Hardcore Conk Bible Belt Red State Leads in Teen Pregnancy

[Wedgebuster]

Well, my kids don't need no rubbers, or box stoppers cause they went to bible classes and learned about God and Jesus, and I know it worked not only for them but their boy friends and girlfriends learned from them as well.

Countless times I heard them praying with their friends in their bedrooms, "Oh God!" "Oh Jesus!"

[D1B]

Well, my kids don't need no rubbers, or box stoppers cause they went to bible classes and learned about God and Jesus, and I know it worked not only for them but their boy friends and girlfriends learned from them as well.

Countless times I heard them praying with their friends in their bedrooms, "Oh God!" "Oh Jesus!"

No shit. That's the part of Abstinence-only that's positive. Kids are interpreting it as anything goes as long as you cant get pregnant. A dream come true for a teenage boy - blowjobs, hand jobs, tit jobs, hand jobs with prostate massage, anal, double anal, triple anal, double-anal-double vaginal, ear fukcing, toe fukcing - you name it. Jesus would approve!

[BigApp]

A variety of factors influence teen birth rates, including culture, poverty and racial demographics. For those and other reasons, kids in mostly white New England likely would delay child birth, said David Landry, a researcher at the Guttmacher Institute

touche'

And, let's discuss this "Hardcore Conk Bible Belt Red State" claim:

Since 1882, Mississippi has elected 32 different Governors. Exactly 2 of them have been Republicans. In other words:

30 OF THE LAST 32 GOVERNORS OF THE GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI HAVE BEEN DEMOCRATS.

Let's go further, since Ole Miss was a territory, they've selected a total of 67 Governors. Only 9 were NOT Democrats. One of the 9 held office as a Whig for a total of 4 weeks (John A. Quitman), another as a "Provisional" for 4 months (William Sharkley), a "Military" person for 18 months (Adelbert Ames), and 2 Republicans who held office for less than 18 months.

That leaves exactly FOUR (that's 4) duly elected Republicans in Mississippi.

94.1% of it's history, Mississippi has been ruled by Democrats.

Maybe we should redefine what "Hardcore Conk Bible Belt Red State" actually means...

[dbackjon]

A Mississippi Democrat is not a liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. 90% of those govenors would be Republican today.


Just like Lincoln would be a Democrat

[BigApp]

sorry, but I didn't use the term "liberal". keep trying!

[houndawg]

Obviously there is more breedin' going on around Democrats, that's why there are more of them.

[Gil Dobie]

Sorry I don't believe the "Big Lie" by Bush haters. It's not "absinence only", abstinence is one of the ways to prevent aids.

Link

The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (Emergency Plan/PEPFAR) supports the rapid scale-up of prevention education and services utilizing the “ABC” approach. The “ABC” approach tailors behavioral messages to the local epidemic context: “A” behaviors include abstinence; “B” includes faithfulness to one partner or reducing the number of sexual partners; “C” emphasizes correct and consistent condom use, where appropriate.

No, it is not a big lie. The C part is not funded...

Isn't condom distribution funded as stated

Following the ABC model, the Emergency Plan supports activities that target high-risk populations with a comprehensive package of prevention services which include peer outreach and education, condom promotion and distribution,

[AZGrizFan]

I know, but Bible Belt and South aren't synonmous. There are extra states which means the numbers are different, the cultures are different, etc... I'm not trying to be an ass, just want some clarity on the region in discussion.

Take 'er easy. No 'splainin' needed. It ain't that important.

We're dealing in generalities here, Mark.

No fcuking SHIT. That's the understatement of the YEAR, Cappy.

Teen pregnancy rates are up! Must be the Conks fault! Must be them damned religous types fault!

[AZGrizFan]

Repeat: Blacks and hispanics historically have significantly higher teen pregnancy rates. Thus, the inclusion of states like Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, etc.

AZ, I understand.

Again the issue at hand is that THIS rate is NOW increasing again. What about that do you not understand?

What changed between now and..

During the 1990s, teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates declined to record low levels.

Did minorities get hornier?

Think about it, D. Minorities have children AS CHILDREN at double the rate of anybody else. Culturally, THOSE children have children at double the rate of everybody else. It's what they DO. Hell, I was reading some stats yesterday when we were hot and heavy into this that showed that by 1930, blacks had falled from 19% of the population to 9.7% of the population. Now they're 12.3%. It's like a snowball rolling downhill, culturally speaking of course.

And we ALL get hornier, don't we?

[D1B]

AZ, I understand.

Again the issue at hand is that THIS rate is NOW increasing again. What about that do you not understand?

What changed between now and..

During the 1990s, teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates declined to record low levels.

Did minorities get hornier?

Think about it, D. Minorities have children AS CHILDREN at double the rate of anybody else. Culturally, THOSE children have children at double the rate of everybody else. It's what they DO. Hell, I was reading some stats yesterday when we were hot and heavy into this that showed that by 1930, blacks had falled from 19% of the population to 9.7% of the population. Now they're 12.3%. It's like a snowball rolling downhill, culturally speaking of course.

And we ALL get hornier, don't we?

I don't have time right now to check this, but did you ever hear of the BABY BOOM?

[AZGrizFan]

I don't have time right now to check this, but did you ever hear of the BABY BOOM?

The what? Never heard of it...

[D1B]

AZ, I understand.

Again the issue at hand is that THIS rate is NOW increasing again. What about that do you not understand?

What changed between now and..

During the 1990s, teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates declined to record low levels.

Did minorities get hornier?

Think about it, D. Minorities have children AS CHILDREN at double the rate of anybody else. Culturally, THOSE children have children at double the rate of everybody else. It's what they DO. Hell, I was reading some stats yesterday when we were hot and heavy into this that showed that by 1930, blacks had falled from 19% of the population to 9.7% of the population. Now they're 12.3%. It's like a snowball rolling downhill, culturally speaking of course.

And we ALL get hornier, don't we?

Post the stats you speak of AZ, then let's talk.

[AZGrizFan]

Think about it, D. Minorities have children AS CHILDREN at double the rate of anybody else. Culturally, THOSE children have children at double the rate of everybody else. It's what they DO. Hell, I was reading some stats yesterday when we were hot and heavy into this that showed that by 1930, blacks had falled from 19% of the population to 9.7% of the population. Now they're 12.3%. It's like a snowball rolling downhill, culturally speaking of course.

And we ALL get hornier, don't we?

Post the stats you speak of AZ, then let's talk.

I see how this works. YOU post shat and I ask for proof and you say "google this" or "google that" yourself. Then I post stuff and you want PROOF. You'll just have to take my word for it. I didn't make the stats up.

Touche.

[D1B]

Post the stats you speak of AZ, then let's talk.

I see how this works. YOU post shat and I ask for proof and you say "google this" or "google that" yourself. Then I post stuff and you want PROOF. You'll just have to take my word for it. I didn't make the stats up.

Touche.

No problem. My stats were directly from the CDC. In fact, front page of USA Today mentions a "34% decline in teen pregancies from 1991 to 2004". Also mentions the recent increases are "across the board" regarding race, etc.

There you go, now where did you get your 1930 numbers? Sorry I don't trust you, but you've deliberatly pulled shit out of your ass before. You admitted it, but still.

AZ, as we move forward, keep in mind we're talking bout teen pregnancies (15-19yr.) These are predominantly young women or girls, many still in high school. The exact people who could be decieved by the conk abstinence only message. I understand what you say about personal accountability but it seem you're forgetting were talking bout young people who may or may not be properly informed or carry the benefit of life experience. Bristol Palin is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. She a victim of her mother warped conk outlook.

[AZGrizFan]

I see how this works. YOU post shat and I ask for proof and you say "google this" or "google that" yourself. Then I post stuff and you want PROOF. You'll just have to take my word for it. I didn't make the stats up.

Touche.

No problem. My stats were directly from the CDC. In fact, front page of USA Today mentions a "34% decline in teen pregancies from 1991 to 2004". Also mentions the recent increases are "across the board" regarding race, etc.

There you go, now where did you get your 1930 numbers? Sorry I don't trust you, but you've deliberatly pulled shit out of your ass before. You admitted it, but still.

AZ, as we move forward, keep in mind we're talking bout teen pregnancies (15-19yr.) These are predominantly young women or girls, many still in high school. The exact people who could be decieved by the conk abstinence only message. I understand what you say about personal accountability but it seem you're forgetting were talking bout young people who may or may not be properly informed or carry the benefit of life experience. Bristol Palin is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. She a victim of her mother warped conk outlook.

I sourced my stats in an earlier post, but here's the link.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922246.html

And Bristol Palin will be like the typical conk---she'll take responsibility for her OWN actions, and not blame her predicament on the actions or beliefs or ideals of any other group or individual.

[D1B]

No problem. My stats were directly from the CDC. In fact, front page of USA Today mentions a "34% decline in teen pregancies from 1991 to 2004". Also mentions the recent increases are "across the board" regarding race, etc.

There you go, now where did you get your 1930 numbers? Sorry I don't trust you, but you've deliberatly pulled shit out of your ass before. You admitted it, but still.

AZ, as we move forward, keep in mind we're talking bout teen pregnancies (15-19yr.) These are predominantly young women or girls, many still in high school. The exact people who could be decieved by the conk abstinence only message. I understand what you say about personal accountability but it seem you're forgetting were talking bout young people who may or may not be properly informed or carry the benefit of life experience. Bristol Palin is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. She a victim of her mother warped conk outlook.

I sourced my stats in an earlier post, but here's the link.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922246.html

And Bristol Palin will be like the typical conk---she'll take responsibility for her OWN actions, and not blame her predicament on the actions or beliefs or ideals of any other group or individual.

Yeah, like you know.

How do you know she's not blaming her mother and her fukced up beliefs? Regardless, I'm blaming her mother and dumbass father.

Again, a glaring, national embarrassment and failure of A-O conk doctrine.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah, like you know.

How do you know she's not blaming her mother and her fukced up beliefs? Regardless, I'm blaming her mother and dumbass father.

Again, a glaring, national embarrassment and failure of A-O conk doctrine.

I'd be disappointed of you WEREN'T blaming her mother and father. It's the donk way!

Sure can't be HER fault, right?

[D1B]

Yeah, like you know.

How do you know she's not blaming her mother and her fukced up beliefs? Regardless, I'm blaming her mother and dumbass father.

Again, a glaring, national embarrassment and failure of A-O conk doctrine.

I'd be disappointed of you WEREN'T blaming her mother and father. It's the donk way!

Sure can't be HER fault, right?

I blame alot of parents for creating asshole children and so do you. Walk through a walmart some day. I agree with you on the personal accountablility thing, but again we're talking bout kids here. When are parents held accountable? Is our government ever accountable regarding their education policies?

[AZGrizFan]

I'd be disappointed of you WEREN'T blaming her mother and father. It's the donk way!

Sure can't be HER fault, right?

I blame alot of parents for creating asshole children and so do you. Walk through a walmart some day. I agree with you on the personal accountablility thing, but again we're talking bout kids here. When are parents held accountable? Is our government ever accountable regarding their education policies?

Nope. It's not the governments role to raise our children. If kid don't learn values in the home, it IS the parents' fault, but certainly not the government's fault.

[D1B]

I blame alot of parents for creating asshole children and so do you. Walk through a walmart some day. I agree with you on the personal accountablility thing, but again we're talking bout kids here. When are parents held accountable? Is our government ever accountable regarding their education policies?

Nope. It's not the governments role to raise our children. If kid don't learn values in the home, it IS the parents' fault, but certainly not the government's fault.

Word. However, you'd be pissed if your kid's math teacher was tellin him 2+2=5.

[D1B]

I blame alot of parents for creating asshole children and so do you. Walk through a walmart some day. I agree with you on the personal accountablility thing, but again we're talking bout kids here. When are parents held accountable? Is our government ever accountable regarding their education policies?

Nope. It's not the governments role to raise our children. If kid don't learn values in the home, it IS the parents' fault, but certainly not the government's fault.

I agree. However, sex education is Health education. Needs to be done in a responsible manner.

[dbackjon]

And responsible means everything is covered.

[AZGrizFan]

Nope. It's not the governments role to raise our children. If kid don't learn values in the home, it IS the parents' fault, but certainly not the government's fault.

I agree. However, sex education is Health education. Needs to be done in a responsible manner.

The school system is NOT government.

[D1B]

I agree. However, sex education is Health education. Needs to be done in a responsible manner.

The school system is NOT government.

No shit. Here's the goverment piece. SMFH

For over a quarter century, the federal government has supported abstinence-only education programs that censor information to youth. Federal support of such programs began in 1982 with a limited pool of funding through the Adolescent Family Life Act. Then beginning in 1996, funding for abstinence-only and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs (hereafter, collectively called abstinence-only) grew exponentially with the enactment of welfare reform (P.L. 104-193). The law contained a little noticed mandate of $50 million a year to fund abstinence-only programs. In fact, the law amended the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant legislation (Title V of the Social Security Act) and was groundbreaking, both for its funding level and also for its unprecedented, eight-point definition of abstinence education. This definition (see below) has remained at the core of all federal abstinence-only funding streams, including the newest and, arguably, the most controversial – Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).

Socially conservative legislators arrived at the narrow, eight-point definition (often referred to as the “A-H definition”), not through public health and social science research into effective programs, but as a reflection of their own conservative views. These ultra-conservative legislators were savvy enough to insert the obscure policy add-on into a “must-pass” piece of legislation at the center of the policy agenda of then President Clinton. Since then, the government’s investment in abstinence-only programming has grown enormously, reaching over one billion dollars in total. Now after a decade of extravagant funding, the government’s own long-term research has clearly shown that abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation nor do they reduce rates of either teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

The remainder of this document presents the eight-point definition of abstinence-only education. It discusses federal funding streams for abstinence-only, the content required of funded curricula, and programs’ administration and oversight. It concludes with a chart detailing the federal funding directed to abstinence-only programs since 1982.

THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION

An eligible abstinence education program is one that:

A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;

C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;

E) teaches that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

F) teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

G) teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances; and

H) teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Source: U.S. Social Security Act, §510(b)(2).


Federal Funding Streams for Abstinence-Only Programs
There are three primary funding streams to the states for abstinence-only programs. These include:

Title V, Section (§) 510 of the Social Security Act (welfare reform)
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE), under Title XI, §1110 of the Social Security Act, formerly known as Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS); and
Adolescent Family Life Act, under Title XX of the Public Health Service Act.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public ... abonly.htm


[img]Community-Based Abstinence Educations (CBAE)
In 2000, Congress created the Special Projects of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education Program (now known as CBAE), a new abstinence-only education funding opportunity, at the behest of Rep. Ernest J. Istook (R-OK) and other conservatives in the House of Representatives. The CBAE program was a competitive grant authorized under Title XI, §1110, of the Social Security Act. All its funded programs had to conform strictly to the eight-point definition outlined in §510 of Title V of the Social Security Act. Under CBAE, grants have gone to public and private community-based organizations, many of which are faith-based and/or ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ (organizations established to convince pregnant women to carry their pregnancy to term). Initially, CBAE was administered by MCH; however beginning in FY2005, control over CBAE shifted to the Administration for Children, Youth, and Families.

By any measure, CBAE has been the most restrictive of the abstinence-only funding efforts. Under its provisions, grantees must target adolescents ages 12 through 18 and they must teach all components of the eight-point definition. Grantees cannot provide young people with positive information about contraception or safer-sex practices, even in other settings and with non-CBAE funds. The FY2007 notice of grant availability explicitly stated that ”Grantees are not required to provide information on contraception [except that] information on contraceptives, if included, must be medically accurate and should include information on the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of the type of contraception discussed in the curriculum.” To avoid any confusion, the grant announcement further warned that “Sex education programs that promote the use of contraceptives are not eligible for funding.”

In response to criticism that its funded programs were filled with medically inaccurate information, the 2007 grant announcement also specified that “medical information presented in all curricula funded under this program announcement [must be] accurate,” and that “mass produced materials” regarding STIs must contain medically accurate information regarding the “effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of condoms in preventing the sexually transmitted disease the materials are designed to address.” Unfortunately, many community-based agencies and schools continue to use older versions of abstinence-only curricula, many of which contain medical inaccuracies.

The CBAE focus on community-based programs addressed conservatives’ concern that some states used abstinence-only funding for ‘soft’ activities, such as teen pregnancy prevention media campaigns, rather than for direct classroom education for older teens. enthusiastically embraced CBAE as their preferred funding vehicle, as evidenced by its growth from $20 million in FY2001, the program’s first year of funding, to $113 million in FY2007 – a 465 percent funding increase. The Bush administration has sought even greater increases, despite a growing mountainConservatives of evidence that abstinence-only programs are not effective in delaying sexual initiation or in reducing rates of teen pregnancy or STIs.

[/img]

[AZGrizFan]

But, didn't you say that Clinton signed the "Abstinence Only" legislation in 1996?