Is it possible to discuss teen birth rates without attacking abstinence-only education? Apparently not for NBC's Chief Medical Editor Dr. Nancy Snyderman.
During a May 28 "Today" show discussion of high schools providing birth control to teens without parental notification, Snyderman cast doubt on abstinence-only education, saying, "I don't think there's any healthcare professional who says [abstinence education] is the magic bullet and it's really working."
School-provided birth control is a hot topic again due to the rising number of teenage pregnancies at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts. Pregnancies at Gloucester High soared from 4 to 17 in one year, spurring some school health officials to propose offering free birth control to students without parental notification. Dr. Brian Orr, the school's clinic director, resigned last week after the Addison Gilbert Hospital, which funds the clinic, opposed the idea.
Host Meredith Vieira gave Snyderman a second opportunity to bash abstinence when she asked "Teen pregnancy is up for the first time in 15 years, why is that?" Snyderman responded:
I don't think we know. It's dropped the last five to six years, now a blip on the screen. Perhaps because abstinence-only isn't working and perhaps it's just one of those year-long blips that will go down again. I don't think we know. But every time we see something with an uptick like this, at least we get concerned.
Wouldn't the five to six year decline in teen pregnancy rates suggest that the new emphasis on abstinence education programs implemented by the Bush administration since 2001 has successfully reduced teen pregnancy rates? Alternately, why blame abstinence education for the one-year increase in pregnancy rates when comprehensive sex education, which emphasizes condom use rather than abstinence, is far more widely taught in the schools?
Earlier in the discussion Snyderman commented "we spend $176 million a year on abstinence-only programs." However, a 2004 Heritage Foundation report found that the government spends $12 on "safe sex and contraceptives" for every $1 spent on abstinence education, and a third of the government's "safe sex" funds went directly to "fund contraceptive programs for teens."
Here's the full transcript of Vieira and Snyderman's discussion:
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Dr. Nancy, why is it that so many health officials support this notion of providing birth control to students without parental permission?
NANCY SNYDERMAN, NBC NEWS CHIEF MEDICAL EDITOR: One of the big concerns is what happens to teenagers when they do become pregnant. We know it's a fast track to poverty, that teenage girls who get pregnant are less likely to finish school. The risk, just the physical risk to mom and baby at time of delivery is higher for teenagers. And I was shocked to find that a third of all U.S. Girls less than the age of 20 get pregnant at some time in their lives. So this is not something that's a little blip on the screen. We're talking about real numbers. And some people have really raised questions about this abstinence-only program. We spend $176 million a year on abstinence-only programs and I don't think there's any healthcare professional who says that's the magic bullet and it's really working. So, you have the parent side where you say not my kid. And then you have the health provider's side where you say, you know what? We have an issue we have to address. The big question is, where do we address it? How do we address it? Where do we put our money? What's a parents right to know? And that's what a lot of this conversation comes down to.
VIEIRA: But there are risks to birth control. There are a certain risks, certainly to the pill, As a parent --
SNYDERMAN: Absolutely correct.
VIEIRA: I would probably want to know what a child is taking into their body.
SNYDERMAN: You know you raise an interesting question and that is, it's a sort of slippery slope of I think my kid's having sex. We're not sure my kid's having sex. Well, Condoms are okay, but I don't want my child taking a pill. The patch, the pill, oral contraceptives they're real medicines. And most of the time they're phenomenally safe, but yes, they can have complications. I think most parents are going to say. If my child is taking any medicine, I want to be a part of that decision making.
VIEIRA: Teen pregnancy up for the first time in 15 years, why is that?
SNYDERMAN: I don't think we know. It's dropped the last five to six years, now a blip on the screen. Perhaps because abstinence-only isn't working and perhaps it's just one of those year-long blips that will go down again. I don't think we know. But every time we see something with an uptick like this, at least we get concerned.
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute
Comments Policy
Abstinence Only
May 29, 2008 - 14:46 ET by allanfSchools should not be in the business of dispensing birth control to minors. I'm not sure that birth control education belongs in the schools. Teaching abstinence is better suited for home and church than public school.
That said, hormones are hormones and many parents and teens would rather deal with a birth control device than an unwanted pregnancy.
I have the perfect solution
May 29, 2008 - 14:48 ET by Dan The Man 2I have the perfect solution to teen pregancy. It is pretty much absolutly foolprroof. We sterilize all teens when they reach adolesence, then no fuss no muss and no babies. It is more effective than contraceptives and the teen doesn't have to forget to use it, it is always working. And who cares about AIDS or STD's as the ones who contract AIDS will die, thereby proving Darwin right about the fittest surviving. Any teen or adult having STD's can be immediately quarentined and left to their own devices.
Yep altogether the perfect solution.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
It really is
May 29, 2008 - 15:15 ET by MassConservIt really is a perfect solution, Dan. And just think, it'll solve global warming and save the polar bears too. All we have to do is wait a generation.
shucks
May 29, 2008 - 14:50 ET by candanceYou know the whole war on drugs thing isn't working out so well. Kids are all going out and getting high anyhow. We need to protect them from themselves. Let's give them safer drugs like marijuana, carisoprodol, and alprazolam.
Sure they'll still be in danger from mental and emotional harm, not to mention the minimal physical dangers, but at least they won't get hooked on crack.
"Perhaps because
May 29, 2008 - 14:50 ET by Darth Dutch"Perhaps because abstinence-only isn't working"
Just read this sentence and see the hilarity in it...abstinence works every time it's tried. Why? You CAN'T GET PREGNANT IF YOU DON'T HAVE SEX!!!
At the very least, they should be honest and say that students are not practicing abstinence only. But it's not a failure in the curriculum. It's a moral failure on the students' part by not adhering to it.
Classic mistake to blame the system for problems when it's actually not following the system that causes the problems.
Darth Dutch
the sexual revulsion
May 29, 2008 - 15:05 ET by mbuel(intentionally mispelled title)
Since the 60's the left has tried to have it's cake and eat it too.. The fact is promiscuous sexuality has unintended consequences beyond pregancy (and I love how they call that an inconvenience...) It should become clear even those who don't believe in god, that NATURE doesn't like such behavior as it causes the spread of ALL kinds of diseases.
If you believe in natural selection (and I do, driven by god) then it's foolish to see promiscuous sexuality as a good behaviour when the outcome is always so bad.
agreed mbuel
May 29, 2008 - 15:10 ET by candanceBirth control doesn't save kids from diseases, bleeding, emotional trauma, or possible long term damage to ovaries.
The sex programs in public schools are not very aggressive in showing all the danger. Getting pregnant is only about half the story.
"liberals"
May 29, 2008 - 16:00 ET by iveseenitallTeen pregnancy was rare in the '50s and 60's compared to today. Why is that? I suppose this doctor ass would respond, "we don't know". We all know, so cut the "liberal" b.s. Everything the "liberals" touch hurts us. Sad.
BTW, the "schools" have given up educating our kids. Also sad. It's why we have a boy running for president who thinks there are 58 states and knows nothing about the Holocaust. Maybe he was he was absent the days these things were taught. Probably playing roundball in the ghetto with his "great uncle" who had liberated the Jews at "Auchwitz".
NEVER, NEVER trust a "liberal"
seen it all
May 29, 2008 - 16:12 ET by candanceThis issue highlights a fundamental difference between libs and conservies.
Barack Obama explained it quite well when he famously said that he could live with his daughter fooling around as long as she didn't get punished with a baby.
As long as you remove the threat of pregnancy, sex in itself is not a big deal to them. This is why they push so hard against abstinence - they see you trying to forcibly remove someone's right to enjoy sex.
Conservies see sex in its essense as something dangerous for teens, birth control or not.
Not just for teens....
May 30, 2008 - 17:41 ET by mbuelIt's dangerous to practice sex promiscuously regardless of age. Like I said in my OP, it's fundamentally a law of nature, but I think all of us realize now that the only way liberal rules can operate is by ignoring reality and trying to regulate it till it changes to what they think is right.
Obviously abstinence works
May 29, 2008 - 15:16 ET by balboaObviously abstinence works when you do it. That phrase means that the program of abstinence isn't working because it's unrealistic.
my point bal
May 29, 2008 - 15:25 ET by candanceWhen it comes to teens,
Don't drink and drive isn't working.
The war on drugs isn't working.
Prom Promise isn't working.
Stay in school isn't working.
Yet the only program we attack for not working happens to be the one liberals hate the most, and the only time we give into their bad behavior is when it comes to sex.
Why the double standard?
bal? bal.....?
May 29, 2008 - 15:32 ET by TruthMongerbal? bal.....? bueller......?
I absolutely think you
May 29, 2008 - 16:06 ET by balboaI absolutely think you should teach abstinence as PART of any program. But not as the ONLY option.
you're dodging my point
May 29, 2008 - 16:15 ET by candanceWhy is "just say no" the only option instead of smart, safe ways to enjoy prescription drugs?
Why is alcohol forbidden on campus when so many kids clearly do it? Zero tolerance is the only option?
Face it Bal, you don't think casual sex is hurtful to teens in the same way casual drugs are.
Maybe because drug use and
May 29, 2008 - 16:19 ET by balboaMaybe because drug use and underage drinking are illegal. No one's going to be successful with a school program that preaches moderation in those categories.
Casual sex can be very harmful.
typical
May 29, 2008 - 16:59 ET by candanceThis is the default answer libs give when explaining a double standard - well obviously they can't do that because it's illegal.
Shouldn't schools be a place where our kids are protected no matter what the law has to do with it? The law cannot replace common sense and the law cannot save us from everything that's dangerous. Why would I send my child to a school where teachers look the other way as kids get STDs, abusive relationships are strengthened by sex, and girls succomb to anorexia because the shame is killing them? We slap a sanction on these things because the law can't govern sex?
If you truly thought casual sex was as deadly as drug use, you'd be outraged that teachers are implicitly accepting of it.
I'm not saying abstinence only does not work.
May 29, 2008 - 23:00 ET by shawn228People are right, it does work. What about the people that don't listen to their parents? Even though you don't want minors "doing it" Wouldn't you feel safer if the child used a condom?
Are condoms 100% effective in protecting you from pregnancy and aides? No, but I will take 97 percent over bare back anyday.
What? Having no sex is the best way shawn. I totally agree, but that only happens in a perfect world and I find nothing wrong with teaching abstinence only, but teaching alternatives as well.
Did you know about 17 states have turned down free funding for absitinence only?
I know Shawn
May 29, 2008 - 23:07 ET by candanceKids are having sex anyway, OMG!!! Let's take away the funding for our sex ed program because it's too strict!
I'm sorry, but we need to leave it up to the parents to decide if girls need birth control or not.
This is an issue where we will fundamentally disagree no matter how many facts we use. :-)
Perhaps we should find out
May 29, 2008 - 23:15 ET by RESTLESS 1Perhaps we should find out why the kids are having sex. Other than the obvious. I blame the parents. I've seen sixteen year olds thrown baby showers, and not an ounce of shame in sight. Schools have daycare on campus. Maybe we should put the stigma back on teens who are pregnant. Maybe we shold stop telling them " aww, it's okay, you haven't done anything wrong".
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
my basic point
May 29, 2008 - 23:23 ET by candanceEven though you don't want minors "doing it" Wouldn't you feel safer if the child used a condom? Are condoms 100% effective in protecting you from pregnancy and aides? No, but I will take 97 percent over bare back anyday.
This is exactly what I mentioned above. This is the classic liberal idea that as long as kids don't get AIDS or a baby sex can basically be safe for them.
At this point conservatives say no. Even if a girl doesn't get pregnant, sex can damage her physically, wreck her emotionally, and make her more likely to stay with an abusive boyfriend.
So they're having sex with condoms, great! That's like saying you only get high on legal drugs and not cocaine. It still doesn't make it that much safer.
What would you do if your child wound up with internal bleeding or a blot clot from birth control pills that were too strong....and you weren't even aware she was taking any new medicine?
"What would you do if your
May 30, 2008 - 01:48 ET by shawn228"What would you do if your child wound up with internal bleeding or a
blot clot from birth control pills that were too strong....and you
weren't even aware she was taking any new medicine?"
I would probably be devasted. I have heard that birth control pills are pretty safe, but I do not know enough about the subject to debate about. Condoms would be my choice of birth control for kids.
Candance, in no way do I think teen sex is okay. I agree with all your points about abusive relationships. It is important for parents to teach good values and virtues to our children.
The thing is, if a child chooses to go down a different path, I would hope that child knows about alternative forms of birth control. Again 97 percent chance against aides and pregnancy are better than nothing.
get some schooling
May 30, 2008 - 11:54 ET by candanceI mean that in a teasing way.
Modern birth control is safe on a day-to-day basis but has a bad reputation for long term effects, especially if a doctor prescribes a kind that's too strong for your body.
Birth control raises your chances of getting breast cancer, HPV, and high blood pressure. It can double your chances of getting cervical cancer. It's been shown to cause blot clots and deep vein thrombosis to women who take it for several years. Not to mention it also affects calcium absorption which is shown to change your bone density. (This is not to say that everyone who takes BC will die a horrible death, but the danger is not unheard of).
Surveys have also shown that girls who have birth control are more likely to engage with multiple boyfriends, avoid using condoms, and have a much more casual view of sex when talking to their girl friends.
Here is a neutral article you can read for starters:
http://www.webmd.com/news/20000615/some-birth-control-pills-increase-risk-of-deadly-blood-clots
»→ Shawn
May 30, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Cool Arrowin no way do I think teen sex is okay.
You never engaged in sex as a teen?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Candance
May 29, 2008 - 23:05 ET by RESTLESS 1To hell with the teachers. The ones that outrage me are the parents who turn a blind eye.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I know Restless
May 29, 2008 - 23:11 ET by candanceThat was the point of my discussion with Bal - how schools can decide to medicate your children behind your back and folks like Bal simply shrug and say "whatever."
The more responsibility we concede to our government the more they will take from us in the long run.
RESTLESS 1
May 30, 2008 - 01:41 ET by shawn228You can be Mike Brady, Jonathon Ingals and Howard Cunningham, all rolled into one, but it is impossible to watch your kids 24-7 after they turn 15.
You can hope you teach them values, about what is right and what is wrong. Lets not talk about girls ok R1. Lets talk about guys.
Do you remember when you were 15 yrs old. How much testosterone was running through your body? Can you tell me honestly if a one of the hot cheerleaders came on to you back then you could have said no? If you say yes, then you have more willpower than 90 percent of the guys I knew in high school
If you did give into your little brain, would n't you wish you had a condom?
Shawn
May 30, 2008 - 14:48 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm speaking to a lax view on sex in general. Parents should be teaching their kids right and wrong, but I don't see a lot of that happening. When a teen gets pregnant, the parents and friends act like it is a blessed occasion, and throw parties for them, something is fundamentally wrong. Liberals, and yes, I do blame the liberal over-tolerance of these situations, have sucessfully taken the stigma away from bad acts. It has not enriched our society, it has helped to keep poor people poor. Aren't those the people you guys claim to care about the most?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Shawn
May 31, 2008 - 01:10 ET by RESTLESS 1Sorry buddy, but I have to say it:
Crickets chirping.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
R1
May 31, 2008 - 01:18 ET by shawn228Sorry Restless, I did not know we were still debating :-) The reason I did not think we are still debating, I in most part agree with you.
I have said Parents need to teach their kids good values. I am a father of a 2nd grader, and I am trying to teach good manners, humility. I can do better job of teaching her the gospel, because even though I believe in God. I do not go to church and I sin much more than I should.
As for your last sentence in the prior post, with the exception of Universal healthcare, I believe in personal responsiblity so If someone gets pregnant it is their own fault, but having a baby is better than getting an abortion no?
Shawn
May 31, 2008 - 01:31 ET by RESTLESS 1Yes, having the baby is better than abortion. Making a festival of the occasion of it is a little galling however.
Question: how, or would, you hold parents responsible for their teens getting pregnant, or in the case of male, getting a girl pregnant?
Okay, two questions, how, or would, you put the stigma back on teen pregnancies and sex?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
R1
May 31, 2008 - 01:42 ET by shawn228I would not hold parents responsible for their kids getting pregnant, because like I said, good parenting does not always mean your kids will follow and straight and narrow path.
I would teach my own child, that getting pregnant and having sex before the age of 18 or marriage is wrong, but as far as putting the stigma back on teen pregancies and sex, I am not about to preach to others about my views with the exception of NB, because this is what the site is about.
Now, you did not answer my earlier question. At 15 could you have resisted the chance to have sex with a cheerleader if she hit on you?
If you could not, wouldn't having sex with a condom be much less risky than having sex with no condom at all?
Shawn
May 31, 2008 - 01:50 ET by RESTLESS 1A parent is responsible for their child's actions, exept for sex? Don't think so. Yes, there is a finacial burden, but there is a certain amount of negligence that should be addressed.
Putting a stigma on sex before marriage is not necessarily forcing your beliefs on the populace. It is just common sense. Teen pregnancies cause, more often than not, the poor to remain poor. Options are limited for teen parents.
And as for when I was 15, I would hope that I would have been properly informed of the dangers of intercourse. I would also hope that sex would not be taken so lightly. I'm not saying that I wouldn't want to, but...
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
There's nothing more
May 29, 2008 - 23:37 ET by balboaThere's nothing more annoying than people on this board replying with "Typical."
What do you want teachers to do about STDs, abusive relationships, and anorexia?
I think it's unrealistic to preach only abstinence. It just is. That's reality. I think teachers in some school systems don't know what else to do.
Nothing more annoying bal?
May 29, 2008 - 23:43 ET by BlondeSOD....post of the millenium.
From you????!!!!!
Nothing more annoying, indeed.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Speaking of "typical"...
May 29, 2008 - 23:46 ET by balboaSpeaking of "typical"...
And your point is?
May 29, 2008 - 23:50 ET by BlondeYou blather on with typical "snark"....and this comment of mine floats your boat?
I gave up responding to you eons ago, because you are so bloody inane....oh never mind, I really don't care.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
>smooch<
May 29, 2008 - 23:52 ET by balboa>smooch<
bugger off, bal
May 29, 2008 - 23:59 ET by BlondeYou are even less funny than you usually think you are, tonite.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
my apologies bal
May 30, 2008 - 00:03 ET by candanceI realize that answer came off like I was snapping at you, and I'm sorry. Good debaters deal with the discussion at hand without wandering off into what "usually" happens elsewhere.
Not a good technique.
You'll have to forgive me, but this is something I have a burden on my heart for.
I feel bad for teachers who watch pretty young girls fall into sexual and emotional chaos. I realize they get to a point where they want to throw their hands up.
But I disagree - with a flaming purple passion - that you implicity condone their behavior in an effort to protect them somehow. I disagree that sex education belongs in classrooms in the first place and I really think you draw the line when you pass out medication behind my back.
Candance, Not a problem.
May 30, 2008 - 10:20 ET by balboaCandance,
Not a problem. :-)
I understand your empathy for teachers, but are abstinence only programs going to solve those problems? They'll still exist.
But I agree that school is not where you should be getting medication w/o the parents' knowledge.
empathy for teachers
May 30, 2008 - 11:17 ET by candanceNo matter what we do, some kids out there will experiment anyway. I understand this and accept it. I don't think (and have never said) that abstinence programs prevent sex 100%.
But as I mentioned before, we don't tweak other safety measures because kids do it anyway and I don't see how sex should be treated any different. Kids should be told the dangers, warned not to do it on school property, and then given the freedom and responsibility to act their age.
I'm not so much against kids having general access to condoms, be it from a store, a doctor's office, or other facility. But that doesn't mean we pay our teachers to explain the technical process of sex and show the best way to apply a condom.
You say you're opposed to schools giving your girls a pill without your knowledge. That's good, at least we're on the same page there. But I distinctly remember that conservies warned sex education would lead to this and everyone said they were paranoid. And I'm telling you Bal, if you don't like this you need to stand up now before the government decides what else your child needs behind your back.
"There's nothing more
May 30, 2008 - 17:52 ET by mbuel"There's nothing more annoying than people on this board replying with "Typical.""
Typical response. ;) Seriously if something is cliche, why not call it out?
"What do you want teachers to do about STDs, abusive relationships, and anorexia?"
Are the teachers teaching or counseling? Part of the problem with our families today is that we expect nanny government to take care of us from cradle to grave, including counseling our children (who a "good" parent treats as an equal) when they have problems....
In short, it's not the teachers responsibility to deal with the students personal problems. I have no problem with them talking with the parents and raising concern, but it is NOT their job to console my children. They are being paid to teach and it's obvious they are doing a crap job of that in most respects because of this social engineering crap.
"I think it's unrealistic to preach only abstinence. It just is. That's
reality. I think teachers in some school systems don't know what else
to do."
Why? Don't you think that choice should be left up to the parent? Sure a child in his late teenage years and early adulthood will make mistakes, but the best way to get them to grow up is to have them face the responsibility of their mistakes. I think our cultural media places an unrealistic expectation on sexual behavior for young people, almost like it's _expected_ of young people to experiment and such...
But again, why is it the school's responsibility to teach morality and ethics to our children? If you want to know why our country is going down hill this is precisely the reason. We are letting the immoral teach morality. We are letting the unethical teach ethics. We are letting the godless teach religion. we are backwards.
So we sterilize the lot?
May 29, 2008 - 15:27 ET by Dan The Man 2So we sterilize the lot? No the program works as well or better than sex ed programs. The ones who are going to have sex will and the ones who plan on abstinence and stick to stick to it. It is basic human nature. Why in teh 40's and 50's were there fewer pregnacies and STD's bal? Because there was a stigma and it was there for good reason and kept people for the most part chaste.
The libs have taken all safeguards away and wonder why teens get pregnant more often and what to do about it. All we need to do is look at a highway when a cop is present and undestand what laws are in place. Even when the cop is not there it is the stigma or penalty for speeding that holds most people back.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Whether it's realistic or
May 29, 2008 - 15:56 ET by mattmWhether it's realistic or not is debatable, but is there proof anywhere that this particular spike in teen pregnancies was due to a flaw with AO education? Could there be other factors? Could it be that the increase would have been even higher if not for AO? Is it possible that this is a minor reversal in the overall downward trend in teen pregnancies since 2001?
What is unrealistic is the conclusion based on scanty data that AO doesn't work.
Good questions, mattm, and
May 29, 2008 - 16:08 ET by balboaGood questions, mattm, and I don't know. Obviously that would take some more in-depth analysis as there are probably many other factors in play.
Where do they get these experts?
May 29, 2008 - 15:24 ET by KC MulvilleThey're happy to have parents involved in decisions, so long as parents make the decisions they approve.
It's a simple scientific principle that when you perform a series of measurements, and two of the variables remain the same but the results change, the logical conclusion can't be that one variables is to blame but not the other. Yet, they have this woman on the air because she's supposed to be a scientist, but she can't grasp a simple scientific principle.
Where do they get these experts?
May 29, 2008 - 15:36 ET by bassndudeIn this case, I think the Jesus House down in Hobokinville.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"And I was shocked to find
May 29, 2008 - 15:30 ET by Ruths husband Ben"And I was shocked to find that a third of all U.S. Girls less than the age of 20 get pregnant at some time in their lives."
What the %$&* does that statement mean? Good gosh, almighty. A liberal arts education just doesn't go as far as it used to! That's one hell of a statistic. Two out of three girls less than 20 will never have a child? Oh, I know what she meant, but even that is nonsensical. How many of these young women are married and intended to have a baby? What is wrong with a nineteen year old having a child, isn't she an adult by law and nature? Aargh, we need a better class of idiot on TV.
"Whatever Michelle Says Is The Message." –
Senator Barack Obama October 1, 2007, Chicago HQ
Abstinence
May 29, 2008 - 15:48 ET by iveseenitallAbstinence education is unrealistic. They are going to do it anyway. I think we should also give them a reefer or a bong with that condom from the nurse's office. After all, they are going to do it anyway.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
This is sheer
May 29, 2008 - 16:01 ET by seanrobinsThis is sheer insanity:
>>>And I was shocked to find that a third of all U.S. Girls less than the age of 20 get pregnant at some time in their lives
Is she kidding? 1/3 of all U.S. Girls get pregnant at SOME TIME IN THEIR LIVES. Only 1/3??? Huh???
Makes no sense.
sean robins
blog.seanrobins.com
Pregnancies increase from 4 to 17
May 29, 2008 - 16:01 ET by YahooWatcherNow if that was a story about foreclosures or the cost of oil, it would have been phrased seomthing like:
Foreclosures Quadruple; Downward Spiral Continues
It all depends on the topic.
I also like addressing the doctor as "Dr. Nancy." I always give my doctor some respect and call him Dr. Lastname. Apparently Dr. Nancy can leave her patients for a few hours once in a while for some face time on the Today show.
And once they start dispensing...
May 29, 2008 - 16:20 ET by Prester John....birth control they can start working on taking the girls down to the nearest abortion clinic without their parents' knowledge.
Gotta keep that money going to Planned Parenthood don't cha know.
drat you Prester
May 29, 2008 - 17:06 ET by candanceYou've revealed their devilish plan too soon! Slap your mouth and call you Maxine Waters!
We were promised a few years ago that girls would not be given medicine behind their parents' backs, and now look. A school nurse can't dispense Tylenol without permission but birth control is cool because it's for their own good.
What happens when the wrong scrip damages a girl's hormonal balance or causes interior bleeding, and the parents don't even know she's on medication? Sounds like a real smart move to me.
Next stop: pressuring girls into getting an abortion to hide their sexual activity from their family. Babies have been pushed down to the status of an unwanted burden that sucks you into poverty.
Abstinence works every time
May 29, 2008 - 18:16 ET by msh1973Abstinence works every time it is used as birth control. Dr. Snyderman is showing her liberal bias. I would bet she is pro-abortion too.
If Snyderman and other
May 29, 2008 - 21:25 ET by TEIf Snyderman and other leftist fundamentalists want to indoctrinate their own children on Snyderman's religious cult then have at it, but Snyderman and the leftist cults of the Democrat party (i.e., the pagans, atheists, tree huggers, earth worshippers, feminists and fundamentalist homosexualists) should keep their religious cult out of the bedrooms of other people's children.
God's law
May 30, 2008 - 01:05 ET by Old EuropeTeenage pregnancy and venereal diseases are there because people go against God's word. When I was a liberal atheist I always believed that those square conservatives want to spoil the fun for us. But once I realised that God's laws all make sense, i knew that many problems in today's world stem from the breach of God's laws. So if teens engage in sex, one in ten are gonna get pregnant. What is this teen left with? Either have an abortion and kill your unborn baby and be scarred for the rest of your life or have the baby when you are too young to handle it. Not to mention the STD some of which can't even be prevented by condoms such as HPV that causes ovarian cancer. There is no such thing as safe sex. The more promiscuous you are the higher the risk of catching a disease.
And teen sex makes relationships more complicated: "Does he love me or is he just in it for the sex?" And once you break up with your partner the emotional trauma of having given your intimacy away to some immature guy sets in and you are traumatised again. Then those teens grow up having garnered "experience" in relationships when in fact all the did garner was traumas and emotional disasters. They are screwed by premature sex. And it doesn't end there. Even premarital sex entails the same dangers as teenage sex. People have causal sex and one night stands, but once they are married, they can't give up their old habits. So they are bound to cheat on their husbands/wives because old habits die hard. Not to forget that one in three children are born illegitimately and are more likely to grow up poor and traumatised. And why is that? Because people forgot about God's laws. I was so deluded and dumb that I couldn't see the dangers of premarital sex and esp teen sex. But most of these problems that our society faces today, i.e. teen pregnanvy, illegitimate children, patchwork families, STD stem from our lack of faith in God. But would you expect a liberal to obey God's laws? They are far too smug and self-righteous to believe in a higher entity. They put their faith in Humanism which is bound to fail.
It's blatantly obvious that abstinence is the safest and best way to protect our children. Sex belongs to marriage and should not be given away to random people because it's dangerous and self-demeaning. That way sex will be all the more special with the person you choose to marry.
You're tying pregnancy in
May 31, 2008 - 01:37 ET by mostlymoderateYou're tying pregnancy in with venereal disease? God is punishing people with a baby?
When the mother is 16 and
May 31, 2008 - 02:04 ET by NL207When the mother is 16 and unmarried you can bet a baby is punishment.
What are you using for brains, man? Didn't any girls get pregnant while you were in High School? A few did when I was in school, and the experience forever changed their lives and not for the better.
MM,
May 31, 2008 - 02:09 ET by RESTLESS 1The baby is not the punishment. It is the responsibility and lack of choices that come with the baby that are punishment. God is not that simple.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I agree that the taking care
May 31, 2008 - 02:38 ET by mostlymoderateI agree that the taking care of a baby is definitely a nasty "consequence" for any teenager to handle. But the poor baby itself is what I am worried about. That would be so strange to turn 20yo and have a mother that is around 35. Yikes!! My opinion is that abstinence is the "best" choice but birth control is good too. Anything to keep girls from getting pregnant under 18.
MM,
May 31, 2008 - 02:41 ET by RESTLESS 1Making sex after marriage the societal norm would accomplish that.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Hey, I am all for that.
May 31, 2008 - 02:44 ET by mostlymoderateHey, I am all for that.
Me too,
May 31, 2008 - 02:55 ET by RESTLESS 1Good night MM.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008