I've never lived in such a superlative state! This beautiful little bundle of news brings to mind two things:
1.) The lunacy of abstinence-only education, which appears to be very popular in this region of the country. I just don't even know where to begin with this. Although I may agree with the view that it is best to wait until one is of an age and condition to support pregnancy, I do not comprehend the view that teaching responsibility necessarily requires eschewing prophylaxis. According to
one study:
Proponents of abstinence-only programs believe that providing information about the health benefits of condoms or contraception contradicts their message of abstinence-only and undermines its impact. As such, abstinence-only programs provide no information about contraception beyond failure rates.
This same study has found that after 5 years of federally funded programs to pursue abstinence only sex education,
Evaluation of...11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time. [my italics]
(Vicki Pollard and Kids; from Little Britain)
The report concludes:
Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants. [my italics]
Really, do we need to look any further than
Bristol Palin or
Jamie Lynn Spears for anecdotal evidence?
2.) The movie
Idiocracy, which highlights the inverse relationship between intellectual acumen and fecundity. In this movie,
[a] narrator explains that natural selection is indifferent to intelligence, so that in a society in which intelligence is systematically debased, stupid people easily out-breed the intelligent, creating, over the course of five centuries, an irremediably dysfunctional society. Demographic superiority favours those least likely to advance society.[1] Consequently, the children of the educated élites are drowned in a sea of sexually promiscuous, illiterate, alcoholic, proletarian peers. (Wikipedia)
Although not the best movie you'll ever see, it has so much potential.
And it gets right to the heart of the matter. People who believe in the efficacy of abstinence-only education are watching their sons and daughters get pregnant in their teens, and, because of their views on the sanctity of life, they are further ensuring that in every instance that child is born. [NB: I am not in any way denigrating the
personal choice to keep a child]. The natural consequence is that ignorance is literally breeding ignorance. Those who believe in abstinence-only education lack the cognitive capacity to understand that the only way to stop teenagers from getting pregnant is to teach them how to avoid, in every conceivable manner (inadvertent pun), active sperm from reaching a freshly released ovum. These people should not be setting curriculum on sex education, which should be as follows:
Step one, don't have sex.
Step two, if you absolutely cannot stop yourself from having sex because you lack self control, think you love him/her, hate your parents or don't give a shit about anything or anyone but yourself--use a condom.
Step three, cut it out! You are going to get yourself and someone else into a heep of trouble that will have lasting consequences. You'll likely have to drop out of school, get a low paying job and miss out on all of the fun stuff that your friends are doing. Is having sex really worth all that? If "yes", see step two.
See how abstinence is still first and foremost in the lesson plan? Added benefit: those who ignore the mandate stipulated in step one, but accept the terms outlined in step two may avoid spreading VD and lower the risk of contracting HIV-AIDS.
(World War II Military PSA)
Where does Mississippi fall in
other rankings?
In 2005, Mississippi ranked 25 among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in incidents of HIV-AIDS. (Bad, but not superlative).
In 2005, Mississippi ranked #15 in reports of syphilis. (OK, but...)
In 2006, the state ranked #2 nationwide in reported incidents of chlamydia. (Better, better...)
In 1997, Mississippi was #1 in reports of gonorrhea. (Now we're talking!)
Now, granted, that 1997 rate precedes the imposition of abstinence only education, but if the above report is true, that over the past 5 years the youth of this state have become suspicious of the efficacy of condoms as a consequence of their "sex ed" course work, what are the odds that that number is decreasing?
I'm not feeling particularly hopeful.