OTHER evidence shows that abstinence only education doesn't work. Evidence shown in those studies. Since this thread is about abstinence only education, studies that show it doesn't work are directly relevant to the discussion.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Im not arguing eskimo. Im simply stating that
1. So what if theres a temp rise. The trend is LOWER overall; and
2. I agree AB only (which NO public school teaches exclusively BTW) doesnt prove or disprove any of these findings;
and 3. OT, but it IS possible to find any study to support any position you have.

So...because 2 is true, 3 is irrelevant in the discussion.

But OTHER evidence shows that abstinence only education doesn't work. Evidence shown in those studies. Since this thread is about abstinence only education, studies that show it doesn't work are directly relevant to the discussion.

Seeing how public school dont teach AB only exclusively, I really cant see how these "studies" can be relevant.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Actually, if you take Africa as a example (specifically Uganda) abstinence only education empirically causes rising levels of dangerous sex and transfer of STD's. The same can be applied to teens and abstinence only eduction to them, and the rise of pregnancy.

You pull out Africa into this discussion? lol mmmmkay.

One would think that Africa and what happens there would be irrelevant, however don't forget that Bush exported our Republican-led Congress's love of abstinence-only education, tying a significant chunk of anti-AIDS cash to the teaching of this miserable crap.

One of the White House's major aid initiatives, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), has wasted much of its funds on scientifically questionable programs designed to please American religious conservatives. Though studies show that only a comprehensive approach, including condom distribution, sexual education, and antiretrovirals, could reduce HIV, the White House insisted that PEPFAR spend one-third of its behavioral prevention budget on programs that promote abstinence until marriage. It also refused to let PEPFAR money go for programs like needle exchanges and aggressive condom promotion. Recipient nations had to sign an American pledge vowing to oppose prostitution, even though prostitutes are major carriers of HIV in Africa, and signing the pledge could scare PEPFAR recipients out of helping sex workers. Virtually no other major multinational donor agreed with PEPFAR's strategy. Even the administration's own inspector general responsible for overseeing aid couldn't prove that its methods had worked. (As a footnote, Randall Tobias, the administration official responsible for overseeing AIDS programs, including the prostitution pledge, resigned after his number was discovered on the D.C. Madam's infamous call lists.)

Conservative religious ideology over science, the hallmark of Bush's idiotic administration.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Im not arguing eskimo. Im simply stating that
1. So what if theres a temp rise. The trend is LOWER overall; and
2. I agree AB only (which NO public school teaches exclusively BTW) doesnt prove or disprove any of these findings;
and 3. OT, but it IS possible to find any study to support any position you have.

So...because 2 is true, 3 is irrelevant in the discussion.

But OTHER evidence shows that abstinence only education doesn't work. Evidence shown in those studies. Since this thread is about abstinence only education, studies that show it doesn't work are directly relevant to the discussion.

Seeing how public school dont teach AB only exclusively, I really cant see how these "studies" can be relevant.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that no public school teaches abstinence only education exclusively. Can you provide some sort of evidence for this?

Secondly, I'm not sure how you can not consider the studies on abstinence only education not relevant to a discussion on abstinence only education. That's just confusing.
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Actually, if you take Africa as a example (specifically Uganda) abstinence only education empirically causes rising levels of dangerous sex and transfer of STD's. The same can be applied to teens and abstinence only eduction to them, and the rise of pregnancy.

You pull out Africa into this discussion? lol mmmmkay.

The point was that abstinence only education breaks down sex education such as condom use and other things that prevent things like teen births and STD's from spreading
 
Back
Top