Wanna reduce unplanned pregnancies? Here's the forumla

In 4 years, Colorado reduced the rate of teen pregnancies by 40%. In poor areas, the median age of a mother giving birth for the first time climbed from 21 to 24. Other vulnerable populations have had fewer unwanted pregnancies. Not surprisingly, abortion rates fell by 43%.

How did Colorado accomplish these dramatic changes in such a short time? A private grant to the state enabled distribution of free birth control and aggressive education about birth control. The time has come to make this a national program.

 

The only startling thing about that article is that the NYT called it "startling" that it works.

Everyone has been saying this all along since the 70s. Readily available education and contraception is the easiest, safest, and most appropriate way to tackle the issue. Guys like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell ruined that in the 80s.

 

You can't tell me that abortion is the largest evil in our country but you won't support proven measures to drastically reduce the numbers based on political idealism. If you truly believe what you say about abortion then paying for contraception and education is a very very small price to pay to save innocent human lives.

 

Well said, Larry. Many in the Religious Right have long believed that if you don't enable teens to have sex by giving them birth control and instead give them the moral case and the practical fears (pregnancy, disease, etc.) not to, they won't or at least mostly won't. What I think should be clear by now is that this is a fallacy.

Despite how foolish it might be, teens are going to disregard the consequences of sex and roll the dice. The guy is going to do it for obvious reasons. The girl is going to do it to keep the guy. (I doubt that many teenage girls are getting a lot of pleasure out of it.) After all, she knows that if she won't put out for him, he probably knows a dozen sluttier chicks will. If she's on birth control, at least he won't impregnate her. Those teens who actually do have the good judgment, self-control, and morality not to have sex probably won't do it even if they have access to birth control.

I also think it's smart that Colorado did more than just throw rubbers at people. How many teenage guys are going to know how to use them correctly or even if they do, have the patience to put one on right before the act? Some will, but many won't. Considering that rubbers suck and that no self-respecting dude of any age likes them, they certainly aren't going to be motivated to use them.

 

The conservatives say abstinence is practically infallible.
I say "Intention of abstinence is highly fallible."

 

Dear Abstinence-Preaching Humans,

1. People like to f*k
2. F*king can lead to pregnancy
3. Sometimes pregnancy is not desired
4. Undesired pregnancy sometimes leads to abortion
5. Resources and education are shown to reduce the incidence of #4
6. If necessary, read this post again you dull-witted moralizing f*k

 

To be clear, I like programs outlined in the original post. I also like training and educating prisoners versus releasing with no skills and opportunities.

However, to Finkster, preaching abstinence is good along with education. Also, maybe a little personal accountability might also go along way? At a minimum, the country needs more merging of good ideas than name calling and bashing of opposing viewpoints.

 

I thought for sure this thread would draw some "but ******* is wrong" moralistic flack from the right wingers. I guess they are smart enough to know a losing argument when they see it.

Hopefully, HF is in tune with the national conservatives, and opposition to contraceptive funding will vanish. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

I think you will find most are for comprehensive education and access to birth control. A big issue is personal accountability and who pays for it. These programs usually are associated with the attachment of Planned Parenthood who also performs abortions. Yes, supposedly they do not co-mingle funding, but nobody really believes it. The most recent news does not help in this view.

A losing argument is loosely defined and really means more people believe other than you in society. It does not make it "right" and does not mean you are dumb or smart. In this case, it just means you are sticking with your own personal and/or religious convictions despite the majority of Americans believing differently.

It would also be interesting to look at the trend in STD's and if there was any correlation. If it also showed a decrease, that would be an even better story.

 

This would be OK if the person "sticking to their religious convictions" waited until marriage to have sex and has never cheated on their spouse. I'd love to see those statistics.

 

My guess is that statistically you would find even those people take care of their own kids. But you keep trying to allow religious freedom if it makes you feel better.

 

I did not see one reference to Planned Parent Hood in that article, please clarify how they would be involved.

I am as conservative as they come and think abortion will become known as bad as the Holocaust was in the future.

My religion is private and has nothing to do with this horrific act that is just barbaric.

If providing discounted contraception works I am all for it, but I am not willing to pay for the entire cost nor much of the cost......State Medicare options would be best, ObamaCare is going away you can dash your hopes at the worst piece of legislation ever produced against the american people.

 

I suspect they're more positive than you're hoping they are.

 

"I am as conservative as they come and think abortion will become known as bad as the Holocaust was in the future."

"I am not willing to pay for the entire cost nor am I willing to pay for much of the cost"

Really? Not even to end the holocaust?

 

Maybe so. I can't say how smart I may or may not be, but my thoughts have always been that education is fine, but promotion/advocacy is not. I suspect that a lot of that lies in who's actually doing the training and education sessions and whether there is any input or transparency into the programs. I'm sure some schools do it in a very responsible manner, and some outsource to groups that come in and decide to hold what amount to seminars on how to have great sex.

 

I suspect anyone who is against these, needs one

 

Really? I have trouble seeing any public school purchasing services that "amount to seminars on how to have great sex." As a father of 3 kids and the husband of a middle-school teacher where sex ed is addressed, I don't think any school handles this as cavalierly as that statement sounds. In fact, in our school district parents have an "opt out" option for their kids. Keep in mind, this is district that is a bastion of liberals in the shadow of Microsoft's corporate campus.

 

See, a Holocaust is really, really horrible and we should do everything possible to prevent that from happening, even if it means spending money. Of course "we" means other people.

 

Clearly hyperbole, but the stories keep rolling in. Regardless of how "cavalierly" they're treated, there is a whole lot of bad judgment and mixed signals being sent.

http://www.10news.com/news/parents-san-marcos-sex-ed-class-inappropriate-uncomfortable

http://fox4kc.com/2014/01/17/superintendent-suspends-use-of-controversial-sex-ed-material/

http://koin.com/2014/11/18/does-sex-ed-conference-for-students-go-too-far/

 

Yeah, because I don't think it's appropriate to teach 13-year-olds how to have anal sex... yeah, I'm the one with the problem.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say you have a problem, but I think if you looked at the numbers and the private social media trends, you'd be upset to know what 13-year-olds already know and understand about the game.

I have had both formal classes for parents and informal discussions with students, and the vast majority of parents are in the same boat as you. Unfortunately, the students are in a completely different boat a couple of ports down the shore. They're (well, the majority, there's naivete in every bunch, which is endearing and sweet) doing things on Snapchat and posting videos on World Star that would make a anal sex ed lesson look like an episode of the Care Bears. And not just 13-year-olds either. I've talked to students in late elementary who have already felt the pressure to "supply," as its known. Especially students who have access to mobile devices.

So while you might not have a "problem" as someone who doesn't approve of that kind of sex ed, you're probably going to encounter the effects of young people who were desperately in need of those lessons. Whose lives, typically combined with factors like alcohol, took some nasty turns.

 

Funny how this came up yesterday. If you have the time, it's a decent view on the overall importance.

 

There are studies that actually show sex ed and birth control access don't really correlate with reducing pregnancy rates. So the issue isn't so clearly the problem of all us evangelicals who want abortion restrictions.

 

Link?

I have seen dozens of studies over the years investigating whether access to birth control combined with knowledge of how to use it correlates with reduced pregnancy rates. 100% of those studies have concluded that it does. In a few minutes on Google, I found:

http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1041
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_031.pdf
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/01/1640851/states-teen-pregnancy-rates/

I have seen studies showing that sex-ed alone, without improved access to birth control, has a minimal impact on pregnancy rates.

 

Here is one.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-08-07/free-contraception-can-t-end-the-abortion-debate

 

Your link is to an article essentially acknowledging that the Colorado study demonstrates a correlation between birth control education/distribution and pregnancy rates. The article goes on to dispute whether that correlation is causative. I readily admit that the proof of causation is far from ironclad, but that doesn't change the fact that all evidence (that I'm aware of, at least) supports the existence of a correlation. Repeated correlation in a wide range of contexts does not prove causation, but it is evidence of causation.

Is more study needed? Of course, as the linked article shows. But is there any counterevidence? Not that I know of.

 

I think your conclusion and the author's conclusion are different.

And the whole point of the article was that the Colorado study didn't show correlation, really, because the study was poorly done.

I am not against some programs for birth control, but it seems a more complex issue than you are willing to admit.

 

I would guess that most Pro-Life advocates support good education programs in this area. The issue is whether the education is done well, and is provided to the correct audiences. The argument that I most often hear is that the "Choice" should be about using contraception - not destroying a human life.

If that requires more education, then I'm all for it, although using a rubber is not rocket science (so to speak).

 

I watched this earlier today. Partly hilarious, and partly tragic.

 

The video I linked showed that 37 states are not doing it well (or at all, really, for 22 of them). Relying on "the home" to teach people sex ed, particularly for low-income minority families, perpetuates the cycle of unwanted pregnancies, and thus, more abortions. You can probably guess which states those 22 are, as well.

Another issue they talked about in the video was lack of information about consent, which arguably is just as damaging as not having condoms ready to go. People (and by people I mean boys) aren't taught that you don't get to have sex if someone isn't a ready, willing participant. So not only is there manipulated, unwanted sex (consensual but pressured), but the pregnancies and STDs that result from it.