Cristina Responds/Cristina Page

Come on Jennifer, I know you have a dream. I’m not asking whether you think contraception is likely to get banned. What I wanna know is, really, do you want it to be? Forget pragmatism—what does the Chief Visionary want?

I wish it weren’t so, Jennifer, but I regret to inform you that you are wrong about the abortion rates under Bush. The dramatic decline we witnessed during Clinton years, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which both sides of the abortion conflict refer to as the experts on this issue, appears to be slowing under Bush. Also off base is your bet that Clinton-era declines in abortion could be attributed to policies like parental consent requirements and “virginity pledge” programs. The New York Times just conducted a study of states that have implemented parental consent restrictions and found that they had scant impact on the abortion rate. (This makes sense, after all, most parents don’t want to compel their daughters to be teenage mothers.) These restrictions do achieve other results however—increases in later term abortions. (Mississippi experienced a 19% increase in second trimester abortion, Minnesota had an 18% increase and Missouri had a 27% increase among teens after they implemented parental consent laws). So, congratulations.

To credit “virginity pledge” programs with having any impact on the abortion rate is hilarious. Who knew you were so funny! First, a (peer-reviewed and published) study by researchers at Columbia and Yale found that kids in “virginity pledge” programs have the same rate of STDs as kids who are not in the “virginity pledge” programs. The only difference is, “virginity pledgers” are more likely to have risky sex, less likely to use condoms, and less likely to get treated for the STDS they have. Male “virginity pledgers” are four times more likely to have anal sex than teenage males that don't pledge. Both male and female virginity pledgers are six times more likely to have oral sex than non-pledgers. “Virginity pledgers” are not only having sex: they’re having porn star sex. The notable difference is that porn stars are more likely to use condoms. (If you hope to use the Heritage Foundation’s unpublished, non peer-reviewed, unscientific defense claiming that “virginity pledgers” are less likely to have STDS than kids not in these programs as a rebuttal, don’t. The Heritage Foundation "study" was based on anecdotal accounts in which “virginity pledgers” were asked if they had an STD. The Columbia/Yale study relied on actual medical results of STDs tests conducted on kids in each group.)

We know what works to delay sexual initiation and prevent STDs and teen pregnancy. At least we did know until pro-life groups pressured the CDC to remove information from their website on what the agency's experts deemed “Programs that Work.” (These were programs that were scientifically proven effective in reducing risky sexual behaviors that contribute to HIV, other STDs and unintended pregnancy). The reason pro-lifers wanted information on proven effective programs censored is because they were all comprehensive sex ed programs—not one was abstinence-only. (Even though mountains of evidence show abstinence-only programs don’t work, promoting them does pay—one in four federal abstinence-only dollars goes to pro-life groups.) What is known to be effective are comprehensive sex ed programs that include and emphasize abstinence.

I agree with you, there are considerable benefits when teens delay sexual activity. On this point we are united. But let’s look to the places that enjoy the outcomes both you and I claim to seek and compare them to the places that are rife with the problems we both hope to solve.

Sweden discontinued abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the Seventies and replaced them with comprehensive sex ed courses--this triggered a 70% decline in teen pregnancy rates over the next thirty years. Today, Sweden teens have the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the world. Swedish teens receive comprehensive sex ed and they also, on average, delay the initiation of sexual activity by a year later than American teens.

Southern states in the U.S. are five times more likely to use abstinence-only programs than in the Northeast. Southern states now have another distinction: the highest rates of new HIV/AIDS infection, the highest rate of STDs, as well as the highest rate of teen births. Whereas new cases of AIDS decreased or remained constant in the Northeast, Midwest, and West recently, the South, alone, experienced an increase. Seven of the ten states with the highest Chlamydia rates, all of the states with the highest rates of gonorrhea, and nine of the top ten states for syphilis rates are all in the South. And that’s because in the service of scaring kids into not having sex, abstinence-only-until marriage programs tell kids that condoms don’t work. Most teens (like the 88% of all "virginity pledgers" who break the pledge) turn out not to be convinced about the virtues of chastity but, sadly, are convinced not to use condoms.

The abstainer-in-chief, Bush, invested unprecedented sums in abstinence-only as Governor of Texas. The result? While the rest of the nation enjoyed dramatic declines in teen pregnancy, by the end of Bush’s term as Governor in 2000, Texas ranked dead-last in the nation in the decline in teen birthrates. Overall the teen pregnancy rate in Texas during Bush’s term as governor was one of the highest in the nation, exceeded by only four other states, including Florida—which his brother governed, using the same approach. When Bush took office he boldly took the dead-last approach and prescribed it for the rest of the nation.

Jennifer, I feel like I have been diligent in answering all of your questions. I’m hoping in your next post you will begin to answer some of the one’s I’ve posed to you. Such as, why are you against child care? Given all of your efforts to convince people to stop using family planning, being against child care seems particularly sinister. Isn’t access to child care essential for working parents and critical in helping them provide for their families? (Or is it that you don’t think women should work?) You suggest in your book, that there is no right, and should be no right, to sexual activity without conception (p.77) This is the theory from which most pro-life policies flow, both the anti-legal-abortion and anti-contraception efforts. Wouldn’t policies (like banning abortion and limiting contraception) cause parents to have more children? Wouldn’t parents then need more financial resources to support their burgeoning families? And wouldn’t employment and child care then be an even greater necessity?

Also, I’ve noticed in your book that you argue that the biological bond mothers have to their babies is related to positive cognitive and social benefits and that no non-biological caretaker could possibly substitute. If, as you hope, our nation outlaws abortion, and contraception gets used less, shouldn’t we be prepared for a surge in needs for foster care and adoption? It would seem that the types of family arrangements that need to quickly emerge in response to the social upheaval you favor fly in the face of your own philosophies on parenting and a “proper family.”

One last point, you claim in your book that stepfathers are not as good fathers to their children as biological fathers are. Are you against remarriage? Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ biological father. In my view, Jesus didn’t turn out so bad.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Cristina
posted by Cristina Page at 4:41 PM VOTE

9 Comments:

At 4/26/2006 7:13 PM,  Anonymous said...

Ms. Page, your last paragraph is ridiculous. Do you think that first Mary was God's wife, but she divorced Him and married Joseph? Wow, you've really been reading your Bible; maybe you could make a bundle with your own version of the "Davinci Code." Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, but he wasn't his stepfather. He was Jesus' adoptive human father from the moment of his birth.

I'm surprised you think Jesus 'didn't turn out so bad,' given His opinions on the slaughter of the Innocents that you advocate as a pro-choicer.

Elizabeth Butina

 

At 4/26/2006 8:15 PM,  Lisa said...

As a stepmother, I have to say that I love my children as much as any biological mother.

Speaking as a former foster child and current child advocate...

It's important that we don't just worry about children from the period of time between their conception and their birth.

We should worry about their safety and security from birth to adulthood as well.

I grew up in foster care in the 80's. Older children were often housed in "group homes."

I aged out of foster care, entered college and made it through graduate school. So did my friend (whom for the sake of safeguarding his trust I will call "Bobby.")

Bobby entered the Army after leaving the group home. The Army paid his college tuition.

Bobby majored in Computer Science and ended up wowing several computer companies. His work as "problem solver" often took him overseas.

Bobby and I attended a group home reunion together. Talk about a ghost town. I was reminded of the movie "Sleepers" where two kids made it and the other two died.

There were few familiar faces. No happy stories. No roots to be found.

On the road back, Bobby said, "Lisa, sometimes I wish that I had been aborted."

I said, "What???" I looked over at handsome, confident, successful Bobby. "You wish what?"

It was a rare moment of vulnerability for him: "I wish that I had been aborted if I was never going to have a family."

Thankfully, Bobby does have a family now. He moved to Texas, met a wonderful woman and they just celebrated the birth of their first son.

But, my point is, "Not having a family who loves you and cares for you is a pain that doesn't go away for a long time."

To get over that pain, you have to work through a lot of emotional healing. You need to build a loving, functional family of your own.

As for me, I have a husband and two wonderful stepchildren. It's a happy ending, sure. I'm very happy. It was just a long road.

All I'm saying is this: "Rather than just worrying about getting kids born into this world, let's also worry about getting them loved and cared for..."

www.sunshinegirlonarainyday.com

 

At 4/27/2006 10:53 AM,  Anonymous said...

Cristina,
You're comparing apples to oranges when you compare teenage birth rates in Southern States to those in the Northeast or Northwest. I suspect you know it, too. The two societies are not the same in terms of ethnicity, or wealth.

 

At 4/27/2006 10:56 AM,  Nina said...

anonymous, one doesn't have to be a woman's second legally married husband to be a stepfather. One can marry a single mother and be a stepfather, or one could marry a pregnant woman and be the child's stepfather. Which would be the situation for little baby Jesus.

 

At 4/27/2006 11:24 AM,  JivinJ said...

Cristina should be more accurate with her abortion numbers. The New York Times' "study" (certainly not peer-reviewed) on abortion was an absolute joke and anyone who looked at it would know that. They used statistics from Arizona to show an increase in teen abortions after their parental consent law passed even though the report on Arizona's abortion statistics says that the increased shouldn't necessarily be trusted because in previous years abortionists weren't reporting abortions.

http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-york-times-cracks-me-up.html

Anyone who takes the time to examine national abortion statistics will see that the large decline in U.S. abortions started around 1990 and ended in 1996 when a smaller, more gradual decline began. There's a graph at the web page below which illustrates this fact. To act like the dramatic decline started in the Clinton presidency and ended in the Bush presidency is a laughable myth created and for some strange reason still clung to by abortion advocates like Ms. Page.

http://www.imago-dei.net/imago_dei/2005/05/stassen_i_dont_.html

Cristina says, "You suggest in your book, that there is no right, and should be no right, to sexual activity without conception (p.77) This is the theory from which most pro-life policies flow, both the anti-legal-abortion and anti-contraception efforts."

This is a disgracefully absurd, dishonest comment. Most prolife policies flow from the idea that all human beings, born and unborn, deserved to be protected by law - not that there is no right to sex without contraception.

What I've noticed more and more from pro-choicers like Cristina is their lack of efforts to actually defend the "right" to abortion. Instead they've focused their efforts on yoking birth control and abortion and demonizing prolife organizations.

 

At 4/27/2006 11:33 AM,  Fitz said...

I was reading the arguments of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, and thought it pertinent to comment. I believe the point she makes is more social and cultural then biological. Cristina Page on the other hand, seems a dedicated materialist, and seemingly oblivious to the larger context human sexuality exists within. To simply address the hygine of intercourse is to deny are greater humanity. No man is an island onto himself. The decision to have sex, with whom and when is influenced by our environment. The idea, (in my understanding- and its one I subscribe to) is that the nature of the sexual act with birth control as apposed to without birth control, is one of kind not degree. This phenomena is magnified as an entire culture succumbs to the notion of sex under a regime cheap, reliable, female controlled birth control.
If one is truly interested, the works of scholars like Robert Michael at the University of Chicago, or most prominently, Nobel-prize-winning economist George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley – use an economic model to show how the introduction of the pill dramatically restructures our concept of human sexuality and its value.
To be curt, one can accurately say that sexual intercourse is seen in contemporary society as essentially recreational rather than procreational. Indeed, this is a dramatic departure in terms of human understanding of sexuality. I believe Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse bring a more complex and ultimately more accurate understanding of human sexuality. The Academics I mention above largely confirm her (and many others) worldview on this subject. Are either of the debaters familiar with the work these individuals have done? Might there research not illuminate this discussion?

 

At 4/27/2006 1:39 PM,  Tom Harmon said...

"Who knew you were so funny!" Is she serious? Is it too much to ask that Ms. Page engage in civil discussion like a grown-up?

"Why are you against child care?" Here we have Ms. Page engaging in the question begging fallacy. Isn't this a little like saying, "WHy are you against education?" No one is against child; no one is agaisnt education. It's the form that child care (or education) takes that some people oppose.

 

At 4/27/2006 3:41 PM,  Richard said...

With all due respect to both Cristinia and Jennifer, I think that it is overzealous - and difficult to prove empirically anyway - to suggest that government policy inititatives of any kind, most especially at the federal level, have that big an impact on what we're seeing in the decline in abortion since the early 90's. I think a lot of wonks are much too eager to claim every single instance of correlation as causation whne it suits their agenda, no matter how many regression curves they have to run.

There are larger demographic cycles and cultural factors that seem far more likely to be in play here.

This is not to say that government programs can't have an impact on individual behavior. To the extent that they can, alas, it's generally more likely to be destructive rather than virtuous. But even to take one of the examples most often cited, the Great Society's impact on inner city family stability, it's an open question how much of a role it played versus the trickle-down cultural effects of the sexual revolution.

The Left is unhappy at the prospect of state power used to get in the bedrooms, so to speak, or have the NSA tap their phones. The Right is wary of its power to confiscate wealth. However you cut it, I think there's a broad consensus that state power is a dangerous power in the wrong hands (and even, too often, in the right ones - Clinton expanded the police powers of the federal government, and Bush has shown little restraint in spending). Which is why I prefer to stop government policies aimed at social engineering to anyone's ends and defer to what Burke called the "little platoons" of society. Because in the end, those little platoons, being composed of voluntary relationships and membership, are much more flexible and adaptable to helping create virtuous human beings and discouraging sociopathic ones.

 

At 4/27/2006 4:13 PM,  Dr J Roback Morse said...

Fitz
I had a post on this subject in my "drafts" file from yesterday. Forgot to post it when I ran out to take kids places. Sorry! Look for a post called "contraception and Illegitimacy," soon.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home