tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post4573410017384546970..comments2023-06-28T05:21:02.505-05:00Comments on Conservative Economics: Sex and MoneyMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-37924363977631521682008-10-19T15:50:00.000-05:002008-10-19T15:50:00.000-05:00I used the Guttmacher Institute data for current t...I used the Guttmacher Institute data for current teen pregnancy rates. They must mean "a historic low" since the inception of sex education programs or maybe even the 1990's (when it was the highest) since their own numbers are STILL higher than pre-sex education rates. <BR/><BR/>They are using a correlative argument relating recent reductions in teen pregnancy rates to comprehensive sex education, ignoring that before abstinence-only programs were more common, teen pregnancy reached an all-time high in 1990 (a full 20 years after the inception of sex education). As I discussed in this post, correlation is not causation. This is a faulty argument from both viewpoints. <BR/><BR/>Also, the Guttmacher Institute argues that abstinence-only programs "do not work" because, per their data, abstinence-only programs don't increase abstinence in teens. However, comprehensive programs only have to increase contraceptive use in teens who are already sexually active and not using contraception, a much smaller percentage of young people. This is holding each program to a different standard of success – comparing apples to oranges. <BR/><BR/>"Well conducted studies overwhelmingly show that abstinence-only programs do not work, leading 17 states to opt out of the federal funding for these programs."<BR/><BR/>It is funny how they say 'overwhelmingly show', because they do not provide any sources for this 'overwhelming' evidence. So, let's say some of the more conservative states decide to put pressure on their elected officials to refuse federal funding for comprehensive programs and get it done. Should we say comprehensive sex education is a failure because whatever number of states have opted out of it? Perhaps the reason that abstinence-only programs were sought out in the first place was because comprehensive programs do not work. While this may be true, this is still a silly argument, just like the state opt-out argument.<BR/><BR/>The Guttmacher Institute has good intentions, no doubt; they just base their presentation of the research on their belief that you have to increase proper contraceptive use to decrease unwanted pregnancies. This belief apparently supersedes the empirical evidence I posted (with sources). <BR/><BR/>Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing teen pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately, contraceptive use does not have the same guarantee. Responsible adults that use birth control still get pregnant. I know from experience :)Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00252455464056599105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596964566628014410.post-31743074181499277922008-10-18T14:15:00.000-05:002008-10-18T14:15:00.000-05:00Teen Pregnancy Rates Declined to Historic Low in 2...<A HREF="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2008/04/16/index.html" REL="nofollow">Teen Pregnancy Rates Declined to Historic Low in 2004<BR/>Improved Contraceptive Use a Key Factor</A>. "The CDC data reinforce the need for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education programs for teens that include information about consistent, correct contraceptive use. Taken together, the above findings also make the case for improved access to confidential reproductive health services to help teens continue the progress they’ve made in reducing unintended pregnancies. Well conducted studies overwhelmingly show that abstinence-only programs do not work, leading 17 states to opt out of the federal funding for these programs. Policymakers should stop pouring money into programs that are proven ineffective and should instead support our nation’s youth with proven strategies such as dedicated funding for comprehensive sex education programs."<BR/>Your source, incidentally -- The Guttmacher Institute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com