NBC's Mitchell falsely suggested Obama was discussing abortion when he made "punished with a baby" comment
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama was discussing abortion when he said of his two daughters at a March 29 campaign event: "I don't want them punished with a baby." In fact, as CNN reported, Obama's comments were in response to "a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls."
On the March 31 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell falsely suggested that Sen. Barack Obama was discussing abortion when he said of his two daughters at a March 29 campaign event: "I don't want them punished with a baby." Mitchell said that Obama "was questioned by a woman who is against abortion, and he referred to the fact that he has two daughters and he would not want them to be punished if they made a mistake -- 'punished with a baby.' " Mitchell went on to ask former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN): "How will that go over with the pro-life, or, if you prefer, the anti-abortion constituency in Pennsylvania?" However, as video of the event broadcast by CNN shows, Obama made no reference to abortion in the comments highlighted by Mitchell, but was instead referring to sex education. Additionally, CNN reported that Obama's comments were in response to "a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls."
Later in the same program, while talking with Washington Post reporter Anne E. Kornblut, Mitchell again brought up Obama's "answer on Saturday to an anti-abortion woman in Pennsylvania when he referred to having -- you know -- if his children had an unwanted pregnancy, it would be a punishment." Kornblut claimed that the comment "would, in all likelihood, come back to punish him -- punish him, to use his phrase -- in the general election rather than in the primary," adding: "At this point, he and Senator Clinton are basically completely in sync when it comes to abortion."
From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008:
MARY SNOW (CNN correspondent): Welcome back to CNN's edition of Ballot Bowl. This is a chance for you to hear directly from the candidates. I'm Mary Snow in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Senator Barack Obama is holding a town hall meeting right now, taking questions from the audience. Let's go straight to Senator Barack Obama; he just was asked a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls. Here's Senator Barack Obama.
OBAMA: -- or we give them really expensive surgery and we don't spend money on the front end keeping people healthy in the first place. So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.
But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it. It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well.
So -- but this all is connected to the idea of prevention and so my health care plan says, you know what? I don't want kids in the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma. I want them to get a primary care doctor and have regular check-ups and, you know, if we decreased obesity rates back to the rates that existed back in 1980, we would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars -- one trillion dollars because that's what's accounting for huge spikes in heart disease and diabetes and all kinds of preventable illnesses.
So we've got to put emphasis on that. Let me say one last thing, though. I'm going to use the presidential bully pulpit to start talking about people taking responsibility. We were talking about education earlier. It doesn't matter how good the job the schools are doing, if parents, you don't turn off your TV sets and put away your video games and make your kids do your homework and meet with the teachers, it won't make any difference. And the same is true on health care. I mean, some of us just have bad luck, and -- or genetically, are predisposed to certain diseases.
But, you know, if we're not all making some effort to get exercise and, you know, eat properly and not smoke and, you know, and I know -- I've had my own little battles. You know, I used to sneak a few cigarettes once in a while. My wife cut me off at the pass. She announced on 60 Minutes, she said, you know, "Yeah, he used to smoke once in a while, and he promised me. So if you catch him, anybody out there" -- but that was good. I think we all have to take some responsibility for these issues as well. That's going to be important. All right, I've got time for one more question.
From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the March 31 edition of MSNBC Live:
MITCHELL: Congressman, let me ask you -- let me ask you about something that Barack Obama said in Pennsylvania on Saturday, I believe, to a town hall meeting. He was questioned by a woman who is against abortion, and he referred to the fact that he has two daughters and he would not want them to be punished if they made a mistake -- "punished with a baby." How will that go over with the pro-life, or, if you prefer, the anti-abortion constituency in Pennsylvania?
ROEMER: Well, I'm a pro-life Democrat, Andrea, and I've heard Senator Obama talk very articulately and eloquently about how difficult this decision is.
MICHELL: But using the term punishment about a baby, is that --
ROEMER: Well, let's talk about -- I think the way he's talked about it in the past and how he has talked about it to me and other supporters has been that this is a moral dilemma with tragic outcomes for people, and that we have to find ways to reduce the number of abortions. That's the kind of language that I think is reflected in his faith as a Christian and that's the kind of thing that he would work on, I hope, as president. Let's talk about his record on this and his views and how he's expressed it. And I think, you know, that more accurately reflects how he feels about it.
[...]
MITCHELL: And Anne, do you think that he also has to try to explain himself on some other issues? You know, he's a liberal senator by any -- you know, maybe not the National Journal's description of him because he missed so many of those votes -- but he still is a liberal senator on issues like guns and abortion. And what about his answer on Saturday to an anti-abortion woman in Pennsylvania when he referred to having -- you know -- if his children had an unwanted pregnancy, it would be a punishment. That's not the language that --
KORNBLUT: Right, for her to wind up --
MITCHELL: -- you'd want to use.
KORNBLUT: -- with a baby, yeah. That's -- I think that's language that would, in all likelihood, come back to punish him -- punish him, to use his phrase -- in the general election rather than in the primary. At this point, he and Senator Clinton are basically completely in sync when it comes to abortion. She, of course, has used her husband's rhetoric about safe, legal, and rare. Neither of them emphasizes wanting to be pro-abortion, but they do talk about -- they're obviously both pro-choice, pro-abortion rights. So, at this point, it's -- we've already seen a few columns pop up ever since he said that in the last 48 hours. I expect we will, but, really, I think it's an issue for the general election against McCain.
The implicit argument is that his daughters should consider having an abortion if they ever face the threat of "punishment" of having a baby.
Media Matters wants you to think he was talking about HIV and STD's, but..."what does having babies have to do with HIV/STD's? Obama addressed the issue of abortion within the larger context of the HIV/STD related question.
If I am asked "What is the greatest pitcher of all time?", and I reply, "Cy Young, who by the way had the greatest coach you could ever have", I am not only talking about the issue the interviewer had in mind (pitchers), but I am also volunteering information about a coach.
This is reinforced by the fact that Obama is pro-choice.
Having a baby doesn't have a whole lot to do with HIV/AIDS.
But it DOES have a lot to do with contraception and generally being smart about teenage sexuality. So, Obama's comments were right on track.
"teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception"
That's what Obama was getting at. At NO time was abortion mentioned or even alluded to.
Try again genius.
SOLON:
That's the meaning I took. That our children should not be "PUNISHED" by a lack of education. That we adults in truth "PUNISH" children by failing to provide them with ALL the information they should have about sex, reproduction, and the consequences which might occur.
"JUST SAY NO" to sex, 'abstinence ONLY' "education" -- the preferred techniques of "conservatives" and the "religious right" ... these FAIL to arm our children with alternatives (like condoms) which would enable them to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.
We adults, unless we are honest and realistic in our approach to the issue of sex, indeed PUNISH children with ignorance and the consequences of ignorance.
That said, can the issue of "punishment" arise in the context of abortion? In my opinion, it sure can. Human beings have a God-given sex drive, and it is strong. It is at the SURVIVAL level of perpetuation of the species. (Yes, we also have "self control", but that is both LEARNED and takes DISCIPLINE, which children must develop over time. The reason children are not considered "at the age of consent" is that we realize legally, morally, and practically that children have not formed the proper decision-making skills to be held responsible for their actions.)
A child who becomes pregnant (and this will ALWAYS be FEMALE children) is punished in a thousand ways. Social stigma, the curtailing of social development, formal education is usually shortstopped, their options disappear ... their developing maturity, decisions about "what they're going to be", and dreams of a family IN THE FUTURE are all replaced by immediate motherhood, which will, if taken as a solemn responsibility, dominate their life for the next twenty years. In many instances, of course, the impregnator (the guy) does not stick around to share the burdens. If drugs are involved (crack, for instance), the child could be born addicted and that spreads the "punishment" a thousand fold.
Now, NONE of these consequences is a "punishment" to Rev. Falwell, or any rightwinger. THEY are not punished in the least PERSONALLY, as they preach what OTHER people "should" do about unwanted pregnancies. And they accept no responsibility that their "strategy" of keeping children ignorant about sex might have been a cause for the problem.
So, even IF "a baby as punishment" is seen in the light of the option of abortion, there is ample justification for the term. If the pregnancy is NOT wanted, then it IS punishment. Anyone who thinks different is not the one who's pregnant.
Well actually they would prefer that the government (society) do nothing; if the dumb girl gets pregnant, well, it was "God's will."
Since organized religious groups take it upon themselves to participate in public policy debates concerning goverment social-program spending, then it logically follows that these organizations should be taxed according to what they really are, which are not-for-profit businesses.
Just threaten to take away reigious organizations' tax-exempt status and see how fast that shuts them up!
I'm not sure what speech you were watching Truthseeker, but Obama was most certainly NOT talking about abortion in the clip here. He was talking about the prevention of both unintended/teen pregnancies and STDs. He was making clear that while he supports sex education programs that encourage abstinence, he is against "Abstinence-Only" programs that do not include any information about how to protect yourself from STDs and pregnancy. He was saying that if his daughters made the mistake of having sex too young, he doesn't want them to be punished by BECOMING pregnant, not that he doesn't/wouldn't want them to carry a pregnancy to term.
Sure, if you insist on injecting abortion into his answer the relation between pregnancy and STDs/HIV isn't clear. But if you understand that he was speaking from the PREVENTION angle and advocating for more information to be given to teens, it makes perfect sense. So that should be a hint: your version makes no sense, so you probably didn't get what he meant.
"He was saying that if his daughters made the mistake of having sex too young, he doesn't want them to be punished by BECOMING pregnant, not that he doesn't/wouldn't want them to carry a pregnancy to term."
Exactly, in fact his comment suggests that such a situation would not lead to an abortion. He didn't say "punished with pregnancy", he said "punished with a baby", which indicates carrying to term. Of course he could just be using "baby" as a reference to a fetus, but there's still a perfectly valid interpretation that has a very different tone from what Mitchell heard.
Truthy-
How can you be pro-life, and anti-contraception at the same time? Don't you realize that teaching kids contraception would reduce the frequency of abortion?
Also, Cy Young has a very prestigious award named for him, but he is not in the top 10 greatest pitchers of all time.
What Obama said had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. He was referring to teenage troubles with sex. And since he's a pro-choicer, why would there be a problem with pregnancy for him....?
Mitchell's typical of media creeps who are always trying to create trouble. They're deadly to the political process-- but abortion is a much better distraction for she and her economic class than discussions of, say, how the rich are soaking the rest of us.
I've been there, it's better than Disneyland ;-)
When I saw this clip on the news I figured Obama was talking about teaching kids about birth control not abortion. I thought it was pretty obvious. But ya know the media ;-)
"When I saw this clip on the news I figured Obama was talking about teaching kids about birth control not abortion."
In the wacked-out mind of the liberal....abortion IS birth control. It turns out Obama is talking about abortion, then, huh?
"He was talking about abortion based on liberal demands for abortion rights. Don't blame me because liberals use abortion as a form of birth control."
Faulty reasoning based on faulty generalizations. Obama didn't make that argument. Conservatives think women who have abortions should be stoned in the public square, therefore that's your argument. Right?
"I believe that 'right' should be removed. If the woman's life is in no physical danger by the child, then they should have it. Otherwise take responsibility. Be accountable for your actions. Is that too much to ask?"
Yes, because the accountability isn't on par with the action. You give in to natural impulses and you have to drop out of school to take care of the baby, you never will be able to have a decent job because you don't earn enough as it is to go to college, etc. In a vacuum you can always preach accountability but in the real world you have to ask yourself how far that principle can reasonably be carried. Millions of women might get what they "deserve" but the ramifications of that is millions of extra mouths to feed. All of this lowers the skill level of the workforce and expands the ranks of the lower class dramatically, which has a serious impact on crime levels and the economy.
"Yes..... blah blah blah"
You truely are dilusional. "NEVER" can a woman succeed if she has a baby in HS? Your way of thinking is a danger to all mankind. You join the list of other liberal posters who simply parrot what you're told to say. I also see you bulk me into the "conservative" stereotype while complaining there is no liberal stereotype.
In a "vacuum" child molesters should be punished for their crimes, in the liberal world, they would be given 3 children each as "punishment" for their crimes.
In a "vacuum" sexual predators are guilty of crimes against humanity, in the real world, they become president.
In a "vacuum" the lowered skill level worker would take away jobs from mexicans, in the liberal world they are murdered.
"You truely are dilusional. "NEVER" can a woman succeed if she has a baby in HS? Your way of thinking is a danger to all mankind. You join the list of other liberal posters who simply parrot what you're told to say. I also see you bulk me into the "conservative" stereotype while complaining there is no liberal stereotype."
Not never, but generally speaking it's difficult for single mothers to excel. Are you really denying that there are a great number of girls that are stuck in positions like that? I didn't "bulk" you into anything. I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning with a contrary example of the same.
As for the rest of your post, all I can say is "crack kills". What the hell are you babbling about?"Not never, but generally speaking it's difficult for single mothers to excel."
Say what you mean, then! Are you going to pull the 'usual' liberal process of saying one thing then changing what you said to something different later on...as needed. That could be one reason so few people trust liberalism, because you people constantly/blatantly lie to get opinion changed to your own.
" I didn't "bulk" you into anything. I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning with a contrary example of the same. As for the rest of your post, all I can say is "crack kills". What the hell are you babbling about?"
You pointed out the "flaw" in nothing. I don't expect you to understand what is being said, I am aiming towards a different intelligence level.
So because you took a description of a common scenario and blew it up in your mind as an absolute declaration about every single girl who gets pregnant in high school, I'm lying? And I'm the one that's supposedly "dilusional"?
I most certainly did point out the flaw in your reasoning. You just couldn't address it. You're the one not bright enough to pick up on what I was doing.
Don't blame me because liberals use abortion as a form of birth control
Then please explain why "red" states have a higher incidence of abortion?'
Could it be because they stick their head in the sand and pray that little Susie and little Johnnie don't play doctor?
"Then please explain why "red" states have a higher incidence of abortion?' "
Could it be that the 5 million voters who couldn't get the state to become a "blue" state still take advantage of their murderous right? If you come back with proof those red states only have conservatives living in them, you can win this arguement. Otherwise you're as delusional as barby, and another "parrot". My, there are a lot of parrots at mmfa. Do any of you think for yourselves??
So liberals in red states have abortions in far greater proportion than liberals in blue states?
Why?
"So liberals in red states have abortions in far greater proportion than liberals in blue states? Why?"
I'm not a liberal, so I don't know 'why'. What I'm saying is that liberals support the current abortion laws as needed for birth control, therefor Obama could have been talking about abortion. You're the one who is taking this off-topic by talking about red/blue states.
I've never heard anyone argue for abortion rights because of a need of it as birth control. Has Obama ever said that?
If you can't explain why so many more liberals would have abortions in red states then in blue states, then your explanation of why the rates in red states are higher doesn't make a bit of sense. Maybe you should have just conceded the point instead of making stuff up off the top of your head.
Obama equates "having a baby" as punishment. It is not. Pregnancy is a very real outcome from having intercourse even with birth control. The Birth Control Education is a dismal failure. Obama needs to understand this. Even if the girl does not become pregnant, STDs are a major health risk.
At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.
A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls -- nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.
About half of the girls acknowledged having sex; among them, the rate was 40 percent. While some teens define sex as only intercourse, other types of intimate behavior including oral sex can spread some infections.
For many, the numbers most likely seem "overwhelming because you're talking about nearly half of the sexually experienced teens at any one time having evidence of an STD," said Dr. Margaret Blythe, an adolescent medicine specialist at Indiana University School of Medicine and head of the American Academy of Pediatrics' committee on adolescence.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/
Having an UNWANTED baby can certainly be seen as a punishment. Abstinence ONLY is a dismal failure and used properly contraception is VERY reliable. Your talking points are old stale and not nearly as reliable as contraceptives.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html
Solon,
Engaging in intercourse has the biological potential for the woman to become pregnant. Everyone knows that. It is not a punishment like being grounded; it is an potential and statistically highly probable outcome. If one drinks to much alcohol, is that person punished when they become drunk? If one eats too much, is one punished by gaining weight? Of course not. Getting drunk, gaining weight, and getting pregnant are the result of behavior, not punishments.
To say being pregnant can be a punishment for the mother is to ignore completely the conception of another human being. I wonder why Obama didn't discuss that?
The actions you take usually end in the consequences you mention. It is NOT a high probability. A woman is fertile only a couple of days a month. Do you know ANYTHING about fertility. Were YOU having premarital sex when YOU were a teen? Do YOU remember those raging hormones? Or were you a geek that couldnt get laid to save your life and you are still pissed about it? Reckless actions can have consequences you pay for the rest of your life. Spare me your pious moralizing. Contraceptives work pretty well. Educate the teens about their options and lets see less of those lifelong consequences. Anyone paying attention knows how well preaching at kids works.
Keep up the ranting/abusing/rabid foaming though....you do a much better job of discrediting yourself than anybody else could.
GENGHIZ:
And YOUR "argument" is ... what?
"The actions you take usually end in the consequences you mention. It is NOT a high probability."
"usually" and "high probability"!? Gosh, those two numbers must be so close that there can be a major arguement over the difference.
"A woman is fertile only a couple of days a month. Do you know ANYTHING about fertility. Were YOU having premarital sex when YOU were a teen? Do YOU remember those raging hormones?"
Tex, it's obvious Genghiz's arguement is that solon cannot carry a conversation without becoming uncivil. Typical liberal. Must be inbread. Solon is also pointing out his belief that sexual predators are simply a victim of circumstances and rape should be removed from the law books as a crime. AA is argueing that consequences happen for each action, solon counters with actions happen and are caused by natural rages. I'm sure the local child molestor would LOVE to use Solon's arguement in a court of law to defend his reasoning for sexually attacking others.
AA's arguement: child bearing is a responsibility (personal accountability)
Solon's arguement: excuses for every action (no personal accountability)
Solon: "Were YOU having premarital sex when YOU were a teen? Do YOU remember those raging hormones? Or were you a geek that couldnt get laid to save your life and you are still pissed about it? "
Solon is excusing child molestation by saying someone is a pissed off geek if he didn't get laid as a teenager. And, he's using the raging hormones as an excuse for raping teenage girls. Is that the message liberalism is expecting to be taught in school? Concensual sex cannot happen with under-age children. Children are not capable of making legal decisions until they reach 18. Before that, the crime is child molestation or statutary rape. Here....you'll understand this better: if a pastor is involved, it's child molestation. If a liberal is involved it's acceptable practice.
Actually the age of consent is 16, at least here. Before that age, parents can file statutory rape charges, once the age of 16 is reached they can't.
I'm pretty sure that ideology doesn't play much of a role in teenage sex. I can just see it now, some guy pushing away his girlfriend and saying "that's so liberal!". If you say so.
ANOTHER AMERICAN (AA) says, “Engaging in intercourse has the biological potential for the woman to become pregnant. Everyone knows that.”
RESPONSE: If TAUGHT, yes.
AA: “It is not a punishment like being grounded;”
RESPONSE: A child who has a child IS “grounded” … for TWENTY YEARS at least.
AA: “If one drinks to much alcohol, is that person punished when they become drunk?”
RESPONSE: If UNDERAGED, there is indeed punishment, by LAW. Why? Because we RESTRICT alcohol usage to ADULTS. Why? Because CHILDREN cannot be given responsibility for the consequences of drinking.
It’s interesting, AA, that you would choose to equate DRINKING to SEX, from the standpoint of how our society metes out legal restrictions, punishment and responsibility.
AA solidifies his analogy: “If one eats too much, is one punished by gaining weight? Of course not. Getting drunk, gaining weight and getting pregnant are the result of behavior, not punishments.”
RESPONSE: They are behaviors for which consequences are known, but for which the legal responsibilities are WILDLY different.
AA: “To say being pregnant can be a punishment for the mother is to ignore completely the conception of another human being.”
RESPONSE: Once the egg is fertilized, even in a CHILD, then we ignore completely the LIFE of the mother … she no longer matters except as a delivery vessel for ‘another human being’ … and we focus instead on that NEXT life? And if that next life is a girl, you’ll be concerned with HER as a “human being” UNTIL she, too, becomes pregnant, and then SHE no longer matters? That a really odd way to show concern for human beings, AA.
"RESPONSE: If UNDERAGED, there is indeed punishment, by LAW. Why? Because we RESTRICT alcohol usage to ADULTS. Why? Because CHILDREN cannot be given responsibility for the consequences of drinking."
There are laws against sex with children (why? because CHILDREN cannot be given responsibility for consequences of sex). Yet, the arguement tex is making is that sex with children should be taught in school!! Good arguement, tex. You want to teach them how to drink responsibly while your at it??
Looking at your article, I can see why you might think as you do. However the people who are giving the statistics are pushing an agenda. I have personal knowledge of member who belonged to the Sexuality Information and Education Council while I was in college. They promoted open, extramariatal, and group sex and therefore were very interested in contraceptives so they could justify this lifestyle.
Of course I notice that you are not talking about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive education does not mitigate that risk. Millions of teenagers will have to deal with the consequences of lifea altering diseases because they thought they were 'protected' by contraceptives, when they were not.
Of course I notice that you are not talking about the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptive education does not mitigate that risk.
AnotherAmerican-
I usually find your arguments to be more grounded than some of the right-wingers on this board, but this claim is absolutely absurd.
Kyle,
Good point. I guess I should have said that it doesn't eliminate that risk. The sad fact is many people are wrongly led to believe that using a condom will prevent std's.
Look at these quotes:
Many leading health experts have warned against depending on condoms for protection against AIDS and other STDs. Here’s a sampling of their comments:
"You just can’t tell people it’s all right to do whatever you want as long as you wear a condom. It (AIDS) is just too dangerous a disease to say that."
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Harold Jaffee, chief of epidemiology, National Centers for Disease Control
"Simply put, condoms fail. And condoms fail at a rate unacceptable for me as a physician to endorse them as a strategy to be promoted as meaningful AIDS protection."
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Robert Renfield, chief of retro-viral research, Walter Reed Army Institute
"Relying on condoms for ‘protection’ can mean lifelong disease, suffering, and even death for you or for someone you love."
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Andre Lafrance, Canadian physician and researcher
"Saying that the use of condoms is ‘safe sex’ is in fact playing Russian roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game."
Quote from: ¾ Dr. Teresa Crenshaw, member of the U.S. Presidential AIDS Commission and past president of the American Association of Sex Educators
cont:
STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can. For example, HIV (the AIDS-causing virus) is so small that two million of the disease-causing agents could crowd on the period at the end of a sentence.
In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.
One reason condoms fail in preventing the transfer of AIDS is that latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called "voids." Sperm is larger than the holes, but the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy for the virus to pass through [Source: Dr. C. M. Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology]. To give you an idea of how easy it would be for the virus to pass through these holes, just imagine a ping pong ball going through a basketball hoop.
Girls Still Get Pregnant!
Did you know that you can use a condom and still get pregnant? A variety of studies have found that condoms have an "annual failure rate" of 10% to 36% when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
Can you imagine the consequences for a couple when their condom fails? It happens all the time! One of the studies found that among teenagers, the condom failure rate regarding pregnancy was 36%! On average, that means that one out of every three teenage couples using condoms will become pregnant each year.
Are You ready to catch a sexually transmitted diseases?
Condoms provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than they do against pregnancy.
That's because a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (that's two to three days each month) but STDs can pass from partner to partner at any time of the month.
STDs are frequently passed through "skin to skin" contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
So, even if the virus or bacteria isn't passed through tears or holes in the condom itself, you can still get diseases because condoms don't cover or protect all areas of the genital region. That means condoms don't prevent many of the STD infections that take place during sexual contact.
(Editors note: STD is A.K.A. - VD or venereal disease. The first person to email me the root meaning/derivation of the word "venereal" wins a FREE copy of the video by Pam Stenzel called Sex Has A Price Tag. Send me your mailing address if you submit an answer so I can send you the video if you win.)
**Facts to Remember . . .
The United States' Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 56 million Americans have an incurable STD. That means 1 in 5 Americans are infected!
12 million people get a new STD each year!
33,000 people get a new STD every day and 22,000 of them are 15 to 24 years old!
25% of High School students will be infected with an STD before graduation!
[**Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York and Center for Disease Control, Atlanta]
http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html1) Jaffe quote: In addition to spelling the doctor's name incorrectly (there's only 1 e), that quote seems to have a further context that isn't included. I couldn't find the source of that quote (a little suspicious that they don't include sources you can easily check) but reading interviews with him seems to reinforce that impression. For example: You worked at the CDC for quite a long period of time. You saw many administrations come and go. When you transitioned from one administration to the next -- and I guess, particularly for our audience, it would be the Clinton to Bush transition -- did you see a change in the culture and the overall take on how to tackle HIV in the United States? Certainly, when the [most] recent Bush administration came into office, it became very clear that abstinence-only was a major message. We were told that in a variety of ways, in a variety of venues. And it showed. I mean, for example, the CDC condom fact sheet was taken off the CDC's Web site for quite a long time, because it was seen as too supportive of the role of condoms in HIV prevention. Well, if you say condoms prevent HIV, you're really knocking out one of the arguments for abstinence-only. So that kind of thinking certainly was there while I was at CDC, and I have to assume it's still there.
2) Renfield quote: I could not find anything about Renfield - my searches only led to other sites using this quote to discredit condoms. So we have no idea when this was said, or if the failure rate he was referring to was a reliable figure. (I'll explain in #5.)
3) Lafrance: First, he was Catholic and active in the pro-life movement. So he would've been against condoms for religious reasons. Second, he co-authored a paper where he attempted to prove that same-sex marriage was a "health risk" to Canadians. Not sure how that works, exactly. Third, he seems to have been just a GP, not someone with a specialty in this area.
4)Crenshaw quote: Again, they spelled her name wrong; it's Theresa. This quote comes from the early 90's. (Again, more on this in #5.)
5)The 93 U Texas study: This is my favorite. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why they have to cite a study from 15 years ago, as though no one else has researched it since? That's because the study is flawed. Even the woman who did the study says it's flawed. One problem was that she grouped couples who always used condoms with couples who sometimes used condoms. Also, it's possible that some of the people in the study were HIV positive before the study began, because their status was not checked. The fact that so many pro-life organizations and Abst-Only programs cite this study shows just how willing they are to distort the facts to prove their point.
6) Holes in Condoms: The Roland Study did not use actual viruses in their tests, but microscopic florescent beads. When the study was replicated using actual viruses, none passed through. Since HIV is not a microscopic florescent bead, the Roland study is not particularly convincing.
7) Teen failure rates: a lot of the failures of condom use are due to user error - the condoms were not used properly. For some reason, instead of showing teens how to use them properly on order to lower those failure rates, the solution is to just say that they don't work and leave it at that. And while the skin-to-skin contact is an issue with STDs, that doesn't take away from condom effectiveness for other STDs. Also, suggesting that failure rates are different when you're preventing pregnancy and preventing STDs is extremely misleading.
In closing, I'd like to quote Harold Jaffe again: "I don't think exaggerating risks really gets you very far. I mean, people know what the risks are, and if you say it's worse than it is, they won't believe you. " Amen.
(ps. I can give sources for everything if necessary, but I don't know how this site feels about lots of links in a post)
"Your talking points are old stale and not nearly as reliable as contraceptives."
Not nearly as old and stale as yours. How many abortions are there per year?? I guess contraceptives aren't as reliable as you think.
"Obama equates "having a baby" as punishment. It is not."
It is if that girl received abstinence-only education, which has been an abysmal failure.
"The Birth Control Education is a dismal failure."
What is your source? According to this source:
"Eighty-six percent of the recent decline in U.S. teen pregnancy rates is the result of improved contraceptive use, while a small proportion of the decline (14%) can be attributed to teens waiting longer to start having sex, according to a report by John Santelli, MD, MPH, department chair and professor of Clinical Population and Family Health at the Mailman School of Public Health and published in the January issue of the American Journal of Public Health. The scientific findings indicate that abstinence promotion, in itself, is insufficient to help adolescents prevent unintended pregnancies."
Pete,
For every one dollar spent on abstinence education, $12 is spent on birth control education. So which program is failing more?
The statistics are related to the rate of decline. Notice they don't talk about the teen pregnancy rate. Right now 4 out of 10 girls will be pregnant before they are 20.
Nearly 1 million teenage girls get pregnant every year. 78% are unintended.
One third of teens who use contraceptives use it inconsistently.
Did you notice that study you cited was done in conjunction with the Guttmatcher Institute - which is the research arm of Planned Parenthood? Since Planned Parenthood makes millions on abortions it stands to reason they would argue against abstinence. Only when people engage in sex can they stay in their profitable abortion business.
Other studies show that the decline in pregnancy is closer to 50-50. (See National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Halfway There: A Prescription for Continued Progress in Preventing Teen Pregnancy. Washington, DC: The Campaign, 2001.)
Again we're only talking about the rate of reduction and not the pregnancy rate itself. Thankfully it is better than 1991, but we've still got a long way to go.
As for birth control control. Condoms when used have a failure rate of 14% as condoms can leak. Oral contraceptives taken daily by the female rate have a failure rate of 9% because females have to take them at the same time every day. Many don't. Many actually miss two or more days during a cycle. Many who take contraceptives have side effects so stop taking them.
AA: "For every one dollar spent on abstinence education, $12 is spent on birth control education"
I don't know what "birth control education" is. I've never heard the term before. It is my belief, however, that comprehensive sex education (which includes teaching about abstinence and birth control) is more effective at preventing dangerous behaviors and unplanned pregnancy than abstinence-only education.
As far as your cost/benefit analysis, I'd like to see your source, but what I'd really like to know is what has been the subsequent cost to society for the failure of abstinence-only education to reduce teen pregnancy and STD's? Does your source bother to factor this into the equation?
AA: "Notice they don't talk about the teen pregnancy rate."
Uh, yes, they do: "Between 1995 and 2002, U.S. teen pregnancy rates declined by almost one-quarter (24%)"
AA: One third of teens who use contraceptives use it inconsistently.Sounds like we need better and more comprehensive sex education.
AA: "Planned Parenthood makes millions on abortions it stands to reason they would argue against abstinence."
What is the source of your financial data?
Planned Parenthood does not "argue against abstinence." The arguments I see from PP are against abstinence-only education: "They need access to real, unbiased information — about abstinence, contraception, and healthy relationships."
It stands to reason... no, it's obvious that the benefits of abstinence should be a part of comprehensive sex education, and that PP shares this viewpoint.
AA: "As for birth control control. Condoms when used have a failure rate of 14% as condoms can leak. Oral contraceptives taken daily by the female rate have a failure rate of 9% because females have to take them at the same time every day. Many don't. Many actually miss two or more days during a cycle. Many who take contraceptives have side effects so stop taking them."
And what study can you tout that proves abstinence-only education is an effective preventative?
Young people who took a "virginity pledge" were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. (Peter Bearman and Hannah Brückner “Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and the Transition to First Intercourse.” American Journal of Sociology 106.4 (2001): 859-912.)
PETE:
AA says, "For every one dollar spent on abstinence education, $12 is spent on birth control education. So which program is failing more?"
To know THIS, we would have to know how many pregnancies were PREVENTED by each method. And we can't prove a negative.
If the dollar on "abstinence education" prevented ONE pregnancy, while the $12 on "birth control education" prevented 1000 unwanted pregnancies, I'd say that would be compelling evidence of effectiveness. But AA doesn't even consider this factor ... for obvious reasons.
He thinks he's making a point, when in fact, he has no point here.
Tex,
Making up statistics does not prove your nonsensical point. Abstinence prevents pregnancy 100% of the time. Contraceptives and unprotected sex result in close to a million pregnancies per year by teenagers of which 78% were unintended and has resulted in 1 in 4 teenagers infected with at least one STD. That is over 3 million teens. Many will develop health problems years from now.
Clearly there are many factors that have led to this, the attempt at removing childbearing from sex and concentrating on the recreational aspects. Also lack of education, societal pressures, passive acceptance by adults of pre-marital and extra-marital sex. The removing of any moral stigma regarding out-of-wedlock parenthood. The availability of abortions. The selling of sex in advertising, TV shows, movies, music and government programs that encourage sexual permissiveness are just a few reasons that come to me beyond this controversy over which type of sex education we should use.
To me there is a dichotomy in comprehensive sex education that doesn't make sense. On the one hand it teaches not to have sex, but then it works against itself by offering a false sense of protection by teaching contraception. In effect, the contraceptive education and availability of contraceptives negates whatever abstinence education has sunk in. It seems to me abstinence is bound to fail in many instances when kids think there is a way to have "safe sex". The irony is that in the end, teaching contraceptive sex education encourages kids to have sex.
What has changed over the years? Why is the teenage birthrate so much higher than it was 40-50 years ago. We know there was very little or no sex education back then. What prevented so many teens from getting pregnant and contacting stds? We need to get society back to that point with regards to this issue.
"Abstinence prevents pregnancy 100% of the time."
And Communism works because all people accept themselves as equal and naturally value the common good over their own interests.
Well, obviously not. If abstinence education actually resulted in abstinence, you would have a point. But if you really think that teenagers generally value the word of authority figures over sex you're out of your mind. And when it fails, it's much more likely to result in disease and/or pregnancy than for someone who's been better informed.
On a moral level you can always preach abstinence, but on a practical level the stakes are a lot higher.
Brab,
I know that abstinence education does not work 100% of the time. What I am arguing is that Comprehensive Sex Education in schools fails because it actually makes teens think they can have sex using contraceptives, without the consequences. In too many cases they are being led down a path to stds and pregnancy. However the problem is not just the Comprehensive Sex Education curriculums. I posted a number of other contributing factors.
In my opinion, saying teens will do it anyway so we might as well give them contraceptives is basically giving up and making the problem worse.
"In my opinion, saying teens will do it anyway so we might as well give them contraceptives is basically giving up and making the problem worse."
I think there's a tremendous difference between "giving up" and facing the situation realistically. Teens are going to have sex. If you really think that you can prevent that, then you're fighting a losing battle from the start. It's just not a realistic goal.
What you need to consider here is that if you're facing a choice between teens ignoring abstinence-only education and teens being "encouraged" to have safe sex, then there's going to be sex either way. Safe sex is not "worse" than unsafe sex.
Also I think part of the problem is that your message moves the behavioral line to a dangerous spot. By that I mean everyone has an idea of where the line is and that they shouldn't cross it, There has to be a pretty strong motivation to do that. So if your message is "don't do it" and that contraceptives aren't a big help, then when they actually do it they've crossed the line already, and going without protection doesn't make any difference there. But if the message is that they shouldn't do it, but if they do it's vital to have protection, then the line becomes contraception. Psychologically it makes sense that people will cross the line over "sex vs. no sex" than for "no condom vs. condom". The latter choices are a lot less disparate, and so breaking the rules is not as worthwhile. And by providing a middle ground, it makes the underlying abstinence teaching more credible as well, because it comes off as being better grounded in reality.
BRAB:
Several things about AA's stance on abortion.
First, the "fact" that "abstinence works 100% of the time" is asinine. It's the same as saying a 100% reliable way to combat crime in society is to kill everyone. Sure enough, it's TRUE, that the dead do not commit crime, but the "solution" is unrealistic, drastic, and ignores reality of human nature (i.e. problem-solving cannot be black-and-white, soulless simplistic proclamations).
Second, AA wishes to saddle children with the consequences of their actions, in a nation that specifically exempts children from criminal actions on the basis that they CANNOT MAKE REASONED CHOICES. Why AA believes children SHOULD be saddled with the "responsibility" for perhaps the most important of human functions ... childrearing ... on the basis of "they made the decision to have sex" ... well, it boggles the mind.
Third, and most important, you have to understand that Rightwing "solutions" must be restricted to being a SCOLD, because that costs the Rightwinger nothing, does not call upon him to be part of any solution, and it shoves the problem out of sight and out of mind, for someone ELSE to deal with. That's what being a Rightwinger is all about: Doing NOTHING to aid your fellow man. Yes sir, DEMAND that "personal responsibility" ... even from CHILDREN.
Fourth, having expounded on how people SHOULD live, how children SHOULD behave, the Rightwinger can sit back and concentrate on making sure the Government does not attempt to help anyone, either. (After all, that TAX money is MINE MINE MINE, says the Rightwinger, and it shouldn't be used to help anyone else!)
So, once you understand where AA is coming from, you understand WHY his "solutions" are as useless as they are. Egocentric scolds cannot be expected to have thought processes that might actually be based in reality, be empathetic, or anything but selfish and greedy.
Any humanity will have to come from elsewhere.
"Abstinence prevents pregnancy 100% of the time."
Abstinence-only education does not, not even close.
"What has changed over the years? Why is the teenage birthrate so much higher than it was 40-50 years ago."We now live in a sexually-charged culture where sex sells. Our young people are being bombarded with sexual images, situations and language on a scale that was unheard of 50 years ago. This media is almost never accompanied by messages promoting abstinence or safe sex practices.
And I don't know what gave you the idea that comprehensive sex education would not include updated information regarding the failure rate of condoms, the importance of proper contraceptive use, or the effectiveness of each method at preventing pregnancy and disease.
The sex ed I received in junior high and high school, which required parental consent for my attendance, included all of this information, and this was back in the mid-80's.
Reading the transcript, it's plain as day to me.
Obama spoke directly to the shortcomings of abstinence-only education.
I think Obama talks in circles, and all the interpretations above show how difficult it is to figure out what he is trying to sell. Even his further topic of smoking. We all know he was a smoker who quit when he was preparing to announce his intent to run for president. Why is it so hard for this man to just say things out loud? He should be proud of the fact he quit. He has said his campaign time has needed lots of nicotine gum...why try to downplay, or hide from that now?
He managed to get lots of topics out there in this townhall answer...everything from abstinence only to pregnancy. That should help him waffle on the topic over and over depending on who he's talking to.
Maybe he didn't quit all the way? So he doesn't want to talk about it much. Nothing wrong with that.
I have my problems with Obama, but this topic is not one of them.
So you're using the words of conservatives as evidence that the words of a Democrat are difficult to interpret? Criminy.
"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16."
The context is clear. "It should also include...information about contraception". "Punished with an STD". I don't see any way to reasonably claim this comment is about abortion as opposed to prevention.
Rojo -
Your comment discusses a flip-flopping panderer, are you sure you're not talking about McCain? Is there an issue he hasn't flip-flopped on? Is there a voting bloc he hasn't pandered to?
Sean Hannity did the exact same thing on his radio show today; until I read this I thought Obama was talking about abortion. Hannity said repeatedly "why is having a baby a punishment..."
But we all know Sean lies constantly, right?
most of you are missing the point. when he refers to having a baby as "punishment", he's referring to the social punishment of having a baby at a young age. teen mothers are far less likely to finish school or earn a high enough salary to support the family, but they are more likely to be on public assistance. keep the context in mind. he's not making a moral argument here. the whole point is that the issue of sex education is not an either/or proposition. he's taking a holistic approach which is rarely mentioned. abstinence will work for some teens, but not all, as will contraception ed. so why not do both? that's how you stop the spread of stds or accidental pregnancies.
Rojo, he's not talking in circles. he's addressing the causes of the problems, and not just the symptoms. hiv/aids in young children is a sex issue, not so much a health issue. the disease comes from having sex. so how do you stop it? teach kids to either not have sex, but protect themselves if they do. sounds pretty point blank to me. not a moral judgment, just a practical, real life solution.
eye,
The problem is that contraceptive education misleads teens into thinking they can have sex without consequences. It is a very sad state of affairs when they end up being victimized by these false beliefs. Statistics about the failure rates of contraceptives with regards to pregnancy and stds is astounding!
The problem is that contraceptive education misleads teens into thinking they can have sex without consequences
Any proof to back that up, or are you just pulling theories out of your a**?
Remember when you were a teen? Maybe you didn't want to, but I thought about banging this girl or maybe that girl ALL THE TIME. Sex education was boring and it sure didn't "mislead" me that sex didn't have consequences. In fact, what it taught me was the unprotected sex DID have consequences.
If you can get past his his choice of words, he's absolutely right. The word "punishment" in connection with having a baby is not a wise choice. It's the consequences that become punishing, and I'm sure that is what he meant to infer.
He doesn't think very fast on his feet. Her can deliver a great speech but without the opportunity to organize his thoughts, think about what he wants to say and have it printed out in front of him, he's a dud.
I agree with Sen. Obama that we should teach kids about sex and abstinence, but a child shouldn't be considered a punishment. Instead, when a teen is pregnant, it should be a time to focus on lifting up the mother and telling her that life is the best choice.
A child is a beautiful gift from God that should not be taken for granted as a "mistake." I am a Catholic, and I know not of one Catholic that will vote for Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton.