So many things wrong in this news story: in Pennsylvania, a state requiring parental consent for abortions, a 13 year old girl pregnant by her 30 year old "boyfriend" attempts to perform an abortion with a pencil, goes into labor, boyfriend buries the stillbirth or baby in a plastic shopping bag in the woods, and girl goes into hospital.
Things wrong:
1. Sexual coercion of minors often happens in families where parents just aren't paying attention. Parents are so out of the picture here that this 30 year old "boyfriend" has been with this girl for 1 year.
2. Even in the best of cases, adolescents have undeveloped judgement. Where teens will not involve their parents, doctors are the next best alternative. Not allowing doctors as an alternative, teens turn to their own judgement. Adolescents' brains aren't fully developed, so they may not see consequences of their actions.
3. Shady characters like pedophiles have poor judgement. This fellow may even be a murderer if baby was born alive, and yet the boyfriend is the only adult acting in this story. A legal abortion would involve doctors and nurses.
4. Finally and most importantly, illegal abortions are dangerous. On top of the trauma of pregnancy which is usually unsafe for a 13 year old, she had to be hospitalized.
Laws have to work at the borderlines. Most pregnant minors are 17 or so, many parents are supportive, and most teens tell their parents about their pregnancies, but 12 year olds do have sex and get pregnant, and often it's in crazy cases like this where the parents are just not paying attention. In my 8th grade class of 70 children in the best-funded school district in Illinois (at the time), we had 1 pregnant girl, and same in the year before us class of 60 children, a pregnancy rate of about 3% for those two years.
In Utah, a similar case of a woman asking to be attacked in order to induce abortion created a new anti-abortion law.
Could this case possibly cause Pennsylvania to alter its abortion laws so that parental consent was no longer required? I wish, but somehow it seems unlikely.
Showing posts with label pregnancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pregnancy. Show all posts
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Ambivalence or Planned Parenthood
A lot of evidence finds that a sizable number of young adults are ambivalent about pregnancy: they don't want to get pregnant, but they wouldn't mind if they did. Bill Albert of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy asks whether ambivalence is the right mindset in which to start a family, which reminded me of last week's A Prairie Home Companion.
In honor of Mother's Day, a skit on last week's Prairie Home Companion contrasted today's view of motherhood with the earlier generation. In today's motherhood, the woman says to her husband that they may need to work on their relationship and openness before they are really completely ready for having children, although they've already been married over a dozen years, and the childbirth is assisted by a midwife, a chanting Tibetan monk, and a dolphin named Sparky. The earlier generation, the woman says, "Gee John, I just got back from the doctor, and guess what?" John says, "Guess we ought to get married then." Her childbirth is attended by a doctor who is also a veterinarian, and she runs back to the potato field to finish harvesting right afterwards.
Certainly planning is best, but there is certainly such a thing as too much planning and waiting. Earlier not-quite-planned parenthood is difficult but so are fertility treatments. Parenthood is difficult no matter when it's done; while parenthood is gratifying, according to the research that I'm aware of, people with children are less happy than people without children. May everyone find a middle ground that they can be happy with, and be able to have as many children as they would like.
In honor of Mother's Day, a skit on last week's Prairie Home Companion contrasted today's view of motherhood with the earlier generation. In today's motherhood, the woman says to her husband that they may need to work on their relationship and openness before they are really completely ready for having children, although they've already been married over a dozen years, and the childbirth is assisted by a midwife, a chanting Tibetan monk, and a dolphin named Sparky. The earlier generation, the woman says, "Gee John, I just got back from the doctor, and guess what?" John says, "Guess we ought to get married then." Her childbirth is attended by a doctor who is also a veterinarian, and she runs back to the potato field to finish harvesting right afterwards.
Certainly planning is best, but there is certainly such a thing as too much planning and waiting. Earlier not-quite-planned parenthood is difficult but so are fertility treatments. Parenthood is difficult no matter when it's done; while parenthood is gratifying, according to the research that I'm aware of, people with children are less happy than people without children. May everyone find a middle ground that they can be happy with, and be able to have as many children as they would like.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Bumper sticker of the day
"DON'T DRINK AND PARK: Accidents cause people"
I saw this bumpersticker last night while driving home from a Harvard interviewing workshop. It was just text. Now that I google the phrase, I find some depictions that definitely aren't the classical meaning of "parking."
I saw this bumpersticker last night while driving home from a Harvard interviewing workshop. It was just text. Now that I google the phrase, I find some depictions that definitely aren't the classical meaning of "parking."
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Texas wins a prize for high teen births
Texas papers such as the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle are the only papers in the country reporting the results for Texas of a Child Trends teen pregnancy study that is supposed to come out tomorrow. I can only assume that being allowed to break a story early is a reward for their cities' stellar performances: Dallas has the highest proportion of repeat teen births and Houston leads in births under age 15. Of course there is nothing funny about any of this.
The majority are to Latinos. About 95% of Texas schools provide no information other than abstinence to students, a policy supported by white-majority churches such as the Southern Baptist Conference. The lack of information may disproportionately impact Latinos, however, who may come from cultures where sex and birth control are not discussed and may have less access to the internet or other sources of information.
The majority are to Latinos. About 95% of Texas schools provide no information other than abstinence to students, a policy supported by white-majority churches such as the Southern Baptist Conference. The lack of information may disproportionately impact Latinos, however, who may come from cultures where sex and birth control are not discussed and may have less access to the internet or other sources of information.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Decreased contraceptive use among teens
I was pleased that the NYT editorial board highlighted the recent study by John Santelli, Mark Orr, Laura Lindberg, and Daniela Diaz about decreased use of contraception in an analysis of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. As the media reports it, Santelli and collaborators found that fewer teens are using contraception than previous highs a few years ago, and the speculation is that the decrease is from abstinence-only sex education.
Other research certainly indicates that abstinence is one plausible explanation for the decrease in contraceptive use. The trouble is that there are many other possible explanations, but the trend data on teen sexual decisions is so poor that we'll never know which explanation is responsible for this particular decrease in contraception use. The survey used by Santelli has at most a dozen relevant questions, and any information beyond that gets lost to the mists of time.
Some teens get pregnant because they want to. It's not a question of not knowing how to use birth control; they want someone to love them or to establish themselves as adults. Other teens get pregnant because they are in coercive relationships with older men who support them financially --- perhaps especially relevant in insecure economic times --- and the men want babies. I heard a story from a Maryland public school teacher about a 14 year old girl in her class who recently got pregnant because her 20+ year old boyfriend and his mother wanted her to; the boyfriend's mother wants to take care of the baby and the girl's mother is indifferent to the situation.
These stories represent more fundamental social problems than simply inconsistent or incorrect condom use, but the current data is so poor that if one reason for the lower contraceptive use was that more girls are being coerced by older partners to get pregnant, we would have no way of knowing. Such issues of teen pregnancy are not liberal or conservative, but some conservatives are opposed to funding surveys that would collect data to better understand the issues because they are uneasy about asking questions about sex to teenagers. If they could better understand the implications of their opposition, and what a good investment it would be to understand teen pregnancy better by funding an annual survey that monitors issues exclusively relevant to teen pregnancy and STD prevention, perhaps we could start to decrease the rate of teen pregnancy.
Other research certainly indicates that abstinence is one plausible explanation for the decrease in contraceptive use. The trouble is that there are many other possible explanations, but the trend data on teen sexual decisions is so poor that we'll never know which explanation is responsible for this particular decrease in contraception use. The survey used by Santelli has at most a dozen relevant questions, and any information beyond that gets lost to the mists of time.
Some teens get pregnant because they want to. It's not a question of not knowing how to use birth control; they want someone to love them or to establish themselves as adults. Other teens get pregnant because they are in coercive relationships with older men who support them financially --- perhaps especially relevant in insecure economic times --- and the men want babies. I heard a story from a Maryland public school teacher about a 14 year old girl in her class who recently got pregnant because her 20+ year old boyfriend and his mother wanted her to; the boyfriend's mother wants to take care of the baby and the girl's mother is indifferent to the situation.
These stories represent more fundamental social problems than simply inconsistent or incorrect condom use, but the current data is so poor that if one reason for the lower contraceptive use was that more girls are being coerced by older partners to get pregnant, we would have no way of knowing. Such issues of teen pregnancy are not liberal or conservative, but some conservatives are opposed to funding surveys that would collect data to better understand the issues because they are uneasy about asking questions about sex to teenagers. If they could better understand the implications of their opposition, and what a good investment it would be to understand teen pregnancy better by funding an annual survey that monitors issues exclusively relevant to teen pregnancy and STD prevention, perhaps we could start to decrease the rate of teen pregnancy.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Good Morning America goes back to the 1950s
Yesterday was the National Day To Prevent Teen Pregnancy, so the issue got some coverage including Bristol Palin on Good Morning America.
The GMA segment on the subject reminds me of something from the 1950s or 60s where contraception and sex were only hinted at and discussed in veiled terms that only adults could understand.
Bristol Palin's last statement on abstinence a few months ago was incoherent and stumbling but included a statement that "abstinence is not realistic." That interview didn't seem to mention birth control either.
This time she has her talking points down and she gives a well-articulated message. "Abstinence is a hard choice, but it's the safest choice and the best choice." The interviewer asks what's the second line of that since teens might "roll their eyes" at abstinence (is that what they're calling it nowadays?) and her line is, "It's the safest choice, and it's something that kids should know about."
That is, the best choice is abstinence. And the second best choice is also abstinence. And the third best choice. And the fourth choice. Is that really what she means to be saying?
They also had a guy from an anti-teen pregnancy foundation started by a teenage shoe company who summed up the foundation's motto as "Just because you're wearing high-heeled sexy shoes, obviously you shouldn't have a baby."
The only discussion about birth control is impossibly muddled:
Host: "Do you think it has to be black and white, abstain versus protection, or do you think there is going to be some middle ground?"
Palin: "Yes I think definitely some middle ground."
Foundation guy: "Abstinence is obviously the best way, but being realistic you gotta talk to teenagers and say anyway, whether it be protection ... having a baby... a kid having a kid is just not right. Any way you can get through, we have to educate."
What exactly is this middle ground between abstinence and protection? Presumably they don't mean as in this joke site dedicated to "abstinence" from acts that can get women pregnant. It's a shockingly bizarre statement.
There is no getting around it: Teaching birth control is the middle ground.
The GMA segment on the subject reminds me of something from the 1950s or 60s where contraception and sex were only hinted at and discussed in veiled terms that only adults could understand.
Bristol Palin's last statement on abstinence a few months ago was incoherent and stumbling but included a statement that "abstinence is not realistic." That interview didn't seem to mention birth control either.
This time she has her talking points down and she gives a well-articulated message. "Abstinence is a hard choice, but it's the safest choice and the best choice." The interviewer asks what's the second line of that since teens might "roll their eyes" at abstinence (is that what they're calling it nowadays?) and her line is, "It's the safest choice, and it's something that kids should know about."
That is, the best choice is abstinence. And the second best choice is also abstinence. And the third best choice. And the fourth choice. Is that really what she means to be saying?
They also had a guy from an anti-teen pregnancy foundation started by a teenage shoe company who summed up the foundation's motto as "Just because you're wearing high-heeled sexy shoes, obviously you shouldn't have a baby."
The only discussion about birth control is impossibly muddled:
Host: "Do you think it has to be black and white, abstain versus protection, or do you think there is going to be some middle ground?"
Palin: "Yes I think definitely some middle ground."
Foundation guy: "Abstinence is obviously the best way, but being realistic you gotta talk to teenagers and say anyway, whether it be protection ... having a baby... a kid having a kid is just not right. Any way you can get through, we have to educate."
What exactly is this middle ground between abstinence and protection? Presumably they don't mean as in this joke site dedicated to "abstinence" from acts that can get women pregnant. It's a shockingly bizarre statement.
There is no getting around it: Teaching birth control is the middle ground.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Is abstinence realistic?
The liberal reactions to Bristol Palin's statement that abstinence is not realistic were expected. The religious ones haven't gotten much attention.
One evangelical site says abstinence is an obligation so not up for discussion; instead society must be made so that abstinence becomes realistic. There are certainly groups of teenagers with lower (but non-zero!) rates of sexual activity than evangelical teenagers. I'm just not sure that those models work in the evangelical context. The whole principle of evangelical Christianity going back to Paul is to have a relatively low admission price in terms of obligations, so not everyone will be as committed and so may not be as likely to change their dating habits as in religious groups where adherents also have to change their diet or dress style. One admission price is attending an evangelical school as this person notes, so norms can be more successfully perpetuated in this environment in which everyone has already made a substantial commitment to even be there. It will be interesting to see whether more evangelical groups change their culture to become more conservative and separate the sexes more.
Bristol Palin's statement comes with very good timing. Hints at the future of abstinence-only education for FY 2010 will come at the end of the month when Obama submits his budget. Separately, according to the Economist Louise Slaughter's bill for medically-accurate sex education is likely to pass.
One evangelical site says abstinence is an obligation so not up for discussion; instead society must be made so that abstinence becomes realistic. There are certainly groups of teenagers with lower (but non-zero!) rates of sexual activity than evangelical teenagers. I'm just not sure that those models work in the evangelical context. The whole principle of evangelical Christianity going back to Paul is to have a relatively low admission price in terms of obligations, so not everyone will be as committed and so may not be as likely to change their dating habits as in religious groups where adherents also have to change their diet or dress style. One admission price is attending an evangelical school as this person notes, so norms can be more successfully perpetuated in this environment in which everyone has already made a substantial commitment to even be there. It will be interesting to see whether more evangelical groups change their culture to become more conservative and separate the sexes more.
Bristol Palin's statement comes with very good timing. Hints at the future of abstinence-only education for FY 2010 will come at the end of the month when Obama submits his budget. Separately, according to the Economist Louise Slaughter's bill for medically-accurate sex education is likely to pass.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Test your teen pregnancy knowledge
Dr. Joyce Brothers's column today is test your knowledge about teen pregnancy: 7 true/false questions.
Her wording on whether abstinence education prevents teen pregnancy is circuitous:
As written, the first sentence sounds like abstinence education works sometimes, rather than not at all (as far as we know). The second sentence is pure speculation. And her description of sex education makes the abstinence portion stand out, perhaps in an effort not to alienate readers.
To be honest, very few program evaluations measure teen pregnancy because it's usually rare in the general population (her readers). Sex ed is much more effective in getting kids to delay sex and use condoms more (or at least claim to). Pregnancy is hard to affect using just a curriculum. Perhaps unsurprisingly: there are always kids who don't pay attention to any curriculum in any class, and they may be the same ones who get pregnant.
Her wording on whether abstinence education prevents teen pregnancy is circuitous:
While there is a role for abstinence education in reducing pregnancies, studies have shown that often it is not enough. Many children who have been told to just say no end up having sex, anyway, but aren't equipped to prevent pregnancy because they often don't plan to have sexual intercourse. A combination of abstinence programs with comprehensive sex education focusing on safe sex and pregnancy prevention is thought to be a more effective way to deal with preteens and teenagers.
As written, the first sentence sounds like abstinence education works sometimes, rather than not at all (as far as we know). The second sentence is pure speculation. And her description of sex education makes the abstinence portion stand out, perhaps in an effort not to alienate readers.
To be honest, very few program evaluations measure teen pregnancy because it's usually rare in the general population (her readers). Sex ed is much more effective in getting kids to delay sex and use condoms more (or at least claim to). Pregnancy is hard to affect using just a curriculum. Perhaps unsurprisingly: there are always kids who don't pay attention to any curriculum in any class, and they may be the same ones who get pregnant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
