When Barack Obama decided to cut funding for abstinence-only education, he clearly knew what he was doing. The spending was wasteful, and considering the terrible economic conditions of the United States, there was no point in spending money on educational programs that proved to fail. The goal is to revamp the public education system, not strive for continuity of a decaying structure.
However, religious citizens in conservative states such as Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona have been outraged that their beloved no-sex-until-marriage policies are no longer eating away at tax payer money. To them, I have one thing to say:
A new study indicates that your religious state has higher birth rates. Yes, there is more verifiable evidence that abstinence-only education simply does not work.
Ouch!
The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive health and conducted by researcher Joseph Strayhorn of Drexel University College of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh. He offers a straightforward explanation for why conservative religious beliefs on average tend to lead to higher birth rates among teens.
"We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself," said Strayhorn.
Those who have a literal interpretation of the bible are not usually successful at discouraging teens to avoid having premarital sex. However, more often than not, they are successful in encouraging teens to avoid using contraception.
Quite obviously, this is the perfect formula for baby making.
Amy Adamczyk, a sociologist at the City University of New York says it is controversial to assume that anti-contraception principles could be behind the link since studies on the topic have varied results. However, she did continue to say that "The idea is that in the heat of the moment, a young woman who has said, 'I'm going to be a virgin on my wedding night,' is with her boyfriend and she says 'Let's just do it.' And since they didn't plan it, nobody has a condom. And so it increases their chances of a pregnancy."
In his study, Strayhorn first measured the "religiosity" of U.S. states. The religiosity information came from a sample of nearly 36,000 participants who were part of the U.S. Religious Landscapes Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted in 2007, while the teen birth and abortion statistics came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The states that believed that the scripture should be interpreted literally word for word were considered more religious in the study. In effect, researchers found a strong correlation between statewide conservative religiousness and statewide teen birth rate even when they accounted for income and abortion rates.
It is extremely important to keep in mind that teens with conservative religious backgrounds are less likely to have an abortion. For instance, the study proved that there are more abortions among teenagers in the less religious states, and some argue that this could skew the findings since fewer teens in these states would have given birth.
However, even after accounting for the abortions, researchers still found a state's level of religiosity could predict their teen birth rate to be higher. The higher the religiosity, the higher was the teen birth rate on average.
This study proves precisely why comprehensive sex education is a must. Teens need to know how to protect themselves. Human nature is difficult to overcome in the name of religious beliefs. Some of our conservative politicians who have been caught in affairs and scandals would have to agree with that. Take Larry Craig and John Ensign as quick examples.
So rather than demanding that teens avoid having sex, and end the conversation there, it is imperative to provide information on options in case they do decide to become sexually active.
For more information on this study, click here!
Comments
Great article, Ana. I completely agree. A great example is Sarah Palin's daughter, who told interviewers that if she had known the consequences of sex, she wouldn't have had it. What she really wanted to say is that if she had known about contraceptive options, she would have prevented getting pregnant while having sex with her boyfriend.
Hormones override religious values, we all know this. Religious parents need to teach their children about contraceptive options in case they do try to have sex. By not educating them, teens think that they won't get pregnant the first time they have sex, or don't know how easy it is to get pregnant without contraceptives and knowledge of how babies are made.
Obama knows what's up.
It would be interesting to see if STD rates were different. My guess is, the areas that used birth control had higher STD rates. Condoms may protect against pregnancy, but it does nothing to stop genital warts.
Amen, Ana!
Sure saw this growing up in Utah. Half the huge cheer squad in my 90% Mormon high school ended up pregnant! Our health class was VERY explicit about the risks of sexual activity, like pregnancy and STDs. But I don't remember ever discussing condoms. The message wasn't abstinence-only (mid '80s), but it ONLY covered the SCARY consequences of sex-before-marriage. For most of us, it only temporarily suppressed our interest and desires.
Hmm, this seems a good example of how suppressing behavior through coercion (like fear, shaming and rejection) often does little to stop the behavior. Instead, such coercion inhibits understanding, shuts off open communication about effective ways to personally deal with the behavior, and actually encourages deceit and sneakiness.
Sadly, autocratic religious cultures seem fundamentally incompatible with the common sense approach of calmly, rationally discussing relevant facts about sex and then saying, "If you decide to do it, use a co
"...use a condom!" (Hate it when I don't realize I've gone over the allowed number of characters! ;)
Steve, interesting question. Condoms DO reduce STD transmission, even though they don't completely prevent it.
From the CDC's website:
"Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. ... The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized."
"...use a condom!" (Hate it when I don't realize I've gone over the allowed number of characters! ;)
Steve, interesting question. Condoms DO reduce STD transmission, even though they don't completely prevent it.
From the CDC's website:
"Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. ... The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized."
"...use a condom!" (Hate it when I don't realize I've gone over the allowed number of characters! ;)
Steve, interesting question. Condoms DO reduce STD transmission, even though they don't completely prevent it.
From the CDC's website:
"Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. ... The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infections because STDs are often asymptomatic or unrecognized."
Okay, I'm not doing that. Seriously.
It seems the study also proved that their education have not met with their own state standards.
For instance:
“In health education, students acquire the health information and skills necessary to become healthy adults and learn about behaviors in which they should and should not participate (Texas Education Code).”
“The ultimate goal of comprehensive health education is to help young people in Arizona achieve their fullest potential by attaining their highest level of health and wellness as students and adults. (Arizona, Comprehensive Health Education Standards).”
“[Health Education] provides the opportunity to motivate and assist all students to maintain and improve their health, prevent disease, and reduce health related risk behaviors. It allows students to develop and demonstrate increasingly sophisticated health-related knowledge, attitudes, skills, and practices (New Mexico, Policy on education standards).”
The "research" paper was a complete fabrication by a liberal professor who hates religion. Is it possible to get a little journalism nowadays? If you read the actual CDC report, the real demographic is: Black and Hispanic teen birth rates are higher. So states with higher minority populations have higher teen birth rates. That is why more democratic leaning states with low church attendance such as Nevada, New Mexico, California, and Maryland are in the top 12; and highly conservative/religious states such as Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah are not. Sorry to disappoint, no conspiracy theory here; just a lame attempt by a left wing prof to cram a square peg in a round hole. Not sure why this is even news. In 2006 teen birth rate was 4.19% (CDC), now 4.25% (CDC) a change of 6/100ths of 1 percent. Wow! not even statistically significant.
“If you read the actual report, …Black and Hispanic teen birth rates are higher.”
If you read the actual article (and sources), there is no claim which states White teen birth rates is higher than others.
“[S]tates with higher minority populations have higher teen birth rates.”
In 2009, four states are majority-minority states: Hawaii, New Mexico, California, and Texas. And if you read the actual CDC report, Birth rates for young teenagers 10-14 years (per 1,000 women), Hawaii – 0.5; New Mexico – 1.1; California – 0.6; Texas – 1.3, while top four states (exclude the District of Columbia) with higher birth rates for young teenagers are: Mississippi – 2.0; Louisiana – 1.5; South Carolina – 1.3; and Texas – 1.3.
The effects of minority population are not germane to the point this article(s) address. Read carefully.
Very narrow focus, spinning hard to make data fit agenda.
The abortion/birth rate is mentioned, but glossed over and dismissed.
Seems the larger, more rural states generally have higher teen births, vs. smaller, densely populated/urbanized states. Maybe stacking people on top of each other ants tends to supress the desire for large broods?
Seems many southern states have larger Mexican immigrant populations. Though they are generally Catholic, large families are more of a cultural/traditional thing, and marrying young and having children young is common. Does this mean all immigration from Mexico should stop? Or simply that Mexican Americans should change their traditions and culture?
Obama was the result of a teen pregnancy, the bastard son of a poor black man. I guess he was doomed from the start - maybe he should never have been born.
Babies are not parasites folks and pregnancy isn't a disease.
Any sex ed should be handled by the minor's family not the NEA. Schools who overstep and teach agendas rather than reading, writing and arithmatic should be sued. No wonder the sex abuse cases in schools are so rampant.
They are trying to desensitize us to this-mainstreaming sexuality to children. Shame on all who do it. May you be judged...
I'm not sure how I feel about some of these issues, but I do have to say that Ana's article was really poorly reasoned. Measure the "religiosity" of an entire state, look at birth rates in the same state, and then make conclusions from that about the effectiveness of something that wasn't even part of the study (abstinence-only sex ed)?? This is a huge jump to conclusions. The fact that people made statements about how literally they interpret Scripture says nothing about what children are taught in schools (never mind elsewhere). How about actually measuring the number of abstinence-only sex ed programs in those states? 75 percent of public schools in this country do NOT teach abstinence-only, and for every dollar spent on discouraging teen sexual activity, $12 is spent on comprehensive sex education. Let's see a study that actually incorporates information about the frequency of the different messages presented to teens.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!