Not abstinence only
Submitted by James on Sat, 12/15/2007 - 4:59pm
Back in October, I wrote a post about the unintended impact of Robin Hayes' abstinence only agenda on teen pregnancy in North Carolina.
There are plenty of reasons to consider Robin Hayes a disgusting and vile creature, but one reason very close to my heart has been largely unaddressed. Robin Hayes is personally responsible for thousands of teen pregnancies in North Carolina every year. Here's the story.
In the dark of night when the legislature was in session back in 1995, then Representative Robin Hayes introduced a bill requiring that public schools in North Carolina teach an abstinence-only sex education curriculum. Despite heated and stunningly uninformed debate, the House and the Senate passed the bill. Since the 1996-97 academic year, over 100 out of the 117 school systems in North Carolina have taught abstinence-only until marriage in their healthy living/sex education courses.
Hayes said his program will “put a moral compass back in the schools and get teens past these mixed messages and answer the question of teenage pregnancy." He would later state that “this is where welfare reform starts – with abstinence until marriage.”
And what did Robin Hayes' misguided zealotry do for North Carolina adolescents? Just this:
In the wake of Hayes' spectacular stupidity, schools scrambled to come up with approaches to the new legislation. Some settled on pure abstinence-only. Others opted for "abstinence plus sex education."
In North Carolina the counties in which Abstinence-plus programs are used have experienced a greater decline than counties utilizing the Abstinence-only curriculum. And, according to a recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control, 75% of teens in North Carolina have intercourse prior to graduating from high school.
There is good news to report, however, because something remarkable is happening in states all across America. Responsible leaders are "just saying no" to George Bush's abstinence only funding.
The number of states spurning the money has grown even as Congress considers boosting overall funding for abstinence-only education to $204 million, with most of it going directly to community organizations.
::
"This wave of states rejecting the money is a bellwether," said William Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a Washington-based advocacy and education group that opposes abstinence-only programs. "It's a canary in the coal mine of what's to come."
Of course, abstinence-only ideologues will not give up, not on your life - or on the life of your teen-aged daughter. Undeterred by pesky facts, these zealots are scrambling to pressure states to reverse their decisions and stay with the program.
"We're talking about the health of millions of youth across the United States," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. "We know abstinence education offers the best for them. Now is the time to put more emphasis on that message, not less."
Huber disputed criticism that the programs are ineffective or overly restrictive.
"Our critics would have governors believe that these programs are just somebody standing in front of the class wagging a finger and saying, 'No. No. No. Don't have sex.' That's not what these classes entail," Huber said. "They are holistic. They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception."
There's only one problem, Ms. Huber. Your holistic programs don't really work. Not only that, your holistic programs actually lead to higher rates of pregnancy among teens, not to mention higher rates of STDs, too.
It's time for North Carolina to join other responsible states in telling the federal government to keep their blood money.
- James's blog
- 7951 reads
Ridiculous
While I disagree with Hayes' position on this matter, to say that he is personally responsible for thousands of teen pregnancies is absurd. The only ones responsible are the girls that opened their legs and the guys that were too stupid to wear a rubber. Every middle and high school aged child knows where a baby comes from.
Carolina Politics Online
Carolina Politics Online
Facts is facts
Teens who got "Hazed" got pregnant at higher rates than teens who got comprehensive sex education. Call it ridiculous all you want, but public policies have consequences . . . and this particular policy has been a complete and utter failure.
More to the point, Robin Hayes is, in fact, personally responsible for this public policy in North Carolina.
I suppose you think George Bush isn't personally responsible for every soldier killed in Iraq?
The soldiers in Iraq are
The soldiers in Iraq are dead because Bush sent them there.
Hayes didn't tell any of those kids to have unprotected sex, so it's not even a similar comparison.
You are demonstrating a very common problem in society today and that is lack of responsibility for one's actions. Nobody is responsible for those pregnancies except for the couple involved and their parents for not raising them better. Period. Stop trying to pass their own ignorance and stupidity off to someone else and let them reap the consequences of their actions.
Carolina Politics Online
Carolina Politics Online
Hmmm.
I suppose you're against public education too.
Your point makes sense only if you assume children have the knowledge they need to make smart decisions. And the fact is, many parents don't even try to engage their teens. Combine that with the multi-billion dollar entertainment and advertising industry that bombards teens with messages that everybody's doing "it" at the drop of a hat - on television, on talk radio, in movies, on the Tubes - and parents are pretty much swimming against an overwhelming tide. The ones who really care aren't immune from failure. And the ones who don't care at all? You know how that goes.
What do you think should be done in the face of this reality? Say "fuck 'em" to the teens and let them have babies . . . or say "fuck 'em" and let them have abortions? What's your pleasure?
I say that the common good is served when children know as much as they can about what's real. If that information isn't being delivered by parents, then someone has to step in.
Who do you want to step in? Do you like the fact that MTV has stepped in? Gotta love the good old free market.
I'll tell you who else stepped in. Robin "The Sanctimonious" Hayes. He personally stepped in by introducing new legislation that prohibits schools from telling teens what's real. You don't want to hold him accountable. I do.
And that's the difference between us. You see, I'm an equal opportunity guilt assessor. I hold the teens and their parents accountable too. And trust me, they're suffering.
But Haye's isn't suffering. He's skating along like business as usual. Being paid by you and me to make stupid decisions that kill people.
If this were Boston Legal, a pregnant teenager would be suing him. And on Boston Legal, she'd win.
Bush didn't tell those soldiers to run over IEDs...
He just failed to give them the protection they needed to survive it (uparmored Humvee, Dragon Scale body armor). So, actually the situation is identical. Hayes didn't tell those kids to have sex, he just failed to allow them the protection they needed to survive it (sex education, condoms, spermicide).
One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
SLAM!
You nailed that nicely.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
really?
We have presidential candidates who dont know how you get AIDS and you think that every middle schooler magically does?
"Keep the Faith"
"Keep the Faith"
CP, stop and think for a moment.
Do you not see a connection between the lack of instruction about condoms and:
Also, did they remove the word "irony" from the list of approved vocabulary words when you were in school?
Kids weren't taught about
Kids weren't taught about condoms two generations ago either and out of wedlock pregnancies were almost unheard of.
We don't have a legislative problem in this country. We have a cultural problem.
Carolina Politics Online
Carolina Politics Online
ah yes
the 50s.
no one got pregnant before being married in the 50s. no one did drugs in the 50s. and everyone had perfect lives.
I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you if you are interested...
"Keep the Faith"
"Keep the Faith"
Did I say nobody did?
Did I say nobody did? No
Keep your bridge and unless you have some actual facts to contribute to the discussion please stop wasting everyone's time with childish come backs.
Carolina Politics Online
Carolina Politics Online
the point you missed
while you were building up the 50s to be some magical perfect era was that teen pregnancies DID occur.
The reason they were "unheard" of was because our culture swept them under the rug, or hid them in a marriage.
As for the requested facts, since 1958, the highest rate of teen preganancy was in the 50s. In the late 50s the rate was close to 100 per 1000. It is now close to 50. The difference is that fewer and fewer teens are getting married. So while the rate of unwed preganancies was around 13 percent in the 50s it is now much much higher.
I thought you might like these quotes
Not surprisingly, the US has higher rates of teen pregancy than our peers, with lower rates of contraception use.
"Keep the Faith"
"Keep the Faith"
That's what I get for taking too long
writing a post. :)
I just duplicated some of your points down there. \/
We do have a cultural problem, true, but
keeping important information away from people who don't have the structure in their lives like families did back then doesn't serve their interests at all.
School may be the only opportunity for people to get straight information on sexuality. Pornography sure doesn't give them an accurate picture of things and you better believe they get their fill of that at an earlier and earlier age.
We can't go back to the 50's as much as some bunch of stodgy old white politicians would like us to. That old patriarchy has been gasping for breath in the guise of conservatism but there really is nothing conservative about laying people's lives to waste by keeping them in ignorance.
Have you called to support H. Res 333 Impeach Cheney Today? call 202-224-3121 & ask for your Congress member by name
Progressive Democrats of North Carolina
This statement is a little misleading:
because it infers that teenage pregnancies were also rare. That's not the case. The percentage of teenage girls giving birth back in the 1950's was considerably higher than it is now. Combine that with the fact that the median age for females getting married in the 1950's was around 20 (as opposed to the current 25+) leads me to assume the following:
A heck of a lot of girls were finding themselves "in the family way" back then, and a whole lot of them found themselves in a marriage because of it.
Now, you might think that's fine and dandy, but you need to face the fact that underage, unprotected, premarital sex has been a damned popular sport since long before Moses took his basket cruise.
The drive to reproduce is programmed into our very core. It's rooted in our psychology and physiology so deeply that it's nearly impossible to "condition" it away, which is probably why we're still here. :)
So, we have children whose bodies develop into baby-making machines, but they still have 4-6 years before they have matured to the level they can (nominally) take on the responsibilities of parenthood.
We can lay a heavy psychological trip on them by describing: a) their sexual drives as weakness, b) birth control pills as dangerous to their health, c) condoms being undependable and prone to break, d) HIV transferable from kissing (and other assorted nonsense). Or we can give them information that will take some of the mystery out of their strange feelings and tools they can actually put to use.
A heck of a lot of girls
A heck of a lot of girls were finding themselves "in the family way" back then, and a whole lot of them found themselves in a marriage because of it.
Not all of them were married off; it was common practice here in the South (maybe elsewhere too but I know it was done here) for families with a pregnant girl to suddenly "send her to live with Aunt So-and-So" for a year. The girls would stay in group homes until they gave birth, then give their babies up for adoption and move back home. Problem solved.
http://www.comeunity.com/adoption/adopt/interview-adoptionhistory.html
After World War II, adoption really took off. Not only was it an established practice by this time, but there also happened to be a great increase in the number of pregnancies out of wedlock in a new group—white middle-class women. In this time of considerable economic mobility, respectability took on a new significance. Adoption was seen as a fresh start for everyone involved—the young woman who could erase her past by placing her baby for adoption, the child who could join a normative family rather than be raised by a single parent, and the adoptive parents who could join the baby boom that was otherwise closed to them because of infertility. Adoption flourished in the 1950s and 1960s, as measured both by number and by the enthusiastic support of a broad white middle class.
Like other commenters have said -- it's not that sex outside of marriage wasn't happening in the '50s; it's just that the consequences were better-hidden.
-Angry Grrl
--
Get angry. Get involved.
Contemptible ignorance
I am sickened by the tiny-brained reduction of the issue of teen pregnancy to "she opened her legs" and similar phrasing. It is a deliberately crass, contemptuous description that summons an image -- undoubtedly consistent with the writer's perspective - that reduces the girl to a set of open legs. There really isn't a face involved, no person involved here. Just a thing that consists of a vagina and legs.
And no, CP, the fact is that not every middle and high school aged child "knows" where a baby comes from. The "information" they exchange among each other is ridiculous and ignorant but the myths are what a lot of them have and rely upon.
Have you already forgotten that only ten years or so ago, we had a member of the House of Representatives who declared that women couldn't conceive if they were raped?
"Every middle and high school aged child knows," you say?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
Ignorance only
To make matters worse, that state representative, Henry Aldridge, was a periodontist. His words were:
Time to change this stupid and harmful policy.
Tch. That's what I get for being away from my computer for a day. Anglico posts on a topic I've been talking about and lofT, scharrison, and angry grrl get to pitch in with all the cold, hard facts in response to "carolina politics"'s uninformed objections.
So-called "abstinence-only" education is another name for choosing to perpetuate ignorance and the resulting higher rates of disease and unintended pregnancy among our most vulnerable young people. It's an approach which ignores the realities of the human condition: A great many young people will have sex regardless of how loudly or consistently adults condemn the fact. There are informed ways to encourage youth to delay sexual activity, but we directly increase our society's problems when we foolishly assume that they always work.
The responsible alternative is known as "abstinence-based" or "abstinence-plus" education. It starts with teaching the premise that young people ARE better off by postponing sexual activity to a more adult and mature age. It ALSO includes medically-accurate information about how to reduce the chances of unintended pregnancy and transmission of infections, for whatever time sexual activity begins.
Parents with religious objections can opt their kids out of this education if they want. The difference is that the minority of people who prefer to do so cannot "opt out" their entire community.
I learned about the details of these contrasting approaches to a key public issue while working for Planned Parenthood. I traveled to Raleigh earlier this year to support legislation intended to dump the Hayes-inspired, Bush-supported approach of requiring "abstinence-only" programs in our schools.
As Lieutenant Governor, I'll support legislation and rules which replace the misguided "abstinence-only" approach with the more effective "abstinence-based" programs. I'll also oppose accepting any federal matching funds which are limited to "abstinence-only" programs. I'll be in a position to press for these policies as the presiding officer of the State Senate and as a member of the state Board of Education. Finally, I won't be shy about using the "bully pulpit" of my position to raise the profile of the issue and help explain to the media and public the differences in these approaches and why it is an important issue to our children's health.
Dan Besse
Democrat for Lieutenant Governor
Dan Besse
CP is uninformed on the effects of the lack of
sexual education on young people.
And has some misdirected anger.
News of the 10th district: See Pat Go Bye Bye,
Crossed at Kos
Just in case you're looking for something to do.
Here's the NCGA page
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=1...
I'd love to find out if there's anybody who voted for this that needs a primary.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
They include
They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception."
Ms. Huber is lying through her teeth. Read "Putting Teens at Risk: A Report on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs in NC Schools," a joint effort by the NC ACLU and NC's chapter of NARAL:
http://www.prochoicenorthcarolina.org/issues/factsheets/200607261.shtml
The three most popular abstinence-only curricula in all get failing grades:
Choosing the Best is one of the most widely-used abstinence-only plans in NC, and across the country. Among its many problems is the fact that it provides inaccurate information about condom use, tells kids that issues that don't necessarily have anything do with sex -- poverty, substance abuse, depression, suicide, loneliness, etc., -- "can be eliminated by being abstinent until marriage."
CTB also states point-blank, "Generally, guys are able to focus better on one activity at a time and may not connect feelings with actions. Girls access both sides of the brain at once, so they often experience feelings and emotions as party of every situation." Hmmm... gender bias much?
Other curricula aren't much better. Me, My World, My Future tells kids that using a condom is like holding a loaded gun to your head in a game of Russian roulette, saying that "condoms do not prevent pregnancy, STDs or AIDS; they only delay them. Theoretically, the longer one relies on them, the will fail and the 'game' is over [sic]."
Sex Respect states that "there is stil some uncertainty about how effectively even a latex condom protects against HIV." And it tells kids that chemical contraceptives will damage a woman's future fertility (absolute bullshit).
Me, My World, My Future and Sex Respect fail when it comes to abortion, too. The first says that getting one increases a woman's future risk of sterility, premature birth, and tubal/ectopic pregnancies (bullshit). The second has loaded value statements like "Abortion...unfairly penalizes the baby for the bad decision the baby's parents made," and goes on to suggest that teachers bring in an anti-abortion speaker or a rabid pro-lifer from a crisis pregnancy center to talk about the "risks" of abortion and the "benefits" of adoption.
The latter also gets into gender stereotypes with crap like this, "A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women [are] turned on by their hearts?"
If by "medically accurate information" she means lying to kids about the effectiveness of condoms and scaring them with inaccurate statistics about abortion, then sure, I guess these programs do that. And if by "building relationship skills" she means teaching young women to be doormats and that guys are just slaves to their "urges," then yeah, these abstinence-only programs do that, too.
*shakes head*
The teens are the ones being done a huge disservice here, and it's sad.
-Angry Grrl
--
Get angry. Get involved.
Thank you.
It's more than sad. It's criminal.
Well said.
The idea that teen pregnancy is the teen's fault
is, at best, partially true. Teens do not have adult brains, but they do have adult gonads recently activated by a rush of hormones. The prefrontal lobe and other decision making parts of the brain are developing toward their final adult structure. This leaves crucial parts of the adolescent brain short on "progamming" which later develops as the teen has experiences, takes in information and observes role models.
So basically we have a being that has trouble making good decisions while chemicals is its body are screaming for him or her to use the newly activated equipment.
That is why abstinence only is a joke, especially with all the social and cultural pressures and the increase of single parent homes - parents who have less time for teaching "the birds and the bees" to their teen age children.
This needs fixing. Thanks to Dan Besse for posting in this thread. I hope the other candidates share their views on this crucial subject.
Children should not have children.
Person County Democrats
Environmental Defense Fund
Cell phones will be to the 21st century what tobacco was to the 20th.
interesting article
in this morning's Charlotte Observer on this subject. Abstinence-only does not appear to be working, it reports, and more states are rejecting funds that are tied to that policy. So what does the Bush administration propose we do about that? Why, increase the funding for it, of course. As President Bush said recently -- You need to see the facts as we see them. That's the problem! We just aren't seeing the right facts!
Robin Hayes needs to follow my congresscritter Sue Myrick into a long and happy retirement. We've got Harry Taylor -- who've you got?
More push-back on abstinence only
The Fayetteville Observer weighs in with a great editorial on the abstinence only debacle.
Okay Son! Which Monk just flash you?
In this morning's Charlotte Observer on this subject. Abstinence-only does not appear to be working, *west
The Fayetteville Observer weighs in with a great editorial on the abstinence only debacle.* A
Abstinence-only is a dogma.* A
Since you bought up Abstinence dogma, I just found this press release today from Rome.
As the Pope personal media spokesperson, The Pope has issue this Bull comment on Abstinence.
" We the Church has run and will continue the most successful Abstincence program in the history of mankind. Pay no attention to the Devil and Satanic rumors about large legal settlements to former Altar boys. Just say No to the media"
Yours in the Holy Water of Mike Huckabee
Maxius Cicero Pornis Chief PR guy to Art Pope
The human condition is not as stable as we may like it to be....
Human beings are impulsive, unpredictable, Irresponsible, moral, immoral, amoral. We often know the facts and disregard them. We seem wired to reach beyond our grasp and often do, with no safty protocals engaged.
It is not like we don't know this to be true. We can often hear ourselves excuse our condition with the whimsical "Hey, I'm only human".
We overcome today, as we have for thousands of years through learning. We educate ourselves. We often do not heed that which we learn, but we continue learning nevertheless, because enough do heed what they learn and share their experiences with others.
Abstinence itself is an ideal. Yes, it would most certainally solve many problems. Unfortunately we are not all wired to practicality, or zero sums outcomes.
We are human and although imperfect, it is a good thing to be. Lets teach our children what they need to know to survive and prosper, even as we learned.
Why wish our mistakes upoon them? Give them the information and let them deal with it. Youth often surprize us with wisdom beyond their years.
Dan....You're right on.
http://www.MarshallAdame4Congress2008.com
Marshall Adame
i personally believe it's
i personally believe it's that the republicans are just too damn scared of sex to do anything other than preach about how it's wrong. We have idiots like Patrick McHenry ruining my day with talk about stuff like that. my daughter feels restricted with this kind of atmosphere. im glad you were brave enough to show a true opinion on the subject
Patrick McHenry