CNN, in a report on the Centers for Disease Control’s finding that the teen birth rate increased in 2006, focused attention on what liberals surmise is a partial cause of the increase - President Bush’s advocacy of abstinence-only sex education. CNN correspondent Mary Snow, in her introduction to her report, noted that, "no one is saying for certain whether the rise in teen pregnancy is in fact a trend, but it is bringing attention to abstinence-only programs, and the roughly $176 million the federal government spends on them each year."
The report, which aired during the 4 pm Eastern hour of Thursday’s "The Situation Room," featured three sound bites from both sides of the debate. Two came from Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, whose political leanings are never mentioned. The third came from Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation, which is described as a "conservative think tank."
[Update, 12:20 pm Eastern: Kristen Fyfe of MRC's Culture and Media Institute pointed out the biased reporting of the New York Times and the Washington Post on the CDC report.]
The report also quoted a White House spokeswoman, who the labeled the increase "an unwelcome development," and Hillary Clinton, who "touted family planning programs during her husband's administration for a steady decrease in the teen birth rate" and added that "under President Bush’s leadership, we may be falling off track."
Throughout the report, there is a confusion of terms. The actual CDC report is about an increase in the teen birth rate, not an increase in the number of teen pregnancies. Of course, not all pregnancies result in the birth of a child (due to miscarriages and abortions). But in his introduction, host Wolf Blitzer explains that "many more teens are getting pregnant, and it's a sharp reversal of a long-term trend, an actual rise in teen birth rates after a 14-year decline." The language Snow used above is equally confused. Later, Snow twice referenced an "increase in teen pregnancy."
The full transcript of the report from Thursday’s "The Situation Room:"
WOLF BLITZER: Experts disagree on just what's causing it, but virtually everyone agrees it certainly is alarming. Many more teens are getting pregnant, and it's a sharp reversal of a long-term trend, an actual rise in teen birth rates after a 14-year decline. And that's reviving an old debate. Do programs that encourage teens not to have sex actually work?
Let's go to CNN's Mary Snow. She's in New York watching the story for us. You've been looking at all of the numbers coming in and the debate. What's going on?
MARY SNOW (on-camera): Well, you know, Wolf, no one is saying for certain whether the rise in teen pregnancy is in fact a trend, but it is bringing attention to abstinence-only programs, and the roughly $176 million the federal government spends on them each year.
SNOW (voice-over): When the 2006 birth rates for teenagers were first gathered by the Centers for Disease Control, the head researcher said she was so surprised by the results, she wanted to make sure there wasn't a mistake. The numbers compiled by the CDC show a 3% increase in the teen birth rate, reversing a 14-year decline.
Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, blamed the rise in part on the Bush administration's abstinence-only sex ed programs.
CECILE RICHARDS, PRESIDENT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Unfortunately, what's happening is young people are sexually-active and they're not using contraception. And I think that's what this new CDC study shows.
SNOW: Don't blame abstinence programs, says the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, which explains the teen birth rate rise this way.
ROBERT RECTOR, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: They want to have children very, very much. They feel they ought to wait until they are a little older but, gee, waiting isn't all that critical.
SNOW: Just whether abstinence-only programs work has been a subject of debate since President Bush advocated them.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH (from May 10, 2002) : One of the parts of our welfare reform reauthorization is to promote abstinence. Let me give you a reason why we should. It works every time.
SNOW: The White House called the rise in teen pregnancy 'an unwelcomed development,' adding, 'We'll be interested to understand what are the causes for the increase, and whether it is an anomaly, following a long decline in rates or a trend.'
Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton touted family planning programs during her husband's administration for a steady decrease in the teen birth rate, adding, 'Under President Bush's leadership, we may be falling off track.'
Planned Parenthood says even during the decline, the teen pregnancy rate was higher than it should have been.
RICHARDS: We still have in this country the highest teen pregnancy rate of the most developed countries in the world. And in the 21st century, I think we could do better.
SNOW (on-camera): And the CDC does points out one positive point, which is that the birth rate for girls between 10 and 14 declined. That was the only age group showing a decline.
BLITZER: Mary Snow watching this story for us. Thanks, Mary, very much.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Whew!!
December 7, 2007 - 12:08 ET by mytwocentsWhew!! That's a relief. It's Bush's fault. I'm glad of that. For a moment I though it might be another we could chaulk up to Man-made Global Warming.
Bush's fault ???
December 7, 2007 - 12:14 ET by LionKingGeez!!! Sounds more like Slick Willy. Aren't teenagers his favorite flavor?
}}---> CDC? Birth Rates?
December 7, 2007 - 12:12 ET by Cool ArrowOK, call me old fashioned, but three times my wife's belly swelled, and I don't remember the Doctor telling her she had a disease.
In fact, we were pretty sure she was pregnant.
Why is the CDC tracking this?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
December 7, 2007 - 12:28 ET by Senior ChiefPRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH (from May 10, 2002) : One of the parts of our welfare reform reauthorization is to promote abstinence. Let me give you a reason why we should. It works every time.
So then, how come GWB is blamed (again) in the increase in teen pregnancy. You idiot leftoids out there can try this at home (or anywhere else), and I will bet my life on it, that if you practice abstinence you WILL NOT get pregnant.
On the other hand, what are they complaining about? More teen pregnancies, means more people on welfare program, more will depend on democrack politicians, increase in taxes, more global warming alarmist, more violence, more lazy people, more abortion recipients, more will march against war, there will be more Anti-America & Anti troops, more will watch CNN/MSNBC/CBS, etc, etc. Then blame it all in GWB- even if he is all gone...This is basically the leftoid principle. Instead of personal responsibility and accountability, they'll blame somebody else. Sad....
Obviously, just because
December 7, 2007 - 12:35 ET by JasonCObviously, just because abstinence is taught to teenagers doesn't mean it will be practiced by them. It's been pretty well demonstrated, in fact, that comprehensive sex education (with emphasis on the fact that, as you said, abstinence is the best way not to get pregnant) is more effective. There is a big fat disconnect between what is taught and how it is used.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Not teaching abstinence as
December 7, 2007 - 14:12 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveNot teaching abstinence as an option will not help the situation at all. For the ONE birth control method that has a 100% success rate it should be taught as their #1 option.
You're right, teenagers may choose not to abstain, but if you don't make them aware of that option, they DEFINITELY WON'T choose abstinence.
Instead of only teaching kids about all of the options they have to engage in "safe sex" they should be taught abstinence and the resultant consequences of an unwanted/teen-age pregnancy including lost education/career opportunities; and increased responsibilities they may not be prepared for both emotionally and financially.
By not teaching abstinence we do our children a great disservice by not teaching them the complete truth from which they can make an informed choice. And to liberals it's all about "choice" isn't it? So why not lay out all the options to choose from? Because there is an agenda that Senior Chief described in his post.
Abstinence is free, there is no wrong way to use it, you don't need a prescription for it, you don't need to hide it from your parents, it doesn't have a limited shelf-life, and there are no side-effects. It is the perfect birth control method.
"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps
It is the perfect birth control method
December 7, 2007 - 14:19 ET by MightyMouthAnd it's also the least fun Gene. I'm surprised the left hasn't tried to get classes on masterbation into the schools. Or maybe they already have, it's been a while since my kids where school age.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
}}---> Beats me MM
December 7, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Cool ArrowI'm surprised the left hasn't tried to get classes on masterbation into the schools
Remember Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders?
Oh yeah...
December 7, 2007 - 14:32 ET by MightyMouthI remember her now... the bible thumpers stopped her in her tracks. Of course you know if they would have followed her suggestion the libs would have screwed it up just like every other wet dream they have! :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
True. But when you educate
December 7, 2007 - 14:32 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveTrue. But when you educate kids about the resulting consequences, it may make them at least think twice.
It's also not fun taking care of a baby that cries all night...even when my wife and I are taking turns. Teen mothers usually don't have the luxury of having committed help. Teen-age boys usually don't have a job that provides enough to care for a baby. And that kind of "non-fun" lasts for years. So it would be wise to teach kids that sacrificing 30 seconds of "fun" is clearly the more logical choice given the uncertainty of the outcome of engaging in sex.
Also, if they never have sex, then they don't know exactly what they're missing...that makes it a bit easier to refrain.
"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps
I like the program that some
December 7, 2007 - 14:43 ET by MightyMouthprivate schools have. The teens promise the parents not to have sex while in high school. The reward for keeping the promise ranges from cars to non-material things that parent and the child agree to. It's a good program but does require parental participation which is probably why it isn't too previlant in the Public School System. Doesn't stop parents from doing it on their own though.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Recent study for the gov't
December 7, 2007 - 14:48 ET by mvfreemanUnfortunately the kids in these abstinence programs seem to be paying about as much attention as they do in math.
This recent study for the gov't shows that kids in four different abstinence programs had sex at roughly the same age and rates as kids who weren't in abstinence programs.
As JasonC said, there is a disconnect between what is taught and what is practiced. Too many kids choose to be ignorant or not care about consequences.
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf
30 Seconds?!?!?!?! "He
December 7, 2007 - 18:29 ET by JasonC30 Seconds?!?!?!?!
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Ummmm...they're teenagers.
December 7, 2007 - 18:39 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveUmmmm...they're teenagers. C'mon!
"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps
Jason, I know that seems
December 7, 2007 - 18:51 ET by bassndudeJason, I know that seems like a long time to you but.....look on the bright side....that is, if there is one.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Some good points there
December 7, 2007 - 12:36 ET by MightyMouthSome good points there Senior Chief. The dems are in a no lose situation should they take back the White House. They can blame EVERYTHING that goes wrong on the previous administration!
Just another reason we can't let this disingenuous bunch back into power.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Bush's fault again? He is
December 7, 2007 - 12:39 ET by rbosqueBush's fault again? He is one amazing guy to be the villian everty time something goes wrong!
Condoms fail or are not used at all. This comes from the permissive society endorsed from a morally-depraved Hollywood. They need to look into a mirror for the culprit.
Abstinence works. The REAL
December 7, 2007 - 12:46 ET by ForeverOnTheRightAbstinence works. The REAL problem is an increase in sexual activity on T.V. and movies etc. with the implication that this is normal for a relationship between a man and a woman in a dating relationship or even a friendship. They show how enticing and enjoyable sex is. So how can the abstinence message compete, especially when they do not make it clear that their can be and probably will be consciences to sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage? Again the MSM/ Corrupt News Network puts the blame in the wrong place.
Declined for 10 to 14 yr
December 7, 2007 - 12:59 ET by a12iggymomDeclined for 10 to 14 yr olds. Stagnent or the same for 14 to 18 yr olds. Climes for 18 and 19 yr olds. Could these same 18 and 19 yr olds be getting married to co-habitating?
good catch!
December 7, 2007 - 13:18 ET by UndercoverConservativeI didn't catch that at first, big gold star for you!:)
Like all those anti-gun statistics showing "kids" getting killed when many are 17 or 18 year olds, classed as adults for tax reasons and voting rights, but are still "children" when it comes to "think of the children!" statistics and nanny state justifications.
Declined for 10 to 14 yr
December 7, 2007 - 12:59 ET by a12iggymomDeclined for 10 to 14 yr olds. Stagnent or the same for 14 to 18 yr olds. Climes for 18 and 19 yr olds. Could these same 18 and 19 yr olds be getting married to co-habitating?
yay! more "consensus"!
December 7, 2007 - 13:15 ET by UndercoverConservative"virtually everyone agrees.."
Gee, Wolfie, that means it *must* be true!
Virtually everyone agrees your an @ss and that euthenizing ya would be a good thing, too. Sorry, Wolfie, but there's no arguing with "consensus", is there? the debate is over! :P
Im wondering if there has
December 7, 2007 - 13:16 ET by MrSnugglesIm wondering if there has been a decrease in the abortion rate then as well. perhaps these teenagers are just "choosing" to give birth a chance.
Why can't we combine a
December 7, 2007 - 13:25 ET by balboaWhy can't we combine a birth control program with an abstinence program? Tell kids they really shouldn't be having sex. But if you do, use birth control.
Bal...
December 7, 2007 - 13:29 ET by LionKingGiven the choice of both beign equal, what do you think they would choose?
[Abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control.]
My wife likes to say,
December 7, 2007 - 13:56 ET by mustangsallyIf it's not a child, then you're not pregant ...
I'm saying you teach
December 7, 2007 - 14:37 ET by balboaI'm saying you teach abstinence, but you have to be realistic, too, and realize that SOME of these kids are going to have sex.
Maybe you're *all* unwittingly-illustrating
December 7, 2007 - 14:43 ET by sarcasmoWhy we as a society should let the free-marketplace decide the right answer to this question, community by community. Of course, that means bucking the trend in BOTH major parties of stupidly-spending-more, and instead getting rid of socialist ("public") schools entirely.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I'll go for that sarc
December 7, 2007 - 14:53 ET by Cool ArrowNot only would schools compete, but municipalities as well.
If your emphasis is football, you get what you pay for. If it's math and sciences, the same law applies.
But we'd also have to allow those same municipalities and schools the opportunities of success, failure, and mediocrity, as well as the consequences.
Oh, IMO those bad consequences
December 7, 2007 - 15:06 ET by sarcasmoWill eventually be the good part. But will school-capitalism achieve nirvana soon (or ever)? No. Nobody's promising that. But all it has to do is perform better & cheaper than socialism, and truly-free markets tend to do that regularly.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Sex ed myths
December 7, 2007 - 14:37 ET by KC MulvilleBy definition, kids who needs to be told why they shouldn't be having sex, especially unprotected sex, are not mature enough to have sex in the first place. The fact that you have to explain it proves that the kid isn't ready.
This certainly is a better
December 7, 2007 - 14:51 ET by Darth DutchThis certainly is a better option than no abstinence teaching at all. But where do you draw the line on the "you shouldn't do it, but if you do..." line of thinking? Does one apply it to drinking and say it shouldn't be done, but if you do it, do it at this place? Or to drugs?
Darth Dutch
Those all kinda have
December 7, 2007 - 15:54 ET by balboaThose all kinda have gradual degrees of legality. But here are my thoughts.
Drinking: Don't do it, but if you do, don't drive. Call me, I'll pick you up.
Drugs: Don't do it.
Bal,The "but if you
December 7, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"Drugs: Don't do it." (But if you do don't get hooked).
It's illegal for minors to drink alcohol just as doing narcotics is illegal for everyone.
The "but if you do..." clause negates the "don't do it" command.
We can't warn against dangerous behavior and then immediately make a conditional stipulation that somehow makes the behavior acceptable.
It is against logical reasoning to do so.
"There are millions of people in Iraq who have sacrificed in the hope that the United States will finish its work here. We should never forget that." -- Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Commander U.S. III Corps
Let me re-adjust my
December 7, 2007 - 19:45 ET by balboaLet me re-adjust my phrasing. If I had kids, I would tell them I don't want them to drink, tell them why. Tell them there would be repercussions if they did. But again I'd want them to know they could / should call me if a situation arose and someone was going to drive drunk.
Drugs, I don't think they should, say why, and that there will be repercussions.