CDC convieniently releases easiest states to get laid in

• Devils Advocate

  

  Ohio comes in at number 23!
  
  http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/us-teen-births-drop-overall-miss-has-highest-rate-nh-lowest-041012
• gut

  Hilarious how almost all of the top-10 are bible-belt states. Maybe the far right should get their own house in order before they start preaching to the masses. I wonder if that reflects an ignorance of birth control (due to religious views) or if it is more likely a result of less funding/access in rural areas with a greater focus on urban centers (which from an efficiency and ROI standpoint would make sense). Probably a combination of both, but clearly the snake handlers have just as much sex as anyone else.
• like_that

  

  I am sure Darby brought down Ohio's ranking himself.
• Cat Food Flambe'

  

  gut;1140920 wrote:Hilarious how almost all of the top-10 are bible-belt states. .

  Notice how almost all of the New England states are at the very bottom of the list. Having lived up there for a couple of years, I can attest that the overall "hot chick" factor (or lack thereof) just might have something to do with it.
• hoops23

  

  like_that;1140944 wrote:I am sure Darby brought down Ohio's ranking himself.

  I'd rep you for this if I could.
• I Wear Pants

  Like anyone with a brain already knew, abstinence only education is absolutely ineffective. This just further shows it. Many of the states with higher rates have mandated that sex ed programs be stressed as the best method. It's stupidity on a level that is absurd.
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1141244 wrote:Like anyone with a brain already knew, abstinence only education is absolutely ineffective. This just further shows it. Many of the states with higher rates have mandated that sex ed programs be stressed as the best method. It's stupidity on a level that is absurd.

  I believe more recent studies show that abstinence-only education is doing well.
  
  Studies have also shown that youths are having less sex than before (or what was thought). So...maybe the abstinence-only sex education is working?
• isadore

  "example, take the states with the highest and lowest teen pregnancy rates. Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard. New Mexico, which has the second highest teen birth rate, does not require sex ed and has no requirements on what should be included when it is taught. New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception. "
  http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc
  Mississippi 55 per 1000 girls 15 to 19
  New Mexico 52.9 per 1000
  New Hampshire 15.7 per 1000
• ytownfootball

  

  How many teens per 1000 youths get pregnant has a hell of a lot more fricken variables than how a high school sex education class that none of them pay any attention to is taught...lol...idiots.
• OSH

  

  isadore;1141264 wrote:"example, take the states with the highest and lowest teen pregnancy rates. Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard. New Mexico, which has the second highest teen birth rate, does not require sex ed and has no requirements on what should be included when it is taught. New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception. "
  http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/?mobile=nc
  Mississippi 55 per 1000 girls 15 to 19
  New Mexico 52.9 per 1000
  New Hampshire 15.7 per 1000

  Here is a link. And the conclusion drawn from that study:
  

  Theory-based abstinence-only interventionsmay have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.

  
  
  That link is a study, on which, The Washington Post ran an article that said:
  

  Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

  
  
  Also:
  

  "This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex."

  
  
  And, furthermore, another CDC report.
  

  New data released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) this week confirms the majority of teens are not having sex — and making it appear the abstinence education message is working.

  
  
• isadore

  Try some other variables, 9 out of top ten states for knocked up teenagers were red states and 10 out of 10 of the lowest were blue states.
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/PurpleNation.PNG
  Or we could go on church attendance, 9 out ten of the states with the highest church attendance are in the top 17 (6 in the top ten) in pregnant teenagers. Only Utah at 5[SUP]th[/SUP] in attendance and 36[SUP]th[/SUP] in pregnancy, Mormons are not producing sluts. 7 of the lowest in pregnancy are at the bottom 11 in Church attendance
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/125999/mississippians-go-church-most-vermonters-least.aspx
  
• Sykotyk

  

  OSH;1141280 wrote:
  Only about a third of sixth- and seventh-graders who completed an abstinence-focused program started having sex within the next two years, researchers found. Nearly half of the students who attended other classes, including ones that combined information about abstinence and contraception, became sexually active.

  
  
  That's a little misleading. First, we're talking about 15-19 year olds. That study only indicates that they 'put off' having sex within two years. That still gives them 17, 18, and 19 to have sex and get pregnant. You know, when the sex drive is increasing at a much faster rate.
  
  Secondly, how OFTEN kids are having sex can only be determined one of two ways: Asking them (good luck getting 100% truth) and spying on them (good luck with the legalities). The CDC report here has no ability for a kid to deny it. Pregnant is pregnant. Even states that allow teens to get abortions without parental consent will still be counted. This is a 'truth-less' study. No moral, honor, or personal conduct required.
  
  Same issue with the 'promises'. Sure, they promise when they're 15 to wait until marriage. But when they're 17 and horny and don't know the first thing about preventing pregnancy or disease, you get pregnant teens. And besides, maybe they get lucky and don't get pregnant. Do you really think they're going to go wherever that 'promise' was made and recant it? Highly unlikely.
  
  Requiring sworn affidavits of conduct only produce liars, not virgins.
• OSH

  

  Sykotyk;1141369 wrote:That's a little misleading. First, we're talking about 15-19 year olds. That study only indicates that they 'put off' having sex within two years. That still gives them 17, 18, and 19 to have sex and get pregnant. You know, when the sex drive is increasing at a much faster rate.
  
  Secondly, how OFTEN kids are having sex can only be determined one of two ways: Asking them (good luck getting 100% truth) and spying on them (good luck with the legalities). The CDC report here has no ability for a kid to deny it. Pregnant is pregnant. Even states that allow teens to get abortions without parental consent will still be counted. This is a 'truth-less' study. No moral, honor, or personal conduct required.
  
  Same issue with the 'promises'. Sure, they promise when they're 15 to wait until marriage. But when they're 17 and horny and don't know the first thing about preventing pregnancy or disease, you get pregnant teens. And besides, maybe they get lucky and don't get pregnant. Do you really think they're going to go wherever that 'promise' was made and recant it? Highly unlikely.
  
  Requiring sworn affidavits of conduct only produce liars, not virgins.

  While I agree with all the above...the same can be said for any and all surveys/polls.
  
  There's really no way to "prove" any of it. So, if one may be misleading...then the other is as well.
• Little Danny

  

  gut;1140920 wrote:Hilarious how almost all of the top-10 are bible-belt states. Maybe the far right should get their own house in order before they start preaching to the masses. I wonder if that reflects an ignorance of birth control (due to religious views) or if it is more likely a result of less funding/access in rural areas with a greater focus on urban centers (which from an efficiency and ROI standpoint would make sense). Probably a combination of both, but clearly the snake handlers have just as much sex as anyone else.

  I would agree with the combination but you can't discount the social-economic factor as well. In states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia etc. more young women are just replaying a cycle of poverty that has existed in these places for over a hundred years. You see it in rural parts of Ohio as well. I bet if you looked into the background of these young girls you would find that most of their mothers were teens when they had their first child as well. It really boils down to ignorance and a belief that this is how their life is supposed to be.
  
  Compare that to a teen girl in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine etc. who is more likely to have parents who are educated and have the same expectation that their daughter be educated as well. Young girls in this surrounding have a more value of self and awareness they can achieve whatever path they wish.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Little Danny;1141385 wrote: Young girls in this surrounding have a more value of self and awareness they can achieve whatever path they wish.

  And make one hell of a sammich.
• gut

  Little Danny;1141385 wrote:I would agree with the combination but you can't discount the social-economic factor as well. In states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia etc. more young women are just replaying a cycle of poverty that has existed in these places for over a hundred years. You see it in rural parts of Ohio as well. I bet if you looked into the background of these young girls you would find that most of their mothers were teens when they had their first child as well. It really boils down to ignorance and a belief that this is how their life is supposed to be.
  
  Compare that to a teen girl in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine etc. who is more likely to have parents who are educated and have the same expectation that their daughter be educated as well. Young girls in this surrounding have a more value of self and awareness they can achieve whatever path they wish.

  Those are all good points. Apples-to-apples would control for socio-economic and education. In many respects, the proper comparable would be urban centers.
  
  And, in terms of effectiveness, you'd have to look at rates of decline. I also suspect that due to far less dense populations and a much wider geography that inner city programs aren't nearly as effective (if even pursued).