Topic : 03/03 Teens and Sex with Bishop T.D. Jakes

Hi Kathleen,

I know what you mean about kids finding a way.  Just this weekend my 11 year old son and his "girl friend" plotted to meet up at the park, unbeknownst to me and her parents (all of which have told them that they are not allowed to hang out together in the absence of parental supervision)  Anyway, to make a long story short, my son is no longer allowed to go to the park "to skate with buddies" unless I accompany him, and I told the girl that I would not tell her parents THIS TIME but I most certainly will the next time.  I have always told my son that I am in favor of him developing relationships with the opposite sex (incidently, he has always been a girl magnet) but there are rules (ie they must have parental supervision) and those rules are not negotiable.  I know that I can not prevent my children from scheming, and sneaking, but I can discourage it and present consequences when they do.  As for the availability of condoms preventing unplanned pregnancies, I came across an article over the weekend, specifically about your home state, and I will post it seperately.

New York City Has Extremely High Abortion Rate Despite Free Birth Control

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- If there is any place in the nation women can get free or low-cost birth control, it's New York City. But a new report indicates the abortion rate in the nation's largest city is three times higher than the national average despite the easy access to birth control and contraception.

While a survey from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a part of Planned Parenthood, shows fewer than 20 percent of all pregnancies nationwide end in abortion, 72 pregnancies end in abortion in New York for every 100 births.

More than 250 abortions are done every day in New York City at more than 200 locations, including abortion businesses and private doctor's offices.

New figures reported in the Crain's business journal show 90,157 were done in New York in 2006 -- which the business journal admitted showed "women are using abortion as their birth control method of choice."

Yet, abortion advocates repeatedly say abortions will decline if taxpayers are required to continue funding birth control and contraception at a high level and promote it extensively.

Free or low cost birth control and contraception, according to Crain's, is currently offered at through 59 publicly funded programs at 218 places in New York state, with most of those located in New York City or the greater area.

Amazingly, Deborah Kaplan, deputy commissioner of the city Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, told the business journal that the answer to the problem is more access to birth control.

“To me, the problem is access," she said. “If we improved access to contraceptives, there would be a reduction in abortion."

Meanwhile, the taxpayer-funding of abortions on both the state and city level is draining tax dollars that could be used for education, police or other services.

Abortions cost the state of New York $16 million in Medicaid dollars every year and city taxpayers pay even more through the New York policy that provides free abortions to poor women at public facilities.

The high abortion rate also appears to have a racial component that concerns pro-life advocates.

Though black New Yorkers account for 24 percent of the city's total population, the 2006 city figures show they had 45 percent of the abortions there. That mirrors the national trend, according to AGI, which shows African-Americans have abortions at twice the rate of whites and Hispanics.

The Crain's report also indicates that New York's high abortion numbers have changed in that they no longer show women from across the northeast going there for abortions.

Now, 93 percent of the abortions done in New York City are on local residents.

http://www.lifenews.com/state3437.html

Virginity pledges succeed in helping kids abstain...

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080814/NEWS06/80814010

Those pledges can be surprisingly effective, according to a new study from the RAND Corp. Students ages 12 to 17 who made purity pledges were 21 percent less likely to have sex within three years of making a pledge than were teens who wanted to avoid sex before marriage but did not make a pledge, according to RAND’s research, published online by the Journal of Adolescent Health.

The RAND study focused specifically on teens who said they wanted to delay having sex, and who had parents and peers supporting that decision. The study excluded teens who were not trying to abstain from premarital sex.

About a quarter of the 2,000 teens surveyed had made a virginity pledge of some kind. Without a pledge, 42.4 percent of that group would have sex within three years. With a pledge, that figure dropped to 33.6 percent.

Purity pledges have been made popular since the 1990s by groups like Nashville-based True Love Waits. The program, run by Southern Baptist publisher LifeWay, claims that more than 1 million teens have signed purity commitment cards.

Those cards read: “Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship.”

RAND researcher Steven Martino says purity pledges work a little bit like Weight Watchers.

“It’s public accountability,” he said. “They declare their intentions and have peer support to hold them accountable.”

But he warned that pledges won’t work for everyone.

“Virginity pledges cannot substitute for a comprehensive program of sex education,” Martino said. “Most teens do have sex, and those teens need to know how to protect themselves against unwanted consequences.”

Martino said pledgers were just as likely as nonpledgers to use condoms when they have sex.

“Some people say that taking a pledge makes kids less likely to use a condom when they break the pledge,” he said. “We found that wasn’t the case in our sample.”

Richard Ross, professor of student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, co-founded True Love Waits in 1993 while he was youth pastor at Tulip Grove Baptist.

Ross believes the program works because of its holistic approach. Before making a pledge, he said, students go through a series of classes, and talk with their parents. After making a pledge in front of their churches, students meet in ongoing support groups to sustain their commitment.

Without that support, Ross said, the pledges are ineffective.

“Students are not making a pledge to a program,” he said. “They are making a promise to God. The reason so many students are making it to the altar, having kept their pledge, is that they made their promise to God.”

Perhaps this can add some interest to your debate.

KL...I am eagerly awaiting your response to the "scientific" studies we have been discussing.

oops! Forgot the link...

download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/1054-139X/PIIS1054139X05000558.pdf

Correction...

In other words, non pledgers are 18 times more likely to have Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Trichomoniasis compared to consistant pledgers (626 NP and 35 CP)  and they are 11.6 times more likely to have HPV (2347 NP and 35 CP)

Actually the study indicates (on table 2) that non pledgers are almost  twice as likely to be tested postive for Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, or Trichomoniasis than consistent pledgers

And that female pledgers and female non pledgers are equally as likely to be tested positive for HPV

Which seems to indicated that (in addition to the data on table 3) the virginity pledge has a greater postive impact on male pledgers.

The study also makes clear (on table 4) that virginity pledges have very little effect on condom usage.  54.6% of pledgers used condoms the first time, compared to 59.7% of non pledgers. 

I was also wondering about the other columns... what does 95% and CI mean?

Rather than criticize the ineffectiveness of abstinence education, why not compare abstinence education to comprehensive sex ed, holding comprehensive sex ed to the SAME standards?

Comparatively speaking, how effective (or ineffective) is abstinence education?  How effective is comprehensive sex ed?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/CompSexEd.pdf

Failure of Comprehensive Programs—When studies are held to the same criteria as the

Mathematica evaluation (random assignment, a follow-up period of 2½ to 5½ years, a high

level success criteria), there is ample evidence that condom-based sex education interventions

do not work. In the past 20 years, studies evaluating abstinence education programs have been

limited in number and in rigor, while during the same time period research on comprehensive

sex education has abounded.29–32 One recent and thorough summary of this research33

reviewed 50 well-designed evaluation studies of comprehensive sex education programs in the

United States, going back to 1990, and included these findings:

A. None of the programs increased the prevalence of consistent condom use (CCU)c among

adolescents for a period greater than one year. CCU is the only condom measure that

approaches the stringent standard of the abstinence measure. Only one program produced a

significant increase in the prevalence of CCU that was sustained for a period of one year.35

B. Thirteen control trials of comprehensive sex education found no increase in teen condom

use for any period of time.

C. Only two comprehensive sex education programs succeeded in improving less stringent

measures of teen condom use (not CCU) for a period longer than two years, and none lasted

beyond three years…

A substantial number of studies have examined condom-based interventions

and can inform policy decisions. In summary, of 50 rigorous studies spanning the past 15

years, only one of them reports an improvement in consistent condom use after a period of at

least one year.35 This study showed that 58% of females visiting a health clinic for STDs

one year after the CCU intervention reported CCU while the control group reported 45%.

The other 49 studies either did not measure CCU (the best comparison with abstinent

behavior), or did not find a significant program effect of at least one year.33 This pattern of

evidence (1 success out of 49) does not provide a reasonable basis for replacing abstinence

education with a condom-based sex education policy...

Abstinence programs have found significant, long-term reductions in adolescent sexual activity, with both moderate and high-risk populations.

A. A randomized controlled trial conducted by Jemmott et al. found that an abstinence-only

intervention significantly reduced sexual initiation among young African American

adolescents after a 24-month follow-up period, and did not reduce condom use for those

virgins who did become sexually active (p<.05).36

KL, I have NO idea where you get your information or how you read research. Federal funding for abstinence education started in 1981 with the American Family Life Act (Title XX). The amount of funding since the Bush administration has grown considerably, but it hardly started then. Furthermore, you cannot dismiss state and local funding. It was not until Sputnik that the federal government  started providing federal grant money to promote the teaching of math and science. Do you suppose schools did not teach math or science until then?

As far as the research study, I am at a complete loss as to how you get your numbers and analysis. Here is a direct quote from the study explaining the results of table two.