Abstinence Education Makes Difference in Reducing Abortions
Some interesting information comes to us from the San Antonio Coalition for Life and the blog 104 Babcock.
From 2001 to 2005, US states had the choice to either accept or reject abstinence funding from the Bush administration, and the statistics were compiled by the CDC. With all of their crowing about how "abstinence education doesn't work," pro-aborts may want to take note:
For teen girls under the age of 15 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 7.5% decrease in abortions among the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.
For teen girls under the age of 15 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 23.1% decrease in abortions among the states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education.
The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 208% greater reduction in abortions among girls 14 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.
Overall, the abortion rate among girls younger than 15 years old in states which rejected abstinence only funding was 37.3% higher than in states which accepted funding.
Not only that, but the overall teen abortion rates were considerably lower in states accepting abstinence education funding:
For teen girls under the age of 20 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 5.2% decrease in abortions among the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.
For teen girls under the age of 20 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 20.5% decrease in abortions among the states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education.
The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 294.2% greater reduction in abortions among girls 19 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.
Overall, the teen abortion rate among girls 19 years old and younger for states which rejected abstinence only funding was 48.2% higher than in states which had accepted funding.
CDC abortion statistics for years 2001 - 2005 found @ www.cdc.gov
Annual census adjustments were calculated into abortion statistics for each year 2001 - 2005. Source: Population Division, US Census Bureau
States rejecting abstinence only funds included: AZ, CA, CO, CT, IA, MA, ME, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OH, RI, VA, WI and WY.
The following states not reporting abortion statistics to the CDC for each year 2001 - 2005 were excluded from the calculation: AK, CA, LA, FL & NH.
So, what I'd like to know is when the Obama administration will prove they truly want "common ground" by endorsing the benefits of abstinence education. Oh, but wait... that type of education won't line the pockets of the abortion industry or Planned Parenthood. No wonder their denial is so strong.
Even with these facts (certainly not publicized by the MSM) from the CDC, LifeNews reported August that a Senate Panel voted to effectively end abstinence-only education funding:
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) led the move to defeat the abstinence education funding. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) was the sole "no" vote on the funding package in protest to the elimination of abstinence education...
The spending measure next goes to the Senate floor, where pro-life advocates may sponsor amendments to restore the funding. The vote comes on the heels of an equally significant vote in the House of Representatives. The week prior, pro-abortion Speaker Nancy Pelosi and pro-abortion Rep. David Obey of WI led the House in approving a spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services that also eliminated funding for current abstinence-only programs.
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee instead supported the president's proposal for a program that directs the money to programs that don't only promote abstinence. The Senate version also notes that abstinence programs may apply for the new "pregnancy prevention" grants, but there is no assurance that abstinence would be a priority message, nor that any abstinence programs would be funded.
Just follow the blood money trail.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
High potential- Chances of contracting an std, that could cause death or sterility or just alot of pain and discomfort, or pregnancy if your sexually active.
Moderate potential- Chances of contracting an std, that could cause death or sterility or just alot of pain and discomfort, or pregnancy if contraception is used.
Zero potential- Chances of contracting an std, that could cause death...,sterility, pregnancy if abstinence is used.
Hmm...
Is pregnancy the death sentence for a teenager? No way! Aids and other strains of serious stds are more dangerous to life than pregnancy. Pregnancy might alter your timing of your goals but it does not prevent you from achieving any goals. You might have to readjust your goals but they are not unachievable, as they would be with other stds, simply from having a child. You can get a GED if unable to finish High School. You can go back to school when you are ready. As far as I can see pregnancy is among the least of the concerns of sexual activity with death or life long debiliating disease or sterility being more of a concern.
I had a son when I was in High School and I do not regret it and he is a wonderful son who has accomplished some very good things in life, successful regional manager, marriage and fatherhood, and to think that if I had chosen abortion he would not be here today is just unfathomable. He is the apple of my eye. He was not planned but he could not possibly be more loved! And thanks to that excellent choice I am a grandmother by this unplanned pregnancy!
The outcomes you quote with "zero potential" if absitnence is observed are quite correct. I assume your "high potential" outcomes assume that condoms are not used. But "moderate potential"? That sounds like an overstatement of the actual risk, depending of course on the level of frequency. The risk is really quite low for someone who has sex, say, 10-15 times per year, always correctly using a condom. I don't think most teens get half the opportunities to have sex as they might have you believe.
We need to avoid exaggerating the scientifically-determined risk in an attempt to influence young people's moral decision-making. Obviously, we want kids to make their choices based on what's best for them (or what God calls for, if that's your background) but lying to them is neither ethical nor effective. It's also potentially harmful: If two drunk teenagers have decided to have sex, that quick trip to the condom vending machine won't seem so worthwhile if they've been incorrectly told that they're only 33% effective - they simply won't bother.
The strongest support I found was at this site http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4MJJC8S-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=984213634&_rerunOrigin=scholar .google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4dff36b44981608a2f8a7439d74c87fb
Where I found it quite interesting that children were tested for effectiveness of abstinence and that their own mind set regarding their perception of increased vulnerablity or suseptibilty of contracting a disease lowered their abstinence ability. So what Im getting is that the more they are giving information that abstinence doesnt work they more it doesnt work and the more reinforcment they are given the more it works! Amazing concept.Positive reinforcement works, but you wont hear planned parenthood tell you that.
Quote;
Objectives
In Nepal, male adolescent students are at high risk for infection with human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) because of their risky sexual behaviours. This study examined whether two subscales of the Health Belief Model (HBM), perceived severity and perceived susceptibility, are associated with abstinence intention among Nepalese male adolescent students for HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome ( AIDS ) prevention.
Study design and methods
A school-based study was conducted at a single school located in central Kathmandu from July to August 2002. Participants included 183 male students in Grades 9–12 aged 14–19 years. Anonymous self-reported questionnaires were used, and Zagumny's AIDS Health Belief Scale was adopted as a measure of perceived severity and perceived susceptibility.
Results
Over half of the students (53%) strongly agreed with abstinence intention. Students with higher levels of perceived severity strongly agreed with abstinence intention [crude odds ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–3.38; adjusted odds ratio 1.94, 95% CI 1.05–3.58], but those with higher levels of perceived susceptibility did not. Moreover, age-stratified analysis showed that a high level of perceived susceptibility tended to decrease strong abstinence intention among students aged 16–19 years.End quote
http://www.infoforhealth.org/inforeports/effectiveness/4.shtml
Contraceptive use and moderate chance of pregnancy resource http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Clinical-Proceedings/Breaking-the-Contraceptive-Barrier/Use-Knowledge
If you dont have sex you dont get stds and pregnant so chances are zero, this is not misinformation. Like all programs if not adhered to properly you increase your chances of pregnancy/stds. Here is some more information regarding abstinence statistics of effectiveness:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm
There are far too many variables associated with the rates of abortion , teen or otherwise, to be able to extrapolate the effectiveness or otherwise of " abstinence only" sex education .
And while we're on the subject, surely this religious-sponsored education policy does a huge disservice to youth? Of course abstinence is by a long way the best possible approach for minors. But "abstinence ONLY" education? The reality is that people don't always do what's best for them. They don't always take enough excercise or eat the right foods or drive carefully. Teenagers are famously poor at spur-of-the-moment decision-making. Denying them the knowledge they need to take precautions in case they do, for whatever reason, have sex, is grossly irresponsible. It's a bit like saying to Junior "My prize sportscar is in the garage, but don't think about taking it out, because I've drained the brake fluid just in case you do"
It's shocking to read that Rice KlowN was told in school as recently as 1999, that condoms are only 33% effective. That is an outright lie, designed to trick kids into never having sex. Teenagers don't need to be lied to, they need to be equipped by adults with the facts they need to survive and flourish in the adult world of which they're day-by-day becoming a part. Actual evidence suggests that for each occurence of sexual intercourse in which a condom is correctly used, there is a 0.02% chance of pregnancy . So, Rice KlowN's teachers qouted a risk 3,350 times higher than the actual risk. Ridiculous.
if you reduce teen pregnancy you will undoubtedly reduce abortions , not exactly reproductive rocket science here.
Abstinence only education doesn't lead to a reduction in abortions. It leads to guilt that prevents someone having an abortion . If the number of abortions has decreased, it's because of the stigma. That's not to say that abortion is ever a good thing; it's an agonizing decision for any girl or woman to make.
If I had a daughter I'd rather have her on birth control than pregnant.
Bristol Palin is the poster child for the failures of abstinence-only based sex education. A strong (if somewhat stupid and crazy) family, an anti-abortion mom who's an anti-abortion politician...and still...she has sex and gets knocked up. Classic. More power to her for deciding to have her child, but deciding what to do about an unwanted pregnancy is a private matter.
I've always been stunned by the SMALL GOVERNMENT conservatives who want to legislate morality. There's no logic in their ideology.
Let me ask this: if abortion is murder , why aren't anti-abortion advocates pushing for prosecution of women who've had abortions? After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder. You'd be surprised who ends up going to jail if women who've had abortions were charged and convicted of murder.
"Oh, but wait... that type of education won't line the pockets of the abortion industry or Planned Parenthood"
That statement alone exposes your agenda/dogma.
A sound, secular, scientific based sex education program will include not only comprehensive information on human sexuality, birth control, and STDs, it will also include the pros/cons and ramifications of being sexually active; including the discussion of abstinence as a personal choice.
Please leave religion out of it...
Don't you know... The left is all a bunch of socialists until something we support costs money and benefits someone outside of government, then we are all magically transformed into green-eyed capitalist pigs!
The right doesn't care what they say or whether it is consistent, as long as it makes the left look bad.
Their positions are not based in well rounded reason or logic, they oppose things based on the most simplistic uneducated philosophy imaginable. They are the unthinking minority.
The left doesn't need the right to make it look bad. You can do that all by yourselves.
We just point it out. So sorry if that upsets your fragile sensibilities.
Quite ironic is it that you will lambaste the right and then in the next sentence do the exact thing you were just bitching about.
However, I'll throw you this one bone:
There are some loony-tunes on both sides of the aisle.
Stop making the mistake of painting all on the right with such a wide brush. 48% of America, while technically a minority, is still a force to be reckoned with and you describing us as 'unthinking' is either grossly inflammatory or proof that you are prejudiced.
I'll let you decide which.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I'm sorry Solar, I keep forgetting that rational righties like you exist... the majority of the modern right really is bat shit crazy and you know it! I get stuck in context too much sometimes, I was mainly talking about folks like Jill Stanek, the author of this article, whose arguments are NOT well rounded, but supported by ideological biased assertions not based in reality.
"The left doesn't need the right to make it look bad. You can do that all by yourselves"
I agree... so why do the stupid ones pretend that abortion rights is wholly funded and support is driven soley by some "Big Abortion" lobby that profits off of abortion as if it some sort of giant industry lobby. Their is no vast abortion industry and those that perform abortions aren't exactly making it rich off of abortion. It's a stupid argument. There are plenty of good things to use against the left... BigAbortion is completely laughable!
"We just point it out. So sorry if that upsets your fragile sensibilities."
So, do you really think that the pro-choice lobby is driven by an industry interest, or do you realize its a health care and personal rights issue for the our side?
"Quite ironic is it that you will lambaste the right and then in the next sentence do the exact thing you were just bitching about."
No, I was lambasting the right for inconsistent insult throwing, which is not what I was doing. I'm still not convinced that, when all things are considered, most of those on the political right's reasoning is not either based in selfishness(or individualism) or irrational thinking. But that's why I'm on the left isn't it? I just base my political philosophy on different grounds.
"However, I'll throw you this one bone:
There are some loony-tunes on both sides of the aisle."
Absolutely... but come on bro... your side shares a heftier proportion of them! I mean seriously, lets be honest here.
"is still a force to be reckoned with and you describing us as 'unthinking' is either grossly inflammatory or proof that you are prejudiced."
I understand that, but the *vocal part* of the right is unthinking and bat shit crazy. I mean seriously... turning town halls into useless yelling matches. That's getting yourself heard, I guess, but it's NOT the American way of debate and the right is looking worse and worse everyday.
I'm sorry your offended, but I've considered most of your postings to be right of center, but not far right. You were not who I was thinking of when I said "the right".