Skip to main content

View Diary: Teen pregnancy in the Red States (325 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  a hypocrisy index -- seriously... (none)
    ... someone needs to compile an index of Red vs. Blue states on moral values.  By memory, the high teen pregnancy rates in Red states just adds to the higher rates of pornography use, smoking, DUI's per 1,000, domestic violence in Red vs. Blue.  

    And what was that figure, that number of Republicans (who were adulterers) leading the charge to impeach Clinton on the basis of adultery?

    Hypocrisy is a Red State value!

    •  hypocrites (none)
      Fucking hypocrites. Literally.
      •  Not so fast (none)
        ...these statistics are filled with noise and are not totally accurate.  Please have some skepticism and hold your bigotry in the light of that reality.  My post is upstring but don't take my word for it - there are others as well who have discussed the issues around these numbers and what they may actually reflect.  Blue states may just be richer and better able to cover their statistics.

        One thing is sure - these statistics have certainly allowed people here to give vent to a lot of bigotry on this blog and it is certainly something that we had better check out before "calling the kettle black" on the red states if you know what I mean.

        If we are progressives - if we actually hold to progressive ideals of equity, fairness and accountability, what are YOU doing to reflect that? Seems like the republican proficiency for dividing and conquering has infected US too.

        •  Wealthy? (none)
          Check the 'wealth' Vermont, which is low on the teen birth and teen abortion lists.

          And Maine has lower income yet, and is low on the teen birth list.

          There is more than one thing going on, surely,
          and acting like dismissive, patronizing, condescending 'elites' has not helped us in the past.  We need to be part of the solution...get the figures together, (in which case, I would check out what ME and VT are doing right, given that they are relatively poor), and propose solutions to the problems.

          Oh.  Isn't that what Dean did?
                   Success by Six
                   Medical coverage for children (think you can get your own birth control pills, in all likelihood)

          •  Relative (none)
            Vermont and Maine have higher per capita incomes than say, Mississippi and Alabama and higher levels of education.  Their state governments also operate quite differently and approaches to healthcare access differ.

            My point is not that rich states = lower teen pregnancy rates -though most people theorize that its true, but that these statistics themselves are very misleading.  The types of providers and access to different types of healthcare play a huge role in what is reported and what gets placed into the statistics.  There has long been a northern bias in the reporting of certain statistics. Therefore, before people get into a righteous tear about those damned red state moral low-lifes, they had better understand that they are basing that judgement on biased information.

            Also, just as you hint, is this what we should be about? Progressives win when we support the little guy, the non-elite - not just rich white people.

          •  No minorities (none)
            Vermont and Maine (and North Dakota for that matter) have very small numbers of minorities and they are rural small states with no major urban city.  I don't know how the statistics would look if we broke them down by city vs. rural, racially, or income-wise... but those differences would probably tell us more than comparing Maine to Louisiana and Oklahoma to New York.
            •  Just as likely to be due to child abuse (none)
              VT and ME do not encourage beating children.  Success by Six is very useful that way, because it is voluntary and always set up in the positive tone that almost all parents want to do the best for their kids, but don't always know how.  Every new parent gets a hospital visit, where they are asked if they want to participate in the program.  Overwhelmingly, most do. It's a good program.

              If you are an abused child, the one thing you want in your life is someone who really loves you.  First you find a guy...and whether he marries you or not, well then there's the baby.

              The Bible thumping churches are very positive on child beating.  I don't think it helps their teen age pregnancy statistics.

        •  frankly, in this day and age, I'll cop to a lot (none)
          of things.  I'll admit that I'm a bigot.  I hate Republicans.  Period.  Okay, perhaps the just plain stupid, or obviously misled ones I feel sorry for, but the rest of the lot can just f-off.    This includes my own family members.  I still have some love for them, but there is also hate there as well.  And as my excuse I'll cop to having been infected and now I'm hate-positive.  I admit it.  I can no longer just say, politely, "well, let's not talk about that at a family dinner."  I did my best to have "safe" political conversation--I brought along protection (a college education, an open liberal mind, an amusing wit)--but still, I wound up infected with hate.  

          And I know that I am not alone.  And the most troubling part for me lies in the possibility that I will no longer be able to channel this hate away from acts of militancy...

    •  MA has the fewest divorces per capitia (none)
      And yet the Red state freaks think denying non-heterosexuals equal protection under the law will somehow improve the institution of marriage, and they love to rail in code-modeTM against "Mass. liberals".

      Projection much you think?


      Mitch Gore

      Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

      by Lestatdelc on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 12:29:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Question (none)
        Has anyone checked for divorces per marriage as opposed to per capita?  Maybe my statistical background is just too curious, but there may be a few feminists in MA that aren't getting married in the first place.  I'd like to see what percentage of marriages end in divorce rather than how many in the state.  No marriages = no divorces and a great piece of rhetoric, but not what I think everyone has in mind.
        •  Not sure... (none)
          but I doubt there is a statistically significant trend along the lines you mention.

          I believe also the stat I was referencing is based on numbers of marriages that end in divorce as that is usually the divorce rate stats that are normally tracked.

          I mention the per/capita to show it is base don population and not just raw number totals, in which case California would lead in ANY categorically of any stat you want since it is simply the most populous state.


          Mitch Gore

          Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

          by Lestatdelc on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 02:37:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Divorce (none)
            The one I've seen peddled all around liberal sites is per capita.  I think I saw a per marriage list on a conservative site that was different (MA was not on top) and more mixed.  Just wondering if anyone had such a list handy since it would be a better indicator of the success rate of marriages.
            •  these are only a few states, (none)
              because i was doing the math by hand. but if you really want to, go the the CDC or look up the National Vital Statistics

              This is 2000 data, because that's what i found that was all year data.

              A new and useless statistic to mull and or argue about
              Divorce per Marriage
              MA 50.26% (18,597d/36999m)
              NY 38.76% (62,794d/161984m)
              MS 72.81% (14,355d/19715m) incidentally i took a look at Jan through May of this year and it's on the order of 88% so far
              NM 63.64% (9203d/14462m)
              WV 59.51%, TX 42.18%, IL 45.70%, AL 52.28%, NC 56.21%, PA 51.71%

              i'm not sure what if anything this tells us about anything. because in Dec 2000 in MA according to the records posted on the CDC 1845 people got married (or were issued licensed) and 3009 got divorced. which is 163%, or something. in PA that month 4006 people married, and 3858 got divorced (96%). was it just a really bad month to be married? was that the month that everyone's court paperwork finally went through, i don't know. and down in MS that month 3106 people tied the knot, and 1187 cut it. that's 38% about half what the figure was for the year.

              divorce and marriage are two unrelated activities. you have to be married to get divorced. but you don't have to be in the same jurisdiction that you got married in. you getting married does not make it more or less likely that someone else will get divorced, and you getting divorced does not make it more or less likely that someone else will get married. 9you getting divorced does not make it more or less likely that someone else will get divorced either, so i kind of think the whole blue states are better because we have a low divorce rate is kind of a smoke screen too, but that's just me.) so we can tie the two numbers together and have some fun, but it'll be meaningless fun.

              lizz's second rule of statistics: every one of them can be manipulated. or as my guy said "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics."  

              outside a dog, man's best friend is a book. inside a dog it's very dark. Mark Twain

              by lizzerd on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 06:24:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  can we please let the Clinto myth go? (none)
      Clinton was not impeached for adultery.

      "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

      by bluestateLIBertarian on Mon Dec 06, 2004 at 01:03:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site