Abortion statistics

I appreciated Slack Inc.'s recent attempt to discuss abortion which unfortunately got derailed into a pissing match between two of this site's most prominent pissers. I had wanted to use that diary to get into a discussion of abortion statistics but felt that it would probably deserve it's own diary. Follow the jump and see if it does...

One thing that always troubles me in the abortion debate is the repeated point that 1.3 million abortions happen every year and that something like 30 million or so abortions have taken place since 1973. Where did these statistics come from? Are they true or made up to help the anti-Choice crowd win the public debate?

Doing a Google search (they still have the St. Pat's graphic up, are they too hung over to change it or what?), I found the About.com site which had an overview of abortion statistics I'd like to share with you:

Abortion Statistics - U.S.

Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.  
 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.  
60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.  
 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old.  

Abortion Statistics - Demographics *

52% are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)  
 Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.  
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion claimed they were Protestant, while 27% claimed they were Catholic.  

*Abortion  Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)  
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.  
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.  
 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.  
 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the   pregnancy.)  
 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.  
 7.9% of women want no (more) children.  
 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.  
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to  maternal health.

Abortion  Statistics - Using Contraception (U.S.) *
54% of women having an abortion said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant.

90% of women who are at risk for unplanned pregnancies are using contraception

8% of women having an abortion say they have never used contraception.

It is possible that up to 43% of the decline in abortion from 1994-2000 can be attributed to using emergency contraception.

*Abortion Statistics - Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.

The majority of these statistics were taken from The Alan Guttmacher Institute.

So, from what I can tell, almost half of all women having abortion are Protestants while over a quarter were Catholic! Most women that have abortions use contraceptives and tend to be young and poor and simply cannot afford to have a baby (I wonder if they even have insurance since abortions are cheaper than giving birth perhaps this might also be an explanataion- another reason to pressure the right to support universal health insurance). I think these statistics help point out several of the false assumptions that most people accept. I also love the fact that the the drop in abortions is attributed to emergency contraception- something that the right is trying to do away with which would actually increase the number of abortions which is more proof to me that anti-abortion people are actually more about establishing a  culture of control than a "culture of life."

Are these statistics believable? From what little I could find, many sites accuse the Guttmacher Institute of being pro-choice? Does anyone have more info on this? Has anyone else ever done a study of abortion rates? I still find the number of abortions in this study a bit high to be believed and think this one statistic of over 1 million abortions a year hurts the cause of choice more than anything else. Discuss...

•  Alan Guttmacher Institute

  I should have added that the sites calling the AGI a pro-choice outfit were so-called Right to Life sites. I didn't mean to imply that was a fair assesment of them. Any more info on them would be much appreciated.

  by Joe Willy on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:10:50 AM PDT

  •  AGI

    is a reality based organization that relies on facts, not theories.

    They do great work around the world.

    The anti-abortion right wingnuts would automatically think that they were biased.  Yes...biased toward the facts.

    Actually, the CDC used to be the main government organization researching abortion, until Ronald Reagan didn't like the results of some of their work that showed the positive public health implications of legalized abortion.  Reagan tried to censor a respected researchers paper on birth control that included one reference to abortion.  The researcher (Dr. David Grimes) refused to be censored.  Reagan eventually dismantled the abortion surveillance project.

    They used to investigate any abortion related death, complication,. etc.  Clinics would welcome them into their offices because we genuinely wanted answers to impending problems, and we trusted the researchers for their integrity and help.

    Reagan took that away for political reasons.

    by annrose on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:08:28 AM PDT

•  some distubing figures

  that I've wondered about for a long time--even though I'm totally pro-choice.

  We Americans need to figure out
  WHY we have over a million abortions a year (and it's been that number or higher for decades)
  WHY almost half of pregnancies are unintended, and
  WHY almost half of those seeking abortion were using NOTHING in the way of contraceptives.

  THose are unacceptable percentages for a country in which contraceptives are not hard to get. WHY are thesefacts true for thoso many who are old enough and educated enough to know better, not ignorant teens?

  It may be ambivalent and guilty attitudes toward sex that prevent people from approaching it with good sense. Subliminally, it's more acceptable or more exciting to have a "passionate" impulsive sexual experience than a "responsible" one with pre-planned contraception. A book called "Swept Away," addressedc to women mostly, explored this phenomenon very well.

  Is it also possible that subconsciously one of the parties may want the pregnancy to happen?

  This is a country that actually drummed Jocelyn Elders out of the position of Surgeon General, for frankly and truthfully stating that masturbation is normal, and that is what she would advise telling teenagers in sex education classes.

  by dinazina on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:24:20 AM PDT

  •  The Whys are Pretty Simple...

    WHY we have over a million abortions a year (and it's been that number or higher for decades)

    Because we have far too many poor, young, undereducated women? Because in the corporate world, many of these women feel that they must have sex with their male co-workers to get ahead? Because Republican social policies encourage increased abortion rates by increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies? Because the cost of living - especially for a single parent - has been skyrocketing over the past twenty years and wages haven't kept up?

    WHY almost half of pregnancies are unintended, and WHY almost half of those seeking abortion were using NOTHING in the way of contraceptives. (...) WHY are thesefacts true for thoso many who are old enough and educated enough to know better, not ignorant teens?

    Abstinence-only sex ed. Social pressure from conservatives against being on the pill (I've heard the word "slut" bandied about far too often in this context). Guys that don't want to bother with condoms. Pharmacists that refuse to provide contraception. Republican misinformation about the dangers of birth control. Religious bans on birth control.

    I'd really like to see a breakdown of these stats by Protestant denomination and region.

    by RHunter on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:40:36 AM PDT

    •  I'm a bit surprised by your second

      point. Is sleeping one's way to the top still really a significant phenomenom? I don't think we should overgeneralize a point if it isn't widespread.

      There are 2 forces opposing the type of common sense birth control that would make a dent in those numbers. 1 is the fundy types (of all stripes really) who think educating leads to doing, and doing is wrong. 2 is the mass media image of sex as something that should be spontaneous, glamorous, and having little relation to reality. Neither of those forces leads to the kind of preplanning campaign that would actually make those numbers go down.

      Education about birth control AND widespread, cheap, and easy to obtain (with minimal embarrassment) birth control would help. I hate those pharma commercials in general, but can you imagine some where the potential users don't all have wedding bands? Of course, the company that did that would be pilloried and drummed out of business.

      by JMS on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:02:04 AM PDT

      •  You make good points

        And even if "sleeping ones way to the top" WERE rampant among career-oriented female yuppies, that sure would not explain a lack of contraceptives while doing so.

        Lack of frank sex-ed by both schools and parents, and ambivalent attitudes about sex have to be important factors in creating poor use of contraceptives.

        As for the most repressive churches, they haven't managed to control human lust in their own employees, much less young members, but do manage to indoctrinate the idea that contraceptive users = sluts. They believe "spontanous" weakness to temptation with NO precautions is less sinful than responsible, pre-meditated sexual behaviour.

        One Catholic site even insisted that contraceptives lead to abortions! Yes, because the parties mistakenly think they are 100% protected. It also condemned contraceptives for married people, since that allowed them to treat childbearing as an inconvenience, when it should be regarded as a blessing. So I guess all their members should look forward to having 12 kids.

        by dinazina on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:40:47 AM PDT

        •  I know Conservative Catholics who believe..

          just  that- birth control leads to abortion.

          Many of them also believe that "population crisis" is a myth propagated by "seculars" to support the birth control arguement.

          by downdowny on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:57:27 AM PDT

  •  Its the parents

    who are uncomfortable with sex education.  Kids are very good about using information to make good decisions.  

    When information is withheld or poluted with religious/moral overtones kids become vulnerable to bad decisions.  

    Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.  Wish we could say the same about their elders.

    by servantsavant on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:42:50 AM PDT

  •  Why -- no access to adequate birth control

    In addition, the number of women of reproductive age covered by Medicaid declined in the late 1990s, while the number with no health insurance increased; these factors could have inhibited women's access to both family planning and abortion services.

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:53:50 AM PDT

    •  Insurance Co's

      will cover Viagra, but not the pill for women.

      What does that really tell us?

      by shirlstars on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 11:03:20 AM PDT

  •  People are risk takers.

    That's the bottom line in all behavior.

    How many of you out there have ALWAYS used protection during sex when you didn't want a pregnancy to happen?  ALWAYS.  No slip-ups.  Think hard and long.  OOPS...you probably could have been the victim of an "unintended pregnancy."

    So, don't be too quick to judge.

    Using birth control or not using it is simple risk taking behavior.  There are alot of impediments to access to birth control in our society and not much help.

    So, in an isolated sexual incident, even though you know what you should or should not do, the pleasure of sex oftentimes overwhelms one and risk-taking occurs.

    It's just like weight loss.  We all know how to lose weight.  Most of us have the tools, but for whatever reason, we risk our health and do unhealthy things that makes us FAT.

    It's also like cigarette smoking.  The health problems with cigarettes are well documented.  People are not stupid, but some people still smoke, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it.

    And wearing seat belts.  How many of you ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS have worn your seat belts?  Again, sometimes risk taking happens.

    Actually, the above is a 2-hour workshop condensed into a few paragraphs.

    The bottom line is that people are human, and as humans they will take risks...whether it's sex without protection, cigarette smoking, not exercising, eating fast food, not wearing seat belts, etc. etc. etc.

    by annrose on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:02:18 AM PDT

•  The latest statistics I heard

  were from 2004 November election exit polls; the only questions asked were:

  Do you want Roe v. Wade overturned? Yes: 19%

  Do you believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases? Yes: 57%

  Quite starkly different from the stats cited above!

  by jamfan on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:24:23 AM PDT

  •  When you filter coarsely, you get that

    Welcom to the wonderful world of polling.  I have a statistic around that indicates 43% of Democratic voters believe that abortion is manslaughter.  

    About 20% of the U.S. population has strong feelings about abortion - they're either strongly pro-life or strongly pro-choice.  The Remaining 60% sit in the "necessary but queasy" category - they see the necessity of abortion, but they'd rather it didn't happen that often, they'd probably like it a little more tightly regulated, but they don't want to see it outlawed.  Depending on how you phrase the question, you get different results, especially because most people don't know what's in legal decisions.

    This is how both strong pro-lifers and pro-choicers can claim to represent the majority of the American people - they have polls which, when rephrased acquire good chunks of the intermediary 60%.

    by astralagos on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:31:46 AM PDT

•  AGI is pro-choice

  AGI's statistics are usually taken as standard by both pro-life and pro-choice groups.  If there's a particular point where pro-life groups grumble about the stats, its usually claiming that AGI inflates the number of abortions in countries where it's illegal.  My feeling is it's a tossup in those cases.

  That said, if you go to AGI's web site, their political beliefs are pretty obvious.  Take them as you will.

  As the resident statistically literate anti-choice fanatic, I can add a couple of comments: actually getting statistics on abortion rates in the U.S. is a cosmic PITA.  They used to be collected biannually, but around 2000 that changed to relatively rarely and state-by-state.  The "abortions rose under Bush" statement comes out of a lack of data to do a meaningful time series analysis on abortion rates in the U.S. under the Bush administration.  There are a variety of other elements that weren't considered in the sojo article that posited this in the first place.  I'm not saying they didn't go down, I'm just saying that there's little real evidence for down or up.   There are very few empirical studies done on causal factors in abortion; I have one of them sitting around and it was done in 1987.

  Economic neglect is one of the major reasons for high abortion rates in the U.S., another issue, especially in the case of repeat abortions, is abuse.  There have been some studies done on women who have repeat abortions, and there was a correlation between the number of abortions and how often they were doing it because of their boyfriend/husband/resident jerk.  Some of these problems can be solved through national health care plans, as well as improving the economic options once the kid's born - enforcing long parental leaves, that kind of thing (and frankly, we have to do that anyway.  As population rates drop in the industrialized world, the state is going to get into the business of encouraging births.  Australia is already trying).  Some by access to contraception, and some by improving women's social and economic status.    
  

  by astralagos on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:27:13 AM PDT

•  The Alan Guttmacher Institute

  Was founded by this gentleman, the former head of the Planned Parenthood Foundation:

  http://www.guttmacher.org/about/alan-bio.html

  The Institute is pro-choice, by its mission statement.  However, being pro-choice does not make their research findings invalid.  

  A way to cross-check statistics on abortion is to use the CDC's and NIH's data.  However, these are state dependent and not all states report the same information that the Guttmacher Institute acquires when it does studies.

  by shanikka on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:28:02 AM PDT

•  Abortion rate last 4 years?

  What is the abortion statistics for the last 4 years?

  I believe it has gone up over the last 4 years.

  What is the adoption rate over the last 4 years and years previous?

  by ctsteve on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:32:57 AM PDT

•  What is the definition of abortion...

  In these statistics.  Is it the termination of an unwanted pregnancy or the termination of any pregnancy?

  by RichM on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:37:39 AM PDT

  •  Yes, I had a dead fetus

    removed and that was technically an abortion (the procedure). Do those count in these statistics?

    by ohiolibrarian on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:49:42 AM PDT

    •  Not in Texas

      Only the termination of a viable pregnancy is reported for statistical purposes.  Cases involving fetal demise, missed abortion, and molar and ectopic pregnancies are not included in abortion statistic reporting.  

      by moiv on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:41:37 AM PDT

•  There was a thread on IVF one day

  Which got me thinking about embryos and the numbers of "not a baby" situations in fertility treatments. IVF thread.  

  I do not supply these numbers to suggest that families shouldn't choose fertility treatments, I am 100% pro-choice: you choose what is right for your family.

  But I thought these numbers were interesting:

  CDC says (about ART, assisted reproductive technology):
  

  http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ART02/nation.htm
  The data for this national report come from the 391 fertility clinics in operation in 2002 that provided and verified data on the outcomes of all ART cycles started in their clinics. The 115,392 ART cycles performed at these reporting clinics in 2002 resulted in 33,141 live births (deliveries of one or more living infants) and 45,751 babies.

  So, if that is 115,392 cycles, that is probably more than one fertilization event.  Another site--for egg donors--suggested "15-18 eggs" in one cycle. I have no idea how medically valid this data is.  

  But let's just say, 10 eggs in a cycle for this calculation.

  
  
  • 115,392 cycles x 10 eggs = 1,153,920
    
  • 1,153,920 - 46,000 babies (rounded) = 1,107,920 not a baby.

  That is rather a substantial number, and note the interesting comparison to the estimated number of abortions.  I use this only to point out the hypocrisy of the fundies who are going after women who had sex rather than saving the actual embryos.
  

  by mem from somerville on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 06:47:46 AM PDT

  •  You mean by "snowflake" adoptions?

    Last fall, HHS gave pro-life groups over $300,000 to promote "adoption" of other people's unwanted frozen embryos.

    But this morning the House is mad because the Senate voted to restore Bush's Medicaid cuts for real kids.

    by moiv on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:55:28 AM PDT

•  The data I want to see is....

  ...a year to year graph of the nuber of abortions performed each year. Any one know where I can find that???

  by alexm on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:01:44 AM PDT

  •  I'd love to find it too, however

    I think the Bushies have sanitized these data from the internets....

    I looked for this type of data years ago and could only find it on so-called right to life sites. Hardly reliable data.
    

    by hopeful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:11:40 AM PDT

  •  You might have to do a state by state analysis

    You might have to do some work to get to the data.  Here's a link for a state-by-state look at abortion rates.

    Sojourner's has an article on abortion rates under bush2 (since it is so hard to find statistics now):

    I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.
    [snip]
    I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

    Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed...

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:14:28 AM PDT

•  Insurance

  One thing missing from those statistics is insurance.  Approx 13-16% of all abortions in the US are covered by insurance, including Medicaid.  The VAST majority of these could ONLY be covered in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, or health of the fetus.  That means more than 200,000 abortions per year, not exactly a tiny number or a rare exception, are for reasons MOST Americans agree are okay.  It also means that further restrictions on abortion will restrict the ability of more than 200,000 women to take care of themselves and their families in the face of violent crime or medical tragedy.
  

  by dhonig on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:03:46 AM PDT

  •  Planned Parenthood link has info

    on that subject and the effects of the cuts of bushco's FY 2005 budget.

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:23:05 AM PDT

•  I haven't done an indepth study

  but I believe that the infant mortality rate in the US is higher than the abortion rate.

  It seems alarming that there are over a million abortions a year in the US, but I wonder what percentage that equals in the number of women who are of child bearing age, and are all of the counted abortions performed, those of Americans or are those performed on Canadians included?

  I am naturally skeptical of government figures.

  by nupstateny on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:06:57 AM PDT

  •  it certainly is higher(infant mortality)

    than in many other so-called western societies. I love Barney Frank' comment about the right: (I am paraphrasing): "They believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth."

    by hopeful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:13:26 AM PDT

    •  here is a link to U.S. ranking in infant mortality

      http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm

      U.S. ranks 36th overall....pitiful.

      by hopeful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:23:17 AM PDT

      •  asdf

        The US ranked two places below Cuba!  

        by jimG on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 09:25:57 AM PDT

  •  These are not government figures.

    The Alan Guttmacher Institute is an independent, private organization.

    Canada is NOT included.

    by annrose on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:46:34 AM PDT

    •  Oh, I didn't

      mean the figures stated in the diary.

      I did a quick search and found a lot of government figures which are obviously slanted to reflect what the agencies want to show-and that's what I don't trust.

      by nupstateny on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 11:00:23 AM PDT

•  I like the statistic that reports...

  ...that 48% (or so) of women oppose legal abortion except in cases of rape, incest and...themselves!

  Not a real statistic, but you get the point.

  by baldandy on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:23:16 AM PDT

  •  That's the way it is

    We see eleventh hour "pro-choice conversions" every day in cases of "rape, incest and me."

    It just can't happen to them . . . until it does.  Our capacity for denial is astonishing.

    by moiv on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:51:41 AM PDT

•  here's a CDC report of abortion rates by year

  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

  but notice...all data reporting stops in 2001.

  by hopeful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:29:47 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm..

    so why do you think that is?  

    by RAST on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:30:32 AM PDT

    •  because

      Bush has stopped putting a lot of data on the internet. It is part of his philosophy. This is fairly well documented. He doesn't want people to have data...

      by hopeful on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 09:33:07 AM PDT

•  Falling for a frame and a fence

  By talking only about elective abortions, you have fallen into the frame that the faith based reproductive health proponents have built over the last half century.

  Laws and outlaws have worked to eliminate all access to reproductive health for pregnant women, not just those who are contemplating an elective abortion. The have passed fetus protection laws that do not consider miscarriages and still births and abortion clinic laws where regulations apply to both medically necessary and elective abortions.  

  If we are to improve health in this country we must move from the the faith based reproductive health frame.  We should always talk about all pregnancies. The public problem is not one type of elective surgery, it's woman's reproductive health.
  

  by Jim W on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 07:44:05 AM PDT

•  Virginity Pledgers More Likely to be Risky

  For Immediate Release                                                  Contact:  Adrienne Verrilli

  March 18, 2005                                                        at [phone]

  Virginity Pledgers More Likely to Engage in Risky Sexual Behavior

  Including Oral and Anal Sex

   To view the report, go to: http://www.jahonline.org/ or
  http://www.iserp.Columbia.edu

  New York, NY - A study released in the March 18, 2005 issue of the
  Journal of Adolescent Health by Hannah Brückner of Yale University and
  Peter Bearman of Columbia University shows that young people who took
  "virginity pledges," public promises to remain virgins until marriage,
  are nonetheless at risk of engaging in unsafe sexual practices.

  The research found that "pledgers" have the same rate of sexually
  transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged.  Not
  only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they
  were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, increasing
  possibility of transmission.

  Furthermore researchers concluded that some pledgers engaged in
  alternative sexual behaviors in order to preserve their virginity.  In
  fact, among those who had not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers are
  more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their
  non-pledging peers.  The research shows that among virgins, male and
  female pledgers are six time more likely to have had oral sex than
  non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had
  anal sex than those who had not pledged.

  "This research confirms what we have known for a long time," said Bill
  Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information
  and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS).  "Teens, regardless of
  whether they have a taken a virginity pledge, are engaging in
  behaviors that put them at risk for STDs and unintended pregnancy.  It
  is vitally important that we provide all teens with the information
  and skills they need to protect themselves," Smith continued.

  Virginity pledges are the cornerstone of many federally funded
  abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.  Since 1982, the U.S.
  government has spent over a billion dollars on unproven
  abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.  Of that billion, $620
  million dollars has been spent in just the last seven years.  Under
  the leadership of President Bush there has been a continued expansion
  of investment in these programs with $168 million allocated in Fiscal
  Year 2005 alone. Now the President is seeking an all-time high of $206
  million in his proposed Fiscal Year 2006 budget.  These programs are
  prohibited from discussing contraceptives except in the context of
  failure rates and have never been proven effective.

  "Not only do virginity pledges not work to keep our young people safe,
  they are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception, and
  medical treatment," said Smith.  "Enough is enough.  It is time for
  lawmakers to stop pushing their ideological agenda at the expense of
  young people and fund comprehensive and medically accurate sexuality
  education programs that work," Smith continued.

  by annrose on Fri Mar 18, 2005 at 08:19:34 AM PDT