School-Based Clinics: The Abortion Connection
ShareCHAPTER 82 — SCHOOL-BASED CLINICS: THE ABORTION CONNECTION
American Life League
Stopping teenage sex is not our objective. Stopping teen pregnancy is.
Dr. David Perkins.[1]
Anti-Life Philosophy.
Too many of us are focused upon stopping teenage sexual activity rather than stopping teenage pregnancy ... Sexuality education must be a fundamental part of the school curricula from kindergarten through twelfth grade in every school district in the country ... Easier access to contraception must be another priority access without any barriers. We must establish many more school-based health clinics that provide contraceptives as part of general health care.
Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[2]
Introduction.
The only avenue the International Planned Parenthood Federation and its allies could travel to win the battle for abortion on demand is through sex education.
Alan Guttmacher.[3]
Study the quotes by the above three experts very carefully. These three passages accurately summarize the concept and philosophy behind comprehensive sex education and school-based clinics (SBCs), which are both integral parts of the overall Neoliberal plan to exploit teen sexuality for specific social engineering objectives.
The first general step of the SBC strategy is to create a demand by encouraging and enabling promiscuous behavior with Planned Parenthood-type sex education. The second and final step is to respond decisively to the resulting high teen pregnancy rate by distributing condoms, instituting graphic (and mandatory) sex education courses, and by putting clinics right in the schools to dish out contraceptives without parent's knowledge or consent, of course.
The Roots of the Disease.
In the arsenal of weapons to combat teenage pregnancy, school-based programs are but a bent arrow. However, bent arrows do offer the illusion of action.
William Bennett, former United States Secretary of Education.[4]
School-based clinics are, by their very nature, only one small symptom of our culture's persistent infection with a deadly virus the so-called "Sexual Revolution."
The 'sexual reformers' have always been with us. In the late 1800s, they were a motley and completely disreputable gaggle of anarchists, neo-Malthusians, sex educators/researchers, and eugenicists. These misfits raved about 'selective breeding' and 'life devoid of value' until their wildest dreams became shockingly true in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.
In fact, the moral and ethical tenets of the Nazi eugenics program were imported from the United States, as detailed in Chapter 105 of Volume III, "Eugenics."
The ultimate cause of this attitude is the Hegelian philosophy of utilitarianism if it can be done, and if it benefits society (in the opinion of those in power), then it must be done.
SBC History.
Instead of the expected reductions in overall teenage pregnancy rates, greater teenage involvement in family-planning programs appears to be associated with higher, rather than lower, teenage pregnancy rates.
Stan Weed and Sam Olson.[5]
The General Attitude.
School-based clinics are merely an extension of graphic sex education curricula. When the sex educators saw that their programs were being exposed as completely ineffective, as shown in Chapter 139 of Volume III, "Sex Education," they took the easy way out. Instead of admitting defeat and changing direction entirely (perhaps returning to morality and chastity), they merely transformed the concept of sex education into a concrete and tangible form by installing school-based clinics.
The First SBCs. The first SBC was sponsored by the University of Texas Health Sciences Center, and was opened in Dallas in 1970. The next clinic was opened three years later in St. Paul, Minnesota's Mechanics Arts High School, by the Maternal and Infant Care Program of the St. Paul Ramsey Hospital.
As of 1990, there were about 150 SBCs operating in the country's 15,500 school districts. The overwhelming majority of these clinics have been set up in minority-dominated schools. The clinic pushers would ultimately like to see more than 5,000 of them in operation.
The Definition of a School-Based Clinic.
In April of 1985, the Support Center for School-Based Clinic issued a report with the jawbreaker name of "School-Based Clinics: An Emerging Approach to Improving Adolescent Health and Addressing Teenage Pregnancy." This report stated that "By definition, all of the [school-based] clinics are involved in family planning."
As Dr. Timothy Black of Population Services said in 1972, as the first SBCs were coming on line, "Family planning is a process of creating and meeting a mass demand for contraceptives."
General SBC Strategy.
The final result to emerge from the analysis is that neither pregnancy education nor contraceptive education exerts any significant effect on the risk of premarital pregnancy among sexually active teenagers a finding that calls into question the argument that formal sex education is an effective tool for reducing adolescent pregnancy.
Alan Guttmacher Institute.[6]
General Strategy.
The sex clinic pushers have succeeded in many areas, and have refined their general strategy until it is literally a propaganda art form. The step-by-step process is unwavering and follows precisely the five-step plan shown in Figure 82-1. This plan of attack is extracted directly from "how-to" instruction manuals issued by the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS).
FIGURE 82-1
FIVE-STEP STRATEGY FOR INSTALLING A SCHOOL-BASED CLINIC OR A SEX ED CURRICULUM
STEP 1: Lay the foundation for implementing the school-based clinic or sex education curriculum. This involves three basic simultaneous tasks: (1) Create the impression that there is a need, (2) make connections, and (3) attack the opposition.
To begin with, get one or more major public officials concerned about the high teen pregnancy rate by using doctored statistics. Preferably, this person or persons will be school district superintendents or the mayor of the city and city council members.
Secondly, make contacts with only pro-abortion groups while ignoring conservative or pro-life groups. A Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) publication entitled Winning the Battle for Sex Education advises networking specifically with the National Abortion Rights Action League, the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, the YWCA, and the League of Women Voters. The same book says that "The key word for successful public relations for a sex education program is anticipation: Preparing in advance. Initial contacts should in any case be made at the latest several weeks before you have agreed to "go public" with information/details about the program. Public relations is in certain respects the art of knowing when you want publicity and when you don't."
Finally, begin a series of confidential meetings with high-ranking personnel from friendly media outlets. Supply them with derogatory material about people who might be concerned about the program and who might voice any objections whatever. The SIECUS "how-to" publication entitled Winning the Battle: Developing Support for Sexuality and HIV/AIDS Education shows how to paint any opposition as "fanatics" by ruthlessly stereotyping them and lying about their objectives; "Regardless of their official platform, their goal is often to curtail freedom of expression and academic freedom as well as the right to one's privacy, the right to sexual information, and right to a healthy, sexual life ... They mistakenly believe that telling young people about sexuality causes them to have sexual intercourse, become promiscuous, and get pregnant." Specific groups are targeted by SIECUS: The American Family Association, American Life League, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Focus on the Family, and the National Association for Abstinence Education.
The same publication shows how to attack abstinence-based sex ed programs like Sex Respect, regardless of their effectiveness. Instances of coercing schools to drop the Sex Respect course in favor of explicit sex ed are labeled "success stories" in the book, showing that SIECUS does not believe in plurality, and that, in its mind, its solution is the only right one.
STEP 2: Get the "concerned citizens" to appoint a "Blue Ribbon Committee" to study the problem. Pack this committee with church, political and school leaders who have the appearance of being open-minded, but who are in fact sympathetic to Planned Parenthood/SIECUS-type goals. Insure that one (and only one) committee member is a Catholic priest, prominent Evangelical pastor, or other such representative of the conservative view, but make certain that this person is not really informed about the life issues. The presence of this one person will deflect criticism that the Committee is "loaded," and will give the appearance of fairness. As SIECUS says, "In Memphis, Tennessee, a Catholic priest who was a member of the [sex education planning] committee effectively neutralized the opposition's charge that religious values were being ignored."
The (SIECUS) publication entitled Winning the Battle: Developing Support for Sexuality and HIV/AIDS Education advises "In many communities, opponents are invited to serve on the planning committee for new programs. Although it may seem easier to have only proponents on this committee, it is one way to defuse the opposition at an early stage. According to sexuality educator Mary Lee Tatum, "Listen to them and let them participate on committees; then make committee statements using facts and data, underscoring the majority opinion.""
In other words, put one or two of the "opposition" on the 12- to 14- member board for appearance's sake, and then act as if they and their viewpoints do not exist by emphasizing only the pre-ordained "majority opinion."
STEP 3: Insure that the Committee makes the proper recommendations (i.e., in favor of school-based clinics or sex education). These recommendations are usually copied almost verbatim from previous Committee releases that have been issued in other areas. Insure if possible that NO PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE ALLOWED! Public recommendations may only be submitted by letter, which are ignored if they attack the proposed SBC or sex ed program. Always claim that at least 80 percent of all mail favors the proposed SBC or sex ed curriculum. When dealing with unfavorable comments, SIECUS recommends "In fact, if possible, the [responding] statement can ignore the charges entirely and consist of a positive statement about the program and its real or potential accomplishments."
Parental involvement in the decisionmaking process is encouraged only if the parents are "enlightened." This exalted term applies only to those parents who share the views of the sex educators and SBC pushers. Of course, in their opinion, the vast majority of parents are by no means "enlightened."
STEP 4: If intense opposition surfaces against the birth control and abortion referral features of the SBC, install the SBC anyway, but without these features. A simple amendment to the charter can be made adding these features when the original uproar has died down and people have forgotten about the SBC. It is much easier to add birth control and abortion referral after the clinic has been established than it is to include these features in the original plan.
Joy Dryfoos of the Center for Population Options stated in the March/April 1985 issue of the Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives that clinics "Can avoid local controversy by starting with primary health care and then adding family planning services."
STEP 5: Trumpet the "fact" that the teenage birth rate is down, and conceal the fact that abortions have gone up. Use this "success" story to spread the clinics or the sex ed program to other high schools in the area.
Just in case opposition surfaces at some future date, entrench sex education by blending it with instruction in other courses. SIECUS advises "They [strategists] agree with many experienced sex educators that various facets of sexuality can and should be incorporated into biology, physiology, English, history, and other courses in a natural context."
References. (1) Irving R. Dickman. Winning the Battle for Sex Education. The Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), 80 Fifth Avenue, Suite 801, New York, New York 10011. 1982, 60 pages. (2) Debra W. Haffner and Diane de Mauro. Winning the Battle: Developing Support for Sexuality and HIV/AIDS Education. SIECUS, March 1991.
A few of the ploys used to 'sugar-coat' the clinics in order to enhance public acceptance are;
• trying to hide the 'birth control' aspect of the clinics in a plethora of other purposes, such as the prevention of malnutrition, dropouts, poverty and drug use;
• trying to sell the 'birth control' aspect of the clinics by playing on public fears and emphasizing AIDS 'prevention;'
• emphasizing that abortion referrals will not be done by the clinics, but circumventing this restriction easily by referring girls to agencies that do not themselves do abortions, but which immediately give a second referral to an abortion mill;
• heavily propagandizing students for an extended period of time beforehand by using 'saturation' sex education classes and other gatherings with literature and speakers that emphasize personal autonomy and freedom.
But Who Cares What the Kids Think?
Totally absent in all of this strategizing is any emphasis on the opinions of those who are most affected. The SBC pushers simply assume that a large enough percentage of teenagers are uncontrollable animals to warrant exposing all teenagers to the temptation posed by a quick and easy source of condoms and pills.
It is a telling condemnation of the character and agenda of the SBC strategists that they simply don't care what teenagers think.
However, a few polls taken by SBC advocates have revealed that teens in general do not want sex clinics in their schools. They would rather be respected and recognized as having a certain degree of self-control.
This attitude is even backed up by polls taken by those who would like to see SBCs installed in every school in the country. The only notable exceptions are the rigorously-brainwashed "youth troupes" like "Teens and Company" fielded by Planned Parenthood to dispense propaganda aimed at other teens.
Louis Harris and Associates conducted a comprehensive poll of teenagers for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in September and October of 1986. This poll concluded that "Seven out of eight teenagers do not want a contraceptive-dispensing clinic in their schools. Sixty percent do not want clinics that dispense contraceptives located anywhere close to their schools ... Three out of four teenagers believe that teenagers should wait until they are adults before engaging in sexual intercourse."[7]
Another major poll showed that "A teen services program at Atlanta's Grady Memorial Hospital found that of the girls under age sixteen it surveyed, nine out of ten wanted to learn how to say 'no.'"[8]
How SBCs Refer for Abortions.
We find basically that there are no measurable I want to underline that word and put it in boldface there is no measurable impact upon the use of birth control nor upon pregnancy rates or birth rates. This is all based upon the survey data.
Douglas Kirby, Director, Center for Population Options.[9]
Since the actual ultimate aim of the clinics is to cut the teen pregnancy rate by facilitating abortion, SBC proponents have to be ingenious and ruthless in their methods in order to deceive and bypass parents and other concerned groups.
The various restrictions against SBCs providing abortion referrals are meaningless in a practical sense. If a teenage girl gets a positive pregnancy test at a school clinic, all the clinic workers have to do is refer her to an organization that is not bound by such restrictions usually Planned Parenthood or a county health organization. The Center for Population Options (the major force behind SBCs), in its publication entitled School-Based Clinics 1988 Update, stated that 89 percent of reporting SBCs provided "pregnancy detection," and a full 98 percent of them performed "pregnancy assessment and referral to community health systems," which is a euphemism for saying that they refer for abortions.
The modus operandi of the clinic pushers is very neatly summed up by Planned Parenthood itself, as shown below.
THE SBC PUSHERS REVEAL THEIR STRATEGY
The most common strategy adopted to avoid opposition was to maintain a low profile generally by keeping programs out of sight, by avoiding potentially controversial preventive services, by staying clear of abortion services, by relying on word of mouth for recruitment and by giving names to programs that obscured their functions (Cyesis, Teen Awareness, Access, Services to Young Parents, Healthworks, and Continuing Education to Young Families are some examples) ... Program advocates and service providers are more or less obligated to exaggerate the potential benefits of services in order to secure political and material support. One popular ploy revealed an incredible array of problems that allegedly would be solved by the provision of services for pregnant teenagers and adolescent parents. In claims reminiscent of the 19th Century, it was argued that teenage pregnancy services would combat child abuse, infant mortality, mental retardation, birth defects, drug abuse, and welfare dependency.
Reference. Richard Weatherley, et.al. "Comprehensive Programs for Pregnant Teenagers and Teenage Parents: How Successful Have They Been?" Alan Guttmacher Institute, Family Planning Perspectives, March/April 1986, page 76.
How SBCs Deceive Parents.
Once the SBC is in place, its personnel, who are well-trained in standard unethical pro-abortion procedures, use underhanded tactics to insure that teenagers are given access to abortion and birth control devices, regardless of parental intent or wishes.
For example, once a parent has given permission for any health clinic service (say, a sports physical, the child may then obtain any other service (such as birth control pills), without parental knowledge or consent.
Virtually no parents are aware of the existence of this sneaky carte blanche.
The Center for Population Options (CPO) encourages school-based clinics to distribute parental consent forms that are composed in such a manner that any forms not returned to the clinic are automatically interpreted as parental notification and consent. In other words, clinic personnel may simply give a teenage girl who wants birth control pills one of these consent forms and advise her not to give it to her parents and then they tell her that this 'covers' her for permission to use any clinic service whatever.
One Montana SBC worker said that her clinic advised teenaged girls to "bring a note from their parents any note," and it would not be "investigated" or even read by clinic staff. The girls quickly caught on and forged their own notes.[10]
Absurdity in the Lone Star State.
This kind of pervasive skulduggery has led to preposterous results. In Texas, girls of any age may receive contraception, abortions, and even sterilizations without their parents knowing a thing.
But, by law, these same girls must have written permission from their parents before they may visit tanning salons! The Texas Tanning Facility Regulation Act requires that any teens under 14 be accompanied by a parent, and all customers must sign a detailed informed consent form (which, of course, is not required in Texas abortuaries).
The American Academy of Dermatology would like to see its "Tanning Parlor Initiative" in force all over the country.[11]
Are School-Based Clinics Effective at Curbing Teen Pregnancy?
The success of the national family planning program is stunning ... because of increased and more consistent use of contraception, the pregnancy rate among sexually-active teenagers has been declining.
Faye Wattleton.[12]
Massive Evidence Against the Clinics.
A growing body of evidence amassed by both sides in the SBC debate shows that these clinics sometimes cut down on the teen birth rate but only if the excess births are prevented by abortion.
A few of the more important expert statements about SBC ineffectiveness are shown in Figure 82-2.
As Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, asserted in his address to the Bishops of the United States on March 10, 1989, "Planned Parenthood programs of sex education in no way resolve the problem of teen-age pregnancies but rather increase it by encouraging promiscuity."[13]
FIGURE 82-2
THE EXPERTS ADDRESS THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF SCHOOL-BASED CLINICS
We find basically that there are no measurable I want to underline that word and put it in boldface there is no measurable impact upon the use of birth control nor upon pregnancy rates or birth rates. This is all based upon the survey data ... School-based clinics have no measurable impact on teen pregnancy rates ... In the absence of knowledge of whether or not young women are getting abortions, we really can't say whether or not the school clinic program is preventing pregnancy. And since abortions are usually underreported in personal interviews, pregnancy rates are difficult to measure.
Douglas Kirby, Director, Center for Population Options. Session on "Education," speech given at the 16th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), Washington, D.C., March 2, 1988. Quoted in Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "SBC Advocate Admits Clinics Fail to Reduce Number of Teen Pregnancies." National Right to Life News, March 10, 1988, pages 4 and 5. Also see: Joy Dryfoos. "School-Based Health Clinics: Three Years of Experience." Alan Guttmacher Institute, Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.
It is clear that the family planning programs have contributed directly to an increase in the rate of abortion among teenagers.
James Ford, M.D., and Michael Schwartz. "Birth Control for Teenagers: Diagram for Disaster." Linacre Quarterly, February 1979.
Instead of the expected reductions in overall teenage pregnancy rates, greater teenage involvement in family-planning programs appears to be associated with higher, rather than lower, teenage pregnancy rates.
Stan Weed and Sam Olson. "Effects of Family Planning Programs for Teenagers on Adolescent Birth and Pregnancy Rates." Family Perspective, Vol. 20, No. 3, page 153.
More teenagers are using contraceptives and using them more consistently than ever before, yet the number and rate of adolescent pregnancies continue to rise.
Lynn C. Landma. "Anniversaries." The Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives. September/October 1980, page 2.
School-based clinics are apparently more effective at convincing teens to avoid birth than to avoid pregnancy. Birth avoidance can certainly be accomplished by resorting to abortion. Unfortunately, that is not what the effort was set up to do nor the basis on which it was funded.
Stan Weed, director of the independent Institute for Research and Evaluation, quoted in J.C. Willke. M.D. "In-School Health Clinics ("Sex Clinics")." National Right to Life News, November 6, 1986, page 3.
The number of girls who said that they had ever been pregnant remained about ten percent in both years, although the proportion who reported that they had had a baby dropped slightly, from eight to six percent.
Kansas City, Missouri SBC executive director Gerald Kitzi, basing his conclusions upon a two-year study. Quoted in Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "School-Based Clinic "Success" Stories Fall Apart Under Scrutiny." National Right to Life News, November 5, 1987, pages 5 and 8.
The birth rate dropped from 13% before the [school-based clinic] center opened to 10.3% after the third year. However, there was no significant change in the pregnancy rate.
Results of a three-year study of a Planned Parenthood SBC in Muskegon, Michigan, described in Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. "School-Based Clinic "Success" Stories Fall Apart Under Scrutiny." National Right to Life News, November 5, 1987, pages 5 and 8.
Seven out of eight teenagers do not want a contraceptive-dispensing clinic in their schools. Sixty percent do not want clinics that dispense contraceptives located anywhere close to their schools ... Three out of four teenagers believe that teenagers should wait until they are adults before engaging in sexual intercourse.
"The Planned Parenthood Poll." American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV, and Birth Control. This comprehensive poll of teenagers was conducted for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America by Louis Harris and Associates, September and October of 1986. See pages 18 and 71. Also see the discussion of this poll in Robert H. Ruff's Aborting Planned Parenthood. New Vision Press, 1988.
A teen services program at Atlanta's Grady Memorial Hospital found that of the girls under age sixteen it surveyed, nine out of ten wanted to learn how to say 'no'.
Public School Sex Education: A Report. "Key Players in the Sex Education Game." American Family Association Journal, October 1990, page 15.
From 1971 to 1981 there was a 306 percent increase in Federal expenditures on family planning, with a corresponding 48.3% increase in pregnancies and a 133% increase in abortions for women aged fifteen to nineteen ... Those states with the highest expenditures on birth control ... showed the largest increases in abortions and illegitimate births between 1970 and 1979.
George Mosbacker. "The Final Step: Clinics, Children, and Contraceptives." Quoted in Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. School-Based Clinics, The Abortion Connection. Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, 419 7th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004. Page 64.
On December 3, 1986, United Press International reported in newspapers across the country on Alan Guttmacher Institute statistics that showed North Dakota to have the lowest average teen pregnancy rate in the country, at 74.8 per 1,000 teenage girls per year. Significantly, there is no state-mandated sex education program in North Dakota, and minors must have parental consent before obtaining abortions, birth control pills, or other devices.
There has been no change in the percentage of sexually active teens who become pregnant, but there has been a huge increase in the percentage of teens who are sexually active. And this increase in sexual activity has led to a proportionate increase in pregnancies to unmarried teens.
Report of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families. "Teen Pregnancy: What is Being Done? A State-By-State Look." Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985, pages 378 and 385.
Pediatricians Dr. James W. Stout and Dr. Frederick P. Rivara stated that high-school level sex education courses have no effect on teen sexual activity, birth-control use, or pregnancy rates. Although the students do indeed learn about reproduction and birth control methods, the researchers, from the University of Washington, state that society should not expect sex education to solve the problem of teen pregnancy. Their findings were based upon the conclusions of 23 studies performed between 1980 and 1987.
James W. Stout, M.D., and Frederick P. Rivara, M.D., quoted in Pediatrics, February 24, 1989, and in The Oregonian, March 31, 1989.
A Concise Summary of SBC Ineffectiveness.
There is one unavoidable reason why school-based clinics will never achieve their stated mission. Professor Kingsley Davis, a member of the fanatically pro-abortion group Zero Population Growth (ZPG), summed up this prime deficiency in the SBC mentality when he said that
The current belief that illegitimacy will be reduced if teenage girls are given an effective contraceptive is an extension of the same reasoning that created the problem in the first place. It reflects an unwillingness to face problems of social control and social discipline, while trusting some technological device to extricate society from its difficulties. The irony is that the illegitimacy rise occurred precisely while contraceptive use was becoming more, rather than less, widespread and respectable.[14]
Figure 82-3 shows that Professor Davis is precisely correct in his reasoning. The illegitimacy rate for births among teenaged girls hovered around five to seven percent for decades, until about 1960. Between 1960 and 1970, it doubled as the birth control pill helped usher in the 'Sexual Revolution.' After 1970, the teenage illegitimacy rate literally exploded as comprehensive sex education programs and school-based clinics were introduced.
FIGURE 82-3
RATES OF ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS AMONG TEENAGED GIRLS (AGES 15 TO 19) IN THE UNITED STATES, 1940 TO 1990
YEAR PERCENTAGE OF BIRTHS TO
UNMARRIED TEENAGED GIRLS*
1940 5.1%
1950 5.3%
1960 7.0%
1970 22.4%
1980 27.6%
1990 38.1%
Note. (*) Defined as the percent of all births in the 15 to 19 age group that are to teenaged mothers who are unmarried. For example, in 1970, of all births to teenaged girls in the 15 to 19 age groups, 22.4% were to unmarried girls and (100.0% - 22.4%) = 77.6% were to married girls.
Reference: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States. 1990 (110th Edition). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Table 13, "Total Population, By Age and Sex: 1960 to 1988." Table 90, "Births to Unmarried Women, By Race of Child and Age of Mother: 1970 to 1987."
This is not just an ethical or religious concern: It is a profoundly practical one. It is common knowledge that children born into one-parent families are more likely to be abused and abusive, are much more likely to be undereducated and underemployed, are much more likely to have illegitimate children themselves, and are much more prone to criminal activity.
Therefore, it is obviously in society's very best interests to scrap the ridiculous and unworkable SBC program and start again from scratch by teaching basic morality in the schools. After all, it worked in this country for more than 180 years!
The birth control pill failed to curb teenage pregnancy.
Compulsory comprehensive sex education programs failed to curb teenage pregnancy.
And, finally, the school-based clinics are failing to curb teenage pregnancy.
When will we ever learn?
The Impossible Mission.
It is clear that the family planning programs have contributed directly to an increase in the rate of abortion among teenagers.
James Ford, M.D.[15]
Experienced researchers have compared reducing the teen pregnancy rate by making contraceptives freely available to chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or, perhaps more appropriately, to trying to put out a fire with a bucket of gasoline.
The Report of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families concluded that reducing the teen pregnancy rate in this manner is not only morally impossible, it is statistically impossible; "The contraceptive failure rate for teens who always use contraceptives is about 10% (Zelnik and Kantner, 1976 and 1979). Therefore, hypothetically, if sexual activity among teens reached 100% and the constant use of contraceptives 100%, we would still have a pregnancy rate of about 10%."[16]
This conclusion was buttressed by none other than the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is affiliated with Planned Parenthood. The AGI is the nation's foremost research institution regarding sexual practices.
In 1987, the AGI performed a survey of nearly 10,000 teenaged girls, and found that the annual contraceptive user-failure rates for teenagers are as follows.
CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES AMONG FORNICATING TEENAGERS
Probability
Contraceptive Method Used of Pregnancy
Birth control pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 percent
Condoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 percent
Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 percent
Spermicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 percent
Other methods (i.e., withdrawal) . . . . . . 38 percent
Reference. Robert A. Hatcher. Contraceptive Technology, 1986-1987 (13th Revised Edition). New York: Irvington Publishers, 1986, page 139.
Consider the above statistics for just a moment. The birth control pill is the most effective contraceptive weapon commonly deployed against teenager fertility. A girl on the Pill will have a one in nine chance of becoming pregnant each year. And a girl who begins using the Pill at the age of 15 and uses it for six full years (till the age of 21) will have a
50 percent chance of becoming pregnant, as shown in the table below. If, instead of using the Pill, her boyfriend(s) faithfully use condoms, this probability increases to 60 percent. If she uses a diaphragm, it is 65 percent. And if she uses any other method, she is virtually assured of becoming unintentionally pregnant within just six years.
PROBABILITY OF A TEENAGED GIRL USING CONTRACEPTION BECOMING PREGNANT OVER A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS
Probability
Contraceptive Method Used of Pregnancy
Birth control pill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 percent
Condoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 percent
Diaphragm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 percent
Spermicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 percent
Other methods (i.e., withdrawal) . . . . . . 94 percent
Contraceptive failure is the primary reason we have a million teenaged pregnancies every year.
Contraceptives are designed to function in the body of a woman whose cycles have been stable for a number of years; they are extremely ineffective in a girl whose cycles have just begun and are still erratic or irregular.
And so, the cycle continues.
Planned Parenthood and the 'sexperts' tell our daughters that it is all right to fornicate, as long as they use contraceptives provided by them. And when these contraceptives fail, as they commonly do, the girls are pressured to abort by the same experts, who, not coincidentally, run the largest chain of abortion mills in the country.
After all, who is less equipped to raise a child than a teenaged girl who is still in high school?
And then the 'sexperts' wonder why more contraceptives lead to more abortions. Or perhaps they know, but don't say, because their system of sex ed-contraception-abortion is self-perpetuating and so very profitable. What other business proposition provides its own demand like this?
For more information on these calculations, see Chapter 99 of Volume III, "Contraceptive Effectiveness and Use."
A Phony SBC Success Story.
More teenagers are using contraceptives and using them more consistently than ever before, yet the number and rate of adolescent pregnancies continue to rise.
Lynn C. Landma.[17]
Pro-life advocates can expect the usual lies and fabricated statistics from Planned Parenthood and their contemptible ilk when they try to justify the SBC program.
For example, an incredible success rate for a Baltimore SBC was claimed in the July 1986 issue of the Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives.
According to the report, the pregnancy rates among inner-city girls at an SBC-equipped school dropped 30.1%, while the pregnancy rate at three other schools in the city increased an incredible 57.6% during the same 28-month test period. The results of this study was uncritically swallowed by Time magazine, The New York Times, and dozens of other publications, and the Baltimore clinic became a prime propaganda tool for the pro-SBC people.
However, when asked to reveal their study methodology or some critical statistics, the researchers adamantly refused. Anne Gribben, a member of the Congress' Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, on September 5, 1986, summed up objections quite well when she said that "Because reports of this study fail to include some very pertinent information, they leave us with as many questions as when we started."
When some of the study methodology used by the researchers was finally revealed, the degree of dishonesty that was evident in the manipulation of the data was shocking even to pro-abortion statisticians. For example, one Planned Parenthood official who examining the Baltimore SBC effectiveness rate followed up with interviews of only a carefully-selected (not random) ten percent of those teenagers who had had contact with her three-year program, and did not count dropouts![18] She also arbitrarily excluded the 12th graders the oldest and most sexually active group from her numbers on sexual activity, but included them when calculating the rate of pregnancy among the sexually active, thereby automatically skewing her study results in her own favor.[19]
It is obvious that any study whose methodology is kept top-secret by its proponents, and whose numbers are manipulated so dishonestly, is a lie and should be dismissed out of hand. Any 'researchers' who refuse to reveal their methodology are almost certainly guilty of 'cooking the numbers.' As described in Chapter 139 of Volume III, "Sex Education," the country's premier sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, also refused to allow researchers to examine his methods and data but, despite this fatal shortcoming, much of our sex education theory is based upon Kinsey's 'work!'
Support for School-Based Sex Clinics.
Premarital intercourse does have its definite values as a training ground for marriage or some other committed relationship ... to make everyday comparisons again, it's like taking a car out for a test run before you buy it.
Wardell Pomeroy, Ph.D. Boys and Sex. This book is used in numerous public school systems in the United States.[20]
The support network for school-based clinics is primarily centered in quasi-governmental agencies and rich foundations, as shown below;
• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), owner and operator of the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States;
• Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), the research arm of PPFA;
• Center for Population Options (CPO), a subsidiary of the Population Institute, which in turn operates the National Support Center for School-Based Clinics;
• Hillary Clinton's favorite organization, the Children's Defense Fund (CDF), whose stated purpose is "To create a national climate of concern about adolescent pregnancy," as outlined in the April 12, 1986 Chicago Metro News. The CDF runs the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Clearinghouse, which relentlessly promotes a negative image of pregnancy; and
• The Adolescent Pregnancy Child Watch Project (APCW), which also relentlessly peddles SBCs. Comprised of the Children's Defense Fund, the National Council of Negro Women, the Association of Junior Leagues, the March of Dimes, and the Nation Coalition of 100 Black Women.
Figure 82-4 lists some of the organizations that have gone on record as officially supporting the school-based clinic concept.
FIGURE 82-4
ORGANIZATIONS DIRECTLY SUPPORTING COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL SEX EDUCATION
PROGRAMS AND SCHOOL-BASED CLINICS FROM 1940 TO THE PRESENT
Abortion Reform Association
Adolescent Pregnancy Child Watch Project (APCW)
Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Clearinghouse
Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
American Association of Marriage Counselors (AAMC)
American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians
American Association of Sex Educators and Counselors
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
American Eugenics Society
American Humanist Association (AHA)
American Medical Association (AMA)
American Public Health Association (APHA)
American School Health Association (ASHA)
American Social Hygiene Association (ASHA)
Association for the Study of Abortion (ASA)
Association for Voluntary Sterilization (AVS)
Carnegie Corporation of the New York Foundation
'Catholics' for a Free Choice (CFFC)
Center for Population Options (CPO)
Children's Defense Fund (CDF)
Churchill Films of Los Angeles
Clergy Consultation Service
Concern for Dying
Contemporary McGraw-Hill Films of New York
Council of Churches of Christ in the United States
Dignity (unrepentant former Catholic homosexuals)
Euthanasia Educational Council
Euthanasia Society of America
Family Source Association of American (FSAA)
Ford Foundation
Gay Caucus of Public Health Workers
Gay Caucus of the American Bar Association (ABA)
Gay Caucus of the American Psychiatric Association
Gay Teacher's Caucus, National Education Association
Kinsey Institute for Research on Sex, Gender, and Reproduction
Metropolitan Community Churches (formerly the 'Sodomy Church'
Multi-Media Resource Center, California
National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
National Association of Sex Education (NASE)
National 'Catholic' Education Association
National Education Association (NEA)
National Organization for Women (NOW)
National Sex and Drug Reform
National Support Center for School-Based Clinics
Negative Population Growth (NPG)
North American Man/Boy Live Association (NAMBLA)
Noyes Foundation
Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)
Office of Population Affairs, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Packard Foundation
Pathfinder Fund
Perennial Education of Illinois
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)
Playboy Foundation
Population Council (PC)
Population Crisis Committee (PCC)
Population Institute
Population Reference
Masters and Johnson
Robert Sterling Clark Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Rockefeller Family Fund
Rockefeller Foundation
Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)
Society for Humane Abortion
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Methodist Church (Board of Church and Society)
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF)
US Agency for International Development
United States Catholic Conference (USCC)
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW),
later the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Victor Bostrum Population Fund
William C. Brown Company, Iowa
World Health Organization, United Nations (WHO)
World League for Sexual Reform
Young Women's 'Christian' Association (YMCA)
Zero Population Growth (ZPG)
Many foundations see as the highest possible good the decrease of population in this world, and, since we in the United States use more resources than any other country, the decrease of population here is therefore the highest good of all.
Just a few of the larger foundations and their contributions to SBCs include;
• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, $16.8 million, 1987 to 1992;
• Carnegie Corporation of New York Foundation, $5.78 million to CDF, CPO, Pathfinder Fund, and the National Organization for Women, 1985 to 1987;
• Ford Foundation, $580,000 to CPO and CDF in 1984 and to the Population Council for development of the abortion pill RU-486;
• Rockefeller Family Fund, $25,000 to CPO in 1985;
• William T. Grant Foundation, $225,000 to CPO in 1984;
• Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, $30,000 to CPO in 1984;
• Packard Foundation, $70,000 to CPO in 1984;
• Noyes Foundation, $50,000 to CPO in 1985; and
• Hewlett Foundation, $225,000 to CPO in 1984-1986.
Conclusions.
From 1971 to 1981 there was a 306 percent increase in Federal expenditures on family planning 'with a corresponding 48.3% increase in pregnancies and a 133% increase in abortions for women aged fifteen to nineteen ... Those states with the highest expenditures on birth control ... showed the largest increases in abortions and illegitimate births between 1970 and 1979.
George Mosbacker.[21]
Staying the Course.
In the early 1970s, the so-called sex experts ('sexperts') finally began to realize that their permissive sex-education programs were failing to stem the tide of teenage pregnancies. Since these people lacked imagination and the courage to make any dramatic change in philosophy (since by doing so they would admit their error and culpability), they held their course and accelerated the drift from parental authority by installing school-based sex clinics.
According to the results of two major studies, published in the October 14, 1986 issue of the Wall Street Journal, the funding of school-based clinics has increased by a factor of twenty between 1971 and 1981.
The Disastrous Results.
Figure 82-5 shows the results of infusing more than fourteen billion of our Federal tax dollars into birth-control programs for teenagers over the last two decades. How effective has this vast expenditure been?
In return for the squandering of literally billions of dollars of our tax money, our teen pregnancy rate more than tripled in one decade! Figure 82-6 shows that, on the average, teenagers are sexually active on a regular basis by age 16.
In 1970, only 4.6 percent of all girls aged 15 had fornicated before marriage. In 1990, this rate had increased more than sevenfold to 33.1 percent. Of all unmarried girls in the 15 to 19 age bracket, 28.6 percent had fornicated in 1970. This rate had more than doubled to 61.4 percent by 1990.[22]
FIGURE 82-5
GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ON TEENAGE BIRTH CONTROL PROGRAMS, 1971 TO 1992
[A medium text size on your computer's 'view' setting is recommended, otherwise, the tables may be discombobulated.]
Percentage of
Fornicating
State and Teenagers Percentage Teenagers
Federal in Birth of Unmarried Always Using Teenage
Gov. Expen- Control Teenagers Contra- Pregnancy Teenage
Year ditures Programs Fornicating ception Rate Abortions
1971 $11 million 300,000 29.7 18.4% 95 per thousand 190,000
1972 $20 million 360,000 30.9 19.7% 99 per thousand 205,000
1973 $54 million 430,000 32.1 21.1% 101 per thousand 220,000
1974 $86 million 510,000 33.3 22.6% 104 per thousand 237,000
1975 $105 million 610,000 34.6 24.2% 105 per thousand 256,000
1976 $149 million 730,000 36.0 25.9% 108 per thousand 276,000
1977 $178 million 870,000 37.4 27.7% 110 per thousand 297,000
1978 $201 million 1,040,000 38.8 29.7% 111 per thousand 320,000
1979 $255 million 1,250,000 40.3 31.8% 108 per thousand 344,000
1980 $378 million 1,490,000 41.9 34.0% 111 per thousand 371,000
1981 $442 million 1,580,000 43.5 37.6% 113 per thousand 430,000
1982 $505 million 1,690,000 45.2 40.1% 115 per thousand 444,000
1983 $568 million 1,750,000 47.0 43.4% 118 per thousand 459,000
1984 $772 million 1,890,000 48.8 46.0% 120 per thousand 474,000
1985 $809 million 2,030,000 50.7 47.5% 121 per thousand 490,000
1986 $927 million 2,280,000 52.7 48.2% 126 per thousand 506,000
1987 $1,078 million 2,550,000 54.8 49.1% 132 per thousand 522,000
1988 $1,212 million 2,870,000 56.9 50.2% 134 per thousand 540,000
1989 $1,446 million 3,080,000 58.7 51.1% 136 per thousand 556,000
1990 $1,608 million 3.550,000 59.8 51.8% 142 per thousand 562,000
1991 $1,745 million 3,180,000 57.9 52.2% 144 per thousand 580,000
1992 $1,991 million 3,300,000 59.1 52.7% 147 per thousand 595,000
THE RESULTS OF THIS $14.56 BILLION DOLLAR PROGRAM:
Total Expenditures Over 22 Years: $14,560 million.
Increase in Teen Fornication Rate: 99 Percent.
Increase in Teen Pregnancy Rate: 55 Percent.
Increase in Teen Abortions: 213 Percent.
References: (1) M. Zelnick and J.F. Kantner. "Sexual and Contraceptive Experience of Young Unmarried Women in the U.S., 1971 and 1976." Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives, March-April 1977, page 62. (2) M. Zelnick and J.F. Kantner. "Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Pregnancy Among Metropolitan Area Teenagers, 1971 to 1979." Family Planning Perspectives, September-October 1980, page 235. (3) Stan E. Weed. "Curbing Births, Not Pregnancies." The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1986. (4) Charles W. Norris, M.D. "Teaching Respect." Fidelity Magazine, April 1987, page 29. (4) "The US Family Staggers Into the Sexy Secular Future." Family Research Newsletter, January-March 1991, page 1, Table 1 entitled "Percentage of Women Aged 15-19 Who Reported Having Had Premarital Sexual Intercourse, By Race and Age United States, 1970-1988." The numbers in this figure are linearly extrapolated using 1970-1990 rates.
FIGURE 82-6
SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF AMERICAN TEENAGERS BY AGE
Not Sexually Active
Sexually Active Unmarried Married
Age Male Female Male Female Male Female
13 88.0 98.3 12.0 1.7
14 75.8 89.1 24.2 10.8 0.1
15 64.7 80.1 35.3 19.5 0.4
16 54.7 66.7 45.3 31.6 1.7
17 47.7 52.3 52.3 41.9 5.8
18 33.1 42.3 64.1 45.3 2.8 12.4
19 21.0 32.0 72.3 47.7 6.7 20.3
20 16.6 25.7 71.6 45.3 11.8 29.0
21 22.8 23.8 56.3 39.2 20.9 37.0
NOTE: A "sexually active" person is defined as one having intercourse at least once during the last year.
Reference: Alan Guttmacher Institute. Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem that Hasn't Gone Away. 1981, 79 pages. Figure 1, page 7.
Use Comparative Figures With Care. Sometimes Planned Parenthood and other organizations like SIECUS show the public certain statistics comparing United States teen pregnancy rates with that of other countries. Figure 82-7 shows that our teen birth rate is five percent per year, higher than virtually any other developed country.
But we must be careful about these statistics when comparing them to those of other countries, because many times important demographic influences are entirely ignored by those who are trying to make a point.
FIGURE 82-7
AVERAGE ANNUAL BIRTHS PER 1,000 TEENAGED GIRLS FOR SELECTED COUNTRIES, 1975 TO 1980
Japan 3
Netherlands, Switzerland 10
Singapore 14
USSR 16
Hong Kong 17
West Germany 18
Spain 21
Denmark, France, Ireland 23
Sweden 25
Belgium 27
Finland 28
Norway, United Kingdom 32
Australia, Canada 33
Poland 34
Portugal 37
Tunisia 39
Israel 41
Philippines 43
Malaysia 44
Fiji 46
Greece 48
Martinique, New Zealand 50
Brunei, Italy 51
UNITED STATES 52
Thailand 54
Czechoslovakia 56
East Germany 60
Yugoslavia 69
Romania 70
Hungary 74
Bulgaria 78
Reference: United Nations Department of International Economic and Social Affairs. Demographic Yearbook 1988. New York: United Nations, 1979, Table 11. Also quoted in Alan Guttmacher Institute. "Teenage Pregnancy: The Problem That Hasn't Gone Away." Figure 18, page 22.
Planned Parenthood originally alleged that the "U.S. teenage childbearing rates are among the world's highest."[23] However, it achieved this result by simply leaving out all but three of the nations that had rates higher than ours! Then PP changed its story to say that the country's rates of teen pregnancy were among the highest among industrialized nations. This is true but only if all demographic and population factors are ignored. If adjustments are made for large ethnic groups in the United States which are lacking in the very White countries of Western Europe then United States teen fertility falls right in the middle of the range, just about where it should be.
The Final Solution.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the above information are painfully obvious. As tax money is poured into providing pills and condoms for teenagers, they acquire not only a pervasive feeling of sexual invulnerability, but receive validation of fornication from the 'system' as well. The percentage of sexually active teenagers skyrockets. And, inevitably, since contraception is not designed for relatively undisciplined teenagers, it fails and the teen pregnancy rate explodes as well.
The school sex clinic concept has been labeled ineffective and a failure not only by its critics, but by its proponents as well. But the clinic pushers have too much momentum and pride invested in the program; it is like any other program that takes on a life of its own when enough money and mental energy has been expended on it. It just keeps on growing, and more dangerous and ineffective clinics are installed every year.
It will take courage and determination, and the ability to say NO! to Planned Parenthood, but eventually the only solution to the problem of teenage pregnancy is to return to traditional values and encourage chastity, no matter how loud the Neoliberals scream.
References: School-Based Clinics.
[1] Dr. David Perkins, at the 1987 University of Maine conference entitled "A Strategy for Preventing Teenage Pregnancy."
[2] Faye Wattleton, former President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). The Humanist, July/August 1986 page 7.
[3] Alan Guttmacher, May 3, 1973, quoted in Humanity Magazine, August/September 1979, page 11, and in ALL About Issues, December 1979, page 2.
[4] William Bennett, United States Secretary of Education. "Sex and the Education of Our Children." ALL About Issues, May-June 1987, page 33.
[5] Stan Weed and Sam Olson. "Effects of Family Planning Programs for Teenagers on Adolescent Birth and Pregnancy Rates." Family Perspective, Vol. 20, No. 3, page 153.
[6] Alan Guttmacher Institute. "The Effects of Sex Education on Adolescent Behavior." Family Planning Perspectives, July/ August 1986, pages 162 and 169.
[7] "The Planned Parenthood Poll." American Teens Speak: Sex, Myths, TV, and Birth Control. See pages 18 and 71. Also see the discussion of this poll in Robert H. Ruff's Aborting Planned Parenthood. New Vision Press, 1988.
[8] Public School Sex Education: A Report. "Key Players in the Sex Education Game." As described in the 24-page insert in the American Family Association Journal, October 1990, page 15.
[9] Douglas Kirby, Director, Center for Population Options. Session on "Education," speech given at the 16th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), Washington, D.C., March 2, 1988.
[10] Mary Meehan and Elizabeth Moore. "Forced Abortion Suggested at Clinic Owner's Conference." National Right to Life News, June 2, 1980, pages 1 and 13.
[11] "Texas Teens Need Permission to Visit Tanning Salons." American Medical News, September 22-29, 1989.
[12] Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education, March 16, 1981, page 2 of the transcript.
[13] The Oregonian, March 11, 1989, page 7.
[14] Professor Kingsley Davis. "The American Family, Relation to Demographic Change." Research Reports, United States Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Volume I, Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth, edited by Robert Parke, Jr., and Charles F. Westoff. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1972, page 253.
[15] James Ford, M.D., and Michael Schwartz. "Birth Control for Teenagers: Diagram for Disaster." Linacre Quarterly, February 1979.
[16] Report of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families. "Teen Pregnancy: What is Being Done? A State-By-State Look." Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985, pages 378 and 385.
[17] Lynn C. Landma. "Anniversaries." The Alan Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives. October 1980, page 2.
[18] Laurie S. Zabin, et.al> "Evaluation of a School and Clinic Based Primary Pregnancy Prevention Program for Inner City Junior and Senior High School Males and Females." Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1986. Also see Laurie S. Zabin, et.al> "Evaluation of a Pregnancy Prevention Program for Urban Teenagers." Family Planning Perspectives, May/June 1986, pages 119 to 126.
[19] Jacqueline R. Kasun. "The Baltimore School Birth Control Study: A Comment." In Robert G. Marshall. School Birth Control: New Promise or Old Problem?" Stafford, Virginia: American Life League, 1986.
[20] Wardell Pomeroy, Ph.D. Boys and Sex. Delacorte Press, New York, 1981. Page 117.
[21] George Mosbacker. "The Final Step: Clinics, Children, and Contraceptives." Quoted in Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. School-Based Clinics, The Abortion Connection. Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, 419 7th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004. Page 64.
[22] "The US Family Staggers Into the Sexy Secular Future." Family Research Newsletter, January-March 1991, page 1, Table 1 entitled "Percentage of Women Aged 15-19 Who Reported Having Had Premarital Sexual Intercourse, By Race and Age United States, 1970-1988."
[23] Elise F. Jones. "Teenage Pregnancy in Developed Countries: Determinants and Policy Implications." Family Planning Perspectives, March/April 1985, pages 55 to 63.
Resources and Further Reading: School-Based Clinics.
National Chastity Association
Post Office Box 402
Oak Forest, Illinois 60452
Telephone: (708) 687-1767
American Civil Liberties Union. Pamphlets entitled "No Way Out: Young, Pregnant, and Trapped By the Law;" "Parental Notice Laws: Their Catastrophic Impact on Teenagers' Right to Abortion;" and "Shattering the Dreams of Young Women: The Tragic Consequences of Parental Involvement Laws."
Order from the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, 132 West 43rd Street, New York, New York 10036. The pro-life activist who is promoting parental consent or informing laws for teenagers should read these masterpieces of hysteria by the ACLU in order to anticipate what pro-abort arguments against such laws typically sound like: Long on emotion and anecdotal evidence (by the same organization that has lied so many times in the past), and extremely short on any kind of real logic.
American Family Association. "Public School Sex Education: A Report."
Published in the October 1990 issue of the AFA Journal. Also available from the American Family Association, Post Office Drawer 2440, Tupelo, Mississippi 38803. This is an excellent encapsulation of the incredible nonsense being drilled into our children by sex educators posing as teachers. If this is not a powerful incentive to home school, nothing else will be.
Irving R. Dickman. Winning the Battle for Sex Education.
The Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), 80 Fifth Avenue, Suite 801, New York, New York 10011. 1982, 60 pages. This short "how-to" book, written by one of the shills for the pro-abortion, pro-SBC, pro-sodomite, and pro-anything that trashes the family SIECUS, shows school boards and operatives how to blunt, ignore, or confuse parental opposition to permissive sex education programs. This book would be extremely valuable to those parents who want to effectively work against permissive sex education programs in the schools, because it gives them an idea of how the school sex-ed pushers will react. Includes a lengthy section entitled "20 Questions Parents Ask About Sex Education."
Family Foundations.
This bimonthly newsletter is published by the Couple to Couple League (CCL). Main topics are the technical and 'how-to' aspects of natural family planning (NFP) and information on teen sex clinics, chastity, and Planned Barrenhood. Write to Couple to Couple League, PO Box 111184, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45211.
Father Robert J. Fox. Charity, Morality, Sex and Young People.
Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana 46750. 1975. A textbook on the religious aspects of teen life with questions and answers at the end of each chapter. This book would be excellent for teens and parents to work on as a project together for the purpose of mutual understanding.
Richard D. Glasow, Ph.D. School-Based Clinics, The Abortion Connection.
Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, 419 7th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004. Telephone: (202) 626-8809, lower prices for bulk orders. Covers the pro-abortion tactic of moving abortion referral services directly into the schools. Many references and proof as to how SBCs have failed to reduce the demand for abortion. Also discusses effective pro-life strategy against SBCs.
Greenhaven Press. Teenage Sexuality: Opposing Viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1988, 215 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The questions asked are: "What Affects Teenagers' Attitudes Towards Sex?;" "What Kind of Sex Education Is Appropriate for Teenagers?;" "Are School-Based Health Clinics Beneficial?;" "How Can the Teenage Pregnancy Problem Be Solved?;" and "Should Teenagers Make Their Own Sexual Decisions?" Authors include Charles Krauthammer, Allan C. Carlson, and Sol Gordon. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Stephen M. Krason and Robert J. D'Agostino. Parental Rights: The Contemporary Assault on Traditional Liberties.
Christendom College Press, Front Royal, Virginia 22630. 1988: 208 pages. This book covers the legal and moral dimensions of parental rights from the philosophical, legal, and psychological points of view. Subjects covered in this collection of focused articles include parental rights in all aspects of public and home schooling, including sex education and the life issues. Noted authors include Kenneth Whitehead, James Likoudis, Charles E. Rice, and Thomas J. Marzen.
Katherine B. Oettinger. Not My Daughter!: Facing Up to Adolescent Pregnancy.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1979, 185 pages. Much useful and interesting information can be extracted from this book on the troubles and options a pregnant teen faces. The author presents abortion as just another option, however, and the fact that the book is recommended by Planned Parenthood and other population-control groups should tell the pro-life reader what perspective to take when reading this book.
Linda Roggow and Carolyn Owens. Handbook for Pregnant Teenagers.
Zonder-Van Press, 1984. 142 pages. Reviewed by Debra Braun in the October 24, 1985 ALL News. Finally, a pro-life book for pregnant teenage girls! This book should be in every CPC and every library. It explains the three real options in such a case adoption, marriage, and single parenthood. It goes into some detail on how to approach family members and how to deal with and analyze their reactions. The last chapter encourages the pregnant girl to trust in God and have courage. The book also includes a resource list and guide to national crisis pregnancy centers. Good for calming down teens and parents and guiding them in thinking about their situation in a rational manner.
John W. Whitehead. Parent's Rights.
The Rutherford Institute, Manassas, Virginia. An examination of the growing movement of the states towards controlling your children's lives.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League.
