My understanding is that the info was released because left-wing blogs were spreading rumors that Sarah Palin was not the mother of her youngest child.
That study appears to say that abstinence is no better but no worse. If liberals are annoyed at Palin because of her abstinence stand it appears to be misplaced.
If all publicity is good publicity McCain has pulled a coup because Probama people can’t stop talking about Palin.
True, although this was done in response to rumors that Bristol is actually Trig Palin’s mother. Which would have stirred much the same discussion that we’re now having.
This bears repeating, because it’s absolutely true. The pregnancy would be a story regardless, but it takes on more significance because, two months before she maybe gets elected Vice President, people are trying to figure out who Sarah Palin is. They’re starting to see her resume and how the Republicans are presenting her, but that’s not necessarily going to be the same as the public’s impression.
This is not impossible. I had mono two years ago and my girlfriend never got it. And one of my coworkers somehow did, which was awkward, although there’s no way to know for sure if she got it from me.
Oh- and yes, I have not seen anybody in the press attacking Bristol Palin. Covering an issue is not the same as attacking its subject. So far, any criticism of either Palin is being met with charges of “the media is being unfair and trying to destroy us/them.” The GOP seemed to loathe this tactic when Hillary Clinton did it, so we’ll see if anybody else thinks their response is sincere.
The study is saying the rate of teenage sexual activity among students who were enrolled in abstinence only programs are no better or worse than students who received no education regarding intercourse at all. It wasn’t tested against students who received decent sex education, because that isn’t allowed in schools. I don’t think it’s misplaced annoyance to say that this isn’t working and maybe we should try something else.
I’m going to have to ask for a cite for that one. Especially since I have cites that directly contradict it.
Cite?
The difference in rates of sexual acivity is immaterial. Nothing reduces that. That’s the point. What matters is what makes a difference in the rates of teenage pregnancy. That’s where Abstinence Only is an abject failure.
It’s right there in the article.
“The report, which was commissioned by Congress, followed 2,057 U.S. teenagers in late elementary and middle school who participated in four abstinence programs, as well as students in the same grades who did not participate in such programs.”
It wasn’t tested against students who received detailed sex education. The students they were compared against were in no programs whatsoever.
Or are you disputing the idea that decent sex education isn’t taught in public schools? In which case, I guess I’d have to ask what constitutes decent in your opinion, and point out that that’s a subjective measurement. As a parent, my idea of “decent sex ed” may be different from yours. It’s certainly different from the PTA and women’s league.
Don’t bother asking for a cite because this claim is false.
Abstinence education could not have been measured against sex education because the experiement was carried out in a variety of school districts. The existing education programs varied enormously from place to place:
Using the native school district’s existing program would have been an invalid control group. All of the Title V abstinence programs were delivered identically to each of the school districts in the experiment.
And so are most sex-ed programs of all sorts. See my post #21.
Sooo… after talking seriously we’ve decided that there’s no basis to the claim that those eeeeeevil liberals are picking on Bristol, then?
My cite beats your cite.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html
To get back on topic-When are the Republicans going to leave poor Bristol alone? Nobody is buying the excuse that the info had to be revealed because lefty blogs were going to release to info. If such blogs existed, they would have been exposed by now. I find it despicable that her own mother and certain Republicans at the convention would use her to divert attention from her own scandals, and this shotgun wedding they are arranging is in poor taste, imho. I hope that the right-wingers will do the right thing and drop it, but in these times of “The ends justify the means”, it’s probably a futile hope.
I love this. They showed that Bristol was not Trig’s mother by showing she was pregnant with another baby. Brilliant. Not that they could have hid that belly for the next four months.
I think that most people, left or right, would agree that sex education is best done in the home, and is only necessary in schools because parents don’t do a good job of it. So, forget about abstinence education in the schools and focus on abstinence education in the home.
I think it pretty likely that Sarah never gave Bristol the go ahead to mess around. But I think she also thought that providing birth control would give the go-ahead. That’s the objection to sex education, right - teaching about contraception is supposed to give permission to have sex? But oddly enough kids do it anyway, and we see the result.
We put our daughters on birth control before it was necessary. Neither of them got pregnant, and they youngest is a lot older than Bristol.
Palin’s approach to this was just like Rummy’s approach to Iraq or Brownie in New Orleans. Assume that everything will be fine, and have no contingency plan. We don’t four more years of that kind of shit.
You think there wouldn’t be a firestorm if Chelsea had gotten knocked up? Notice that no one is discussing her other kids - they didn’t get pregnant.
Looks like Hillary is a better sex ed teacher than Sarah. I’m not surprised.
If the media are being assholes - not clear - they’re just following the lead of the right wing media from 8 years ago.
Maeglin’s cite beats your cite. 
How would you expect Palin to discuss it? Certain elements were making a big deal about Palin supposedly being a liar. (How many threads were started on the SDMB alone?) Since it would eventually become obvious that Bristol is pregnant it made sense to divulge it. Let me ask you this: if left-wing blogs hadn’t made a big deal about the maternity of Trig do you think it would be public knowledge right now that Bristol is pregnant? Probably not (and then the haters would likely have screamed that the Palin family was “hiding” the pregnancy.)
I know a ton of families that taught abstinence and their daughters didn’t get pregnant. One instance of pregnancy does not support a conclusion one way or another.
The left-wing pundits aren’t bashing Bristol but they sure are using her situation to full advantage.
To what advantage. ? Nothing there ,her daughter got preggers.
Well, for one Bristol’s pregnancy obviously shows that abstinence is a complete failure and therefore Sarah is a fool. Two, her pregnancy shows that Sarah wasn’t a good mom. Three, Sarah is using the pregnancy by “releasing” the info in some nefarious plot to garner votes, or sympathy, or something. She’s a Republican so there must be something behind it.
Have I missed any other ways pundits are trying to attack Palin through her daughter?
Does Bristol’s pregnancy show how effectively abstinence-only programs work? Does it say anything laudatory about Sarah Palin’s own efforts in teching her daughter how not to get pregnant while in high school? Does it speak to Palin’s qualities as a mom in general? Did the way this sensitive issue was broached in public suggest anything skillful in Palin’s (or McCain’s) abiity to prevent a story from going out of control?
Well, it shows that teaching abstinence doesn’t cause abstinence. A pack of condoms would have prevented this whole Jerry Springer spectacle.