S-chip is all about socialism and federalism.

[Updated frequently throughout the day. Please come back often.] …

First, more condom use = less pregnancy and HIV for reasons that should be obvious. So the fact that condom use increased while sex rates remained the same means that the claim that

Ahhhh. So you extrapolated that from the study. I see. You managed to extrapolate something from it that neither the authors nor the NYT managed to extrapolate from it and that you have no numbers to back up.

You took some numbers that you liked, added your own opinion and came up with a “fact” that proved what you already believed to be true. I’m willing to bet that you do that a lot.

I, on the other hand, with my limited intellect was not able to make that same logical jump. In fact, here is what I came up with.

1) If, while you were doing your “papers and debate work,” you had found a study that actually backed up your premise, you would have posted it here instead of using the one that you did.

2) You called BS on soap-box for not being able to find a study that backs up his point but…uh….see #1.

3) I figure that if a promiscuous teenager is simply using condoms “more often” it is in no way going to cut down on teen pregenancy. Not unless that kid is using a condom 100% of the time, which, according to the study, they were not. If girls keep having unprotected sex (which they were), they will still get just as pregnant, because 99% of all boys that they are having sex with are capabale of impregnating them. They just may have delayed it for a few days. On the other hand, they could have unprotected sex every day and never get HIV, as long as they didn’t have sex with an infected boy.

4) The Times article said (as I posted above)

research is still mixed on whether making condoms available in schools actually increases their use

So you just cherry picked the study that agreed with what you want to believe because, at least according to the Times, there is other research that contradicts this study (and yet you still called BS on soap-box even tho your own article agreed with him).

You see, Rusty, you took a study that was supposed to prove that giving away condoms in school didn’t increase kid’s sexual activity and used it to prove that handing out condoms in DC cut down on pregnancy rates.

But this isn’t about condoms or teen pregnacy, it’s about how you choose to form your opinions and how you choose to debate with others…on things like S-CHIP.

You know, I’m starting to think Rusty is realy Michelle M. in disguise and is just egging us on to increase participation. After all she is so evil (in a really clever way.)

This would be the Cheney/Bush/Halliburton/Blackwater/TheyFooledUsAgainEvenThoughTheyAreStupid/NeoCon/VastRightWing/LoudPeopleConspiracy at work.

distilled down it’s another case of Governement funded (taxes) everything for everyone versus personal responsibility.

The increase to 4 times the national poverty average is also beyond me. Nothing like the Federal Government stepping to break a program the State Governments appear to run somewhat competently. I realize there are folks out there like yesterdays poster children abusing the system, but the real families in need are helped.

I still keep looking through my copy of the US Constitution and haven’t found anything on providing citizens with healthcare, welfare, or a free education. Glad to see some of our elected officials feel the same way and are standing firm on irresponsible spending.

The SCHIP might be a great idea, if it is ONLY for children – 18 and under – still at home with poor, US citizen parents. So much room for fraud, and we really need an overseer who will make the system toe the line, or we are just “STUCK ON STUPID”

First, more condom use = less pregnancy and HIV for reasons that should be obvious. So the fact that condom use increased while sex rates remained the same means that the claim that

All reputable studies have shown since the introduction of condoms into high schools, teen pregnancies skyrocketed and so did STD’s.

is 100% untrue. In fact, I bet this guy can’t find one study that says that. In fact, the teen pregnancy rate is the lowest its been since WWII. (It’s flatlined since. Some blame “abstinence only” sex ed. I figure that no matter what you’re going to have sexually reckless teenagers.)

I was responding to something that was wrong and I did a quick and dirty Google search to find the Public Health study. I figured that stationary sex rates with more condom use implied that HIV and pregnancy were down. (Which, although not mentioned in that study, is 100% true.)

It’s a comment thread. Please excuse me if not all of my data is the best. It’s not like I have Lexis-Nexis or JSTOR at my disposal here.

I just want to make clear that I’m not making an “assertion” to anyone cheating on anyone else. I’m just saying it happens. But no matter how strong your convictions, people cheat.

Pregnancy rates slowly decreased (admittingly this is the case for all teenagers, not just teenagers in schools with condom programs). And teenage sex rates stayed the same. There is really no excuse for public high schools not to be offering condoms. If you don’t like it, and I’m sure MM would agree with this, home school your kids or send em to a private school.

My source is that old liberal rag, The American Journal of Public Health.

Here’s a NYT story on the study.

–Rusty

lies

–Rusty

I wondered why you linked to the article but not to the study cited in the article(warning PDF), but then I read both.

Neither the study nor the article had anything to do with a decrease in pregnancy. The study was attempting to discover whether or not including condoms in sex ed led to increased sexual activity in kids. What it found was that it doesn’t and that some at risk kids used condoms a bit more. But it said absolutely nothing about pregnancy rates. Lies.

But, in fact, as the article itself says:

Some experts say that more studies need to be done before such findings are considered definitive. Various studies have found that schools with condom programs do not experience an increase in sexual activity, but research is still mixed on whether making condoms available in schools actually increases their use, these experts say.

In the New York study, one major limitation was that the researchers were not able to collect data before the systemwide program began. As an alternative, Ms. Guttmacher said, researchers used new students, mostly ninth graders, who had not been exposed to the condom program in New York, and compared them to similar students in Chicago.

I understood why you linked to one and not the other when I read in the article that

The study found that sexually active students in New York were significantly more likely to have used a condom

while the study says:

In addition, adding condom
availability to an HIV/AIDS education
program has a significant though
modest relationship with condom use,
particularly among students with multiple partners, whether through direct use of the program or through other, indirect, means.

The study proved that there is a modest relationship among certain students and it was looking into the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, not pregnancy.

Lessseee, what else?
Oh, yeah.

Lies.

It’s ironic that you began this little adventure today excoriating Rep. Walberg for making his mistatements and here you are making your own. To paraphrase you:
I will take [Rusty's] views into consideration once he takes the time to actually read and understand the [study].

BTW. As I understand SCHIP, it is a State run, socialized med. program funded by the government that the Republicans are willing to increase funding for but the Democrats want to expand and really, really increase fundingfor. Right!

Rusty, I am sending you a bill for today. It’s never my fault!