So all we know for sure is that something happened in Gloucester, Mass.
What that something was depends on whom you believe. Last week on its website, Time magazine quoted Gloucester High Principal Dr. Joseph Sullivan as saying that, of 17 girls who became pregnant during the school year, nearly half did so as part of a ''pact'' to have and raise their babies together. Sue Todd, president of a group that runs a day-care at the school, told Time she had heard a similar story from a social worker.
Officials reportedly became suspicious when an unusually high number of girls began showing up at the school clinic for pregnancy tests. Many who tested negative seemed crushed at the news. Those whose pregnancies were confirmed celebrated with high fives.
But on Monday, Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk and school Superintendent Christopher Farmer held a news conference to deny the supposed pact, saying there is no evidence any such agreement was ever made. Sullivan, according to Kirk, was ``foggy in his memory.''
The principal was not at the meeting to answer for his allegedly faulty memory -- Kirk said she was not ''comfortable'' having him there -- and has declined comment about the matter since the Time report, as has Sue Todd.
Frankly, it sounds as if the mayor and the schools chief, faced with embarrassing international attention, are trying to cover their municipal backside by silencing and undermining the principal and the child-care provider; it's hard to believe Kirk and Farmer would know more about what was going on in Joseph Sullivan's school than Joseph Sullivan did.
But the alleged pact is not what is most important here. These facts, after all, are not in dispute: 17 girls got pregnant; at least some of them did so on purpose; this represents a more than fourfold increase over the year before.
The Gloucester story unfolds in the context of troubling recent news about teen sexuality. In March, a federal study reported that one in four American girls between the ages of 14 and 19 -- and nearly half of all African-American girls in that same age range -- are infected with at least one of four sexually transmitted diseases: human papillomavirus, chlamydia, genital herpes and trichomoniasis. In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a steep decline in teen sexual activity through the 1990s leveled off between 2001 and 2007. And after years of decline, the teen birth rate rose by 3 percent between 2005 and 2006.
Some will seek to blame this disturbing news on Juno or Jamie Lynn Spears, but the trends predate both. They do not, however, predate the Bush administration's abstinence-only policy, which requires that any groups or states receiving federal funds for pregnancy prevention not discuss contraception and must teach that sex outside marriage will lead to harmful psychological and physical effects. In other words, they cannot talk about sex or help children who do have sex to protect themselves. They can only tell them to say no.
Who can argue against saying no? What parent isn't pro abstinence? But abstinence only? Anyone who thinks a teenager will never do a thing because she has been forbidden has never met a teenager. Common sense -- and a 2007 study by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy -- tell us abstinence-only does not work. But since when does President Bush let common sense and fact trump ideology?
Gloucester is an aberration, but it might be an omen, too. And if it is, if these troubling numbers prove the leading edge of a new teen baby boom, we will have to answer many tough questions, but one won't be tough at all.
We already know where it started. We already know who the father is.
--Leonard Pitts Jr.
Copyright 2008 Miami Herald Media Co.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
34 Comments so far
Show AllA L A S K A M A I D,,
WE do agree in that greatest of sadness, that life is no longer renewed in joy nor reverence
As I wrote about a perturbing level of mendacious conditioning elsewhere,
we men are often easily drawn from the path ( for we hold such invisible source of life, to forget its true sacredness - o'er mere pleasure ).
Perhaps we can be a team to create a nuclear free zone in the Middle East this weekend -- as it's sorely needed ?
Namaste « Presence »
veracity -- believe me, i do not underestimate that pull as in my own life, after two miscarried pregnancies, i declared my reproductive potentials to be a 'Nuclear Free Zone' (that was back in the early 1980's when there was an active Nuclear Free Zone registry and you could declare your home, village, pets, family, whatever, to be a Nuclear Free Zone) and shortly after that act our beautiful children manifested . . . it is apparent that they came from a Nuclear Free Zone frequency . . .
it is a great sadness to me that people in general and men in particular have so little regard for their own fertility . . . healthy, mature men show a respect for their sperm that is very lacking in today's world . . .
A L A S K A M A I D,
I agree substantially with you, but please do not underestimate the pull of vicarious immortality of bringing new life into the world, either for the man, nor the woman.
¿ Perhaps SEX is just Source's way of saying
____"_ H _ I _"___, to _ u s _
and
____ isn't __ L I F E __
____ w o r t h _ living more of … ?
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
jclientelle -- excellent observations and well stated, why are we supposed to think there is something 'wrong'
with the 'love and joy of having children around', (or with the definite body rush of being pregnant and nursing babies, for that matter)
guys don't get it because for them, obviously, sex is always about having sex because it isn't and cannot be about conceiving a child and experiencing that child literally growing inside you (talk about having a stiffie!)
as far as little brother's post, yeah maybe there is some poor confused kid out there who isn't sure of his 'orientation' and therefore has impregnated seventeen girls in an effort to prove to himself that he is straight. . .
this is a common but totally undiscussed tactic employed by boys and it should be brought out of the closet, after all the boys who are trying to establish their 'orientation' through demonstrating their virility are not the ones left dealing with the consequences of their behavior . . .
Little Brother - "Reduction of abortion" relies first on making contraception more available, then providing more sex ed, helping poor families to raise their children, making adoption easier, and expanding the range of life choices for women. Perhaps this does not belong in a political platform, but it is not crazy. It is an attempt to bridge the divide between supporters of women's rights and those who genuinely find abortion sad or immoral. Many women and men are in the middle and have trouble supporting either extreme.
In my view, Jim Wallis is one of the least dangerous religious leaders. He seems moderate, constructive and connected with people's lives. His movement creates dialogues and promotes respect for other religions and with non-believers. They supports peace, human rights and workers' rights. He does not take a punitive approach toward abortion, but a reasonable and conciliatory view that respects genuine concerns about life. Why do you call him dangerous?
When you look at why people become pregnant at seemingly inopportune times there are often hidden reasons. Sometimes subconscious.
Glouscester is a very depressed community due to the destruction of sea life and the collapse of the honorable profession of fishing. Perhaps these girls have looked at all the unemployed men around them and the havoc unemployment plays with families. Maybe they have looked at life opportunities for women and found them depressing. Maybe they want the love and joy of having children around and are looking for a way to make it work. Maybe they fantasize about a little collective of their female friends who will help each other with babies.
Some studies suggest that teen pregnancy in poor communities makes some sense. Given an assesssment that life is likely to be poor and bleak, and that men will be unwilling or unable to take responsibility for their children, having children while you still live with mom makes practical sense in certain ways.
I am not advocating this.
The proven way to postpone childbearing and to promote conscious family planning and fathers' participation in children's lives is to provide a reasonable opportunity for education and employment for young women and men. Attitudes must change, but most people use a certain kind of logic based on real observations. If they see the environment is deteriorating and there are few opportunites for a middle class life, then they will devise new ways, not necesssarily the best ways, to satisfy their drive toward the joys of having children.
Well, if abstinence doesn't work, perhaps the thing to do is get those hot to trot twelve-thirteen year olds married off before their runaway hormones get them into trouble, preferably to a guy who already has all his education done and has established a stable presence in the economy. I guess that would be one of Dad's friends. As for the guys, eat your cornflakes boys and get that house built. (sarcastic)
frank1569 - 2:37 pm
And why is it that the 17 men/boys who impregnated the 17 girls are not, apparently, part of this story? Just boys been' boys, eh?
_________________________________
17 men/boys? How do you know it wasn't just one very popular guy?
PS: I certainly hope that the goofy "reduction of abortion plank" is aborted in its first trimester. The Democratic front-runner doesn't need to inflict more insults on top of the injuries.
Jim Wallis, a close friend of Senator Obama has announced that he will introduce a "reduction of abortion" plank at the Democratic Party's Convention. Reduction of abortion is a worthy goal but given the state of our economy, the price of gas at the pump, wars around he globe in which we are involved, and unemployment rates is that an issue which Obama wants to have on his already overloaded "change" plate? I think that it would be a serious mistake. Leave "reduction of abortion" to the experts. Politicians have already made a gigantic mess of the issue anyway and Wallis is a dangerous religious extremist who gives only lip-service to the concept of separation of church and state. He recognizes only one religion, Christianity, as worthy of consideration by Obama. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others are relegated by him to "on your knee and ask for favors" status.
Years ago, when aids was first being recognized as the threat it is, I found myself on a curriculum development committee for the school board for which I was working {Roman Catholic}. Our goal was to develope a program to help teens and pre-teens to prepare themselves for this with factual knowledge as well as strategies. I noticed the absence of any mention of conteception and brought up this point. I was told by one of the school superintendents, who was puffing on a cigarette as he spoke, that when children found out that aids could kill them they would naturally abstain from premarital sex. I pointed out the obvious connection to him and was answered by stoney silence.
I can conceive of a world where less people are conceiving.
Believe me, there is no danger of the human race dying out any time soon, due to lower birth rates. There has been talk about a "baby dearth" and a "demographic winter" occuring now; the fact of the matter is, world population is going up...and up....and up.
Please refer to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
One fact mention at this link:
"The actual annual growth in the number of humans worldwide fell from its peak of 87 million per annum in the late 1980s, to a low of 75 million per annum in 2002, at which it stabilised and has started to slowly rise again to 77 million per annum in 2007."
Maybe, just maybe, if a few people in your metro area would decide to have less children, or no children, and this was duplicated all over the country, and then all over the world, we might add only 76 million humans to Earth's population next year, instead of 77 million.
These Gloucester girls bittersweet grab at having a future- what future is there in having a baby so young, having huge expenses and debt for a couple decades; or, alternatively, having your child taken away by a state agency? Does this improve their future?
If the baby cries or causes problems other ways or is no longer wanted, just throw it in the trash...
Abstinence-Only policies are a disaster waiting to happen, as anyone who has spent any meaningful time amongst adolescents would know. They are Christian right pie-in-the-sky boondoggle to rival any "liberal" program they regularly vent about.
Enough is enough. This country was built on virility, and its time we stopped.
The Abstinence-Only Policy Is Bearing Babies.
American religious Conservatives love unborn babies! They use them as weapons against young women.
Every politician knows that if you outlaw something or declare a war on it that it will expand.
baruch is right, how can we conceive of a future without conceiving those who will live in it ?
we have all bought into the lie that 'men need sex more than women', that is bullshit
women are the ones who bear all the possible reproductive consequences of sex -- they by necessity have to have very strong sex drives or the human race would die out in no time flat . . . i can just imagine if teenage boys got pregnant . . . they would demand special care from the minute the test came back positive, all sorts of attention and support, and after going through childbirth just once they probably never would again . . .
when our kitty was in heat i told our teenage son that girls could be just as desperate and it was a good thing for the human race that they were and it was up to him to restrain himself until he could use protection properly and consistently because he never wanted to put a girl in a position where she was forced to consider having an abortion . . . or a child. . .
but just look at the newest Cosmopoliton, at eye level at the supermarket checkout stand for any curious nine-year old girl to read while mommy's paying for the groceries, the cover headline screams TABOO SEX:
The Dirty, Sexy Moves He Craves in Bed
so i glanced at it while waiting in line, not only was the article practically porno, it also implied that 'If you don't do these things for him, he will find someone else who will' . . . this is a bad message for guys too !
geez, at age nine my friend Lois and I hadn't even gone to the library yet to find the book "The Stork Didn't Bring You" and read it in a quiet corner, we were more like age eleven . . .
i think an outside observer would think that we would qualify as a sexually demented society
perhaps part of the reason for the 'baby pact' was a longing to bring the innocence symbolized by babies into our hypersexualized culture . . .
the great danger in honoring fertility rather than demonizing it is that then sex will no longer be the end in itself that our culture generally defines it as, it will become the normal function it was intended to be in the first place rather than a way to use our bodies, in the immortal words of George Costanza's mother on Seinfeld, "as amusement parks".
thank you Doll!
Pitts says: "Who can argue against saying no? What parent isn't pro abstinence?"
A Puritan in progressive clothing!
What crap! I am a parent who is AGAINST abstinance. My kid is now a beautiful and sensitive man, even without abstinence propaganda. In fact, we went out of our way to point out the folly of what was being shoved down his throat in school, and I am proud that we did. Promoting blind abstinence is the mark of an inadequate parent. My early life was highly damaged by the lies and silence about sex, and I will never allow abstinence promoters to think they are supererior in my presence. They are idiots, and I am superior!
Maybe rather than just laying out a bunch of impossible rules, we should focus on telling our children the truth about sexuality, and train them to think critically before risking pregnancy and disease. Did this guy ever bother to tell his children about the much safer alternatives of oral and digital sex. Or maybe detailed frankly to his daughter how men work? Or reminded his son about the pain he would cause his sweetheart if he acts without care? Or made condoms available? It seems that the abstinence program of the ever-cruel and hypocritical Right has been so successful that we don't even see that they have brainwashed many (former?) leftists!
In a way these pregnancies are evidence of an almost desperate hope to have a future. How much hope do these young folks when it comes to the state of the world? Even if they aren't consciously focused on the big picture, they feel it. I see this as a bittersweet grab at having a future.
Abstience before marriage is a nutty idea. I know. I tried it once. It just doesn't work. It can lead to very crumby marriages.
Ariel,
The more you write, the sillier you sound.
Keep going!
Great article Leonard Pitts Jr.
Ariel,
The more you write, the sillier you sound.
I've read some off-the-wall nonsense on this site, but I believe I've never seen anything as ridiculous as Ariel
Sharon's post just above.
Even he asks if his own post is a "mixed message". No, sir, it's not even coherent enough to be "mixed". Just nutty. How about backing up even one of your assertions with proof?
"Abstinence only" will never possibly work in a democratic society. The only way to prevent teen pregnancies is via contraceptives. In my opinion, contraceptives should be provided free to all who want them. This is already occuring in many other countries outside the U.S. I feel this is a government expense which is well worth it. There could be large savings from less welfare payments, etc.
The growth in world population is still at least 70 million additional people every year. Until THIS number declines significantly, reducing the birthrate to the lowest level possible should be a high priority. This huge annual population increase requires more and more land for housing, roads, power plants, etc., and more and more trees cut down, further boosting global warming.
There is a misconception that the U.S. natural increase in population (not counting immigration) has dropped to zero or lower. This has happened in almost all of Europe, but is NOT true here in the U.S. Even if all immigration to the U.S. would stop, we would still continue having a small yearly increase in population, due to births slightly exceeding deaths.
One suggestion, to try to prevent another Gloucester story, is to have teenage girls who might get pregnant keep a doll in their room, that makes crying noises at random times in the nighttime hours. They need to be made fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Some of them have absolutely no idea what they are getting into, in having a baby. Another suggestion is, of course, providing them with all the contraceptives they want, for free.
Most members of the junior anti-sex league who constantly try to ban all mention of even heterosexual sex in public life fit neatly into two catagories:
1. Not very good-looking middle aged women jealous that their husbands might go to strip clubs, look at porn on the internet, etc etc. These women hate male heterosexuality. (I think a lot of our commondreams women fit into this category).
2. Male closet homosexuals who's attitude is "If I can't talk about gay sex, these breeders arn't going to talk about straight sex". Most ALL men who are "anti pornography", or who come out for this abstenience-only stuff are not only closet gays, but pedaphiles, bathroom-sex junkies, and all other manner of perverts.
Enough is enough. This country was built on virility, and its time we stopped demonizing heterosexuality.
Also time idiots stopped having so many kids. Is this a mixed message?
baby mamas
Men have no responsibility...
peace,
st john
And why is it that the 17 men/boys who impregnated the 17 girls are not, apparently, part of this story? Just boys been' boys, eh?
How many of the men/boys knew about this supposed pact? How many were duped or tricked into it? How many were minors and how many not? Did the 17 men/boys also have a pact to impregnate 17 girls? How many of the girls were impregnated by the same man/boy? And how many of the men/boys are still with the girl they impregnated? Any?
Hooray! More babies having babies! That means less educational opportunities for both parent and child which will hasten the plummeting of intelligence in this country; that means more people thinking America brings freedom to the world; that means more future soldiers; that means the wars get to continue; that means more church attendance to pray for our soldiers and pray that God will smite our enemies (in his mercy); that means more money in the collection basket; that means the Dobsons and Robertsons and Falwells all keep their multi-million dollar organizations and get to continue their quest to promote abstinence only education; that means someday we will live in a world in which every ejaculation results in another quarter-wit ready to open their wallets, fight wars, and procreate on command.
Everything is going according to plan.
soylent green is people
Conservatives actually love only blond, blue-eyed White female babies.
As you've correctly observed, the rest will be fodder for the war machine, the prison system (work gangs), and the indentured slavery known as welfare-to-work.
Which ideology is it that is pro-abstinence only? Come on, let's call it what it is: religion. The beliefs of hard-core Christians causing harm.
American religious Conservatives love babies! What they hate are the moms.
Hasn't it ever occurred to anyone except me that this is exactly the desired result: more American babies to feed the war machines?
Nietzsche:
Get with the program. Every politician knows that if you outlaw something or declare a war on it that it will go away.
And if it doesn't, at least your base will think you actually care.
Only a real dummy would try to make societal rules to prevent any animal from listening to an instinct that has evolved over millions of years.
Anybody ever tried to prevent a dog in heat from having sex? Think humans are different? Not likely.