gut;1140920 wrote:Hilarious how almost all of the top-10 are bible-belt states. .

like_that;1140944 wrote:I am sure Darby brought down Ohio's ranking himself.

I Wear Pants;1141244 wrote:Like anyone with a brain already knew, abstinence only education is absolutely ineffective. This just further shows it. Many of the states with higher rates have mandated that sex ed programs be stressed as the best method. It's stupidity on a level that is absurd.

isadore;1141264 wrote:"example, take the states with the highest and lowest teen pregnancy rates. Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard. New Mexico, which has the second highest teen birth rate, does not require sex ed and has no requirements on what should be included when it is taught. New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception. "
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc
Mississippi 55 per 1000 girls 15 to 19
New Mexico 52.9 per 1000
New Hampshire 15.7 per 1000

Theory-based abstinence-only interventionsmay have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.

Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex."

New data released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) this week confirms the majority of teens are not having sex — and making it appear the abstinence education message is working.

OSH;1141280 wrote:
Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

Sykotyk;1141369 wrote:That's a little misleading. First, we're talking about 15-19 year olds. That study only indicates that they 'put off' having sex within two years. That still gives them 17, 18, and 19 to have sex and get pregnant. You know, when the sex drive is increasing at a much faster rate.

Secondly, how OFTEN kids are having sex can only be determined one of two ways: Asking them (good luck getting 100% truth) and spying on them (good luck with the legalities). The CDC report here has no ability for a kid to deny it. Pregnant is pregnant. Even states that allow teens to get abortions without parental consent will still be counted. This is a 'truth-less' study. No moral, honor, or personal conduct required.

Same issue with the 'promises'. Sure, they promise when they're 15 to wait until marriage. But when they're 17 and horny and don't know the first thing about preventing pregnancy or disease, you get pregnant teens. And besides, maybe they get lucky and don't get pregnant. Do you really think they're going to go wherever that 'promise' was made and recant it? Highly unlikely.

Requiring sworn affidavits of conduct only produce liars, not virgins.

gut;1140920 wrote:Hilarious how almost all of the top-10 are bible-belt states. Maybe the far right should get their own house in order before they start preaching to the masses. I wonder if that reflects an ignorance of birth control (due to religious views) or if it is more likely a result of less funding/access in rural areas with a greater focus on urban centers (which from an efficiency and ROI standpoint would make sense). Probably a combination of both, but clearly the snake handlers have just as much sex as anyone else.

Little Danny;1141385 wrote: Young girls in this surrounding have a more value of self and awareness they can achieve whatever path they wish.

Little Danny;1141385 wrote:I would agree with the combination but you can't discount the social-economic factor as well. In states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia etc. more young women are just replaying a cycle of poverty that has existed in these places for over a hundred years. You see it in rural parts of Ohio as well. I bet if you looked into the background of these young girls you would find that most of their mothers were teens when they had their first child as well. It really boils down to ignorance and a belief that this is how their life is supposed to be.

Compare that to a teen girl in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine etc. who is more likely to have parents who are educated and have the same expectation that their daughter be educated as well. Young girls in this surrounding have a more value of self and awareness they can achieve whatever path they wish.