I found this graph over at the Abstinence Clearinghouse Blog.  Graph numbers provided by the Centers for Disease control and Government Accounting Office.  Graph created from those numbers by Dr. William A Duncan.  Click on the graph to view a larger one.

Keith Deltano the author of the blog post wrote the type of questions that I think this graph just begs for.

1.  The above graph shows the teen pregnancy rate from 1940 through to 2007.  When does the steepest increase of teen pregnancy occur and how does that increase relate to Title X  (contraception/safe sex) funding levels?

2.  Do you think the level of funding that abstinence education received from 1980 until the early 90s was significant enough to have an impact?

3.  Is it safe to say that contraception programs were the dominate approach during the 70s, 80s?

4.  What occured to teen pregnancy rates during the 70s and 80s?

5.  When do teen pregnancy rates start to decline?

6.  When does the steepest decline of teen pregnancy occur and how does that decline relate to the Title V and CBAE (abstinence)  funding levels?

7.  During what time period is contraception funding the ONLY federally funded program on the graph and what happens to teen pregnancy rates during this time?

Hmmmm…. so abstinence doesn’t work proponents of comprehensive sex ed say?  This seems to disprove that.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing!
  1. Well, I'll have to disagree – you see a spike in the teen birth rate when contraceptive sex-ed was pushed in the 80s, and see a decline with the promotion of abstinence-only sex ed.

    That's what the stats/graph shows anyway.

  2. Who knows??? Sounds like he thinks as long as it's fertilized, destruction is out of the question…………but I'm not sure he MEANT to say that.

  3. Better question, what the heck is an unfertilized embryo?

    An embryo is a stage after zygote; zygote is what a lot of folks are calling a “fertilized egg.” (totally incorrect, but it gets the idea across, I guess)

    The only way I can figure that something would be an “unfertilized embryo” would be in the case of cloning– where the cell is implanted to the egg and grows to embryo level.

    That idea is…well, total sci-fi dystopia type fodder, really. Calls to mind the various stories of folks who seem totally normal but have a tattoo or something that shows they're clones, and thus “not a person”.

  4. this was talked about on Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's facebook profile

    your post reminded me of this issue

    the direct graph does certainly showcase a graph correlation between abstinence and teen pregnancy. I question however other mitigating factors like level of media infiltration and other economic factors such as (believe it or not) inflation that caused society ills in the middle to late 20th century.

    one thing is clear is that abstinence works. what is doesn't clarify is if condoms don't provide a safety net for those that fail.

    teaching abstinence is fine. it isn't a matter of 'only'. the left has co-opted the language. Abstinence works. this doesn't mean you can't talk about condoms.

    nothing related to sex should be discussed in public anyway. not a law… just saying it doesn't do any good to broadcast publicly in school about any of these issues. whatever your opinions are… it must be done one on one. sex education is wrong. sex counseling is right.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Personhood Bill Filed in the Iowa House

State Representative Tom Shaw (R-Laurens) filed a personhood bill, House File 138, which would make the abortion of preborn babies murder in Iowa.

Dangers of Rudeness

We had a situation arise working today at Sam’s Club that got…

A Tribute to My Parent’s and Grand Parent’s Generation

You’re just not that young….anymore   Your strong legs once propelled you…

Who doesn’t need Zombie Yard Sculptures?

Dave Barry’s 2008 gift guide for the perfect gifts that you can…