All is not rotten in the state of Denmark

With Sarah Palin’s nomination, much that is ugly and contentious about the US today has been brought to center stage. Having gone through the 2004 election in a swing state, I can honestly say that there is nothing more polarizing than grassroots-level politics in this country. Unfortunately, 2008 promises to make 2004 look like a day at the beach.

Following her nomination, the news quickly emerged that Ms. Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Others have written about the hypocrisy about elevating her and her mother to heroes for choosing “life”, while these same people tore into Jamie Lynn Spears, despite the fact that she appears to have made the very same mistake and decision, so I won’t go over that ground again. However, rather than avoiding the topic of her pregnancy, this should be front and center in the debate about the failure of the head-in-the-sand approach to sex education and the cost to society of this approach.

There was a line in Obama’s acceptance speech in Denver that struck me at the time and which is worthy of mention. To paraphrase: “We may not agree on a woman’s right to choose, but I’m sure we can agree on the goal of reducing abortions and unwanted teen pregnancies.” His comments demonstrate a respect for an opponent’s view, and a reframing of the issue towards a common goal. The problem is that his opponents also oppose the solution, which is open dialogue and education about things such as contraception. Taking a pragmatic view of sex education rather than attempting to impose one’s own morality would go a long way to achieving both goals articulated by Obama. Although to the Republican base, the horror of sex is too much to bear. Their opposition to a realistic view on teenage sexuality is the cause, teenage pregnancy and abortion is the effect.

An interesting exercise is to take the emotion out of the discussion and simply look at statistics. A recent article in the Times cites a US government report from 2001 that states the US teen birth rate is the highest per capita of any OECD country. Of course, I can hear the Republicans blaming this on the Clinton years leading up to 2000, and kidding themselves that “things have changed” (there’s that Republicans for “change” mantra again), but as we have seen with Bristol Palin, things probably haven’t changed very much.

Not only does the US have the highest incidence of teenage births (52.1 per 1000), it also has the dubious distinction of having the highest incidence of abortions in women under 20 (30.2 per 1000). So fully 8.23% of American teenage girls end up with unplanned pregnancies before turning twenty. Only Hungary comes anywhere near the US, and it is still only about 60% of the US figures.

Are American girls having a disproportionate amount of sex as compared to other countries? Not at all, in fact they fall somewhere down the list with eighty one percent of American women reporting having sex before their 20^th birthdays.

According to the study, the girls in Denmark are the most prolific sexually – fully 90% of Danes have had sex before they turn 20, as have had 88% of Icelanders, 87% of Brits, and 84% of Norwegians and Finns.

But what happens when you look at the Danish numbers? More girls are having sex, yet the incidence of teenage births is 85% lower than the US. And what about abortions? Half.

It seems reasonable to take a position, as Obama did, that both teen births and abortions are undesirable. So while more Danes are having sex, they are smarter at avoiding the unwanted side effects of their decision. How do you get smarter? Education and acceptance. It’s clear that “abstinence only” is a deluded approach that has been proven to be ineffective.

How else does society pay the price for this evangelical approach to “education”?

According to the CIA World Factbook, the US has an incidence of AIDS that is 300% that of Denmark. Nearly a million people are living with HIV/AIDS in this country, while Denmark has five thousand. Sure it’s population is 1/60 that of the US, but its rate of infection is still 70% lower than the US number. Lastly, over 17,000 people have died in this country from HIV/AIDS, while in Denmark fewer than 100 have done so.

When you add all of this up, the cost to US society is staggering. Teenage mothers (and fathers) are forced to make a terrible decision.  They are then forced to live with that choice for the rest of their lives, one way or another. How many life dreams and aspirations die on the vine, as teens drop out of school to raise their children? What about the burden this places on social programs, not to mention the hit our GDP and tax base take, as these kids aren’t qualified for much beyond McJobs? What about the cost to our healthcare system of treating those with HIV/AIDS for decades, and the loss to the economy (not to mention friends and families) of those that have died prematurely because of ignorance and shame.

For the lack of a condom, a life is lost - the life of a fetus, the teenage mother or the AIDS victim.

So while Bristol Palin’s personal situation is indeed unfortunate, her mother’s decision to step out on the world’s largest stage makes it fair game. Indeed, I am sympathetic to Bristol, but what is disappointing is that her mother and her newfound following are so narrow-minded that they can’t even consider that imposing one’s sexual morality on others is fundamentally flawed. Bristol Palin is not a hero, but she is a victim. She’s a victim of her church’s misguided position on sexuality. She’s a victim of her mother’s views on sex education. She’s a victim of her mother’s decision to run and to put her in the spotlight. Her life will never be the same.

Abstinence only is a dangerously naïve and misguided approach that clearly hasn’t worked nationally, just as it didn’t work in the Palin household. Sex education should be a topic of national discussion with a shared objective as outlined in Denver.

Unfortunately Bristol Palin is the poster child for the failure to engage in this dialogue.

That's my .02!

Martin Suter (martin.suter@iplicensing.net) 

Comments

[Texan]

So Martin, I am just trying to get my choices straight on religion and its play in 2008 Presidential politics:

Option1) VP that has to explain why her personal beliefs of abstinence were not followed by her own teenage daughter

Option2) President that has to explain why his pastor of 20yrs preaches hate against White people and America.

So of the two religious arguments thrown up by both sides, I am to weigh which one has more likelyhood of entering into their decisions, policies and reactions if elected, correct?

How am I to rationalize that the VP and her views on a social issue (that should be a states right to decide - Jefferson would agree) would be more "threatening" to our well being as a society and a country than that of a PRESIDENT that has sat listening to a rant against his country and a large portion of its people for the last 20yrs.

I understand the point of your comments and that I too will teach my kids about safe sex if they choose not to uphold abstinence but these are trivial issues compared to the major issues and the impacts of what a Socialist Party could do (or continue to do) to this country with control of all three branches of government.

Regardless of the social politics, given the economic times we are in now, what we need is a true Fiscal Conservative - too bad we don't have that as a choice this year (or the last few)...

[Martin Suter]

William - Thanks for the note. If it was only her position on sex ed that would be one thing, but it's the implications of having another administration with extreme Christian right leanings that is the issue. I have a theory that the "base" is taking the long term view with the goal of tilting the balance of power in the Supreme Court, and then beginning to impose its agenda in multiple areas; Roe v Wade is an obvious one, but Intelligent Design in science classes, stem cell research, etc.

I blogged previously about the recent ruling on habeas corpus (http://iplicensing.net/2008/06/13/wwjd/) - you may want to have a read and let me know whether you're still planning to vote for McCain!

Thanks for your .02!
Martin

[william m]

Martin, this is well-written. Although I will vote for McCain in this election, I have to admit that I agree with what you have written. I have other considerations that outweigh Palin's stance on sex-education.