Teen Births Increase for First Time 15 Years
WASHINGTON - The teenage birthrate in the United States rose 3 percent in 2006, according to a report issued yesterday, the first such increase since 1991. The finding surprised scholars and fueled a debate about whether the Bush administration's abstinence-only sexual education efforts were working.
The federal government spends $176 million annually on such programs. But a landmark study recently failed to demonstrate that they have any effect on delaying sexual activity among teenagers, and some studies suggest that they may actually increase pregnancy rates.
"Spending tens of million of tax dollars each year on programs that hurt our children is bad medicine and bad public policy," said Dr. David A. Grimes, vice president of Family Health International, a nonprofit reproductive health organization based in North Carolina.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, said that blaming abstinence-only programs was "stupid." Rector said that most young women who get pregnant are highly educated about contraceptives but want to have babies.
(Yes, because what 15 year old doesn't want to have babies? I think what we are saying is that it doesn't work and is therefore a waste of money.)
President Bush noted the long decline in teenage pregnancy rates in his 2006 State of the Union address. "Wise policies such as welfare reform, drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country," Bush said. The White House did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.
In a speech last year, Senator Hillary Clinton said that declines in teenage pregnancy rates during the Clinton administration resulted because of a focus on family planning.
Teenage birth rates are driven by teenage sex, contraception, and abortion rates.
In the 1990s, teenage sex rates dropped and condom use rose because teenagers were frightened of AIDS, said Dr. John S. Santelli, chairman of the Department of Population and Family Health at Columbia University.
But recent advances in AIDS treatments have lowered concerns about the disease. And AIDS education, which emphasized abstinence and condom use, has flagged.
The teen increase was based on the 15-19 age group, which accounted for about 99 percent of the more than 440,000 births to teens in 2006.
It must also be noted that the Bible Belt leads the country in out of wedlock child births, teenage pregnancy, divorce and crime.
So much for abstinence only education.
Message: Another failed conservative agenda; another failed Bush policy and another waste of tax payers money.
10 comments:
Oddly enough, this seems to be occurring only AFTER the Dems took control of the legislature. Hmmmm,..looking for future sources of revenue, or more voters to put on the dole and prop up the DNC?
I'll let you decide,....
Well since this is a 2006 study and it takes 9 months to actually give birth and the election was in 2006, I'm going to assume anyone who got pregnant did so under a Republican congress.
Next
If its a 2006 report, why are you bringing it up in December of 2007? That would mean, by subtracting the aforementioned 9 months, that it started in MARCH of 2007, after Empress-in-waiting and Squeaker of the Mouse Nancy Pelosi, et al, took over.
(Sigh),...liberals,..always behind the flow of information!
Are you on medication, trek?
If so, maybe you should ask for an update or something.
Good lord.
Anyway, looks like abstinence-only has worked about as well as the "war on drugs"..
And Lord Almighty does that family give me the fucking creeps..
Those aren't kids, they are a litter.
I saw them on some TLC show.
The mom is certifiably crazy.
Bat shit crazy.
Like most religious freaks, though..
Apparently you are not aware of the following:
A. In order to have 2007 information, I would have to wait until the end of 2007. How the hell would anyone know how many teenage babies were born in 2007 if there is still a month left??
B. Studies take time to process and are typically not published until the following year. For instance, a 2006 study probably won't be completed in 2005, it would be likely that the information would not become available until 2007.
C. The Democrats elected in 2006 didn't take office until January 3rd, 2007. It would be impossible for Nancy Pelosi to make a law requiring the devirginization of 15-19 year olds retroactively, unless of course she had a time machine but that would involve science so you wouldn't believe in that anyway. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Republican controlled Congress and White House in 2006 were the ones who were leading the abtinence only campaign, not Nancy Pelosi.
I hope this made it easier for you to understand. If you would like any more lessons, I am here for you.
Where the hell are they teaching abstinance only? Certainly not here in Cali. It's the uneducated inner city losers who's parents vote Democrat and illegals that are breeding unchecked. Duh.
Jenn:
And you forgot all the white people in the Bible belt. That area of the country leads the nation in teenage, unwed child births, not California. And in case you are wondering, the Bible Belt is where they are teaching abstinence only. That 176 million is going somewhere.
Jenn, don't call people losers if you can't spell. It makes you doubly loser-rific.
Trek seems to be unaware as to how studies, hell, science in general works. Look at me, i'm so shocked.
Jenn knows only the talking points from Bill O. or other crap she makes up out of whole cloth.
All the "values" bullshit that people claim to be worried about (other than the gays) is all over the red states.
I think it's Britney's sister's fault.
Post a Comment