Teen pregnancy: Is there a faith-based solution?
Whether Sarah Palin’s family, or Sarah Palin herself, should be a subject of commentary and scrutiny has itself become a much-debated topic. But let us agree that the issues raised by her candidacy, notably the revelation of her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy, may be a “teachable moment,” as they say. But what can we learn?
A CNS story on teen pregnancy offers sober stats but focuses on supporting teenage mothers (laudable, of course) rather than prevention, until the end of the piece:
Diane DeLong, the North Star director, said the program gives youths health education with “a strong abstinence message” coupled with extensive youth-development programs that keep the teens busy after school in sports and leadership programs. DeLong said she is tired of the criticism of abstinence programs that assumes teachers just tell youths, “Don’t have sex.” The programs are much more involved, she said, teaching young people to avoid risky behavior and to realize the consequences of their actions.
In today’s New York Times, op-ed columnist and graphics czar Charles Blow has a different take in a column, “Let’s Talk About Sex,” with an accompanying table that, well, graphically sets out the “crisis” (though some may object to that word for a variety of reasons). Clearly the United States, despite our enthsiastic embrace of faith, is doing poorly in teaching children to avoid early sex or pregnancy–or abortion. As Blow writes:
“…A 2001 Unicef report said that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours.”
Blow’s solution is less abstinence-only teaching (as studies show it is ineffective) and more frank talk about sex and greater access to contraception. “If there is a shame here, it’s a national shame — a failure of our puritanical society to accept and deal with the facts. Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have. Crossing our fingers that they won’t cross the line is not an intelligent strategy.”
Doesn’t seem as though that is a prescription that will be welcomed a good many parents. Is there a better way? Policy or preaching? And first off, should this be a topic/target of public discussion?
Blow’s solution is less abstinence-only teaching (as studies show it is ineffective) and more frank talk about sex and greater access to contraception.
Well, let’s be clear first on what it means for abstinence to be “ineffective.” The best study I’ve seen (a random clinical trial by Mathematica) found that abstinence was “ineffective” in the sense that teens who had abstinence education had similar age of first sexual experience, similar numbers of sexual partners, and similar rates of unprotected sex. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp But it’s not as if the control groups here got nothing — they had normal sex ed.
So abstinence was “ineffective” only in the sense that it got the same results as normal sex ed, rather than being an improvement as promised. But it wasn’t worse, not in this study.
To answer your final question: should this be a topic of public discussion? Sure, it’s important. But I don’t think it’s the most important thing we should be discussing about Sarah Palin as a VP candidate, even if the discussion is restricted to her personal policies and views. In her case I think it’s a major distraction.
who are these “good many” parents who wouldn’t want their children fully educated? The squeamish? Those who want a higher abortion rate?
The referenced articles are helpful in understanding the various dimensions of this vexing personal question. However, it seems impossible to have much of a discussion during this campaign inititiated by either party given Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. Any initiatives from the Obama campaign would be viewed as exploiting this teen’s situation even though they are very valid ones. I don’t know what the media can address without meeting similar charges. Thus, it seems that it has been effectively sidelined in this strange way. Perhaps only in the context of wider questions about personal responsibility, education in general, the spectrum of life issues, or child welfare issues might it emerge. As for Bristol, I hope she will not have to be paraded forth in these next months before this baby, due in November, I guess, is born with his father in Iraq. I wonder how all will cover the planned marriage as well given the right intentioned if confusing “families off limits” statements by all.
Thanks, Mr. Gibson…interesting post. Like Stuart, I researched and arrived at the same studies he did and their results. That being said, as a parent of two teenagers and employed in the behaviroal health field, I would definitely advocate as comprehensive a sex education course as possible that includes everything from A to Z (not just abstinence; not just contraception). I am also an advocate of an elective that gives the kids a chance to “play” house; pairs kids up and makes them go thru a mock pregnancy and then actually handling an infant. Sorry – I am into reality. My behavioral health experience and studies have taught me that education that “just says no” for drugs, alcohol, speeding, pregnancy is not effective.
On another earlier blog, I raised another issue. Your thread is about public discussion – how about how sex education, pregnancy, etc. are handled in our own Catholic high schools? Double standards continue; black and white rules that expel any teenager who is pregnanct; very limited sex education that usually focuses on traditional Catholic abstinence approach or trys to scare students using presentors that have had abortions, or were pregnant as teenagers, or instills fear using the “you can catch an STD.” Rarely is their comprehensive education; it is too one sided; it does not focus on family, nature of love, committed relationship and responsibilities much less lays the groudwork for a good Catholic understanding of sexual ethics.
The problem is posed incorrectly, which is why none of the solutions will work. The situation is compounded by the peculiar way that Americans politicize problems like these. Americans like to marry solutions to goals and like to treat one as the same as the other. So if a solution doesn’t work and someone criticizes it, then they are accused of being against the goal itself.
Tenn pregnancy is a symptom of an underlying problem that Americans on the left and the right don’t really want to address.
Some excellent posts here -Bill D on the need for comprehensive sex ed, Unagidon on the issue of teen sex activity and Mollie on this is not a Sarah Palin issue.
I think the issue should be not to have comprehensive sex ed but when to begin it. Middle school? And in parochial scools, surely.
Isn’t it a tricky proposition for Catholics to favor “comprehensive” sex education?
I don’t want to misrepresent Catholic teaching, so I will just say that in the debates I have seen, those claiming to speak for the Church opposed any teaching of contraception and/or the use of condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The argument was always that to teach anything beyond “just say no,” was to send a mixed message. Once you have said, “No sex before marriage,” you’ve said all that needs to be said, and if you say, “Don’t do it, but if you do, use protection,” you have told somebody how to prevent the possible negative consequences of wrongful behavior. It would be like saying, “Don’t rob a bank, but if you do, make sure to get in and out in under 2 minutes, since it takes the police 2 minutes to respond to the alarms.”
This is not what I personally think, but it is my understanding of the Catholic position.
I think one possible approach is to stop trying to prevent unwed teen pregnancy, give teens all the pros and cons, let them decide for themselves, and accept that out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy happens inevitably in many cases and should just be dealt with calmly and lovingly.
It looks to me very much like this is the approach being promoted (whether deliberately or not) by the Palins and John McCain. I don’t think anyone would have questioned why Levi Johnson wasn’t up on the stage with Bristol and the rest of the Palin’s family after Sarah Palin’s speech. But clearly a decision was made by all to include the father of unwed Bristol’s conceived-out-of-wedlock baby on stage before a national television audience holding hands with Bristol and being greeted by John McCain (and chewing gum). It seemed to me to go way beyond acceptance.
Thanks to Bill DeHaas for the information and wisdom of experience. I think I (we?) would all need a good deal more such information. I suspect something must work, as some countries/societies perform better than we do. But can it be done, as some noted, without compromising Catholic teaching? The issue of unwed Catholic school teachers who get preganant is really distressing, as it is generally handled (in my experience) so appallingly, and send the exact opposite of the message the Palins sent.
But I have my doubts as to whether any of this can be discussed until after Election Day.
Reactions to any of these discussions seem to break into several groups: Official Democrat types want to avoid Palin and her family issues altogether as it can easily backfire, and it compromises Obama’s message and opens him to attacks; other Obama supporters and general foes of the religious right want to use any cudgel they can find against Palin, no matter that it might have collateral damage; McCain folks want to avoid the discussions because they can make them look bad, as if they’re exploiting the kids; other GOP types want to provoke discussions so they can turn them against the critics and show how bad Dems are and how virtuous the GOP is.
So I think David Pasinski’s take is probably right. Kind of a shame, in the sense that this is an issue about which I knew–esp as my daughter just turned three and I worry that she won’t enter the convent as planned. Ironic, also, that the nomination of a bona fide Christian conservative effectively puts a central issue for the religious right out of bounds. Cui bono?
I dare not guess why it is never mentioned that copulation outside marriage is a sin – a sin against chastity, and a demeaning of both partners.
Excellent expansion and thoughts, Mr. Gibson & Mr. Nickol. You got to my dilemma immediately – Catholic teaching vs. comprehensive education. But, I wonder, what part does comprehensive and thorough moral theology teaching align with comprehensive sex/family education.
Many Catholic pastorals, encyclicals, etc. talk about these issues – it would seem that we need to educate our teenagers in Catholic schools completely – lay out all sides; educate them on moral theology; and then, yes, they must make “adult” decisions and at times will fail.
My only musing was that withholding education or just saying “sex outside marriage” is a sin frustrates and deprives the maturing Catholic of the education he/she needs to make full, responsible, and moral judgements in their lives. (I have actually heard my own teenagers slam certain school assemblies/speakers because they only repeated the “company line” – Church doctrine or catechism rules – they see right through that approach; find it demeaning; untrustworthy; and ultimately, deceitful. Think about when kids do get pregnant and the school never addresses this issue – it is off limits vs. how the Palins have responded?) My experience is that Catholic schools do what you have posited – they withhold or cut off information because it could appear that they are espousing non-Catholic behavior? Your example of a Catholic teacher is even more shocking to me – where is our mercy and support. Just a thought.
Mr. Gibson, you suggested in a previous thread that Palin is an advocate of “not teaching them how not to get pregnant,” but I’m not sure that’s the most accurate way to describe her (not a first):
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story
David Gibson,
How dare you smear Sarah Palin as being anti-contraception. She’s pro-contraception!
This reminds me of the smear that she belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party. What a smear! It was her husband who belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party.
Then there was the smear on CNN when John Roberts said, “The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?” He would never have smeared a man like that!
I just can’t sit by and let people smear this good woman with all of these . . . um . . . smears.
Isn’t there a difference between “education” and “indoctrination”? I don’t see why a Catholic school can’t educate students in what the Church teaches about chastity and sex, and also educate them about various forms of birth control, STDs, pregnancy and fertility, etc. Please note that I said “educate them about” and not “encourage them to experiment with.” Those things exist, and it is valuable for teenagers to understand them. Explaining doesn’t have to involve endorsing. And holding to what the Church teaches shouldn’t require withholding information. If the Church’s teaching about birth control/abortion/casual sex is true, it remains true in spite of the existence and availability of birth control/abortion/casual sex. I can embrace its truth while knowing about all those other things. Knowing the consequences and complications of disregarding the Church’s teaching should only make its value more evident, right?
Anyone have an opportunity yet to read the link included in this thread’s first comment, posted by Stuart?
Very interesting. Seems to confound *both* supporters of abstinence-only sex education *and* supporters of conventional sex education. Six of one, half dozen of the other, apparently, according to evidenced-based conclusions.
Funny how research sometimes refuses to confirm the ideological predilictions of both camps on this (and other) contended issue.
Perhaps the impact of peer pressure swamps the impact of either form of education!
Mr. McG – read my first posting. I made that point exactly but also added that these studies can be found in other areas of human lifestyles, etc. My professional experience is that the studies do not get to the heart of the matter – presenting abstinence only; or just say no to drugs, alcohol is a disservice and ultimately deprives the audience of education, moral structure, trust, ability to make a responsible decision, etc.
Mr. DeH:
I had read your post. I, too, work in behavioral health and I take your point about studies ‘not getting to the heart of the matter.’ More comprehensive approaches do indeed appear more promising.
My point was a different one: how often activists and ideologues of whatever persuasion flog research conclusions that appear to support their agenda and discount those that don’t. To the chagrin of activists on both sides of this controversy, neither of the two approaches seem to work significantly better than the other. I commend your approach, though as I said before I wonder how effective *any* educational approach over against the cultural zeitgeist.
David — why are you joking about the desire to be accurate rather than relying on misinformation?
Thanks, Mr. McG. My frustration is really with the Catholic school approach. If you surveyed the roughly 180 parochial school systems, you would find that more than 50% have no comprehensive sex education much less moral or ethical decision making courses. If your elementary school goes through 8th grade, the “middle school” years (7th & 8th) grade get scant information.
My experience is that sex education, substance abuse (in our area – program called Get High On Life – which is very good), etc. is hit or miss and can easily be limited if parental pressure on the administration or pastor is to not use anything beyond absistence only.
My experience at a high school level is not much better – sorry to say, that includes some Jesuit run high schools. Given that there is a Jesuit high school education association, it would seem that they would not be limited or afraid to provide comprehensive programs – they are not under a bishop’s control.
Another interesting article of relevance:
Stuart Buck, thanks for the LATimes piece. I wish you had cited that a week ago as we were just getting to know Sarah Palin.
Do feel free to take a crack at how you would characterize her position then…
Her contradictory remarks put her in a rather bad light, it would seem. Not sure how this is a vindication of her, exactly. (And what will this do with her with the cultural conservatives? Or are they too much in love?)
More to the point, if abstinence doesn’t work, why does the right continue to harp on it as if it does? And if nothing can work, then what are we to do? Just forget it? What of other countries and societies which have better track records in this regard–is it their DNA?
I do suspect there are other approaches that are effective, but also many other factors that require a broader, society-wide (liberal?) approach. Mike McG seemed to be the first to get at a wider problem when he spoke of the culutral zeigeist.
Well, I’d be happy to have cited it a week ago, except it was published today. :)
I’m not sure what you mean by saying that Palin’s position puts her in a “bad light.” Seems that you’re putting her in a catch-22 — if she supports abstinence, that’s bad; but if she wants contraception to be taught too, that puts her in a “bad light.” I’m not sure that leaves any options for Palin to pick, other than an affirmative message that abstinence is wrong, which I doubt you’d support either, if it came to that.
And if nothing can work, then what are we to do? Just forget it?
I don’t know. Personally, I think the sex drive is incredibly strong (for reasons rooted deeply in biology), and that while it’s conceivable that broader societal pressures have an impact, a few hours in a school setting don’t, regardless of what is taught.
David — why are you joking about the desire to be accurate rather than relying on misinformation?
Stuart,
What I am joking about is that the McCain campaign is trying to convince us that Sarah Palin is being smeared by the press. Aside from wild rumors on the Internet and apparently an accusation of an affair in the National Enquirer (which we all take so seriously), there have been no “smears” at all.
Thanks for that recent survey and results. Primarily the folks I interface with are in the state of Texas – public schools in Texas are only permitted to use abstinence only programs. The national average for teen pregnancy is estimated at 46% – Texas runs closer to 60%. (multiple reasons can be advance – first generation immigrants, culture/language issues, poverty levels resulting in non-engagement with parents, etc.).
So, your point about something behind or deeper as a reason is excellent. You can also add abortion to this – it is estimated that 80% of those having abortions are at or below the federal poverty level.
So, when I suggest “comprehensive” sex education, it appears that part of that needs to involve or incorporate parents – shared projects, shared evening classes, etc. If there is really no difference in the educational approach, then it falls back to parents. Appears that we continue to have gaps in this area – can you mandate parental involvement? how do you make parents share education with their children? how can you make parents take responsibility for sex education?
The good news seems to be that teen pregnancy is declining. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsprechd.htm
The other factor that we have not talked about enough here is pregnancy as rebellion or a way to escape parental control. When (forties and fifties) it was common to marry between 18 and 21, women rushed into marriage as a way to become independent. Good Catholic girls most of all. Greater latitude and careers have changed that equation.
So more often than not a pregnancy will occur in stricter households than with parents who may give more latitude and education, while still teaching values.
Aside from wild rumors on the Internet and apparently an accusation of an affair in the National Enquirer (which we all take so seriously), there have been no “smears” at all.
That’s simply not true. A CNN anchor accused Sarah Palin of cutting special ed funding by 62%, which was a totally false claim based (as far as I can tell) on a Daily Kos diary. That’s just one of many examples.
Back to teen pregnancy. Who says it’s inherently a problem in the first place? I can’t help thinking of Frederica Matthewes-Green’s thought-provoking essay: http://www.frederica.com/writings/lets-have-more-teen-pregnancy.html
Stuart,
From what I have read so far, it looks probable that the 62% figure was an error based on the fact that a line item that was under one heading in the earlier budget was moved elsewhere in the later budget. When reporters make mistakes, which they do all the time, that is different from making a smear.
There’s another related story about whether Palin cut funds for pregnant teens or unwed mothers. She used her line-item veto to reduce funding approved by the legislature from $5 million to $3.9 million. However, that $3.9 million was actually an increase of the previous year’s funding. So did she cut or did she increase? You could argue it either way. (Also, there’s a question as to whether the funds had anything to do with unwed mothers.)
The report that Palin had been a member of the AIP was also a mistake, but it was scarcely a smear.
A smear is a calculated attempt to harm someone’s reputation by deliberately saying something negative you know to be false. I see no evidence that the press is smearing either Palin or McCain.
Stuart Buck, many thanks for the Matthewes-Green essay–thought-provoking indeed, and I wonder how it’s fly with Schlafly? Fodder for good debate. The essay rang a bell with me, but I thought it was in First Things, maybe a related piece, or just treatment of same issue, in a provocative way.
Glad you liked it!
To my mind, it makes a lot of strong arguments. The whole history of life on earth has produced some immense biological and hormonal signals that all say one thing to human teenagers: “You’re at the peak age for reproduction, and you’d damn well better try to reproduce.” When a society has developed the notion that it’s better to wait until 10, 15, or even 20 years past that age to start reproducing, well, biology isn’t that easily defeated. It’s as if a society were to start believing it morally wrong to drink more than one glass of water a day . . such a moral code probably wouldn’t be too successful, and it wouldn’t be biology that was at fault.
I wouldn’t take Charles Blow’s approach in talking with my children.
Premarital intercourse is wrong – morally and for a whole slew of other reasons. It’s important that my children hear their parents speak that message clearly, particularly as they will not hear it enunciated clearly at school, among their peers, or on MTV. Offering condoms to my children can only subvert that message.
There have been some good comments in this thread about what is taught in Catholic schools and what those schools’ policies are toward pregnant teens. But can we expand the circle? What about public schools? Yes, we can give our children information about condoms and the Pill, possibly without seeming to endorse their use. But what about the morality of pre-marital sex? Is it within the purview of our public schools to talk about pre-marital sex in a right-and-wrong way?
I’d like to think there is a broad consensus in my community, among parents, teachers and administrators, that it is best for the community’s children if the children abstain from sex. Why not enunciate that consensus clearly, in the public schools?
I suspect that the politics of this issue, as with so many others, is that organized groups at either extreme end of the spectrum of opinions, who have the most invested in the issue (ideologically and/or financially) have determined how the debate is framed; and that wisdom is somewhere in the middle, if only some leaders were wise and prudent enough to guide us there.
I’ve always thought that abstinence-only is a fool’s hope (after all, I was a teen once; I do have some idea of how they tick). But abstinence – without the “-only” concatenated to it – has much to recommend it.