Lowest US Teen birth rate in 65 years

[angela146]

Remember the "40% out of wedlock" story? Well, there are some interesting details behind the story.

I am excerpting the story for the interesting bits (and leaving out the part of the report that talks about C-sections), but you can read the whole thing here

ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year, government health officials said Tuesday.

While out-of-wedlock births have long been associated with teen mothers, the teen birth rate actually dropped last year to the lowest level on record. Instead, births among single mothers rose most dramatically among women in their 20s.

[snip]

The government report includes information from 99 percent of U.S. birth certificates filed last year. The information for 2005 is considered preliminary, but officials said it is not expected to change much.

[snip]

More women in their 30s and 40s, hearing their biological clock, are choosing to give birth despite their single status. Younger women are not as worried about being unmarried, either, she added.

"I think it's more acceptable in society" to have a child without getting married, she said.

Just because a mother is not married does not mean the father isn't around, Ventura noted. She cited 2002 statistics that showed that about 20 percent of all new mothers under 20 were unmarried but living with the father at the time of the birth. That same was true of about 13 percent of all new mothers ages 20 to 24.

According to census figures, the median age at first marriage was 27 for men and 25 for women last year, up from 23 and 20 in 1950. Meanwhile, the number of unmarried-couple households with children has been climbing, hitting more than 1.7 million last year, up from under 200,000 in 1970.

The birth rate among teenagers declined 2 percent in 2005, continuing a trend from the early 1990s. The rate is now about 40 births per 1,000 females ages 15 to 19. That is the lowest level in the 65 years for which a consistent series of rates is available.

 

[Adrenaline]

I am fairly sure that teen pregnancies are down because all of the Purity teens went for the anal option. I am all for purity.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I am fairly sure that teen pregnancies are down because all of the Purity teens went for the anal option. I am all for purity.

I think we can partly thank Bill Clinton for the decline. He and Monica popularized oral sex, and sometimes boys and men settle for that rather than risk pregnancy.

I have to wonder about those figures for 1950 too. They say the average age for women at the time of their first marriage was 20. That means there were a lot of women under that age getting married. In other words, there were a lot of teenagers getting married. How many of them had children before they were 20 and are those births counted in the figures? If they are, the figures may be deceptive and may have little relationship with the other thread Angela mentioned.

 

[3113]

I have to wonder about those figures for 1950 too. They say the average age for women at the time of their first marriage was 20. That means there were a lot of women under that age getting married. In other words, there were a lot of teenagers getting married.

Maybe because they were preggers?

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Maybe because they were preggers?

Some of then probably were but most of them were girls who just finished high school and got married to their boyfriends. They would have been 17 or 18 then and marriage and having children was the main option for young women at that time. A few did go on to college with the aim of becoming teachers or nurses but most got married and started having babies.

That was what my grandmother did. She finished high school in June 1950 when she was 18. She had her first baby when she was 19. According to her, that was what most young women did then although some waited a little longer before having chidren. She always told me she never regretted the way her life went.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Some of then probably were but most of them were girls who just finished high school and got married to their boyfriends. They would have been 17 or 18 then and marriage and having children was the main option for young women at that time. A few did go on to college with the aim of becoming teachers or nurses but most got married and started having babies.

That was what my grandmother did. She finished high school in June 1950 when she was 18. She had her first baby when she was 19. According to her, that was what most young women did then although some waited a little longer before having chidren. She always told me she never regretted the way her life went.

As far as I ever knew (and I'm not old enough to have experianced it) that's what was expected of women in the 50s. You were expected to get married right out of high school. If you weren't married by 30 everyone thought there was something wrong with you.

 

[rgraham666]

Most people still think that.

 

[Adrenaline]

I think we can partly thank Bill Clinton for the decline. He and Monica popularized oral sex, and sometimes boys and men settle for that rather than risk pregnancy.

Yeah...yeah that's right. Bill Clinton popularised oral sex.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yeah...yeah that's right. Bill Clinton popularised oral sex.

Hell, how come he never said anything in his campaign ads? Harry Browne might have received one less vote that year . . .

 

[cloudy]

As far as I ever knew (and I'm not old enough to have experianced it) that's what was expected of women in the 50s. You were expected to get married right out of high school. If you weren't married by 30 everyone thought there was something wrong with you.

That's what folklore says, sure, but it wasn't necessarily true.

My mother (who turned 78 this year) went right into college, as did all five of her sisters (she graduated high school in 1945, and was second to the youngest).

It just depends, but it's over-generalizing to think that ALL women followed the same path.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

That's what folklore says, sure, but it wasn't necessarily true.

My mother (who turned 78 this year) went right into college, as did all five of her sisters (she graduated high school in 1945, and was second to the youngest).

It just depends, but it's over-generalizing to think that ALL women followed the same path.

I was just repeating what my grandmother said. She married right out of hgh school and she told me most of her friends did too. She didn't keep track of all her classmates but she didn't know of any who went to college. Apparently that was the standard at that time and in this particular small midwest town.

She does know that some women went to college, though. After all, there were women nurses and teachers and others who did go to college.

 

[mrbaddaddy]

Teens and pregnancy

.....

 

[yevkassem72]

It's a cyclical thing, in terms of late vs. early marriage. Any student of history knows this. No cause for panic either way. But the notion that unmarried mothers are all adolescents is absurd, as this thread demonstrates. It shows a cultural bias that older women not shouldn't have kids out of wedlock (sheer nonsense), but that they shouldn't have as many kids as teens in the first place. Odd, given the simultaneous message that teens shouldn't get pregnant. If not when older or younger, when then? Such a policy is a sure way to become extinct, if you ask me.

On the other hand, mixed messages are more likely to be ignored.

This could also just a bias against or dislike of divorce. Presumably many of these older single women are divorcees. God forbid that anyone should want what another man discarded for a younger trophy wife, right? Absurd assumption, if you ask me. One man's frumpy hag is another man's MILF.

 

[Seattle Zack]

Well, I stopped supporting United Way on our company's "Giving Campaign" when they dropped Planned Parenthood about ten years ago, Now, with a new company, I give about a grand a year straight to Planned Parenthood, and my new employers match dollar for dollar. Anything I can contribute to provide free contraception or abortion for teenage mothers is money well spent, in my opinion.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

It's a cyclical thing, in terms of late vs. early marriage. Any student of history knows this. No cause for panic either way. But the notion that unmarried mothers are all adolescents is absurd, as this thread demonstrates. It shows a cultural bias that older women not shouldn't have kids out of wedlock (sheer nonsense), but that they shouldn't have as many kids as teens in the first place. Odd, given the simultaneous message that teens shouldn't get pregnant. If not when older or younger, when then? Such a policy is a sure way to become extinct, if you ask me.

On the other hand, mixed messages are more likely to be ignored.

This could also just a bias against or dislike of divorce. Presumably many of these older single women are divorcees. God forbid that anyone should want what another man discarded for a younger trophy wife, right? Absurd assumption, if you ask me. One man's frumpy hag is another man's MILF.

Teenage pregnancies, whether married or not, is the subject of this thread. That's why the posts are on that narrow subject. Everybody already knows that single women in their forties can get pregnant too.

Bad Daddy, The Pill came along after the Fifties and condoms are more easily available now than they were then. With the threat of AIDS and STD's they are more popular too.

Nobody in their right mind could believe it is because of deliberately abstaining from sex. Oral sex may be a small part of the reason but I think the main reason is there were more married teenagers in the fifties than there are now.

I just read the article again and realized it said BIRTHS, not PREGNANCIES. Abortions were illegal in the fifties and they are legal now. By itself, that would account for all the difference.

I suppose teenage girls did get abortions in the fifties, but not as often as they do now.

 

[amicus]

Lurking...but curious as it was my "40% bastards" that drew the fire...but, saving grace, this kind of debate was what I hoped to ignite...

Although...the wider scope is children without paternal ancestry or familial identity and just what that means for the future.

Look beyond the obvious...the reasons why it has happened are important of course, but the ongoing implications are where my interests lie...


amicus....

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Lurking...but curious as it was my "40% bastards" that drew the fire...but, saving grace, this kind of debate was what I hoped to ignite...

Although...the wider scope is children without paternal ancestry or familial identity and just what that means for the future.

Look beyond the obvious...the reasons why it has happened are important of course, but the ongoing implications are where my interests lie...


amicus....

Amicus, this thread has almost nothing to do with yours. I expressed my opinion on your thread so I won't repeat it.

The article in this thread is making a rather foolish claim that there are fewer teenage pregnancies now than ever before. It is a foolish claim because they are ignoring the fact that so many teenage pregnancies, especially those of unmarried teenagers, end in abortion. They are also apparently ignoring the fact that many previous teenage pregnancies, more than current ones, involved married 18 and 19 year old women.

 

[amicus]

What ever your point, your avatar is obscene, your 'snip and clip' to suit your own goal, ludicrous, and of course, you miss the wider view, but what the hell else is new?

amicus...

 

[angela146]

What ever your point, your avatar is obscene, your 'snip and clip' to suit your own goal, ludicrous, and of course, you miss the wider view, but what the hell else is new?

I hope you're kidding.

My avitar is tame by any standard outside of an Islamic state.

The "snip and clip" excluded sections that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic - and besides which I included a link to the original story. Anyone who was even slightly curious was only a click away from the "whole truth".

As for missing the wider view, well OK, I suppose this is a valid point. It depends on which of the many wider views you are talking about.

 

[JamesSD]

I think we can all agree a decrease in teen pregnancies is a good thing, just as a decrease in the abortion rate is a good thing.

People are getting married later. An unplanned pregnancy used to mean a shotgun wedding. Now it can easily mean having the baby while continuing to date the father, and deciding later if the couple is a good match. Being a single mother is no longer the dating death sentence it once was, (Although I'll grant it does make it harder for women, especially to find the time to date).

I definitely percieve a certain anti-marriage backlash among a decent group of young educated professionals. If it's convienient to get married, fine (A friend's job is taking him overseas, and he got married so his long-term girlfriend could get a visa to go with him). And I know of cases where people co-habitate, have shared lives, finances, children together, but don't bother getting married.

Incidently, no one among me or my friends ever uses the term "bastard" in a derrogatory way. Jokingly, sure, especially with those whose birth dates were less than 9 months after their parent's weddings. But really, premarital sex is the norm, and accidents do happen, so there's far less scandal in unplanned pregnancy than their once was.

 

[mrbaddaddy]

Pregnancy Study

The article in this thread is making a rather foolish claim that there are fewer teenage pregnancies now than ever before. It is a foolish claim because they are ignoring the fact that so many teenage pregnancies, especially those of unmarried teenagers, end in abortion. .

Here's a summary article on the study I was referring to. You can, I believe, access the entire published text at the American Journal of Public Health:

Contraception Driving U.S. Decline in Teen Pregnancies
11.30.06, 12:00 AM ET

THURSDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDay News) -- The number of American teenage girls who are becoming pregnant has dropped dramatically since 1990, and researchers say an increase in the use of condoms among teens may be the reason why.

The finding suggests that teens are increasingly turning to contraception as a means of avoiding early pregnancy, even as conservative groups point to abstinence as the only sure means of doing so.

"It is remarkable that teens are becoming better contraceptors even as there are efforts afoot to reduce the information and skill-building that they receive about contraception," said Freya L. Sonenstein, a professor and director of the Center for Adolescent Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

She was not involved in the study, which was conducted by researchers at Columbia University and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, both in New York City. Their report is published in the Nov. 30 online issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Federal statistics show that pregnancy rates among U.S. girls aged 15 to 19 have dropped by 27 percent between 1991 and 2000, and birth rates for this group fell by 33 percent between 1991 and 2003.

However, the exact reasons for this trend have remained unclear. In their study, researchers led by Columbia's Dr. John S. Santelli examined data for the years 1995-2001 from the ongoing National Survey of Family Growth.

They specifically looked at trends in sexual behavior and contraceptive use for nearly 2,600 U.S. girls, aged 15 to 19, who were interviewed as part of the survey. The researchers' hoped to determine the roles of abstinence and contraception in the ongoing decline in teen pregnancy.

Santelli's team found that 86 percent of the decline in pregnancy was associated with increased use of contraception. There was increasing use of both birth control pills and condoms, or the use of dual methods such as the pill and a condom combined.

Only 14 percent of the decline in pregnancy was attributed to reductions in teens' sexual activity, the researchers noted.

In addition, Santelli's group developed a "contraceptive risk index" to account for effectiveness of contraceptive use. They also developed an overall "pregnancy risk index" calculated by the contraceptive risk score and the percentage of teens reporting sexual activity.

These data revealed that, among teens 15 to 17 years old, 77 percent of the drop in pregnancy was due to more contraceptive use and 23 percent to reduced sexual activity.

Based on their findings, the researchers believe that contraception may be the best way to further reduce the number of teens getting pregnant.

"Abstinence promotion is a worthwhile goal, particularly among younger teenagers; however, the scientific evidence shows that, in itself, it is insufficient to help adolescents prevent unintended pregnancies," the researchers wrote. "The current emphasis of U.S. domestic and global policies, which stress abstinence-only sex education to the exclusion of accurate information on contraception, is misguided," they concluded.

American boys and girls are delaying sexual activity, Sonenstein noted. "Indeed, one of the unanticipated trends is the decline in sexual activity among male teens who no longer show higher rates of sexual experience compared to female teens," she said.

Sonenstein believes that contraception use and delayed sexual activity work hand-in-hand to prevent unwanted pregnancy among teens.

"While it may be useful to think about the delay of sexual activity and increased contraceptive use as unrelated behaviors, research tells us that the older teens are at sexual initiation, the more likely they are to use contraception," Sonenstein said. "Thus, prevention efforts should emphasize both the need to reduce sexual activity and to use contraception when activity occurs."

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I hope you're kidding.

My avitar is tame by any standard outside of an Islamic state.

The "snip and clip" excluded sections that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic - and besides which I included a link to the original story. Anyone who was even slightly curious was only a click away from the "whole truth".

As for missing the wider view, well OK, I suppose this is a valid point. It depends on which of the many wider views you are talking about.

Angela, I am sure he was referring to my avatar, not yours. He is mistaken there. My AV is not obscene, although it can be described as pornographic. I don't know what is so strange about that. There is a great deal of pornography on this site.

That was the only complaint I have ever had about my AV. Mostly I get praise and indecent proposals, which are another form of praise.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Here's a summary article on the study I was referring to. You can, I believe, access the entire published text at the American Journal of Public Health:

Contraception Driving U.S. Decline in Teen Pregnancies
11.30.06, 12:00 AM ET

THURSDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDay News) -- The number of American teenage girls who are becoming pregnant has dropped dramatically since 1990, and researchers say an increase in the use of condoms among teens may be the reason why.

The finding suggests that teens are increasingly turning to contraception as a means of avoiding early pregnancy, even as conservative groups point to abstinence as the only sure means of doing so.

"It is remarkable that teens are becoming better contraceptors even as there are efforts afoot to reduce the information and skill-building that they receive about contraception," said Freya L. Sonenstein, a professor and director of the Center for Adolescent Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

She was not involved in the study, which was conducted by researchers at Columbia University and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, both in New York City. Their report is published in the Nov. 30 online issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

Federal statistics show that pregnancy rates among U.S. girls aged 15 to 19 have dropped by 27 percent between 1991 and 2000, and birth rates for this group fell by 33 percent between 1991 and 2003.

However, the exact reasons for this trend have remained unclear. In their study, researchers led by Columbia's Dr. John S. Santelli examined data for the years 1995-2001 from the ongoing National Survey of Family Growth.

They specifically looked at trends in sexual behavior and contraceptive use for nearly 2,600 U.S. girls, aged 15 to 19, who were interviewed as part of the survey. The researchers' hoped to determine the roles of abstinence and contraception in the ongoing decline in teen pregnancy.

Santelli's team found that 86 percent of the decline in pregnancy was associated with increased use of contraception. There was increasing use of both birth control pills and condoms, or the use of dual methods such as the pill and a condom combined.

Only 14 percent of the decline in pregnancy was attributed to reductions in teens' sexual activity, the researchers noted.

In addition, Santelli's group developed a "contraceptive risk index" to account for effectiveness of contraceptive use. They also developed an overall "pregnancy risk index" calculated by the contraceptive risk score and the percentage of teens reporting sexual activity.

These data revealed that, among teens 15 to 17 years old, 77 percent of the drop in pregnancy was due to more contraceptive use and 23 percent to reduced sexual activity.

Based on their findings, the researchers believe that contraception may be the best way to further reduce the number of teens getting pregnant.

"Abstinence promotion is a worthwhile goal, particularly among younger teenagers; however, the scientific evidence shows that, in itself, it is insufficient to help adolescents prevent unintended pregnancies," the researchers wrote. "The current emphasis of U.S. domestic and global policies, which stress abstinence-only sex education to the exclusion of accurate information on contraception, is misguided," they concluded.

American boys and girls are delaying sexual activity, Sonenstein noted. "Indeed, one of the unanticipated trends is the decline in sexual activity among male teens who no longer show higher rates of sexual experience compared to female teens," she said.

Sonenstein believes that contraception use and delayed sexual activity work hand-in-hand to prevent unwanted pregnancy among teens.

"While it may be useful to think about the delay of sexual activity and increased contraceptive use as unrelated behaviors, research tells us that the older teens are at sexual initiation, the more likely they are to use contraception," Sonenstein said. "Thus, prevention efforts should emphasize both the need to reduce sexual activity and to use contraception when activity occurs."

I have no problem that a decrease in pregnancies now compared to 1990 is because of greater and more adept use of contraception. In my post, I took issue to the claim there were more teenage pregnancies in the fifties than currently. That opinion was derived from the fact that there are fewer teenagers giving birth than there were back then.

In my opinion, there are fewer births now than then because so many pregnancies end in abortions now, and very few did then. Besides that, the data from the fifties are meaningless because it apparently includes births to married 18 and 19 year old women. Very few women get married that young now, but it was quite common then.

I have no personal experience from then, of course, but I have a very good relationship with my grandmother, who was one of the 19 year old mothers in the fifties.

 

[angela146]

... the data from the fifties are meaningless because it apparently includes births to married 18 and 19 year old women. Very few women get married that young now, but it was quite common then.

Although it does bring an interesting issue to light: I think it is actually a good trend to see people delaying intentional marriage and childbirth by a couple of years.

For one thing, there are a lot more women (and men) going to college now than in the 1950s. That is probably one of the main reasons for the delay and, if so, the increased amount of education is a good thing.

Also, delaying a decision to get married and have kids from 18 to 22 is, for most people, a good thing in that it gives time for more life experience and more esposure to people other than the immediate circle of friends from high school.

That said, I must disclaim my own personal case. My husband and I met and fell in love in our freshman year of college. We were engaged when we were 18 and married when we were 20. We did, however delay having children until we were in our late twenties (and then found out that we couldn't have children anyway, oh well).

[ironic_comment]So, when I say that it is a good thing for people to delay marriage until they finish college, I am referring to vast majority among you who are ignorant fools, not to the elite few, such as my husband and I, who were experts at forming relationships at a young age.[/ironic_comment]

(The preceding ironic comment is not to be taken seriously. It was an attempt to admit that I am - on this subject at least - a total hypocrite.)