Trump Administration Moves To Defund Teen Pregnancy Research Programs

[Belsnickel]

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/07/24/Trump-administration-ends-funding-for-teen-pregnancy-programs/3551500899474/

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/trump-administration-cuts-short-anti-teen-pregnancy-grants-48847203

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/17/537754569/trump-administration-moves-to-defund-teen-pregnancy-research-programs

http://www.businessinsider.com/teen-pregnancy-prevention-program-funding-cuts-trump-administration-2017-7

One thing to note that I read in the NPR article, was that a new under-secretary in HHS is a proponent of abstinence only education. So this may be a result of that particular person's ideology. It's hard to say. Either way, this can result in higher unwanted pregnancies, higher numbers of abortions, higher numbers of STIs, etc. A bad move, for sure.

[ballsofsteel]

Anything to make his base happy.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2017, 07:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2017/07/24/Trump-administration-ends-funding-for-teen-pregnancy-programs/3551500899474/

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/trump-administration-cuts-short-anti-teen-pregnancy-grants-48847203

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/17/537754569/trump-administration-moves-to-defund-teen-pregnancy-research-programs

http://www.businessinsider.com/teen-pregnancy-prevention-program-funding-cuts-trump-administration-2017-7

One thing to note that I read in the NPR article, was that a new under-secretary in HHS is a proponent of abstinence only education. So this may be a result of that particular person's ideology. It's hard to say. Either way, this can result in higher unwanted pregnancies, higher numbers of abortions, higher numbers of STIs, etc. A bad move, for sure.

(07-30-2017, 07:50 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Anything to make his base happy.

This.

They don't care about numbers or studies or reality.  They care about making the "Christians" think they are "turning our country back to God".  Making America "great again", if you will.

And I bet Trump could not care less...this smells of a Pence thing with Trump there just to take the face of it.

[samhain]

The big Trump states in the South are hotbeds for kids getting knocked up and having more kids. It benefits the Trumpers for these people to reproduce in a wholesale capacity. Trumpers love seeing barefoot, pregnant teenage girls put in their place at a young age. Turns out they also love smack laced with high-potency Chinese-made fentanyl, too, but that's another discussion.

I mean, once your sixteen and have 3 kids and a smack habit that makes you basically unemployable, you logically drift toward the Trump mentality. It probably feels good to blame the transvestites and Mexicans for your turd of a life when you're that utterly hopeless. At least you'll still be able to get churchin'. That's the most important thing. I sure wish all the states in the US were as MAGAfied as the junkie knocked-up Trump ones.

[Dill]

(07-30-2017, 10:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: This.

They don't care about numbers or studies or reality.  They care about making the "Christians" think they are "turning our country back to God".  Making America "great again", if you will.

And I bet Trump could not care less...this smells of a Pence thing with Trump there just to take the face of it.

The latter. Trump has shown no interest whatsoever in teenage pregnancy. Nor does the alt right segment of his base. But "abstinence" has long been an issue for the Evangelicals.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

While the abstinence-only thing sounds like a Pence move... I will point out this for the articles crediting the program with the lowered teen pregnancy rates:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_04.pdf

Teen Pregnancies were already in falling from '90, before the program even started, as you can see from the graph on page 1. If you look at the area that is '07, '08, and '09, you'll see it had already started freefall.

Meanwhile they throw out how Trump is defunding it in big letters and headlines, and slip in or don't mention that they only had funding until 2020 anyway. So it's just ending 2 years early, and saving $213.6m.

- - - - - - - -
Side Note: I kind of have a problem with "teen pregnancies" including 18 and 19-year-olds. Yes the numbers end in "teen", but those are adults.

[Benton]

(07-30-2017, 01:26 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: While the abstinence-only thing sounds like a Pence move... I will point out this for the articles crediting the program with the lowered teen pregnancy rates:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_04.pdf

Teen Pregnancies were already in falling from '90, before the program even started, as you can see from the graph on page 1. If you look at the area that is '07, '08, and '09, you'll see it had already started freefall.

Meanwhile they throw out how Trump is defunding it in big letters and headlines, and slip in or don't mention that they only had funding until 2020 anyway. So it's just ending 2 years early, and saving $213.6m.

- - - - - - - -
Side Note: I kind of have a problem with "teen pregnancies" including 18 and 19-year-olds. Yes the numbers end in "teen", but those are adults.

From the link:
NSFG also shows significant increases over the last two decades in the use of contraception at first sex and at most recent sex.

My guess is that increased contraceptive use correlates with more funding for making better decisions.

[*Nately120*]

This makes sense. More knocked up and uneducated red state teens pumping out republicans to offset all the old republicans Trump care is going to kill off. The right-wing grip on genitals of the people is quite erotic, really.

[GMDino]

(07-30-2017, 02:21 PM)Benton Wrote: From the link:
NSFG also shows significant increases over the last two decades in the use of contraception at first sex and at most recent sex.

My guess is that increased contraceptive use correlates with more funding for making better decisions.

Can't have a government program that actually works...that makes it look like govt can do something.

AND it goes against the Bible?

Pffft....ax that now!

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-30-2017, 02:21 PM)Benton Wrote: From the link:
NSFG also shows significant increases over the last two decades in the use of contraception at first sex and at most recent sex.

My guess is that increased contraceptive use correlates with more funding for making better decisions.

This specific program was instituted after the big decline had already started. So whatever caused the decline (my guess is smartphones making knowledge more on-hand) is not this program that is being ended 2 years early. That needs to be reiterated because the thread title makes it sound like it's a permanent thing that is being disbanded. It's just having it's funding cut off 2 years earlier than planned. It was never a long term thing.

Increased contraceptive use over the last two decades, or roughly 4 times longer than this program has been running. But people like GMD will ignore that fact because it doesn't mesh with their stance that this move is yet another terrible thing that will ruin our society. It would also ruin their chance at bible jabs, which they would cry their little tears about if bfine or lucie had made the jab towards Muslims.

[Benton]

(07-30-2017, 03:13 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: This specific program was instituted after the big decline had already started. So whatever caused the decline (my guess is smartphones making knowledge more on-hand) is not this program that is being ended 2 years early. That needs to be reiterated because the thread title makes it sound like it's a permanent thing that is being disbanded. It's just having it's funding cut off 2 years earlier than planned. It was never a long term thing.

Increased contraceptive use over the last two decades, or roughly 4 times longer than this program has been running. But people like GMD will ignore that fact because it doesn't mesh with their stance that this move is yet another terrible thing that will ruin our society. It would also ruin their chance at bible jabs, which they would cry their little tears about if bfine or lucie had made the jab towards Muslims.

Understood but I'm not referring specifically to this program. It's education funding in general.

Used to districts had more control over what they taught. I went to a district in Kentucky that taught abstinence only education after the 70s. We also were among the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the state from the 80s through the 90s... until education reform and state mandates of what was taught. Behold! After I was out of the district, they taught that sex can result in a child and bam rates went down. They took part in a federal grant 7-8 years ago and there was a noticeable drop after a year or two. The grant was aimed at std prevention but it also impacted teen pregnancy rates.

So I don't know a lot about this particular program, but I know there's districts , especially in the south, where they don't care about teen pregnancy rates as much as the idea that teaching basic biology should be prohibited.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-30-2017, 04:46 PM)Benton Wrote: Understood but I'm not  referring specifically to this program. It's education funding in general.

Used to districts had more control over what they taught. I went to a district in Kentucky that taught abstinence only education after the 70s. We also were among the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the state from the 80s through the 90s... until education reform and state mandates of what was taught. Behold! After I was out of the district, they taught that sex can result in a child and bam rates went down. They took part in a federal grant 7-8 years ago and there was a noticeable drop after a year or two. The grant was aimed at std prevention but it also impacted teen pregnancy rates.

So I don't know a lot about this particular program, but I know there's districts , especially in the south, where they don't care about teen pregnancy rates as much as the idea that teaching basic biology should be prohibited.

Fair enough, and that's more of a educational guideline thing than an education funding thing from what you just described.

Moving fairly off topic from the thread but on topic with your post, yeah, I am a bit torn on educational guidelines. On one hand I like the idea of some federal guidelines so we aren't teaching creationism (other than as a religion elective or something), but on the other, too much federal interference in education has gotten us to the point where students aren't taught subjects, so much as taught to pass tests (started getting bad from W Bush's No Child Left Behind, I think).

Kids now are all taught how to pass tests in Chemistry, Pre-Calculus, and Classic English Literature... things that even if you weren't taught only to pass the test would likely be entirely pointless in 97% of people's lives. Meanwhile actual useful things like Home Ec, Shop, and the like have absolutely vanished to make way for more test preparations, and kids coming out of HS now can't cook, or fix anything, or change a flat tire on a car, or basic first aid, or make a budget with their money, or any other actual life skill.

- - - - - -

Back on thread, I think there can be a happy balance between not teaching it in schools and spending large sums of money on extra programs like the one that's being discussed to be defunded 2 years early like this one.

Ugh, even talking about sex ed and STD classes and such makes me remember having to sit through like a 4+ hour Safety Stand Down powerpoint on how your junk will rot off.

[Dill]

(07-30-2017, 05:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Kids now are all taught how to pass tests in Chemistry, Pre-Algebra, and Classic English Literature... things that even if you weren't taught only to pass the test would likely be entirely pointless in 97% of people's lives. Meanwhile actual useful things like Home Ec, Shop, and the like have absolutely vanished to make way for more test preparations, and kids coming out of HS now can't cook, or fix anything, or change a flat tire on a car, or basic first aid, or make a budget with their money, or any other actual life skill.

Why can't parents teach children how to cook and fix flat tires?

Chemistry, pre-algebra, and English literature--pointless for people not going to college?

Education is different from vocational training. It is not supposed to be "useful" in the sense shop and home ec are. And education is one of those things that diffrerentiates first world countries from third.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-30-2017, 09:42 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. Why can't parents teach children how to cook and fix flat tires?

2. Chemistry, pre-algebra, and English literature--pointless for people not going to college?

3. Education is different from vocational training. It is not supposed to be "useful" in the sense shop and home ec are. And education is one of those things that diffrerentiates first world countries from third.  

1. Why can't parents teach children how to use a condom and not knock a girl up/get knocked up? See how that can be used for anything?

2. LOL, that's 100% my bad. I totally didn't mean pre-algebra. I meant pre-calculus. Pre-algebra is still useful knowledge for everyone. Chemistry isn't useful for every college person unless they're majoring in something that will actually use it. Same with classic English literature. Why does Robert Frost matter to a structural engineer or a farmer?

3. Education is different from vocational training, but they keep adding more and more things that are "needed" for mandatory education, that people don't really need. Meanwhile kids are completely unprepared for the real world. That's why we have 20-something-year-old children running around everywhere. They spent the first 27.5% of their life expectancy learning how to pass tests... and yet still have no idea how to function in the world.

[Benton]

(07-30-2017, 05:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Fair enough, and that's more of a educational guideline thing than an education funding thing from what you just described.

Moving fairly off topic from the thread but on topic with your post, yeah, I am a bit torn on educational guidelines. On one hand I like the idea of some federal guidelines so we aren't teaching creationism (other than as a religion elective or something), but on the other, too much federal interference in education has gotten us to the point where students aren't taught subjects, so much as taught to pass tests (started getting bad from W Bush's No Child Left Behind, I think).

Kids now are all taught how to pass tests in Chemistry, Pre-Calculus, and Classic English Literature... things that even if you weren't taught only to pass the test would likely be entirely pointless in 97% of people's lives. Meanwhile actual useful things like Home Ec, Shop, and the like have absolutely vanished to make way for more test preparations, and kids coming out of HS now can't cook, or fix anything, or change a flat tire on a car, or basic first aid, or make a budget with their money, or any other actual life skill.

- - - - - -

Back on thread, I think there can be a happy balance between not teaching it in schools and spending large sums of money on extra programs like the one that's being discussed to be defunded 2 years early like this one.

Ugh, even talking about sex ed and STD classes and such makes me remember having to sit through like a 4+ hour Safety Stand Down powerpoint on how your junk will rot off.

To the bold, agreed. And, to an extent, that's why common core was a good (but misunderstood) thing. It allowed schools with a little oversight to say "this is something everyone needs to know... it'll take X amount of instructional time, districts can do whatever they want with what's left." A bad part of it was the time that was left is largely elective time, and many districts don't encourage useful electives. How to cook, fix a tire, not get knocked up, balance a checkbook, that all falls under electives. 


To the last, we didn't have that where I went to school. We had one health class that was required. There was no sex ed or STDs. Those chapters were in the book, but we skipped them, about four chapters. The closest we got was a chapter on puberty which is one of my funniest memories from high school. The teacher gave us the chapter to read, told us there would not be a quiz (we read the chapters and took quizzes at the end of class), then left and came back two minutes before the bell. Nothing close to reproductive was mentioned again, we went back to reading about blood pressure and the food pyramid.

(07-30-2017, 09:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Why can't parents teach children how to cook and fix flat tires?

Chemistry, pre-algebra, and English literature--pointless for people not going to college?

Education is different from vocational training. It is not supposed to be "useful" in the sense shop and home ec are. And education is one of those things that diffrerentiates first world countries from third.  

Like gun safety and hygiene, I teach my kids but realize other parents aren't. In the case of sex ed, it takes two people being honest and knowing what's going on. If one is a clueless idiot who learned everything via porn, it effects the other.

[Dill]

(07-30-2017, 10:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. Why can't parents teach children how to use a condom and not knock a girl up/get knocked up? See how that can be used for anything?

2. LOL, that's 100% my bad. I totally didn't mean pre-algebra. I meant pre-calculus. Pre-algebra is still useful knowledge for everyone. Chemistry isn't useful for every college person unless they're majoring in something that will actually use it. Same with classic English literature. Why does Robert Frost matter to a structural engineer or a farmer?

3. Education is different from vocational training, but they keep adding more and more things that are "needed" for mandatory education, that people don't really need. Meanwhile kids are completely unprepared for the real world. That's why we have 20-something-year-old children running around everywhere. They spent the first 27.5% of their life expectancy learning how to pass tests... and yet still have no idea how to function in the world.

1. Some can but won't. Some can't. And sex ed is about more than just "how to do it." It also covers topics like STDs, which parents may know little about unless they are medical professionals.

2. The number of students in pre-calculus and chemistry will not be very large in any high school. And they are not general requirements. But these are critical to college prep for some disciplines, critical to producing college-ready students. As far as studying literature--English and American--that is one of those subjects that provides general knowledge about one's own culture and history. Courses in world literature would be very helpful nowdays as well. Liberal education is not about vocational training. One learns about Shakespeare, for example, not because one is going to visit Stratford on Avon someday or teach English drama. One reads Shakespeare to gain a larger understanding of Anglo culture and history--not to mention raising one's literacy level. Also, students are at least exposed to higher standards and deeper thought than one generally finds in popular culture. Farmers and engineers are also citizens. They choose presidents, usually based upon presidents' policies. Every citizen requires some understanding of history and government and the larger world outside the US if US democracy is to function. Liberal education is also education for citizenship. That's how students "use" much of that non-vocational learning. Finally, we don't really know whether a freshman in HS is going to be a farmer or engineer. We offer children a range of subjects in hopes of helping them recognize potential of which they (and their parents) may be unaware.

3. I agree with you that the all the testing is bad. It was a policy created by people who are not teachers and sold to people who are not teachers but think it "sounds good" because it appears to render education measurable and impose discipline on teachers. I also agree that young people nowdays seem very unprepared for the real world. But we differ, perhaps, on how we recognize that lack of prep. For me, most disturbing is the absence of knowledge and analytical ability. E.g., on a recent test, only 2% of HS seniors understood what social problem Brown vs Board of Education addressed. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/education/15history.html. How many can find Afghanistan on a map? People need to know that, even if the don't plan on going there or teaching geography. We won't fix that problem by cutting literature and focusing on shop and Home Econ.

The other causes of the immaturity we sense in young people today have to do with the absence of responsibilities early on in life, a steady diet of television and pop culture, and a break down of respect for traditional sources of authority--including teachers, as well as for traditional institutions, like schools and government.