The Pro Teen Sex and Unwanted Pregnancy Movement

On this 'National Day to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy,' I thought it would be a fun exercise to compare the sexual activity of teenagers and their pregnancy rates in the most pro-choice states with those of the most pro-life states. I used NARAL's rankings to determine which were the best and worst states on choice. (Simply, those that scored "F" are the worst and those with an "A" are the best). I then filled in the state data for each from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, the National Day sponsors, and compared the pro-choice states with the pro-life states.

Which side is actually doing a better job?

Conclusion: one side has a lot more to celebrate. Turns out pro-life states, those that are prone to tell kids that abstinence is the only proven contraception, and discourage use of actual contraception, then wag their finger at the less "morally superior" states, are where high schoolers are:

· more sexually active

· more likely to have had sex before the age of 13

· more likely to have four or more sexual partners.

Turns out that to be "pro-life" is to be pro-your-young-teen-having-a-risky-sex-life. In addition, the states that are witnessing the most dramatic drop in teen pregnancies are the most solidly pro-choice ones (CA, VT, HI, AK) while the ones where teen pregnancy rates are declining most slowly are anti-choice (NE, MS, WY, OK).

As this election goes from a simmer to a boil, the culture warriors will be dosing ideological gasoline on the flames. Isn't it time to call the religious right's bluff? If we measured their agenda based on its results they could only be considered the pro-risky-adolescent-sex-unwanted- pregnancy-teen-mothers-and-more-abortion crowd. They have no right to moralize and no standing to be sanctimonious -- that should be our job. They're wrong. We know it and it's time the American public did too. Pro-choice people, and most especially pro-choice candidates, have got to use the gifts of evidence we've been given (and earned). The American public doesn't want its 12-year-olds sexually active or their daughters impregnated by one of their four or more sexual partners -- but that's what the pro-life agenda is poised to make America's reality, and sadly has for too many already. There's quantitative data to prove it. One thing is for sure, the religious right is not going to mention it. Now wonder they're lying low today.

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage

Comments

[robXdion]

If anyone's mad, you can thank "Murphy Brown". People got ticked off at VP Dan Quayle for saying it was wrong, but feminists ripped his head off. Now 19 years later we have rampant 'baby mommas'.

[Johnagain]

We are overrun with baby mommas because right wing fanatics have been in control of all 3 branches of government at the federal level, and at the state level (particularly in the most cultural backward states). Murphy Brown has nothing to do with it.

[Veri]

Didn't some neo-con Supreme Court pinhead mention "24" and the fictional character Jack Bauer in a ruling regarding the government's use of torture? Now, we bring "Murphy Brown" back into the picture. Jesus, save us all from pinheads who resort to using fictional T.V. characters in order to argue a point.

Education is much better. Helps to distinguish real life from T.V. fantasy. Of course, America is lagging behind even that in comparison to other developed countries.

[Kahni]

"Now" we have "rampant baby mommas"?? How old are you? This particular ironic separation between law and common sense has been talked about in the US since at least Mark Twain.

[drblack]

The anti-freedom Forced birthers aren't about helping or protecting anyone. They hate sex and want to control everyone but themselves.
Sex, drugs and guns will always be around. Passing laws just makes them more destructive , especially to those who have nothing to do with them or are responsible in their use.
The places with more faith based birth control also have more sexually transmitted diseases than places with reality based birth control.
Teaching responsible use works, just say no just makes things worse: just say Know.

[Veri]

I have to disagree. Many love sex and do not want to control people. They are controlled. Most people are comfortable being told what to do. Hence, most Americans will vote either Democrat or Republican to elect the same party into power that has presided over the decline of our once great country.

Sex will always be around. Gun prohibition does lead to criminals possessing guns while law abiding citizens are criminalized for possessing a gun. Drugs? The war is lost. I support legalizing pot. Besides, alcohol leads to more deaths than pot does. And more societal problems. And get rid of smoking. I smoke. I hate it. It's addictive, like crack cocaine.

Abstinence only educated personages are more likely to contract an STD.

"Just say No." Nancy Ray-gun. Astrology guru. That program failed. As kids, we all laughed about it and "Just Say No" became the punchline of many jokes.

[klmebane]

this whole abstinence until marriage thing bothers me. what if a person doesn't marry until 30? should we realistically expect them to be a virgin at 30? 40? and the idea that sex is only for procreation. what of people who don't want children, or would prefer to adopt? if they get married are they supposed to not have sex with their spouse ever?

also disturbing: the notion that only married people should raise children. like the divorce rate isn't over 50%. like married couples can't fuck up their children horribly. like staying together for the kids when two people hate each other doesn't guarantee children who will need a lifetime of therapy.

[Falafel]

An extreme religous fanatical co-worker of mine (we're talking Bible study during office hours, photos of dead fetuses in her cube) just found out her 15 year old was pregnant. Her ignorance in raising her kid has now resulted in a child having a child. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[lisakaz2]

And what is she doing about it?

[pineapplegal]

still preaching I'm sure. can't ever admit your wrong so you stay on the same wagon down the same crooked path and therein lies the problem why our society can't move out of the 1800's. The biggest MESSAGE pro-choice people teach is RESPONSIBILITY. Have sex, know what can happen and take responsibility for it (either by having it or not). The pro-lifer's what does their agenda teach.....­NOTHING. You can't have a choice, therefore you aren't independent enough to take responsibility.

[drkazmd65]

Now, now, now,....

Don't go and try to confuse all those holier-than-thou pro-lifers with nit-picky things like facts and data.

It'll cornfuse their brains and mess with their sense of Godlyness. Only the rich should vote for Republican­s,... those that vote 'pro-life' and 'family values' as main issues when their job has been moved overseas, when their country taps them as cannon-fodder for unnecessary wars, and their health benefits are going away are simple-minded.

[N8Ma]

Quick question just to make certain I understand this...

We're counting all TOTAL teen pregnancies, right? I mean, even the ones that are aborted, in these comparisons? How are, say, abortions in states that do not require parental notification handled? Are these making the stats?

I just want to make certain that we're getting a total count of all teen pregnancies here.

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Going to NARAL for your "evidence" is like going to the fox on how to guard the hen house. Not convinced.

[KBAR]

Hey! I found some stats and some really informative pic's here:

http://www.prolife.com/

[coastalcarla]

That was disgusting. I could have gone the rest of my life without seeing that.

[Kahni]

Well done. You once again tested your first amendment rights. Now, if you could only learn to parse better, you might also learn to have something to say about the actual topic being discussed.

[Rasteira]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Kids will do whatever you tell them not to do. To blame adolescent rebellion on a Pro-life stance is irresponsible at best.

[Lon]

This is a puzzling comment. The issue is not adolescent rebellion, but unwanted pregnancy and teen sexuality. Since the "Pro-life" stance has been to tell teenagers that sex is bad and think they have accomplished something, your first sentence seems to undercut your second. Or, I suppose more directly youre comments would actually seem to support the conclusion that there are not a lot of rocket scientists in the pro-life movement.

[elbzee]

Lon, I think you've hit the nut... "there are not a lot of rocket scientists in the pro-life movement."

[drblack]

Blaming unwanted teen pregnancies on lack of info and lack of birth control like this post does makes all kinds of rational sense.

[Veri]

There are other factors. I support abstinence education as long as it is a part of sexual education that includes a frank discussion of STD's, pregnancy, and how to properly use birth control. Oh, and scare the hell out of them by showing the results using pictures. Literacy rates are down in America.

[jrockbg]

Why stop at sex. then? Let's encourage adolescents to do drugs, skip school, commit crimes, not vote, etc, etc, etc.

No. We know that's stupid. Encouraging kids in the right direction is the best idea but there are no guarantees. The truth is that sex can be very hard for adults to discuss with their children. Moreover every single person has a strong desire and curiousity to explore their sexuality. At the end of all this there are moral ramifications to sexual activity and the parents have the natural rights of man to be a child's moral guide.

[TOOO]

Well, as I keep telling people, there's a big difference between what SHOULD happen and what WILL happen. Of course parents SHOULD be the child's moral guide - but many parents AREN'T. Can we realistically count on all parents to do their job? And if they don't, then what happens to their children who simply don't know any better?

As I've said before, as long as we insist on making such a big deal about sex, we will always have problems with it. We Americans need to desperately come to terms with our sexuality. If it doesn't begin in the home, it will have to begin in the schools. As long as we insist on treating it like Forbidden Fruit, the young and curious will keep reaching for it.

[bgregs]

Nobody said that we need to ENCOURAGE them to have sex, we need to TEACH them about it, so that when it finally comes at them, they aren't surprised, and they can deal with it as an intelligent person!

[j.gold]

jrockbg- Gee do you mean once I get married and really love a person I can do drugs and commit crimes?

Your logic is seriously flawed.

I am less worried abut your "moral ramifications" then I am about my teenager making a heat of the moment mistake, not having the right information to protect themselves and ending up with aids.

We need honest education about what can happen not some antiquated scare tactic "you'll be a bad immoral person" if you do it. How archaic.

[Veri]

Being a moral guide is one thing. Producing an automaton that follows the moral guide to a fault is another. Does. Not. Happen.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

No one has mentioned "encouraging" adolescents to do anything. The discussion is about providing information to these young adults, which, to your point, is certainly easier, in many cases, for a trained instructor to discuss with teenagers than his/her parents. In my case, my father gave me "the talk" nine years AFTER I started having sex, and some of what he said was inaccurate!

I am sick to death of hearing from people who wish to set moral strictures around biological functions. Do you want to dictate respiration and excretion, as well?

Lastly, I remember the ONE time sex was discussed with teenagers in my church. Sex before marriage was described as "pawing" and "banging" and "poking"; sex after marriage was a beautiful activity involving "caressing" and "love-making". One simply cannot describe the same activities as, on the one hand, absolutely disgusting and on the other hand as heavenly and expect to have any credibility with skeptical adolescents. I was incensed that the leader was sullying something I found beautiful and fulfilling and that he would assume my agreement that the same action(s) were abominable before going through an empty ritual and glorious only THEREAFTER.

Yes, a parent has the right and responsibility to guide his/her child. He/she does NOT have the right to control a child's access to information.

[Kahni]

Apparently you should stick to rockets. Kids may rebel against imposed rules occasionally, but by and large they act on the information given them by those they respect. That usually includes their parents. To subscribe to your simplistic view would mean no family could survive more than a single generation.

The problem is the question of them getting useful information. Most of what those taking your position see as information is seen by others as blind propaganda. That, kids will ignore.

[bgregs]

However, when they are dealing with adolescence, which is, of course, a time when a person's own body is BEGGING them to have sex with ANYONE, only a reasonably thought out, educated plan will help. When you place not just a rule on them, without saying anything other than just say no, they are MORE likely to rebel, ESPECIALLY if they are like my wife, for example, who was raised in an extremely conservative Catholic home!

[Veri]

We survive more than a generation because, by and large, major rules are not broken while minor rules are. Most kids do not murder. They will stick their hand in the cookie jar to engage in petty larceny. You fail, Kahni.

Whether or not a teenager decides to engage in sex is highly personal. Until all kids are replaced by robots (being semi-serious here), many will engage in risky sexual behavior.

[doodlefarbe]

What's the link between correlation and causation?

[Jacksbloodyface]

Well, its certainly a stronger link between a positive correlation and causation than a negative correlation. ie. though these numbers do not prove that proper sex education causes fewer pregnancies, sexual partners and lower age of intercourse, they certainly make it hard to say that abstinence only education does.

[bgregs]

Actually, there's a lot of evidence that a comprehensive sex ed program results in lower teen pregnancy rates, lower teen sexual activity rates, later age for first sexual activity, and thus, lower STD rates and lower abortion rates. Since the states which tend to have a good comprehensive sex ed program are ALSO the states which have a more open pro-choice stance....­...

[BeerNotWar]

I'd like to see a study that controls for income and education level as well. I would assume that you'd still see strong correlation between sex ed and lowered teen pregnancy and STI rates.

[grumpy74]

My thoughts exactly. Maybe states with a larger teen pregnancy problem respond to those problems with abstinence-only programs and a pro-life bent.

What Cristina needs to do is a longitudinal study, whereby historical laws, attitudes and programs are compared with outcomes in subsequent years.

I await the study with great interest!

[bgregs]

As I replied to Jacksbloodyface, the states which have a lower teen pregnancy rate also tend to have a more pro-choice stance, AND tend to have better sex ed programs, and ALL of these result in a lower teen pregnancy rate, as well as a lower STD rate across the board, and a lower rate of teen sexual activity, PLUS a later age of first sexual activity.

[bgregs]

Actually, there is a large enough amount of evidence about these findings to reasonably prove that there IS a causation between the two facts, as opposed to simply correlation.

[doodlefarbe]

Um, how do you figure that "amount of evidence" factors into the analysis between correlation and causation.

Have you factored in confounding variables?

What about the idea that lots of these bible-thumpin' pro-lifer states having poor sex ed are also states having significant populations of underpriviliged minorities? (Think Mississippi, for example).

Is there any chance that having a large chunk of your population being socio-economically disadvantaged tends to increase teen pregnancy rates?

Does that factor in?

To what extent does it swamp the poor sex ed available?