http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28538524/?GT1=43001

More proof that abstinence-only sex education is a failure.

There have been a number of studies, including two sponsored by Congress in 2004 and 2007, that have shown that the current crop of abstinence-only programs do not meet their stated goals.

When I was in high school in the early 1990s, we had a guest at our health class one day who brought in a handbook from an experimental abstinence-only program; that is, this program was not yet an approved part of the school's curriculum. This book read much like a Chick tract! There was a cartoon about a girl who had had sex and was feeling guilty about it. Then, her best friend says, "Why don't you try 'secondary virginity?'...Just promise not to have sex again, and everything will be good!" A light bulb goes off next to the guilty girl's head, and she says, "Secondary virginity! That's what I need!" The book also had some "testimonials" from teens who tried sex, got addicted to it, and then suffered various consequences, such as failing in school (because they were too busy doing the hanky-panky to study). At the time, I found that this handbook really insulted the intelligence of the reader and that it had a covert religious agenda behind it.

By the way, take a look at the map at the end of the story linked in the original post. The teenage pregnancy rates vary quite a bit from state to state. Arizona and New Mexico also have fairly high rates (62.0/1000 and 64.1/1000, respectively) that beat some of Deep South states. Possibly, the Hispanic and Native American populations of those states help to bring the average up?

Chick tract...OK, I had to look that one up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_tract

Classrooms around the country need a visit from Sue Johanson. She's that old canadian woman who gives out sex advice.

wow..."Chick tract"... that is a phrase I never, ever wanted to hear again...those are barely a step away from the Westboro Baptist Church type of thing.

Chick tract: Another form of abuse.

>>More proof that abstinence-only sex education is a failure

The article does not say/prove such...in my working with at risk teens/20 somethings the gals want to have the child because it's the right thing to do and they have government monies to help raise it...not the perfect way to start a life but many have done ok in life.

Yeah well, it's a failure.

Part of the reason they are at risk, is because they lack a venue for real conversation, and they lack empowerment options, in the form of real education, real contraceptives, and real support.

If they are in an abstinence-only environment, they don't have these things, and therefore suffer a greater at risk state because of that.

There is no way around this.

>>lack a venue for real conversation, and they lack empowerment options

can't say such if you have never been in their curriculum.

Obviously none of the Libs read the whole article.

Either that or they are so biased that despite what the article says to them the SOLE culprit is Abstinence Only sex education.

Here is the 2nd to last paragraph in the article; A variety of factors influence teen birth rates, including culture, poverty and racial demographics. For those and other reasons, kids in mostly white New England likely would delay child birth, said David Landry, a researcher at the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based organization which supports abortion rights and gathers research on sexual and reproductive health.

Re-read the first sentence in that paragraph, Libs. Then read it again. Now, one more time to get it to sink in.

There is NOWHERE in the article that says Mississippi is teaching Abstinence Only sex education. Just that their teen birth rate rose more than any other state. But apparently that doesn’t matter.

The article says that it increased across the country too but the Libs don't bring that up.

This is a perfect example of how the Libs talk out of both sides of their mouth.

Out of one side of their mouth they preach "Tolerance" yet when the conservatives state their point, we are wrong because it doesn't fit the Libs point of view. No questions asked, we're just wrong. Yeah, tolerance. Right.

A perfect example is Missing's statement Yeah well, it's a failure.

Let's blame it on the schools and the programs that they are teaching. Right.

No one has mentioned that maybe a major portion of the blame can be laid on the parents for not taking responsibility for their children.

Nope. Can't do that. The Libs have to blame it on somebody else.

Typical.

No one has mentioned that maybe a major portion of the blame can be laid on the parents for not taking responsibility for their children.

Or blaming parents for fucking up their kids with abstinence teaching while at the same time Palinizing society with hypocrites.

No wonder they're messed up.

Thank God for libs handing out condoms with no questions asked to prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases.

Having sex DEMANDS responsibility and our current culture says no way...that's why all the trouble/drama/sin/deaths. For thousands of years working best in marriage.

Thank God for libs handing out condoms with no questions asked to prevent unwanted pregnancies and diseases.

That obviously didn't work either or the teen birth rate wouldn't be going up.

And while you’re at it, thank them too for the fact that a school nurse can't give your child an aspirin without the parent’s approval, but they don't even have to tell the parents that they referred their 14 year old daughter to an abortion clinic.

Way to go.

I have Broadway. It sucks, and it sucks for exactly the reasons I gave.

Skybill, Abstinence Only sex education, isn't sex education. It's sex avoidance education.

There is a big difference!

And, I was specifically responding to the claim that the article didn't prove that. It didn't, but there's an easy out: It's a failure anyway!

See how that works?

I do blame parents. Parents, who cultivate taboos and inhibitions in their kids, end up with at risk, ignorant kids with serious self-esteem and peer pressure issues.

Happens every time.

Know how the KSKD family did it?

We talked about ALL of it. No holds barred. Did the bananna thing, looked at all the disease, explored all the options, and identified every possible resource that could be brought to bear on the problem, even the church, and I'm not really religious at this point in time.

Then after making damn sure they understood it, fully enough to not have it be some mysterious thing that can cause problems, we then told them the best thing to do is WAIT.

The act matters, and it's special, and it shouldn't be wasted on just anybody, and these days risk runs very, very high.

However, mistakes happen. That's what all the education was for. That's why we have NO TABOOS in my home. That's why they can come home and have a rational conversation, starting with "tell me all about it".

They won't get dogma. They will get options, help, love and care, if need be.

That's how you do fucking sex ed.

Now, these people who would use this issue to proletyze are doing themselves, and their future leaders a serious dis-service.

Abstinence only sex education is like handing kids peril sensitive sunglasses for their protection. You know, the Douglas Adams ones, that go dark when danger is detected, so that if you can't see it, it can't see you kind.

It's ignorant, it's harmful, and in the right context, it's flat out abuse.

And ANY kid, who wants a condom, can come to my home and get one, ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

Why?

Because I know what could happen, I care, and I want to keep their doors open, just like somebody should have for most of my peers growing up.

I saw that mess, learned from it, and absolutely won't be a part of it with any kid I know. My kids carry spares. My kids ask their friends if they have one. My kids are gonna wait because they've got lives to live, and don't want to hose it up in the heat of a teenage moment. That's as real as it gets. Now, if they want to do the waiting for faith reasons, good!

That's a good call in my book, but we are keeping it real first.

This isn't a liberal thing. It is a rational thing. The only people making this an issue are the losers, who somehow think that faith trumps hormones if they pray hard enough.

Look around man. It's not happening.

Abstinence only is about as effective as the rhythm method. Yeah, ask the moms how well that worked! LOL!!!

Abstinence only education is like pulling out early for effective birth control. It might work but most of the time it doesn't.

Heck, I gotta say a bit more on this. As a kid, my "education" if you can call it that, was spotty, filled with taboos and LOTS of DOGMA.

It really sucked. Many of my peers didn't do well with it either.

So here's the thing. This is why this matters, and this is why the Abstinence only plan is a problem.

When people make that kind of mistake, they are gonna feel bad about it. How bad they feel is a direct function of their perception of what their role model and authority figure approval is going to be.

Part of it is who they are too.

Some of us are a hell of a lot more sexual than others, and that's just how it is!

So then, young people are not yet adult people. They need help, they need to know stuff, they need to be safe.

How can this happen, if their lives are our pulpit?

And really think about it. I know it was done with me, and it really, really, really SUCKED!

Cost me a chunk of my 20's sorting things. Nobody wants that.

If waiting until marriage is your thing, by all means advocate that. I do. I think it's a good way to go. At the least, don't just have at it with everybody. Think things through.

All good stuff.

There is no reason why we cannot just say that, make the case, then also make sure that when bad things happen, our younger people have our support, our love and our shared experience to draw on and ideally navigate it all happy, and healthy.

I really am offended by people, who somehow think they are entitled to deny education to young people, for the fear that they might actually make a choice different than the one they made, or that they desire the younger person to make!

This is selfish and condescending as hell!

Consider your own life choices. Feel good about those? What if you were denied those things necessary to make those?

That's how the kids feel, that's the position they are in. We can do better by them.

Moman74: LOL!!!

Works until it doesn't!

"And while you’re at it, thank them too for the fact that a school nurse can't give your child an aspirin without the parent’s approval, but they don't even have to tell the parents that they referred their 14 year old daughter to an abortion clinic."

and

"For thousands of years working best in marriage."

Notch it up a bit. There are intelligent beings here.

Skybill, do you think the "culture and demographics" are the same for Mexicans in New Mexico and white kids in New England? Which culture and demographic would be more likely to be more religious? Maybe you can't see the connection, but it's right in front of your face. Abstinence only education and the beliefs of the religious leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to pregnant teens. Real sex education leads to informed decisions about sex and lower teen birth rates.

Fourteen-year-olds are legally entitled to a certain degree of medical privacy. If there's any reason why abortion (a relatively minor procedure) should be an exception to this rule, I've never heard it. I suppose one can argue that medical privacy should not be extended to anyone under 18, but for some reason this issue only arises in regard to abortion.

I don't know if it's true or an urban myth that school nurses can't give out aspirin without parental consent, but I can see the reason for such a rule if it does exist. Some people are allergic to aspirin (or are taking other drugs that could interact with it) and the school nurse would presumably need to be informed of this by the parents, at least where young children are concerned. (Do schools even _have_ nurses these days?)

>>abortion (a relatively minor procedure)

you've gotta be kidding...involving 2 lives and the death of one...

>>school nurses can't give out aspirin without parental consent

all schools have health based staffer(s) and it's been a long time policy that all medications have to be parental knowledge/ok'd/institued...even aspirin...but not an abortion...we're all outa wack here.

I will agree that an abortion is not some simple procedure. It needs to be truly understood just exactly what is taking place before making a decision about having one or not.

With so many high school kids on different medications for various reasons, most school based nurses or health care workers more than likely have some kind of health history of kids that use the in school health center on a regular basis.

It's also just to clam down on abuse in general. I don't have a problem with this, given the school will work with parents.

Their trouble is not some 15 year old taking an Excedrin for a headache. Nobody cares about that. They can handle it and would use it just like we would.

It's the percocet they got from their friend to get through social studies! That's the worry. It's legit too. Go to any high school, with a $5 bill, and it's not tough to convert that into a nice 4 hour buzz to kill the boredom.

"no smell no tell" That PSA AD is spot on, only it's more than cough syrup. Grannies pain meds are good for movie and date money any day of the week.

If they run a policy where the school has to be aware of meds, it chills some of this activity. Not sure it really works, but that's the idea anyway. So, our family just makes the calls, and it's minor league.

To add on the above, that full on education was delivered age appropriate. So, it's not like some 6 year old is getting that info from us. 14? Yeah, totally. Sadly, they need to know.

Look at the following quote from the article:

Blaming abstinence-only education
Some experts have blamed the national increase on increased federal funding for abstinence-only health education that does not teach teens how to use condoms and other contraception. They said that would explain why teen birth rate increases have been detected across much of the country and not just in a few spots.

The article goes on to list other potential factors for the increased teen pregnancy rates. What the article doesn't elaborate on is how the sex education programs differ from state to state. Thus, I'm not making the assumption that teen pregnancy rates are high in Mississippi because it is a "Bible Belt" state, and I don't think that anybody else should, either.

That's kinda of the point I was trying to make too.

The article doesn't say that the rise in teen pregnancies is due to abstinence only education, nor does it mention what is being taught in any state (as Alfredo mentioned).

They don't quantify their statement "Some Experts". That could mean anywhere from 2 to 2000.

There just is not enough information to make a blanket statement like that.

There is a definite corrrelation between states were there is a higher concentration of religious people and higher teen pregnancy rates. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this is due to a lack of proper education on the subject of sex.

Can you cite a study that establishes this cause-and-effect relationship?

I wonder if there is a study showing that lower concentrations of religious people have a lower teen pregnancy rate.

Or maybe just a stat on where / who has the highest and lowest teen pregnancy rates.

Or maybe a study of teens who have been pregnant and what their sex education program did to contribute towards that. Or their religious affiliation. Or their parents' beliefs.

Or popularity among pregnant teens. I mean socially popular.

So many variables. All worth looking into, to me.

Top 10 States with highest teen pregnancy rates:

Mississippi
New Mexico
Texas
Arkansas
Arizona
Oklahoma
Nevada
Tennesee
Kentucky
Georgia
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28538524/?GT1=43001

Top 15 states with weekly church attendance:

Alabama
Louisiana
South Carolina
Mississippi
Utah
Arkansas
Nebraska
North Carolina
Tennesee
Georgia
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Kansas
West Virginia

Bottom 5 in church attendace:

New Hampshire
Vermont
Nevada
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060502/news_lz1n2thelist.html

Still don't see the correlation?

Bible Thumpers are hypocrites!

Everybody is/can be hypocrital...welcome to the human race and not being perfect...but I know one thing for sure, gonna spend eternity with my mother-in-law who we laid to rest last weekend. The Bible assures us that we will see our loved ones again in Heaven and spend eternity with Christ if we say yes to Him...simple as that.

"...gonna spend eternity with my mother-in-law..."

I'm not sure that's my idea of Heaven.

The Bible assures us that we will see our loved ones again in Heaven and spend eternity with Christ if we say yes to Him...simple as that.


Thanks for taking over for Herb and WW.

I know it's not mine!

Seriously, these two things are not connected.

Unless!

Worried heaven won't be big enough? Gotta make sure to pack the room? Got a quota of some kind? Get a better seat, if you make your holy number? What?

Geezz...

LOL@ Vitalogy!

That one just pounds it home every time.

Broadway my condolences on your loss. I know you're celebrating her life but anytime anyone loses a loved family member no matter how hard we try to put on the smiley face, there is grief that needs to be dealt with and worked through.

Please pass along my sympathies to your wife.

Mrs_Merkin wrote "I'm not sure that's my Idea of Heaven."

LOL. No doubt. I know your natural mother-in-law and well Pat's a fine woman but more than a day with her would push my limits.