iheartjustinchambers

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies — more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. Some adults dismissed the statistic as a blip. Others blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers. But principal Joseph Sullivan knows at least part of the reason there's been such a spike in teen pregnancies in this Massachusetts fishing town. School officials started looking into the matter as early as October, after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, "some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," the principal says, shaking his head.

The question of what to do next has divided this fiercely Catholic enclave. Even with national data showing a 3% rise in teen pregnancies in 2006 — the first increase in 15 years — Gloucester isn't sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control. In any case, many residents worry that the problem goes much deeper. The past decade has been difficult for this mostly white, mostly blue-collar city (pop. 30,000). In Gloucester, perched on scenic Cape Ann, the economy has always depended on a strong fishing industry. But in recent years, such jobs have all but disappeared overseas, and with them much of the community's wherewithal. "Families are broken," says school superintendent Christopher Farmer. "Many of our young people are growing up directionless."

The girls who made the pregnancy pact — some of whom, according to Sullivan, reacted to the news that they were expecting with high fives and plans for baby showers — declined to be interviewed. So did their parents. But Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally," Ireland says. "I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m."

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester, where teen parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

But by May, after nurse practitioner Kim Daly had administered some 150 pregnancy tests at Gloucester High's student clinic, she and the clinic's medical director, Dr. Brian Orr, a local pediatrician, began to advocate prescribing contraceptives regardless of parental consent, a practice at about 15 public high schools in Massachusetts. Currently Gloucester teens must travel about 20 miles (30 km) to reach the nearest women's health clinic; younger girls have to get a ride or take the train and walk. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has met with hostility. Says Mayor Carolyn Kirk: "Dr. Orr and Ms. Daly have no right to decide this for our children." The pair resigned in protest on May 30.

Gloucester's elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But that won't do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. Says rising junior Kacia Lowe, who is a classmate of the pactmakers': "No one's offered them a better option." And better options may be a tall order in a city so uncertain of its future.

vc318

Oh, this is so sad. What does this say about what's not happening at home with these girls. They have no sense of self-worth at all. And what's the point of passing out contraceptives if we don't first teach our youth to love themselves and learn how to deal with peer pressure effectively. Those teens have a rough road ahead of them.

sunnykerr

Well, that's it. I have to stop watching CNN one of these days, because a lot of it is just not good for my psyche. They had this segment on about whether or not the movie Juno could be blamed for this...

Which, I mean, not to get all Canadian on everyone, but until there is some sort of real sex ed program for teenagers, I think a fictional account of a teenage pregnancy is the least of people's worries.

It doesn't even have to be in school, if that's too much to ask. Maybe the family doctor could be the one to have that talk. At this point, I'd even be alright with the family priest or rabbi or whatever.

Sex isn't for children. That much is clear. But it's also ever so obvious that some children are still going to have it. And if the parents can't have the wherewithal to understand that providing information on these matters, then something needs to be done elsewhere.

I understand the moral ethics related to children and sex. I do. We're only children for so long and the adults among us need to make sure that kids get to stay kids for as long as they can. But nothing takes a child out of childhood like becoming a parent way too young. So I don't see why we can't arm our children with theoretical information in the hopes that they are better prepared for the real situations.

pebbles826

I agree with you and, honestly, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention sexual education/"the talk" being given outside of the school or Planned Parenthood (which most people in my area won't even accept that there is such a place). That is a fantastic idea, especially if you just take your kid to the doctor and have them talk to them. Even if there isn't insurance in the family, there are free clinics. I don't understand why people can't take advantage of their resources.

vc318

In the end, no matter how much information is available out there or for even the classroom teachers to discuss sex ed., it has to start at home. If the kids feel their parents don't care to talk to them about sex then why should they care about knowing the consequences?

Uh Blah

Apparently the kids denied any sort of "pact" was ever made. The fact that they average 4 every year is sad in itself.

vc318

Well, then it's very convenient that they all got pregnant unless they were all drinking from the same water fountain.

sunnykerr

Oh, absolutely. It should, one hundred percent, start at home.

But it's clearly not happening. And since we know that there are actual human beings out there who think that to ear the facts of sex will automatically lead people to want to have it, then it's not very surprising. If you actually believe that telling your child about safe sex will make them want to have sex with the nearest available body... then I'm not suprised that people aren't informing their kids properly.

The only reason I mentioned doctors and priests and rabbis is that it's apparently too much to ask for school to teach proper sex ed. But, to me, it's a real-life health issue. So, if the parents won't do it, and if they won't let the schools do it... someone's gotta do it.

Seventeen girls is an exaggeration. No doubt about that. But this is hardly the first high school pregnancy. Kids don't know the facts about sex. And they need to. If for no other reason than to protect their right to remain a kid as long as they can.

vc318

Depending on the demographics of the school, most parents will refuse any teacher to have consent to educate their child about sexual intercourse. Most parents feel that such a sensitive topic should be handled by them. The problem is that they never do the talking. I can't count the number of times that I have to stop a student or talk to the class about appropriate touching amongst other classmates like a hug or handshake. Sometimes they go too far.

I know we can't stop our children from thinking about sex or wanting to have sex, but I think it's important that they understand that it's an act you commit if you're absolutely aware of the consequences, you know how to protect yourself, and mostly that they wish to do it because they want to and not because their other friends are doing it such as in this case with these girls. Reality is that professionals have to be careful about what they say to kids. Next thing you know, they're being sued because the parent found pregnancy brochures in their child's bookbag and rather than blaming themselves they'd rather accuse the professional for not telling them.

sunnykerr

I reread my post and realized how much I seemed to be placing the blame on schools and teachers. For the record, that was (and remains) the last thing I wanted to say.

The absence of any real sex ed classes in schools are, of course, at the behest of parents (or parental organizations) who don't think it should be taught in schools.

And I actually agree with that, inasmuch as I believe parents should educate their children on responsibility and sexual health. Since that's not happening, the natural place to receive that kind of education would be schools. But there, too, parents have a lot of influence on what can and cannot happen.

Hence my last resort suggestion that, perhaps, it could be part of the general health supervision of the child, and thus be discussed with the family doctor, or priest, or rabbi.

I am absolutely in favour of approaches that favour abstinence for children. To me, that seems only natural. However, it seems that programs that prone abstinence have been replaced by programs that mention nothing but abstinence and spread misinformation in lieu of real education. That, I feel, is a diservice to the youth.

Jen Jaree

I agree look at countries like The Netherlands they have an excellent sex-ed program and they have one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world. As for teenage sex I am neither for it or against it. The least we can do is educate them about it.

A lot of women not just teenagers but any age group that intentionally becomes pregnant think that having a baby will be easy and don't think of the responsibilities, same goes for unplanned pregnancies. It's way different than having a pet.

I personally think that birth control (beyond condoms) should be free if not really cheap but I know that's wishful thinking on my part.

I don't know which is stupider the pregnancy pact or the adults that want to ban sex-ed and birth control "cause it will make them have sex"

vc318

I still think most teens have sex because of peer pressure - whether it's to impress their friends or to show their boyfriend that they love him. With those sexual education classes, there needs to be more discussion about peer pressure and how to handle it and not just the biological and preventive discussion.

It's true. That's why parental consent is needed to even teach sex ed to these students. I think if you're honest with them and make them aware, then you know you've done your part.

sunnykerr

Agreed.

But for any of it to happen, the conversation needs to start. And, it may be ages since I was there, but it seems to me that there is no way in hell that the teenager is the one who is going to speak about it first. It needs to come from the adults, preferably the parents but, if not, the teacher or doctors.

Someone needs to let these kids know that not everyone is having sex at their age, that no one whose opinion is worth valuing will think less of them for waiting and that, should they choose to go down that road, there are things they should do to protect themselves and their ability to have a stable future.

vc318

^ Definitely, Sunny.

I found this interesting article:



Only 28 States Remain In Abstinence Program - Education News Story - WPLG Miami

Only 28 States Remain In Abstinence Program
Program Down 40 percent Over Last Two Years

POSTED: 6:10 pm EDT June 24, 2008
UPDATED: 7:48 pm EDT June 24, 2008
NEWSVINE: Only 28 States Remain In Abstinence Program

Skeptical states are shoving aside millions of federal dollars for abstinence education, walking away from the program the Bush administration touts for slowing teen sexual activity.

Barely half the states are still in, and two more say they are leaving.

Some $50 million has been budgeted for this year, and financially strapped states might be expected to want their share. But many have doubts that the program does much, if any good, and they're frustrated by chronic uncertainty that it will even be kept in existence. They also have to chip in state money in order to receive the federal grants.

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, made his decision to leave based on the congressionally mandated curriculum, which teaches "the social, psychological and health gains of abstaining from sexual activity." Instructors must teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.

"It was just too strict," said Emily Hajek, policy adviser to Culver. "We believe local providers have the knowledge to teach what's going to be best in those situations, what kind of information will help those young people be safe. You cannot be that prescriptive about how it has to be taught."

A federal tally shows that participation in the program is down 40 percent over two years, with 28 states still in. Arizona and Iowa have announced their intention to forgo their share of the federal grant at the start of the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

The program was created by Congress in 1996 as part of welfare reform.

Since 2002, lawmakers have approved 19 short-term extensions -- usually for three or six months at a time. But on three occasions, the program was extended for just a few days.

Whatever state officials think of the program's aims, that's not the kind of bureaucratic consistency they need to budget for employees and to put contracts out to bid.

"The funding stream became inconsistent. We didn't know from one quarter to the next whether we'd be getting the rest of the money," said Elke Shaw-Tulloch of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. "We got to the point where we didn't have any infrastructure to put the money to use. At the same time, there was mounting evidence the abstinence programs weren't proving to be effective."

Throw in a rising pregnancy rate among 15-19 year-olds in Idaho - 2,543 pregnancies in 2006 compared with 2,396 in 2004 - and state officials decided last summer it was time to get out.

Stanley Koutstaal, the federal official who oversees the abstinence-only program at the Administration for Children and Family Services, notes that more than half the states still choose to participate. "Obviously, many states still find it valuable and have adopted it as their approach to addressing the sexual activity of teens," he said.

He called for long-term reauthorization of the block grants so that states and their contractors can be more certain about the future and can plan accordingly.

Some states' officials do speak favorably of the program.

In Georgia, some 250,000 students have participated in abstinence education since 2000 through schools, church groups and nonprofit agencies.

Teachers in Georgia go beyond the abstinence message. They stress community service and doing better in school, said Jen Bennecke, executive director of the governor's office for children and families. Bennecke says the program has led to an almost a 50 percent drop in pregnancy rates for Georgia youth ages 15-17 since the mid-90s.

"We really see abstinence education as a clear, concise and positive message," Bennecke said. "We've presented it as a healthy lifestyle choice."

The abstinence-only grants have been controversial from the start.

Supporters say comprehensive sex education sends a mixed message and that abstinence is the only method that is 100 percent effective in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Critics say abstinence education simply doesn't stop teens from having sex, and those teens need more information about how to reduce pregnancy and disease.

In April 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., found that participants had just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants and had sex at the same median age as nonparticipants. The four programs had taught students about human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases, helped them improve their communication skills, manage peer pressure, set personal goals and build self-esteem.

For Colorado, the study results sealed the decision to get out of the program. Dr. Ned Calonge, the state's chief medical officer, said Mathematica's methods were the gold standard for scientific studies.

"To show no benefit compared to nothing. That was striking," Calonge said. "These are tax dollars that are going for no useful purpose, and it would not be responsible for us to take those dollars."

Under the program, states have to put up $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government. The program, referred to as Title V, is one of three abstinence education programs funded by the federal government. Of the $50 million budgeted for the program this year, about $21 million has been distributed.

Koutstaal said the study was instructive on how to improve the program, but it wasn't a signal to scrap it. The study, he noted, focused on middle school children and tracked behavior at the high school level.

"One thing we learned from it was that it may not be enough to do something in middle school and expect that you're going to continue to see positive outcomes in high school," Koutstaal said.

As a result, applicants seeking abstinence education funding through another government program, called Community Based Abstinence Education, are required to show how they will serve high school students and how they will help young people deal with peer pressure.

Longtime critics of abstinence-only education say the dwindling participation is a signal that Congress should abolish the program or change it.

"If Congress isn't getting that message, it's difficult to figure out what will convince them," said William Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

I bolded the part above because this really concerns me. Besides abstinence and masturbation, what other practices are 100 percent safe in preventing STD's and pregnancies? I disagree that these abstinence courses send the wrong messages to children because the truth is even with contraceptives, you're always taking a risk. I know this discussion probably should go onto another certain thread, but I just wanted to point out that I guess not enough states think that reaching out to our youth about sex has been much of a help. So, no sort of education is better? I don't understansd that.

sunnykerr

Aside masturbation and abstinence, as far as I know, there is absolutely zero form of "sex" (abstinence not being much in the way of sex) that is 100% safe.

I think where these classes may be sending the wrong message is discussed in another part of that article. The part that says that, "Instructors must teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects."

It also might be that abstinence education, because it doesn't provide sexual health information and thus leaves teenagers uneducated in the realities of sex, indirectly sends the wrong message. You know, inasmuch as there are kids who believe that you can't get pregnant the first time, or that you can't get pregnant if you do it under water, or if the girl is on top, or through "dry humping." Also, inasmuch as some kids don't believe that oral sex counts as sex.

Not talking about it is, in itself, a form of misinformation. Because it leaves the kdis to suss these things out for themselves.

From what I gather, and I may be totally wrong here, it's not a choice between abstinence-only programs and no programs at all. It's between receiving federal funding but having to stick to abstinence-only programs AND refusing the funding and teaching your own curriculum. As approved by the school board and PTAs, of course.