Planned Parenthood 2008: Abortion comprised 96% of pregnancy services
As Jivin J reported earlier, while Planned Parenthood is long overdue publishing its 2008-09 annual report, it has released its 2008 stats for pregnancy related services, as 1st spotted and reported yesterday by American Life League. They are:
Abortions: 324,008 (up 6.1% from 305,310 in 2007)
Prenatal care: 9,433 (down 14% from 10,914 in 2007)
Adoption: 2,405 (down 51% from 4,912 in 2007)
Let’s show these stats by graph (received from DC source – click to enlarge):
As ALL reported, “Thus PP now commits 134 abortions for every adoption referral.”
Other interesting finds from PP’s 2008 fact sheet, per ALL:
Despite the increase in abortion, PP showed a decline in a number of other areas, including a drop of 4% (almost 100,000 visits) in its primary customer base – female birth control customers.
While PP often emphasizes that it is the only provider of health care in many areas of the nation, primary-care patients accounted for only .1% of its business in 2008.
Finally, back to the big picture:
The total number of abortions committed by PP since it first began in NY state in 1970 is now 4,987,817….
PP is the nation’s largest single abortionist – committing 26.8% of the estimated 1.21 million abortions in the US in 2008. PP also runs the nation’s largest abortion chain, with over 300 medical and surgical abortion facilities across the country.
Here’s another graph. Click to enlarge, although you still may need a magnifying glass to spot PP’s ever shrinking adoption and prenatal care bars:
As I said, we’re still awaiting PP’s waaaay overdue income stats for 2008-2009, coincidentally its 1st year of profiteering under the Obama regime.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
yeah…and pro-aborts still insist that Abortion is only 3% of the services that PP offers….yeah, right.
‘Every child a wanted child.”‘
This balderdash, when processed thru the transmogrifier, reads:
‘Death to the unwanted child!’
It would be interesting to interview the women who received pre-natal care and compare their first hand experience with pp’s version of events.
I would suspect the pre-natal care numbers are inflated or include women who eventually capitulated to the pressure to choice their child.
pp’s creative record keeping is legendary.
If taxpayere monies were expended then there is probably some sort of open records act that would require pp to make their books available for an audit less any information that would disclose the identity of individual patients/victims.
I hate that these numbers have increased, and I do believe that abortion is the number one purpose of PP, but why haven’t ‘contraceptive services’ been included in the ‘pregnancy related services?’ Those numbers would change your graph.
Abortion is supposed to be “rare” . Those numbers do NOT equal “rare”. Rare would be 50 a year, not 300,000!
They are only about ONE “choice” and that’s the one that makes the $: ABORTION.
Well gee whiz, color me shocked… not! *eyeroll* Yet again, pro-lifers have been making these statements for a loooong time. Wonder when the PC crowd will get a clue?
Why is our government taking tax payer money for this hatefull procedure. If they insist and so many people are pro-abortion then it should be funded by donations from those that promote it. What would happen if tax payers refused to pay taxes based on concientouse objection??
In response to yor bro ken’s post about organizations receiving public funds:
Non-profits that receive government funding fill out a tax form called the 990, on which they must show how they use their funds and what portion of their funding comes from other sources (revenue, endowments, fundraising, donations). These forms can be viewed at http://www2.guidestar.org/ Sometimes, you need to buy the rights to view some of the forms (I used it in an academic setting). If so, you should be able to go to your local public university and view it there.
Hope that helps!
Here we go again. From 300,000 to over 320,000 dead babies. PP lies to you. PP always insisting that “abortion is just a small part of what we do”. A good response is, “PP insisting that abortion is just a small part of what we do is like the KKK insisting that lynching was just a small part of what they did”. The end result is the same with lynching or abortion, a tortured, mutilated dead body. Whatever happened to the claim that handing out more pills, patches, Depro-Provera shots, IUDs, cervical caps and condoms was supposed to make “abortion “rare”? Oh, I guess the cash register didn’t ring enough. Cha –ching. I believe Carol Everett ex-abortion clinic owner in ‘Blood Money” said something like, “we counted on getting 3-5 abortions out of every young woman we provided with birth control”.
Well, I for one, am glad that Planned Parenthood is brave enough to provide that many abortions to women who are in need of them.
Jessica, the question is…. why are that many women in “need” of abortions. If that number continues to “need” abortions or the number continues to increase…. are we treating the causes or the effects?
As a nurse, I can often mitigate the effects of a disease process, but until we get to the root cause, the effects will continue to return.
That’s not “bravery”…that’s called GREED
‘What would happen if tax payers refused to pay taxes based on concientouse objection??’ – government funding for church based organizations and activities would cease as would all the tax breaks and allowances.
Elisabeth, I agree with you. It’s the causes which need to be addressed and remedied. That is the ONLY way abortion will ever end.
Cranium, as I actually want to see government funding for anything that isn’t a delineated role of the government to stop, I don’t have a problem with that. Just make sure it is across the board and it will be perfectly fine with me. The American people have proven again and again since the beginning of this country that we will step up and provide for those in need. Real charity is difficult when the government is taking large percentages of the money we earn. Also, it destroys the human spirit’s natural inclination to give when the thought process becomes, “the government should take care of this” and/or “I’ve already given enough in taxes to cover this!”
If we are allowed to support these organizations and the people around us of our own free will and the vast majority of the money we earn is left in our wallets to use to do so… Americans will outgive, time and again. It’s what we do.
Jessica Sideways,
I don’t see how one can link bravery and killing innocent babies.
Lord have mercy on us all.
Jessica Sideways
It’s pretty easy to kill something that can’t fight back. Kill a couple of kittens or puppies in an inhumane matter and just see what happens to you legally. It’s disgusting and sick. You think pulling wings off flys is bad…research the different kinds of abortions…
Pray for their little souls…and thank God their horror and painfull death is behind them
Jessica Sideways
September 10th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Well, I for one, am glad that Planned Parenthood is brave enough to provide that many abortions to women who are in need of them.
Jessica – the only reason you can make such a statement is because you’re on the other side of the birth canal – and Planned Parenthood sees you as a potential money machine.
At what stage of development do you consider abortion morally wrong?
“but why haven’t ‘contraceptive services’ been included in the ‘pregnancy related services?”
Cristy S., my guess would be that PP considers contraception not “pregnancy services” but “anti-pregnancy services.”
Now, pregnancy related “care,” including abortions, is only a portion of what PP does. Contraception, which is considered outside that area, may make up a larger share of total PP services than abortion, but enough to make abortion only 3 %? I believe that may be in numbers, rather than total cost; but the total cost of the abortions is higher. Obviously they just spin it the way they want to.
Chris…Jessica Sideways can not relate to your comment about being on the other side of the birth canal…planned parenthood would not consider this person as potential income. You would understand if you read the profile when you click the name. I am curiouse about an answer about the moral question of when is abortion acceptable in this persons eyes.
Jessica…it does not take bravery to shove a shunt into the skull of a live,full term baby’s skull and suck out it’s brains to collapse the skull to allow it to pass down the birth canal. You see, if they don’t do that, it is too large and won’t come out easy. That’s the choice pro-choice believers want protected. It’s pretty easy to use birth control and just don’t get pregnant…but then again…they might gain a few pounds. This is the biggest reason women choose not to use birth control. They use abortion as their form of birth control.
‘Jessica’ thinks it’s healthy to pay people to sedate you and cut into you and interfere with the functions of a perfectly healthy body, whether it’s a pregnant woman and her child or anyone else who wants to pay a medical school reprobate their hard earned cash.
Maureen – Jessica can still donate money to Planned Barenhood and encourage others who believe the lie to do so.
I find it rather odd she considers it bravery to abort others – when she feels victimized by what she considers others having done to her in the name of Jesus. She appears to have no empathy for the unborn – or for women who are coerced or threatened into abortions. I find that odd, given her experiences.
Still – her website pretty much revolves around her new gender identity, so the idea of “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you”, must’ve been rejected along with her Christianity, and her natural gender.
I’d still like to know at what stage of development she considers abortion (the killing of an innocent human being) morally wrong.
“I find it rather odd she considers it bravery to abort others – when she feels victimized by what she considers others having done to her in the name of Jesus.”
I read some of Jessica’s website months ago and thought the same thing. In a class on domestic abuse, the teacher once mentioned that boys who witness their moms being abused by their dads will often grow up to either abuse women or empathize with women. Many of both the abusers and the empathizers will become addicts if they don’t come to grips the effects of being/witnessing abuse.
Jessica seems to be stuck in the “abuse of others” choice as a result of her own real or perceived victimization. It would take some effort on her part to change this dysfunctional thinking around and become an empathetic person. She doesn’t seem to be willing to do the work needed.
Oh and I won’t get started on what I think of the people who are willing to change up the body when they can see it is obvious the individual needs help. They are just as/if not more sick and dysfunctional.
Jessica, nobody NEEDS abortion. Nobody.
If people want to donate to organizations like planned parenthood, that is their choice…that’s why it’s called a “donation”. I choose not to but the government sees fit to force me to give the money to them in the form of taxes and in turn they give it to organizations I find to be totally offensive and barbaric! This is genocide in it’s worst form and the procedure is unbelievably nothing more than cold, hearted murder in a most extreme form. unimagable cruelty!!! This is theft of my money….blood money! If people refused to pay their taxes until the government stopped being accomplises to premeditated murder (and paying for it with my cash) maybe individuals would have to fund their own disqusting, selfish choices. I’m for pro-choice in the respect that anyone has a choice to use birth control or change their behaviors. These people are getting a 2nd chance and it’s on our dime. Not to mention the fact that it’s unnecessary in the first place. Wise up people! You know how babies are made…!!!
We need to address and eliminate the causes, the reasons women seek abortions in the first place. We need to respect life in all stages, and we need to give women actual life-affirming choices so we don’t feel we have to kill our children. Killing babies is not a necessity. It is not a right. There is nothing good about it.
968,682 PAP tests and 3,363,222 gender-unspecific HIV tests performed in 2007. Include these services in your graphs, Jill, or else your “expose” is a lie.
PP is a recipient of Title X funding, and as such cannot receive government money for abortion. And Title X clinics were explicitly created to prevent pregnancy when enacted with the 1970 Public Health Service Act. If you want Title X clinics–PP included–to expand their services to prenatal care, ask the government to adjust Title X funding for inflation (which hasn’t been happening since the early 1980’s, and consequently results in provision of fewer services).
Also, all of that government money flowing into Crisis Pregnancy Centers–money used to staff these centers with lay health professionals and ultrasound machines–could have been going to Title X family planning clinics for prenatal care services.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf
Elisabeth,
When have the American people ever consistently demonstrated commitment to helping the poor? Also, to restrict govt. spending to “its delineated role” would be to eliminate social security, VA hospitals, WIC and Headstart programs, public education, etc etc. Do you have an army of coordinated volunteers ready and willing to take over these highly-utilized functions?
It’s eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasy to make demands from the middle of Iddddddaahooooooo
PP is a recipient of Title X funding, and as such cannot receive government money for abortion.
Look up the word: fungibility
Money is fungible. Explains the whole story.
Also, all of that government money flowing into Crisis Pregnancy Centers–money used to staff these centers with lay health professionals and ultrasound machines–could have been going to Title X family planning clinics for prenatal care services.
What government money? The government doesn’t give ANY money to CPCs. Every CPC I know of is funded 100% by charitable donations. You can check with CareNet or Heartbeat International re: their affiliates.
968,682 PAP tests and 3,363,222 gender-unspecific HIV tests performed in 2007.
Last time I checked PAP smears and HIV Tests were not pregnancy related. Jill’s not lying – you don’t know how to read.
When have the American people ever consistently demonstrated commitment to helping the poor?
You’ve got to be kidding…
Play the victim and scream for your nanny state. You’re helping reinforce the notion that liberals/progressives/etc. have absolutely no clue what the Declaration of Independence is about because they haven’t the foggiest notion of what independence truly means.
I didn’t make any demands…. I made an observation.
As to Americans being generous… here’s in the recent past…
“Americans lead the world in donating their time and income to charitable causes…”
Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism
Americans Generous?
And if you go back in history before the development of social programs, it was the work of the churches and the communities to care for the poor among them.
Yes, it will take time and effort to wean people off of the government teat. It would be well worth the time and effort.
From Workhouse to Welfare – The Tragedy of American Compassion
And the words of Davy Crockett best explain why this is so.
Water is wet.
Elisabeth – thanks for the excellent links.
Yes thanks Elisabeth for the links. I get so tired of all the BS about moral conservative Christians being mean-spirited (does a quote from First Lady Michelle Obama come to mind for anyone about “America being a down right mean country”?), stingy, hate-filled bigots. I know it is a lie perpetrated by nanny state, radical, liberals to keep the poor on “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” (title of the excellent book by Star Parker-a must read). God bless.
Well, it doesn’t fit their meme of liberal as giving and conservative as stingy…. but facts are pesky things. Like this one:
In 2005 the Obamas had a book deal go through and their income increased sevenfold. They gave 5% of their income to charity. (Which was a big improvement over the less than 1% they gave in 2000-2004….. because who can give on a measly annual income of approximately $224,000?)
In 2005 another political family had a book deal go well. Mrs. Cheney’s book did very, very well…. so how much did the Cheney family give to charity? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)
Actually, HIV testing for pregnant women is essential to avoid mother-child transmission of the virus.
And my point, anyway, was that Title X services are explicitly intended for pregnancy prevention. The graphs don’t mention this crucial tid-bit. Also, as far as fungibility goes…pro-lifers like yourself ensure have ensured that funding streams for PP services–abortion and everything else–be kept separate. There are even guidelines for separate bookkeeping practices.
That should read: to lower the risk of transmission of HIV from mother to infant. We cannot guarantee that the virus will not be passed. Just wanted to add that in case anyone thought that was possible.
Jackson: “Thus, until only a few decades ago, Americans had healthy suspicions about the poor: that many were responsible for their own indigence and would happily live on charity rather than work.”
Really? This is “compassionate conservatism”? I won’t argue that people everywhere–so-called liberals AND conservatives–give their time, energy, and money to charitable causes. But the government should provide a safety net in case the third sector can’t, or doesn’t, have the capacity to do so.
What about everybody who got laid off during the recession? Are they all lazy, “responsible for their own indigence”? Should there be no safety net to help them make ends meet until they find employment? Should they be left without healthcare? Which charity is stepping up to the plate to alleviate this mess?
Jackson: The key words here are “laid off”. You are talking about two different things. If they are laid off…they were working. Government policies forced employers to let people go resulting in massive job loss. What about the 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation welfare families that just don’t care to work. At least not on the books. They are working for cash, getting free health care, food stamps, energy assistance, housing…the list goes on! And add to that all the people on Socoal Security Dissability that shouldn’t be on it. Maybe at one time (in some cases 20 years ago) they were disabeled but are not now and are still collecting. I know one guy that had a hip replaced years ago. He rides his bike 20 miles, he works construction for cash and has all the free time in the world…and still collects. If this government wants to create jobs…form a couple of agencies to inverstigate all the fraud
Maureen: I agree; fraud should be investigated. But from my personal experience, there are just as many “lazy” people on welfare as there are hardworking folk.
Nagem,
“Also, all of that government money flowing into Crisis Pregnancy Centers–money used to staff these centers with lay health professionals and ultrasound machines–could have been going to Title X family planning clinics for prenatal care services.”
Make me laugh out loud. The only funds CPC’s have ever received from the government have to do with abstinence-only programs – and that is such a small percentage of them it is incredible. Show me where a CPC has EVER received money for an ultrasound machine or to pay a health professional. Truly – prove it. And now all the funds for abstinence programs have been stripped. That means $0 going to them now. I am rolling on the floor laughing with the ridiculous nature of this so-called “fact” about CPCs. Do your own research instead of simply believing the “facts” you read about these centers who are COMMUNITY-FUNDED and offer comprehensive care and parenting education services to any pregnant woman who needs it – all FREE of charge.
Two funding streams, one having been an “abstinence-only” scheme, which helped CPCs expand their services:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ccf/surveys/capacity_assessment.html
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/06grantawards.pdf
And a license plate advertising scheme:
http://www.choose-life.org/
I don’t care how much or little the government contributed to crisis pregnancy centers; federal funding for these programs is wrong, mostly on the basis that they lack institutional oversight and evaluation. I would rather have money funneled to Title X clinics, earmarked for pre-natal care services, then to CPCs in the form of abstinence-only monies. At least Title X clinics are staffed by TRUE, LICENSED health professionals.
Thank God we’re defunding these programs. Stepping aside from their overt religiosity, nobody evaluated their effectiveness, and that’s bad for everybody’s business.
License plate advertising allows people to CHOOSE to donate to certain organizations. It isn’t as if the funds of all people getting license plates have a certain percentage donated to them. And that isn’t federal, anyways, it’s state based. Very different.
I guess pro-aborts don’t like that we get to choose to donate to pro-life organizations. They want us to be forced to fork over our money, without choice, to the programs THEY deem worthy.
And you’re right, Elisabeth. The Choose Life license plates are state-based.
BTW, “Nagem,” if you’re actually the poster known as “Megan” around here, we’d like it if you stuck to one moniker. You appear to be from the same university.
Oh, and regarding the topic of this post: No, really? Yer kiddin’ me! I’d never have guessed that PP’s largest service was abortion…
That would explain how a first time poster knew what state I live in….
Ha! Yep, I guess it would, wouldn’t it? :D Nice catch, E.
Nagem,
What a terrible thing to encourage kids to live the healthiest way possible to not get diseases or get pregnant – and that’s abstinence. It is the ONLY 100% way to stay safe. And, face it, the statistics show that over 50% of teens are NOT having sex. What does it ever hurt to encourage them to keep living that way? And now – that funding isn’t there anyway. And, another thing, not all these programs were religious based – and some were taught alongside of “comprehensive” sex education programs.
AND – like I said – do your research. Many (but not all) CPC’s are now medical clinics – operating under the direction of a licensed physician in their state with RN’s on sight. Please don’t lump them all together under one category. Even most Planned Parenthood sites don’t have a doctor on-site. They are often run by nurses. Talk about “lack of institutional oversight and evaluation” – where’s the institutional oversight and evaluation for abortion clinics?
Nagem,
One more thing…
“Also, all of that government money flowing into Crisis Pregnancy Centers–money used to staff these centers with lay health professionals and ultrasound machines”
Really. Stop spreading lies unless you can back up even one instance where the government money was used to staff CPCs with health professionals and ultrasound machines. One instance. I challenge you.
Robin:
I agree. Abstinence-only education is great, in theory. It makes complete sense–if you want to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STI’s, don’t have sex! In fact, this concept made so much sense that its proponents–including Bill Clinton and George Bush–funneled millions of dollars into these programs with no built-in way to evaluate them. And any sound public policy initiative should include a way to ensure its cost-effectiveness. But not abstinence education.
And then somebody noticed that kids were still getting pregnant and infected with STI’s. So the Bush Administration contracted a nonpartisan research agency to evaluate abstinence-only education. Surprisingly, the Mathematica Institute found these programs to be ineffective: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.v27:2/issuetoc
That’s wasteful spending. Incredibly wasteful. If somebody had been evaluating this program all along, we could have prevented this from happening. It’s unfortunate, but our repeated injunction–both from a secular and a religious standpoint–that kids abstain from sex IS NOT WORKING. Blame it on whatever you want, but 50% of kids are sexually active. We need to find some better, evidence-based way to mitigate the harms of unprotected sex, rather than simply tell kids to stop doing it.
And excuse me, the license plates are not part of a federal funding scheme; I should have clarified that.
Maybe I can start a “choose choice” plate campaign as well.
“Really. Stop spreading lies unless you can back up even one instance where the government money was used to staff CPCs with health professionals and ultrasound machines.”
A lot of abstinence-only money went to crisis pregnancy centers, but a lot falls under the rubric of “abstinence-only education.” Simply encouraging clients to remain abstinent in the future could qualify as “education.” But since the government funneled money into community-based abstinence-only programs with no fund-matching scheme or built-in mechanism for evaluation, there is no publicly available documentation of where this money went.
And you’re right. CPCs aren’t guaranteed to house licensed physicians or nurses, or other PROFESSIONALS.
One could argue that this issue is not what’s taught in a one-week sex-ed class, but what message a child receives day in and day out at home, at school, at church, and around his or her community. Of course an abstinence-only program won’t work if a child goes home to see his or her mother with yet another boyfriend and has to hope that he won’t be as mean as the last one was. If a teacher makes comments about sex in the classroom jokingly and conveys the assumption that all the students are having sex, the only message the children receive is that they should disregard everything that was taught to them regarding abstinence. The abstinence-focused education I received was taught to me by licensed counselors and social workers from a local crisis pregnancy center, and it worked- but *the reason it worked is that they were only reinforcing a message I had consistently received from my parents, teachers, and mentors throughout the course of my entire life.*
As a social worker, I think it’s naive to believe that *any* week-long program or series of sexual education classes can be considered effective unless it is consistent with the message received at home. Education about sex, like *all* education (not to mention moral, psychological and social development- which happens primarily in the first 5 years of life) begins in the home. Personally, I think it should be considered the primary responsibility of parents. Granted, many children are born into families where the parents have a hard enough time making good choices for themselves and therefore do not model good behaviors for their children. In those instances, maybe education for the parents should be the primary goal.
Oh, and the crisis pregnancy center which provided my abstinence education was sponsored by a local company, not the government. As that is the case, the fact that abstinence education has fallen into and out of favor with the government has made little difference in the services and education it provides.
And, again, you can always check Guidestar to see how non-profits use money. Their tax forms require them to itemize where all their funding comes from and how it is used- and this applies to *all* non-profits, not just ones which receive federal funding. Take the onus on yourself and do the research.
And excuse me, the license plates are not part of a federal funding scheme; I should have clarified that.
Maybe I can start a “choose choice” plate campaign as well.
You’re a little late. http://classic.feministing.com/archives/019378.html
“Choose Choice” would have been pretty redundant, no?
And why not, “Choose Abortion?” I mean, if that’s what you support, why hide behind euphemisms? You guys aren’t even honest with yourselves.
“If a teacher makes comments about sex in the classroom jokingly and conveys the assumption that all the students are having sex, the only message the children receive is that they should disregard everything that was taught to them regarding abstinence.”
How true Sarah. Last week my 16 year-old’s History teacher played a Katy Perrty song called Teenage Dream while the students reviewed notes for a quiz. Some of the lyrics to this song are:
“We drove to Cali
And got drunk on the beach
Got a motel and
Built a fort out of sheets
I finally found you
My missing puzzle piece
I’m complete
Let’s go all the way tonight”
Kinda works against what I spend time teaching my daugher over the summer, doesn’t it? There are parents teaching the imortance of abstinence but who’s allowing teachers like this get and then keep their jobs?
Amen Sarah! Kids learn the most from their home environment.
And Nagem – if CPC’s who received abstinence education funding spent money on ultrasound machines – using your logic then Planned Parenthood uses the federal money given to them on “exams and contraceptive services” to directly provide abortions. (Since there obviously isn’t any true follow-up or documentation on how their funds are spent, right?)
Wow, Nagem dodges the identity issue. And keep throwing in new accusations of lies, because that always solidifies your arguments and wins hearts.
Praxedes @ 12:05 PM,
It’s terrible that some teachers want to be “friends” with their students instead of teachers. Did you express your concern (putting it lightly) to the History teacher?
Hi Janet,
I have not yet decided how I am going to go about addressing this. I have made my share of past complaints and unfortunately, I have seen first-hand that students sometimes pay the price for making complaints against teachers/staff.
A male teacher playing this song in class makes me wonder about his maturity level and interests outside of History.
I’m open to suggestions to how to deal with this. Of course, my teen is begging me to stay out of it.
Parents who think their kids will stay abstinent til marriage are almost always fooling themselves. 92% of Americans have sex before marriage. Of course, parents who are hysterical about their kids being exposed to sex usually think their special little snowflakes are superior to everyone else’s kids and will be part of the 8%.
Even more hilarious is the amount of women on this site who admit to not abstaining.
[Edited by moderator. Try a crude personal attack again, “reality,” and you’re banned.]
The real reason abstinence doesn’t work is because it’s not natural to go 10-15 years as a sexually mature person without having sex. This has never been expected in the course of human history. Back in the day, the average age of puberty was about 14 and the kids were married off a year or two after. Today, the age of puberty is lower, and the average age of marriage is 25. No one is going to go that long without at least experimenting.
This is also why religious conservatives often push their kids into marriage at age 18 or 19. Sure, a lot of it is making sure that the woman will start repeatedly having babies so she’ll never have a career and will stay in the home. But the parents and religious leaders also know that it’s not normal for them to abstain from sex until age 25, 27, or even 30, when many Americans get married. For almost all of history, it was expected that people would start being sexual a few years after puberty.
re: reality
Considering that approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce these days, do you really want to tout the “success” of modern American morals? Really? At least the parents who you think are too conservative or sheltered want more than divorce and heartache for their children. When you approach the altar to pledge your life to someone after a long road of being sexually used for other people’s pleasure, how can you genuinely trust that your marriage will work? A lot of the 20somethings I know don’t really trust marriage or believe it can work out. Janet Smith has an excellent talk which discusses this entitled “Contraception: Why Not”. Take a look. The statistics aren’t on your side. Furthermore, as a woman with a Master’s degree, I plan on being a stay at home mom by choice. Conservative women aren’t being forced into the home, we’re choosing it. That’s what *real* choice is. Funny how you would support my so-called right to abort a child, but not my right to be a mom.
Also, the age of puberty has only raised with time. The age at which puberty is reached depends on the life expectancy of a population. In socioeconomically-depressed countries where the life expectancy remains as low as 40, girls can reach sexual maturity as early as 8, which is highly unusual in the U.S.
Praxedes, if it were my child she would be removed from that class and the principal and school board would be hearing from me. If that didn’t get some results (like an unpaid suspension of the teacher) I would be going to the media. But, that’s just me. (You might want to check out the teacher’s Facebook page to see if he has anything more lurid planned for these teenage girls.)
Praxedes, it would be interesting to see if the teacher could give a well-reasoned explanation of how such music fits into the lesson plan. I’m sure he couldn’t, and he certainly cannot defend wasting your child’s time and your tax dollars on something that does not relate to the curriculum.
I’m looking at these 990 forms, specifically for Pinellas County Crisis Pregnancy Center and its affiliate organizations, years 2006-2008. Lots of money going to “equipment.” Oh look, federal grant money for “abstinence-only education,” a nice total of $600,000 for 2008. “Several federal grants received.” Specificity? Fungibility?
I’d like to know what these purported “life counselors” at Pinellas County told pregnant women, or the near-scares. My guess is that abstinence promotion undergirded all these “life counseling” sessions. Did this fall under the rubric of “abstinence education?” What else happened in these sessions? Ultrasound imaging? Did an organization need a written curriculum to qualify for a community-based abstinence education grant? Why were grants given in large quantities to crisis pregnancy centers, anyway? A CPC isn’t a school!
A better question might be for you to prove that CPCs WEREN’T using federal money directly, or indirectly, for ultrasound tech. It’s less likely that Title X programs use federal money for abortion than CPCs used federal money for “pregnancy counseling services,” under the Bush Administration.
Title X contains a clear prohibition of abortion-related services:
“Section 1008 of the Act, as amended, stipulates that ”None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/policyplanningeval/policyplanningeval.html
The point, however, is that the government funneled money into abstinence programs that DID NOT WORK–regardless of whether you support abstinence or not. This money could have been directed to Title X clinics to provide pre-natal services to women.
You wondered why Planned Parenthood does not offer many services to already-pregnant women. In summary, the reasons:
a) As a Title X recipient, its services are geared to pregnancy prevention
b) Wasteful spending for other sexual and reproductive-health programs could be used for useful prenatal services in clinics staffed with licensed professionals. I understand that CPCs might have registered nurses now, but this has certainly not always been the case.
*And as a Title X recipient, cannot use federal money for abortions.
This is also why religious conservatives often push their kids into marriage at age 18 or 19. Sure, a lot of it is making sure that the woman will start repeatedly having babies so she’ll never have a career and will stay in the home.
Oh, yes, we religious conservative women only stay at home, without careers, WASTING our LIVES raising horrid children, unable to accomplish anything of significance.
If you said that to my face, I’d have a few choice words for you. I have a degree, was abstinent until marriage, and have the PRIVILEGE of raising my children and educating them at home.
Oh, and FYI, I consider your comments regarding “religious conservatives” to be incredibly inflammatory. That’s 2 strikes for you today.
Why were grants given in large quantities to crisis pregnancy centers, anyway? A CPC isn’t a school!
It’s very common that trained abstinence counselors from pregnancy centers help facilitate the abstinence programs in public and private schools.
Furthermore, as a woman with a Master’s degree, I plan on being a stay at home mom by choice. Conservative women aren’t being forced into the home, we’re choosing it. That’s what *real* choice is. Funny how you would support my so-called right to abort a child, but not my right to be a mom.
Good for you, Sarah.
And you’re absolutely right. But see, most of these people have sacrificed their unborn children in order to get where they wanted to go in life. So, by default, they believe the rest of us shouldn’t be able to have the best of both worlds.
Praxedes,
Some ideas – Are there other parents who could join you so you aren’t alone in trying to address the issue? They may provide valuable insight on past experiences with this teacher. As you mentioned, he may just be immature- trying to appear “cool” with his students. My daughter’s grade school teacher used to let the kids listen to pop music as they did their mathwork. I doubt the lyrics were questionable but I thought it was unconventional. Schools have certainly changed since we were there!
I think Elisabeth’s idea of checking the teacher’s Facebook page for evidence of other inappropriate behavior is a good one. Also, check your city’s site that lists sex offenders; amazingly, some schools are not good at doing background checks. Better safe than sorry.
Then, if nothing terrible turns up, I’d at least try to address the issue calmly with the principal and ask for anonymity so your child isn’t caught up in it. Good luck!
I think Elisabeth’s idea of checking the teacher’s Facebook page for evidence of other inappropriate behavior is a good one.
Oh great, some more anti-sex killjoys playing morality police. If you want to cut any public display of sexuality out of your kids’ lives and go on Facebook to stalk people who might be sinning, you should move to Iran, really.
Regarding my earlier comment about abstinence: Kids today actually abstain longer than any generation in history. While there was no record-keeping of this, we know from historical writings that the age of puberty was higher in the 19th century and earlier–probably around age 14 or 15. The kids were roped into marriage by 16 or 17, sometimes even earlier. Today, kids go through puberty around age 11, but the average age of first intercourse is 17. They’re spending twice as many years as sexually mature people without having sex. If anything, the expectations put on them by abstinence-only are ones that have never been met in human history.
Good luck fooling yourselves into believing your precious snowflakes won’t be among the 92% of Americans who don’t save it for marriage.
I got my period right after turning 11 and didn’t have sex til I was 19. That’s 8 years of abstinence with sexual maturity. If this were 1850, I’d have been married off at 14, because sexual activity was always expected and considered normal for teens. I’m not advocating sex for 14-year-olds or early marriage. But expecting everyone to go 15 years between puberty and sex? Has never happened. Will never happen.
Funny how many of the people posting on this site didn’t abstain themselves and admit it, but have some BS atonement story that absolves them of their comical hypocrisy.
I think Elisabeth’s idea of checking the teacher’s Facebook page for evidence of other inappropriate behavior is a good one.
Oh great, some more anti-sex killjoys playing morality police. If you want to cut any public display of sexuality out of your kids’ lives and go on Facebook to stalk people who might be sinning, you should move to Iran, really.
————————————
No, if an adult male is playing sexually explicit lyrics in my children’s classroom I will check to make sure he isn’t targeting my daughter or any of her friends as prey.
As an adult who is a survivor of rape BY one of my teachers, I think I have the right to be concerned. As a parent, I definitely have a right to be concerned.
Sheesh Reality,
The “anti-sex” description of pro-lifers is sooooo old.
It’s so easy to cry hypocrite at those who try to live to a certain standard and fail. What’s the thrill in throwing a person’s failure in their face?
If you are keeping score, I, for one, abstained until my marriage in my early 30’s. It’s possible for many of us and worth a try. I’m so happy that I wasn’t faced with an unwanted pregnancy or the heartache of failed sexual relationships.
Curious -how old are you and are you male or female?
I got my period right after turning 11 and didn’t have sex til I was 19. That’s 8 years of abstinence with sexual maturity.
And if a 9 year old gets her period, is she then “mature” enough to handle sex? Reality, this is not clear thinking. An 11 year old is IN NO WAY ready emotionally or physically to handle a sexual encounter/relationship. They may think they are, in this day and age, but as we’ve seen with the spread of STDs and teen pregnancies, that would not be the case. I read a statistic today that said about 60% of all school principals said their schools offer comprehensive sex education. So, why is this happening? Could it be that today we have much, much lower expectations of propriety and self-control than we did 100 years ago? Just a thought.
If this were 1850, I’d have been married off at 14, because sexual activity was always expected and considered normal for teens.
No, marriage at young ages was most definitely not for the reason of “Hey, they’re gonna have sex, so let’s marry ’em off!” It was most likely for financial reasons. And as further education has been encouraged, that age has been delayed.
The thing that really gets me is the voting age is 18. The drinking age is 21. Even the smoking age is, what? 17 or so? We expect kids to abstain from other “adult” activities. Why not give them at least the suggestion that perhaps they can exhibit some self control in the area of sex, just as they’re expected to in other areas? Are we like animals in heat, just supposed to go around randomly mating without restraint? Or are we expected to use our better judgment?
Is it difficult to abstain? Yes. Impossible? No. If we give children zero boundaries and zero expectations, they’ll live up to them every time.
Good luck fooling yourselves into believing your precious snowflakes won’t be among the 92% of Americans who don’t save it for marriage.
No one’s “fooling themselves” here. Even though we expect our children to exhibit self-control, we know they are human and are capable of making mistakes.
But they ARE precious to us, and I don’t much appreciate your mocking tone about our children’s purity. Again, those who have given in to sex (and are clearly jaded by life) are the ones who have zero expectations for kids and teens.
“Reality” (the Truth in Advertising police will be calling on you shortly, methinks) wrote:
But expecting everyone to go 15 years between puberty and sex? Has never happened. Will never happen.
Hm… I reached puberty at age 12, as a (*gasp!*) “hormone-driven male”, and I was a virgin when I married at age 29. I think I beat your threshold by 2 years, yes?
I don’t suppose you’d ever consider the possibility that you, being jaded, are now trying to help spread the equivalent of a self-fulfilling prophecy? “There’s no such thing as abstinence, so let them copulate around as they please; just throw condoms at them!” You don’t think a near-unanimous push of that idea by most every form of media might have some effect?
Reality,
Your problem is in not understanding the difference between people being fallible and hypocrisy.
Read here:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/09/05/hypocrisy-shattering-the-myth-and-illusion/
Praxedes, if it were my child she would be removed from that class and the principal and school board would be hearing from me. If that didn’t get some results (like an unpaid suspension of the teacher) I would be going to the media.
Are you serious? Over the song “Teenage Dream”? Someone deserves to have their career destroyed over that? It’s an extremely popular and mostly innocuous pop song that doesn’t even mention sex directly. If you tried to “take it to the media,” they’d probably laugh you out of the room. I remember parents like this from school. The ones who thought their kids were perfect and pure, and needed to be protected from everyone else’s corrupting influence.
Implying that the teacher is a child molester for playing a billboard hit in class says it all. People who try to remove all sexuality from public life are personally deeply uncomfortable and grossed out by sex, so they project their hysteria onto everyone else. So much so that you equate a teacher playing a popular song 16-year-olds hearing a pop song with mild sexual references with sexual abuse.
Gerard @ 2:01 AM,
Love your commentary on fallibility and hypocrisy (at your blog). A must-read!!
The subtext underlying many of these posts is that married women do not face unexpected, or unwanted, pregnancies, i.e. I’m waiting until marriage because I don’t want to face an unwanted pregnancy. Married women have abortions. But once married, time to start popping them out Quiverfull style…
Stats from Guttmacher:
Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions.
About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Nagem wrote:
The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
(*sigh*) Is logic really so hard to learn and understand?
Replace the first sentence with: “The reasons women give for killing their ‘excess children’ in their sleep underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life.“ Now, see if you still agree with the reasons given. Simple, yes?
And why restrict child-murdering to pre-birth? Again, any worries about “not being able to handle [x], [y], etc.,” are just that–mere worries, based on mere guesswork! Why not wait until, say, your child is age 7, and find out whether the feared financial, emotional and social toll really IS so bad, and THEN kill your children? At least you would be more certain…
(…and for those who skim quickly: no, I’m not advocating this. This is called “reductio ad absurdum”.)
reality, do you have any advice for me? What message does this song send to young people regarding sexual behavior? Is this an appropriate message to be sent during History class? What would your reaction be if a priest had played this in a relgious ed class?
You claim this song is extremely popular however I have never heard it before. I’m sure it is popular among a certain age group. However, I don’t think we should introduce everything into a classroom based on it’s popularity.
Keep in mind that the song’s reference to alcohol alone is against school policy. Teachers and students sign an appropriate use form before being allowed to use district computers. This song was played from a district computer.
People who try to remove all sexuality from public life are personally deeply uncomfortable and grossed out by sex, so they project their hysteria onto everyone else.
Oh yes, that MUST be it. It’s a miracle we have so many children, as grossed out by sex as we are!!
Does the song have educational value related to the subject being studied? If not, it doesn’t need to be played in the classroom. Period.
reality, do you have any advice for me? What message does this song send to young people regarding sexual behavior?
What about your example? From what you’ve said on this site, you didn’t abstain, you got pregnant out of wedlock, you’re divorced, and you have children by multiple men. What kind of message are you sending to your 16-year-old daughter about sex and marriage? I think I’ll keep my kids away from you. I don’t like the message you send, what with your multiple partners and out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Ah, trying to fake moral superiority isn’t so great now, is it?
There’s sexually active and there’s sexually active. Using a teaspoon to put out a fire is pretty difficult. Spending a few bucks toward abstinence in a culture saturated with sexually charged media and condoms in the schools, etc. is like that.
Now, it may be true that young people are sexually curious and will act on it in some manner. The question is when and how often and how seriously? You could technically say that me and my friends were sexually active in our late teens. But is that the same as having dozens or hundreds of partners, of sleeping with a lot of people? There are degrees of behavior. Some you (who are not living in the real world) post as if all young people should have no impulse control, no judgement, no sense of self-preservation. Just because teens are curious and have crushes on each other doesn’t mean we should just throw it all open as a big orgy free for all, cuz gee whiz everyone’s doing it. Come on. You don’t jump over the counter at McDonalds and start biting into all the burgers do you? Then why do you expect teens to magically act perfectly in a sexual way without any guidance or training? You’re a huge hypocrite and if I must say, not very smart. Teens need guidance. Teens do not need adults treating them like ATM’s (which is what Planned Parenthood does). Planned Parenthood isn’t out there being all warm and compassionate to teens. They want to indoctrinate them, separate them from their modesty and their parents, and take money in exchange for killing all the “unwanted” babies. A Planned Parenthood employee sees a teen thinks, “ooh, there’s a potential $500 bucks to be made off that one!” The damn statistics don’t lie this time.
In response to ninek:
It’s only hypocrisy if you aren’t honest. Sometimes, parents who have made mistakes can give a powerful testimony to the importance of avoiding the same mistakes in the future. My parents are still happily married, but I was conceived out of wedlock. My mother was very upfront and talked about how I just as easily could have been raised in a single-parent household- that she was lucky, but I shouldn’t risk sex outside of marriage because there is no way to guarantee what would happen. She also talked about how, looking back, she wishes she hadn’t had premarital sex because she feels she would have been treated with more respect by her boyfriends when she was younger. She was open and honest, told me I could make my own decision, but guided me so I wouldn’t get hurt in many of the ways she had. It’s not hypocritical to want to protect your children from the hurt you’ve experienced. It’s not hypocritical or naive to want to protect your children from negative outside influences as much as you can.
By the way, it isn’t particularly smart to argue using ad hominem attacks. That’s known as a logical fallacy, which weakens your argument by showing that you are unable to properly refute an idea using germane information. So essentially, you discredit yourself and your argument.
Sarah wrote, in reply to “reality”:
By the way, it isn’t particularly smart to argue using ad hominem attacks. That’s known as a logical fallacy, which weakens your argument by showing that you are unable to properly refute an idea using germane information. So essentially, you discredit yourself and your argument.
That’s also a very gentle and polite way of saying that you turn yourself into a troll. :) Well put!
“Ah, trying to fake moral superiority isn’t so great now, is it?”
If I were trying to fake moral superiority, you wouldn’t know so much about my sexual sins, would you? However, you are a bit off on some facts. My first child was born before I married his father. After his birth, his father and I were married and had two more children together. All my children have the same father. After our 3rd baby was born, we divorced because of his drinking, porn use, infidelity and abuse of myself and our children.
Had I not had sex with my childrens’ father before marriage, he would have quickly moved on to someone else. I talk to my children and other people’s children. I tell my story as an example of choices not to make and people to be careful of. These choices hurt not only myself but innocent children as well.
I am remarried and my husband has no children of his own. He does a wonderful job of filling the role that my children’s biological father is unwilling to do. We miscarried a baby three years ago.
My virginity was taken from me during a college drinking party when I was just shy of my 19th birthday. After this, I started drinking quite heavily and shortly after met the abusive/alcoholic man who I had children with. In hindsight, I can see how what happened to me left me vulnerable. Predators can more easily groom some over others.
Do my poor choices 20 some years ago mean I should look the other way when those in positions of authority abuse it? Or does it mean I should be more vigilant because I know the score?
Maybe this will help you understand my concerns about this teacher. Or maybe not.
So, if I ate a whole box of cookies when I was 16, does that mean I’m a hypocrite for trying to teach my kid good nutrition? If so, the call me Madam Hypocrite, lol!
I do share the concern of parents about teachers who try so hard to be “cool” and be friends with their students instead of maintain a position of leadership and authority. Students have each other for friends; that is not our role. I had a teacher who used pop music lyrics to compare to classic poetry, but she didn’t try to walk that buddy-buddy line with us.
Reposting here:
Ashley, we’re now wise to your little identity crisis you seem to have had on this site. We know you’ve been posing as “Reality” for some time now, on several threads, for at least the past few weeks. No clue why on earth you’d see the need to do that, but it’s quite likely you’ll be banned.
I’m sure Amanda Marcotte would welcome your writing over at RH Reality Check, since you appear to be a fan and credit her with turning you pro-choice. Couldn’t have anything to do with your own abortion, though, surely not. And now I understand why you were so quick to dehumanize unborn children at an early stage – the same stage at which you chose to end the life of yours. Your being “underwhelmed” at an unborn human the “size of a dime” now makes all the sense in the world.
Also explains the crude personal attack I had to edit on another thread. Seemed out of character for “reality,” and now I know why. Also explains the harping on and on about women being pregnant by abusive men. I understand you feel you had to abort in order to get away from your abusive boyfriend. But assuming that all women are in your situation is just plain wrong.
So it appears you’ve at last morphed into two people before our very eyes. One is Ashley/Reality, who hates “anti-choicers” who “subjugate women” and “hate sex.” And the other is the Ashley who comes crying to us “anti-choicers” for support when she miscarries or is unable to conceive. We have tried to help you, Ashley, but bottom line, you have to get help. You seriously need it.
This is a blatant misrepresentation of the services performed by Planned Parenthood. The vast majority of services (well over 96%) are not abortion services. In fact, many (if not most) of their clinics do not provide abortion services at all. Instead, they provide healthcare for women and men and education about reproductive health issues. Yes, abortions are one of the services performed by Planned Parenthood (and thank goodness, because otherwise we would go back to the days of back-alley abortions), but abortions are a very tiny portion of the services provided.