Friday, February 13, 2015

Colorado proves that education, not slut shaming, is the best way to prevent teen pregnancies.

Courtesy of Pew Charitable Trusts:  

President Barack Obama hailed a landmark achievement in his State of the Union address last month: Teen pregnancies in the U.S. have hit an all-time low. But the U.S. still has a teen birthrate of 31.2 per 1,000 teens, nearly one-and-a-half times the rate in the United Kingdom, which has one of the highest rates in Western Europe. 

Colorado may have found a way to close the gap. The state’s teen birthrate dropped 40 percent between 2009 and 2013, driven largely by a public health initiative that gives low-income young women across the state long-acting contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and hormonal implants. 

Backed by $23.5 million from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, Colorado attracted national recognition for its program after Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper announced the results of a cost-savings study last summer. The state saved $42.5 million in 2010 alone, an average return of $5.85 in avoided Medicaid costs for prenatal, delivery and first year of infant care for every $1 spent on the program. 

More important, Hickenlooper said, the initiative “has helped thousands of young Colorado women continue their education, pursue their professional goals and postpone pregnancy until they are ready to start a family.”

But wait, according to the conservatives the best way to avoid teen pregnancy is by keeping sex ed out of public school classroom, get rid of Planned Parenthood, and dress your daughters like puritans?

So gee simply educating both teen boys and teen girls about sex and providing access to birth control can bring teen pregnancy rates down by almost half, and allow young women to live full and productive lives while choosing parenthood on THEIR terms.

Whoda thunk it?

37 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:19 AM

    Just ask Ricky Santorum, or any fanatic on the fringe right.

    No contraceptives for young unmarrieds, cuz that would mean they are having sexy times, which is against baby Jessus

    Just because teen preg rates are down, and abortions are down, is no excuse to let teens sin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:29 AM

      But yet Santorum's wife had an abortion, a medically necessary abortion that saved her live. Why didn't "they choose life" and take that 4% chance she would live? but rich people have always gotten abortions and always will.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:45 AM

      Santorum's wife lived with her lover, an abortion Doctor, before she moved on to Rick.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous4:53 AM

    In the opinion of these religious fanatics, only the GIRLS are sinners. The guys are "boys being boys" Takes two to make a baby. Bristles is a GREAT representative of abstinence only. She would give the speech, then go home to her latest live in trial husband. What a joke. The entire Palin family are frauds, liars and grifters.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:01 AM

    Of course "only the GIRLS are sinners" . . . they are taking Genesis literally and believing the Adam was a good guy, p-whipped into disobeying God. It was all Eve's fault. It is still all Eve's fault (when it's not Obama's) and all women must pay for her indiscretion. Forever.

    Men are such little lambs.

    /snark

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:24 AM

      LOVE this comment!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:46 AM

      Thank you.

      Delete
  4. angela5:21 AM

    I remember when a local high school's teen pregnancy rate was so high in the 90s that they actually moved Planned Parenthood into the school. The evangelical's heads blew off. Of course, they had a lot of pregnant teens sitting in their pews on Sundays.

    After two years----the pregnancy rate plummeted. Why is access to birth control even an issue at this point in our society? Humans will have sex---no matter what. Just say no to sex is criminally stupid and fighting against birth control is coming from religious stupidity and judgement.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5:24 AM

    Who woulda thought the way to prevent teen pregnancy is through access to contraception?

    Remember when Bristol said abstinence was unrealistic? Before her mom and lots of money from Candies convinced her to say something different (but, not think something different)?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous5:38 AM

    Go Colorado! You are #1 in smarts!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5:42 AM

    Well. In wasilla no one had accidental pregnancies because everyone young and old had babies at 18/19/20.

    And what will liberals do if they can't slutshame people who aren't sluts? (Though in reality a slut doesn't exsit and was a way in the past to keep women under a mans control).

    Hey patriarchy. Shit has changed. I guarantee that at some point more women will stop taking men's last names and stop the absurdity of giving a child a mans name. Especially in the age of blended families.

    Kids need to have hyphenated names of their parents aren't married. Shoot. My name is hyphenated and my parents are still married

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:46 AM

      Ummm, it's not Liberals who are doing the slut shaming.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous8:50 AM

      Your name isn't hyphenated, Alicia.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:02 PM

      SUre 5:42. We'll see you in a few genrerations Ms. Jones- Smith- Wachinsky-Capoli- Waters- Buchanon-Fernandez-Alioop,

      Delete
    4. Anonymous8:43 AM

      Bristol Palin does not have a man to give her his last name. So her many babies are Palins. Your parents are still supporting your unemployed ass, Troll. Your name is hyphenated with -Unwanted.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous5:52 AM

    I can remember in the beginning of 2009, Bristol and her father, Todd, went on 'speaking' tours' with little baby Levi. They were on all the morning shows. And yes, of course, preaching abstinence. It was pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous6:07 AM

      Gotta love Ol' Brisket, preaching abstinence as she holds an infant she just pushed out.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous6:38 AM

      Opps. I meant Tripp. Not Levi. Sorry!

      Delete
  9. Anonymous6:06 AM

    My Dog! I can't believe this is even up for discussion in 2015. I had comprehensive sex ed in the 60's, they just put it in science class...cuz ...you know...biology.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous6:56 AM

    When gay marriage was banned by federal law, didn’t individual states invoke states rights to allow it in their own states?
    Seems to me ‘states rights’ goes both ways. There was a time when pro-homo lobby was pro-states rights. (Funny, but 'marriage equality' only seem to care about the homo 'right' to marry. They never speak for incest-sexuals or polygamists. So much for equality.)

    Why don’t people invoke cases where federal power was abusive/oppressive? Like the federal decree ordering Japanese-Americans to be dispossessed and interned?

    Besides, there was a time when federal power required free states to return runaway slaves against the wishes of individual northern states. So, states rights can cut both ways. It could be on the side of freedom or slavery.
    Same with federal power. It could be on the side of freedom or slavery.

    One thing for sure, it was federal power that led US to foreign ventures in Philippines, Vietnam, and Iraq that led to the killing of millions of people abroad.

    'Gay marriage' is anti-true marriage since it equates perverted 'sex' among homos with real sex between men and women that makes natural sense and produces life. 'Gay marriage' also argues that a homo's fecal anus is the 'sexual' equivalent of a woman's vagina that produces life. It's an insult to womanhood, esp considering the pain a woman goes thriugh in child birth.
    Equating homosexuality and real sexuality is like equating evolution with creationism in the name of 'science equality'. In fact, creationism is bogus. Pro-creationists might argue that they are for the equal teaching of both instead being against evolution, but when falsehood is made equal with truth, it is anti-truth. The idea that homosexuality has equal value with real sexuality between men and women is like saying a lie is worth the same as truth. Why is a penis being smeared with fecal matter of equal value with a penis fertilizing the egg in the female organ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:49 AM

      For some against "homo sex," you sure do spend a lot of time thinking about all the little details of anal penetration.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:24 AM

      Plenty of heterosexual couple engage in anal sex, both male to female and vice versa. Funnily enough anal sex is very popular with the "christian abstinence" teen crowd because one can still have sex while preserving her "virginity". You don't get out much, do you?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9:26 AM

      You do realize that many straight people enjoy anal sex don't you? Also, for most people, sex is not about procreation, but just for enjoyment. As for polygamy, that is not comparable to 2 consenting adults marrying, also adult consenting incestuous marriages are allowed in some places in the USA.
      But you seem a bit confused on the United States of America's judicial system I state cannot .take away an American citizens inherent rights.

      Now quit thinking so much about other peoples sex lives, because they are none of your business. Spend that time concentrating on your own and you too may start having sex for fun also.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous6:08 PM

      Geez you are stupid and illogical, 6:46. Your last line alone insists that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Most every 1-2-3- kid family with s smilin' mommy and daddy is a slap in the face of your idiocy.

      Your exampels of going to war as an abuse of federal power versus state power? Since thestates don't exactly have standng armies....and national defense is the pruview of the feds...

      Oh why bother - you are just too stupid to understand a well-constructed rational argument.

      Delete
  11. Anonymous9:21 AM

    There is nothing that indicates any of this has to do with school sex education classes.
    Also, the Pew piece is intentionally misleading. Mixing pregnancy rate with birth rate, contraceptives with counseling (where to get an abortion), teenagers and young women.
    Studies, polls, research is just a fancy way to say: lies, damned lies and statistics.
    One fact remains, anyone in the year 2015 who has an unwanted pregnancy is an idiot. Oh boy, here come the rape scenarios.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:10 PM

      Well please explain how someone could avoid an unwanted pregnancy without being educated , first of all; how you can become pregnant and then being educated in how to use birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
      Of course this is all about sex ed, or as I like to call it biology.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous1:34 PM

      Thus guy doesn't believe in research.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2:09 PM

      Well, since we are specifically talking about TEEN pregnancies here, I would hope even you would understand that young people aren't always great at thinking ahead or controlling their urges. I guess your only solution is to make her and the rest of us suffer the consequences.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous2:20 PM

      The teen abortion rate also dropped during the same time. So did fertility rates.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous6:12 PM

      Long term and female controlled contraception is the issue - as any parent will tell you, teens all have instances of impetuousness and forgetfulness. So yes, long term contraception is a great idea for tthe lost my keys, forgot my homework, thought doing x was a great idea before it turned in to a disaster , it won't happen to meeeeeee immortality is meeeeee, teen. Not to mention, condoms can break.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous10:05 AM

    I took 6:56 and his comments to be regarding gay marriage.
    To use marriage as a way to get benefits from the government or some other entity is dishonest and immoral. Changing policies of those institutions would be a worthy goal if two men or women wanted to live together and do whatever they do in their bedroom. But, gay marriage is not the answer. Getting to the root of the problem would be an even better solution - get government out of marriage. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:11 PM

      I like my government marriage. Maybe the hateful churches( which can't really marry anyone anyway) get out of the pretending to marry people business.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous11:31 AM

    abstinence begins at home. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous11:56 AM

    10:05 I somewhat in a way agree with you, but -

    As long as American citizens are forced to file tax returns designating themselves as either married or unmarried with very little in the way of other choices, government will always be in the marriage 'business'.

    The reason the tax code was written that way (so I'm told) is that it 'promotes stable family units', which is presumed to be more beneficial to society.

    I'm not saying I totally buy that, I'm just sayin' that's the reason I've heard why our tax code is limited to 1) Married Filing Jointly; 2) Married Filling Separately; 3) Single; 4) Head of Household

    The tax advantages mainly go to #1 Married Filing Jointly. You cannot legally claim that status unless you have a valid, legally recognized marriage license.

    I myself would have zero problem with the US making everyone have to file taxes individually regardless of their relationship status.

    But for many, many reasons, that' ain't gonna happen.


    MarvinM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:25 PM

      Marvin, thank you for the civil, thoughtful response. I understand what you are saying and I hope you would agree that simply adding Married/Civil Union either jointly or separately would be so simple and no changes to the actual tax code would need to be made.

      This is not directed towards you, but the phrase, 'promotes stable family units'
      Seriously how does the government think taking 30 odd percent of your income away help your family.



      Delete
    2. Anonymous1:13 PM

      We don't need civil unions, all the paperwork and time it would change the government to add civil unions is unnecessary and would end upo being very costly. We have marriage licenses and those can be used by any 2 consenting adults.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous6:19 PM

      THat 30% funds all sorts of things no one can provide for themselves. Everything from ensuring safe food and water to roads and bridges to national defense and emergency response to research and development of medication and education and the social safety net.

      Try living without any of the above and you'd run screaming in 30 seconds.

      Delete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.