Posted at http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2007/12/hillary_clinton.php#comments

Much like Al Gore's claim that he invented the internet, Hillary is taking credit for the reduction in teen pregnancy rates between 1995 and 2005.

"To address this important issue, my husband issued a call to action in 1995 to America's parents and leaders to join together to cut America's teen pregnancy rate by one-third over a decade. In order to help achieve this ambitious goal, I helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, and we successfully achieved a one-third reduction by 2005"

Never mind that during this period, abstinence among teens was on the rise and state restrictions on abortions were given new strength by the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision. For example, a study by professor Michael New of the University of Alabama found that pro-life legislation, and not the influence of Bill or Hillary Clinton, resulted in significant reductions on the abortion rate among minors.

And never mind that the partial birth abortion ban, which Hillary opposed and voted against, may have significantly changed public perception on abortion and its acceptability.

Yes, folks, Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that increased abstinence and pro-life legislation did not have an impact on teen pregnancy and abortion rates. And of course, she blames the recent rise in teen birth rates on the Bush administration:

"But the report released today indicates that under President Bush's leadership, we may be falling off track"

So let's get this straight - Hillary caused teen pregnancy rates to drop by 1/3 over the span of a decade, George Bush is responsible for the recent rise in teen birth rates, Bill Clinton did not have sex with “that woman”, and Al Gore invented the internet. Given these facts, how could anybody doubt that putting Hillary in the Oval office will once and for all end teen pregnancy?

Shortly after the publication of Douglas Kirby's Emerging Answers 2007, a study which found that abstinence programs were not effective, and after Virginia Governor Tim Kaine rejected federal funding for abstinence until marriage programs, a new study to be published in 2008 shows that a Virginia based program has been effective in delaying sexual activity.

Of course, you know which study made the headlines...

Interestingly enough, Dr. Stan Weed, the author of this new study, is on the Effective Programs And Research Task Force, which reviewed Emerging Answers in early 2007.

Being on this task force should give Dr. Weed an equal standing and equal credibility in the media. After all, if he wasn't a credible researcher, he wouldn't be on the task force along with Dr. John Santelli, who is the Department Chair of the Population and Family Health department at Columbia University, would he?

When Douglas Kirby or Dr. John Santelli publish studies supporting comprehensive sexuality education programs, headlines across the nation echo, and quite often misrepresent, the conclusions of their work.

For example, the Associated Press' recent headline describing Emerging Answers reads "Report: Abstinence not curbing teen sex" - yet this headline is misleading.

This AP headline, as well as others, has caused me to suspect that reporters don't actually read the studies, and if they did, they don't actually understand the issue well enough. Consider that in Emerging Answers, Kirby acknowledges that abstinence increased from 1995 to 2005. (Page 28, paragraph 3) Had the reporter read this paragraph, they wouldn't have been able to honestly pen such a misleading headline.

Interestingly enough, I wasn't able to find an AP story about Dr. Weed's study. And this isn't the first time the media has ignored studies supporting abstinence until marriage programs.

It seems that a double standard exists - if a study supports contraception and comprehensive sexuality education, it is considered newsworthy, but if a study supports abstinence, it is not.

Dr. Weed's study will be published in the Jan/Feb issue of American Journal of Health Behavior. You can read more about it here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88807.php

In closing, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine rejected Title V funding since he wanted to fund programs that are evidence based. Now that there is evidence that Virginia's program is effective, Gov. Kaine should accept the funding.

PS:

What can be done to about the media blackout of studies supporting abstinence program? Well, here are some ideas..

1. Bring these studies to the attention of reporters who you have spoken with in the past
2. Announce this study on your blog or website in a prominent location
3. Email news about the study to your mailing list
4. Send out press releases discussing the study
5. Email news about Dr. Weed's study to your friends.

Recently while traveling on a bus to Coney Island with my son, I overheard a conversation between two men regarding abortion. One of the men was talking about how his girlfriend was pregnant and that he didn't want the baby, didn't want the woman, didn't want the responsibility and was pushing for an abortion. The gist of his conversation was that all he wanted was "relations" and not a "relationship" from this woman.

He explained that his girlfriend wanted to get pregnant, and she saw to it that it happened (I won't go into details as to how how), so he felt trapped. Though he blamed her, he's just as much to blame - she didn't get pregnant by herself.

Now this baby, created for the purpose of testing a relationship, was now destined for a hellish death. While most pregnancies that end in abortion are unplanned, some, like this one, are. This man can't force this mother to have an abortion, but she did agree to abort and had scheduled an appointment.

Essentially, this woman saw some benefits to being pregnant, and when these benefits didn't materialize, she turned to abortion. (For more information on this subject, see "Contraceptive Risk taking and Abortion: Results and Implications of a San Francisco Bay Area Study" by Kristin Lurker.)

My son in tow, I approached the man and spoke with him for a few minutes regarding his situation, and then exited the bus at our stop. I'm not sure what the final outcome was, but hopefully he took our conversation to heart and allowed his child to live despite the circumstances.

Later that day I heard a song which summed up the attitudes of many men towards sex. The line that stood out was "But they just want relations, they don't want relationships." Unfortunately for this woman, and this unborn child, this is all the man wanted. And if she and the unborn child suffer the tragedy of abortion, this man will simply move on, leaving her scarred, hurt, used, and abandoned.

Here is the music video for the song, and below are the lyrics.



S.E.X. - Lyfe Jennings
(Man)
Hey yo you,
You see most cats would take advantage of you right now
But I ain't gon do that, you heard
Imma give you the game, right
Imma give it to you because
I dont want somebody to give my little girl the game
So she could find her s.e.x.

(Man)
Life's a trip
Heard you just turn 17 and finally got some hips
Hustlers on the block go crazy when you lick your lips
But they just want relations, they don't want relationships
(Welcome to the real world)
It ain't the same
Fellas old enough to be your daddy know your name
Everybody's talkin bout how much that girl dun changed
Cant quite put your finger on it but you feel it's strange
Like's it's fire in your vains

(Chorus)
Girl it's just your s.e.x.
Momma's secret
And daddy gon go crazy when he finds out that his baby's found her
S.e.x., take a deep breath
And think before you let it go

(Man)
The block is packed
Baby got an attitude and proud to holla back
Momma's giving advice but she ain't tryna hear that
Not because its wrong, just her delivery is wack
(Shay, get your butt in this house, if I see you with another boy, I swear..)
Life is rough
You say that your not ready for sex but you're in love
He says if you really loved him, you would give it up
Momma says that's just a line guys use to get your stuff
Which one will you trust?

(Chorus)
Girl it's just your s.e.x.
Momma's secret
And daddy gon go crazy when he finds out that his baby's found her
S.e.x., take a deep breath
And think before you let it go

(Woman)
Hey yo Lyfe,
She might take it better coming from a woman (get 'em girl)
See, he'll tell you all kind of things to get in your pants, yeah
Baby, it's a fact that once it's gone, you'll never get it back (never get it back)
Hold on to your innocence
Use your common sense (your worth waiting for)
Be strong
Honey, don't give in, blessings come with patience
Till we meet again, i'm praying for you

(Chorus)
Girl it's just your s.e.x.
Momma's secret
And daddy gon go crazy when he finds out that his baby's found her
S.e.x., take a deep breath
And think before you let it go

In an opinion piece published today on the Huffington Post, author Christina Page asserts that it is the “Pro-choice” movement which “takes responsibility for finding effective solutions” to the problems of unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Ms. Page claims that it’s an unacknowledged fact that “pro-choice policies that result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion” and that the “pro-choice movement is the only side working on prevention of unintended pregnancy.”

I’m not sure what planet she lives on, but it doesn’t sound like this one. “Pro-choice” policies have not resulted in dramatic declines in abortion – either Ms. Page hasn’t done her homework, or she is ignoring decades worth of data.

The impact of “pro-choice” policies can bee seen by examining historical data. The data reflects the influence of “pro-choice” policies and court cases which resulted in the liberalization of contraception and abortion laws:

During the 1970s, the percentage of women aged 15-19 who ever engaged in premarital sex rose from 30.4% in 1971 to 43.4% in 1976, and rose again to 49.8% in 1979. Not only did the number of those who had sex before marriage increase, but the pregnancy rates of both married and unmarried women in this age group increased as well: 95.1 in 1972, 101.1 in 1976, and 109.4 in 1979. [2] Abortion also increased - for this same group, the abortion rate rose from 19.1 in 1972 to 34.3 in 1976, and rose again to 42.4 in 1979. [3] Despite increasing access to more effective methods of contraception, the abortion rate for this group continued to climb, peaking at 43.5 in 1988.

In light of the data which shows increases instead of decreases, her argument that “pro-choice” policies “result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion” is simply not credible.

If it wasn’t pro-choice policies which led to dramatic declines in abortion, than what did?

Contrary to her accusations that “Study after study suggests the right to life approach is actually the root of the problem: leading to more abortions and later ones too,” pro-life efforts have lead to measurable reductions in abortions.

In “Analyzing the effect of state legislation on the incidence of abortion among minors”, Professor Michael New of the University of Alabama demonstrates that the declines in abortion are the results of pro-life efforts: Parental involvement laws, Medicaid funding restrictions, and informed consent laws – efforts that that the “pro-choice” movement has repeatedly fought against tooth and nail.

Furthermore, the increase in delay of first sex among younger teens helped to lower abortion rates as well, and when combined with abortion and Medicaid restrictions, it’s clear that “pro-choice” policies and efforts do not deserve the credit Ms. Page attributes to them. It’s also clear that a “pro-choice” presidential candidate will seek to eliminate these restrictions and policies which have led to measurable reductions.

Ms. Page may wish that these pro-life efforts and the decline in abortion were coincidental, or that President Clinton is somehow responsible for the declines, but this simply isn’t the case. To credit contraception or the pro-choice movement with these declines is political spin at its best.

Not only does Ms. Page claim that “pro-choice” movement is responsible for the declines; she actually claims that it is the only side working on the prevention of untended pregnancy – a claim which is blatantly false.

The pro-life movement works to prevent unintended pregnancies by promoting the only foolproof way of preventing them - sexual abstinence. Abstinence, unlike contraception, does not have a failure rate. In fact, abstinence never fails – people do. Ceasing to abstain from sex is abandonment of, and not failure of, abstinence.

Ms. Page tries to make a case that abstinence programs are associated with higher rates of HIV/AIDS, STDs, and teen births, yet these problems are not associated with abstinence. Rather, they are associated with a lack of abstinence from all sexual activity. The problems she blames on abstinence are fruits of “pro-choice” philosophy, policy, and lifestyle.

Finally, Ms. Page points out that some young women may indeed wait a few months or weeks until to obtain an abortion without parental consent, but if she and the pro-choice movement were really concerned about late term abortion, they would be pushing for bans alongside the pro-life movement instead of opposing them.

In closing, it’s true, as she claims, that the electorate has been bamboozled and is hungry for truth – but what she doesn’t acknowledge is that it’s the pro-choice movement that has been doing the bamboozling all along with half truths and myths. The electorate is indeed hungry for the truth, and as it comes to light, they move further and further away from the “pro-choice” camp.

Endnotes

[1] Hofferth, S., Kahn, J., & Baldwin, W. (1987). Premarital sexual activity among U.S. teenage women over the past three decades, Family Planning Perspectives, p. 46, 19, 46-53.
[2] Guttmacher Institute, (2006). U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity , Table 2.1 Rates of birth, abortion and pregnancy and numbers of births, abortions, miscarriages, pregnancies and population all among women aged 15–19, by year, 1972–2003, Page 5, Retrieved November 19, 2006 from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf (pdf required).
[3] Ibid.