TEEN PREGNANCY & PREVENTION Essay

Additional research has explored the effects of abstinence based programs on actual behavior outcomes. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) compared the effects of abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, operationalizing effectiveness in terms of initiation of sexual activity and teen pregnancy rates. They found that teenagers who received comprehensive sex education rather than abstinence-only or no education were significantly less likely to report a teenage pregnancy. In addition, their conclusions mirrored Sather and Kelly (2002), finding that abstinence-based programs did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in sexual activity. Kohler, Manhart, and Lafferty (2008) actually concluded that comprehensive sex education was more likely than abstinence based to reduce the percentage engaging in sexual activity. Overall, the researchers showed that comprehensive sex education, including but not limited to contraception, did not increase the prevalence of sexual activity in teenagers or the risk of teen pregnancy, while also showing the that abstinence only education produced a higher likelihood of pregnancy.

Multiple factors influence the rate of teen pregnancy. Some of the most important factors influencing pregnancy rates are socioeconomic status, education, and family income. With low socioeconomic status and income, parents may not always be present in their children’s lives in order to educate them on sex. School districts, then, take on the responsibility to educate teenagers on sexual intercourse and safe practices, but some fail. Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. provided statistics showing that while many schools push abstinence-only programs, they show little to no positive impact on preventing teen pregnancies (Stanger-Hall, K. F., & Hall, D. W. (n.d.)). While abstinence may work for some, it is not realistic to believe that all teens will abide by it. Teens need a comprehensive sexual education with emphasis on safe sex practices, which is where Be Safe, Not Sorry comes into play. The comprehensive program will cover all

Studies have also shown that abstinence-focused programs have failed to reduce STI rates. The American Sexual Health Association states, “More than half of all people will have an STD/STI at some point in their lifetime,” (“Statistics”). Comprehensive sex education would teach teenagers how to improve their sexual health, prevent unwanted pregnancies, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Providing students with this information does not encourage them to participate in sexual activity sooner. Several findings show that, “[Comprehensive sex education] effectively promotes abstinence and may delay sexual debut, reduce sexual frequency, reduce the number of sexual partners, reduce STI risk, and increase the likelihood of consistent contraceptive use,” (Jeffries 173). Comprehensive sex education will be beneficial to students by teaching them how to have sexual intercourse safely, if they choose to not remain abstinent.

Abstinence teaching only is not effective when trying to prevent STIs in teenagers. According to "Life123" (2012), ”While abstinence-only education programs have the support of many major national religious groups, a comprehensive sex education program in schools has the backing of a wide range of educational and medical organizations. Most proponents of comprehensive sex education argue that teens should be encouraged to abstain, but should also get information about contraceptives, sexually transmitted diseases, and how to prevent HIV” (Family).

Proponents for abstinence-only education believe that the abstinence-only message has contributed to the decline of adolescent sexual activity as well as negative related outcomes. In the 1990s there was a decrease in adolescent pregnancy, birth and abortion rates. These proponents attribute these declining statistics to the abstinence-only message and claim that the declines cannot be accredited to increased

Clemmitt (2010) states that currently the most effective approach to prevent teenage pregnancy is evidence-based sex education programs. The primary debate about the best method of preventing teenage pregnancy is between abstinence-only courses and comprehensive sex education. The author says that after operating comprehensive sex education, the Obama approach, many communities and county areas have drastically reduced the rate of teenage pregnancy. Studies and statistics suggested that abstinence-only courses have not contributed to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. The author points out that the abstinence-only courses also include sexually transmitted diseases classes and discussions of unhealthy relationship and making decisions, and abstinence

Does “abstinence-only” programs mean abstinence-only lives for teenagers receiving this type of sexual education? There are those who fully support abstinence-only sex education while others deny its ability and believe it only under educates teenagers. From the latter, the author claims that abstinence only programs are not effective. He presents evidence to suggest this is valid, including that high school students need medically accurate information on how to decrease their risk of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy because they are sexually active. Though the underlying issue has merit and the argument is sound and is valid because of logical

The classes proved information about contraceptives, STDs and HIV prevention. It also is age appropriate and scientifically explained. Collins says it well that “by denying teens the full range of information regarding human sexuality, abstinence-only education fails to provide young people with the information they need to protect their health and well being.” Students when asked survey by the Kasier Family Foundation said that they knew more and felt better prepared to handle different situations. Abstinence only education just chooses to avoid it and does not take into account students who decide a different path. Abstinence only education supports say that by teaching the “abstinence-plus” education that they are sending mixed messages towards students. Current advocates for comprehensive education cite that “providing teens with contraceptive information does not encourage early sexual activity.” The Surgeon General David Satcher had said that based off of the information he had derived from both approaches “evidence gives strong support to the conclusion that providing information about contraception does not increase adolescent sexual activity….[it only] increased condom and contraceptive uses among adolescents who were sexually active.” (Collins 9)Most evaluations of many different types of

Advocates of the second program argued that the abstinences program do not provide protection against teenage pregnancy (Solomon-Fears). In 2015 According to the CDC, “we can prevent pregnancies by promoting teen friendly interventions aimed at both increasing the number of teens who abstain from or delay sexual activity, and increasing the number of sexually active teens who consistently and correctly use effective contraceptives methods” (Solomon-Fears, 2015). The message of abstinence is important, but the effectiveness of simply telling teenagers this or even expounding on this message, is questionable. In 2010, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated “we need to use the best science of what works to address it,” in reference to teenage pregnancy the useful ness of education over abstinence only. Teaching them about contraceptives, and giving tem understandable information they can use, seems to have better results in reducing pregnancy. Teenagers are more likely to choose a program that does not come across as all rules, like an abstinence only

A censored sexual education does not discuss contraceptives, safe sex practices, nor does it promote abstinence. In fact, abstinence-only education, defined as encouraging teenagers to not engage in sexual intercourse or sexual acts whatsoever, is found in roughly 34% of public schools ("Abstinence Only Vs. Sex Ed. - Effectiveness & Statistics"). Theoretically, abstinence-only is ideal and it truly is the only 100% effective way to prevent STD’s or unplanned pregnancies, though is not practical for modern society. Sexual education was originally omitted from the classroom and left for parents or religious groups to discuss and teach. Abstinence-only sexual education became mainstream in schools as a fear reaction from the teen pregnancy epidemic in the 1970’s and 1980’s (Greslé-Favier, 414). This sexual education style was implemented with good intentions to protect the youth from diseases that had not yet been studied enough such as AIDS, HIV, and Gonorrhea as well as preventing pregnancies that correlated with high teenage dropout rates

It has been almost thirty three years since the first federal funding was put to use in “. . . sex education programs that promote abstinence-only-until-marriage to the exclusion of all other approaches . . .” according to the article “Sex education” (2010) published by “Opposing Viewpoints in Context;” a website that specializes in covering social issues. Since then a muddy controversy has arisen over whether that is the best approach. On one hand is the traditional approach of abstinence (not having sex before marriage), and on the other is the idea that what is being done is not enough, and that there needs to be a more comprehensive approach. This entails not only warning against sex, but also teaching teens about how to have

We all want to see pregnancy and sexual transmitted disease (STD) rates among adolescent become nonexistent. But each year twelve million unfortunate adolescent contract in STD and more than one million teenage girls become pregnant (IDPH). Therefore, the government pushes abstinence-only programs on adolescent in hopes that this would be the solution to this difficult problem. Unfortunately, these programs do very little to stop the increasing rates, but now have only pushed teens to continue in their sexual behaviors, along with denying them the tools to properly protect themselves. Even though research has disproven that abstinence-only programs work, comprehensive programs are still not being used in school. This is because there is an

Programs that encourage abstinence have become a vital part of school systems in the US. These programs are usually referred to as abstinence-only or value-based programs while other programs are called as safer-sex, comprehensive, secular or abstinence-plus programs which on the contrary promote the usage of effective contraception. Although abstinence-only and safer-sex programs disagree with one another, their core values and stand on the aims of sex education is to help teens develop problem-solving skills and the skill of good decision-making. They believe that adolescents will be better prepared to “act responsibly in the heat of the moment” (Silva). Most programs that have been currently implemented in the US have seen a delay in the initiation of sex among teens which proves to be a positive and desirable outcome (Silva).

Research-based evaluation of comprehensive programs show that they are just as effective (if not more so) than abstinence-only programs at reducing the age at which sexual activity first occurs, reducing the frequency of sexual activity and number of sexual partners, as well as increasing the use of condoms and contraceptives among adolescents (Advocates for Youth). Researchers at the National Survey of Family Growth found that students who received comprehensive sexuality education were 50 percent less likely to become pregnant than those who received abstinence-only education. Additionally, these studies showed that those who received abstinence-only education were not any more or less likely to abstain from sex until marriage than other students; in at least 13 states, abstinence-only programs were proven to have shown no changes in sexual behavior over time. In addition, public polls routinely report that over 80 percent of Americans citizens would vote in favor of offering comprehensive sex education in high schools, middle schools, and junior high schools; in one such poll, 70 percent of participants opposed abstinence-only programs receiving government funding and 85 percent believed adolescents should learn about birth control and other forms of contraceptives and pregnancy prevention in school (Advocates

"Teen pregnancy in the United States: In 2015, a total of 229,715 babies were born to women aged 15-19 years old, for a birth rate of 22.3 per 1,000 women in this age group. This is another record for U.S. teens and a drop of 8% from 2014. Although reasons for the declines are not totally clear, evidence suggests these declines are due to more teens abstaining from sexual activity, and more teens who are sexually active using birth control than in previous years. Still, the U.S. teen pregnancy rate is substantially higher than in other western industrialized nations, and racial/ethnic and geographic disparities in teen birth rates persist (cdc.gov)." As teenagers (in the United States), we are peer pressured or tempted to try new things. Some teens tend to try out drugs, and alcohol. However, some are having unprotected sex in which, is leads to having babies. This is called, teenage pregnancy. This has caused the United States to create records based off of the statistics and facts given from, researchers across the United States. In order to help prevent teenage pregnancy in the United States, teenagers must understand why, having a baby now isn’t such a smart move on their part.