Her.meneutics: Does Religiosity Encourage Teen Pregnancy?

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

Twitter feed

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

Free Newsletters

more newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« Snakes, Spiders, and the Science of Gender | Main | 'Homeless Chic' and the Homeless »

September 28, 2009

Does Religiosity Encourage Teen Pregnancy?

An interview with Joseph Strayhorn, the co-author of "Religion and Teen Pregnancy Rates."

Christine A. Scheller

Some social liberals used a recently published study in Reproductive Health that found a strong link between high religiosity and teen pregnancy rates to further their case for why abstinence-only sex education doesn't work.

Double XX, Mother Jones, Bonnie Erbe at U.S. News & World Report, and Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic say the results of "Religiosity and Teen Birth Rates" — which found higher teen birth rates in the most religiously conservative states, even after controlling for differences in income and abortions — point to conservatives' hypocrisy on family values. The researchers, father-daughter team Joseph and Jillian Strayhorn, speculated that perhaps teens in highly religious states are more likely to become pregnant because they are less likely to know about or use contraception. Jillian's work went toward fulfilling an advanced home-schooling course in statistics, roughly equivalent to a sophomore college course in regression analytics. (Dr. Strayhorn noted that "ironically, one or two of the bloggers I read who used our article to slam religion also slammed home-schooling.")

After reading such interpretations, Her.meneutics regular Christine A. Scheller decided to interview Dr. Strayhorn, associate professor of psychiatry at Drexel University College of Medicine.

You said that your research "has already made many people angry." What about it has provoked such hostility?
The three topics most likely to anger people are sex, religion, and politics, and our article concerns all three. Various people have said that it’s bad research, not worth the money of whoever funded it, ignorant, biased, and so forth. Many critics dismissed the findings as a result of fewer abortions in more religious states, or of greater poverty in more religious states, not understanding or probably not reading about our attempts to control for these variables. Some commented that the excess of teen births was the fault of African Americans or Hispanics.

Is there legitimacy to the criticism?
After the article was published, we did another analysis taking into account the percent of the population for each state that was African American. This variable accounted for a non-significant fraction of the variation in teen birth rates in addition to that accounted for by religiosity and income.

We’ll speak later to the issue of abortion and income, since you have honored us by a request for some explanation of the statistical techniques involved in controlling for these variables.

Your study begins with this background statement:

The children of teen mothers have been reported to have higher rates of several unfavorable mental health outcomes. Past research suggests several possible mechanisms for an association between religiosity and teen birth rate in communities.

How are mental health outcomes and teen parenting linked, and how do they relate to religiosity?
Some research has suggested that the social disadvantage that seems to accompany teen birth is the main causal factor for poor [mental health] outcomes. As to the relation of teen parenting to religiosity, one might predict that the emphasis on self-control and morality would result in lower teen births by religion, and some research points in that direction. One might also predict that teaching abstinence, as promoted by many religious leaders, could result in less preparation for use of contraception, which in turn could lead to more births when resolutions are not kept — and some research also points in that direction. Thus, for a social scientist, the research question was a good one in that whatever the results, they would be interesting.

How did you come up with the conclusion that religious communities may be less likely to use birth control? Is this scientific or personal opinion?
When we asked ourselves, “What about religious culture could possibly account for an increase in teen births?” we figured that it was unlikely to be, “A soft answer turneth away wrath,” or “Blessed are the peacemakers,” or “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
We figured it was more likely something like, “The church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”

This quote is a statement from the Vatican; it’s well known that the Catholic Church’s official position is that contraception, even when used by married couples, is a “grave sin.” (Mitigating the predicted effect of this teaching is that a rather high fraction of U.S. Catholics appear to disregard it.) Many Protestant leaders, without condemning contraception within marriage, strongly condemn teaching teens how to use contraception.

The poll we mentioned at the beginning of the report is one piece of evidence about attitudes toward sexuality and teaching contraception. The impetus for abstinence-only sex education appears to have been from religious conservatives. Focus on the Family's online statement about abstinence education reads as follows: "Because we support God's perfect plan, Focus on the Family does not support the teaching of risk-reduction (contraceptives) of sexual behaviors in schools. Rather, we recognize youth must understand that contraceptive devices and drugs provide very limited protection. . . ."

Also, a New York Times article on the anti-contraception movement seemed to confirm the impression that the impetus against contraception is primarily religious in motivation.

Are you affiliated with any group, religious or otherwise, that might have unduly influenced your study?
Regarding groups religious, we have been affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Church, which probably influenced us at least a little toward a variety of philosophical positions. One is the idea that questions of social policy should be justified on the basis of their results — i.e., whether they in the net produce more positive or negative effects for people, and not on the basis of claims of knowing what God’s plan is. Another is that ethical religious beliefs should be responsive to the accumulation of evidence, rather than immutable and irreformable decrees that render scientific evidence irrelevant. A third is that discourse between people of different religious orientations should be as civil and polite as possible, even when people strongly disagree.

Comments

Dr. Strayhorn's lengthy and complex explanation of his methodology is posted at Exploring Intersections, which can be accessed by clicking on my name here or at the sidebar.

This is a lot to digest, so this may have been mentioned and I missed it; but I would seriously love to know, in the states were there is less "religiousness" - is there a higher percentage of abortions?

Teen pregnancy isn't a cut and dried scenario and shouldn't be treated as such.

Strayhorn's 'controversial' conclusions, that pro-abstinence theology primarily reduces the use of contraception rather than sexual activity itself is completely founded by other independent research regarding virginity promises such as True Love Waits and Silver Ring Thing.

Yale and Columbia Universities discovered that 88% of True Love Wait participants had premarital sex anyway and were less likely to use a condom.

A more recent study in journal of Pediatrics indicated these same programs result no overall reduction of sexual activity, but instead they reduce the use of contraception by 10%.

People can argue all day about what others should and should not do, but the statistical facts are that Christians have more unity on actually having premarital sex than on almost any other religious issue, and Christian youth are at greater risk of unplanned pregnancy and STDs than the unchurched youth.

Thank you, Scott. I totally agree. It seems fairly obvious, but the research actually bears it out: children who are drilled with abstinence and taught not to use or trust contraceptives are no less likely to have sex, but are more likely to experience pregnancy and STIs.

Too many "religious" people believe that educating children/teens about contraception will encourage them to have sex. Really, they don't need any encouragement or permission. Most of them are going to do it anyway by the time they are in their 20's. That's the reality. I would rather they knew how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and STIs. Even the best of intentions (True Love Waits, etc.) seem to fall by the wayside.

My thought when I read this is that in states with the higher "religiousness" factor, it's that religiousness that's driving policy - such as less access to abortion providers and less comprehensive sex education(including information on and access to contraceptives).

I suspect that there are a segment of teens who have internalized their faith and will not have sex for those reasons. But there are so many more who have not internalized their own faith and so don't have the same sort of internal moral compass that might make them make a different choice. But they don't have the information to protect themselves.

I used to be one of those who believed sex education should be left in the hand of the parents and that schools had no business being dispensaries for condoms. And living in Kansas, you know I'm aware of the anti-abortion movement.

But I became a grandmother at 37 by way of my 16 year old daughter. I most definitely sing a different song these days. If my son buys condoms, we're gonna talk. But I'm not taking the condoms away.

Dear Robyn & Scott,
I don't know whether you are Christians or not, so I won't assume that we share a common opinion of God's laws. But I believe God's laws are for our benefit.

To be brief, passing out contraceptives and 'educating' youth about sex does nothing to protect their hearts. God's idea of marital sex is for the spiritual, emotional, and physical benefit of those who obey that standard. As a Christian youth leader, I would humbly assert that we churches are attempting (even if rather poorly) to educate kids because we know that treating sex as less than sacred results in damage to the total person... or more specifically, two persons.

Placing covers over electrical outlets to prevent young children from getting elctrocuted makes total sense. That's good parenting, because the ignorance of the child could cost them their life. But giving young adults contraceptives instead of challenging them to obey God's laws is just uncaring. That's LOWERING the bar. We've got to teach them the better way: sex inside of a responsible marriage, where the fear of having kids is hugely reduced (because you can support them together), emotions are safer within the walls of covenantal vows, and fidelity protects them from the physical dangers of having multiple partners.

When we're educating young adults in sexuality, we need to make them aware of its true purpose, and its true consequences, good and bad. You say "They're going to do it anyway, even if you teach them abstinence." I say the reason for that has nothing to do with what churches are or aren't teaching. It has to do with our culture bombarding kids with unhealthly, unnatural sexuality on a daily basis.

It is no different than raising a kid up in terrorist ideology his whole life and then sending him out with a bulletproof vest for when he gets himself in trouble. "At least it'll help keep him alive." NO, HE NEEDS A MASSIVE NEW HEART EDUCATION OR HE WILL END UP DEAD ANYWAY.

The authors say they were influenced to some degree by Unitarianism, which is not really a Christian denomination. So they may have their biases as well since the predominant religion promoting the "religiosity" they studied was Christianity. Nevertheless, they position themselves as being dispassionately guided by science: "...ethical religious beliefs should be responsive to the accumulation of evidence, rather than immutable and irreformable decrees that render scientific evidence irrelevant." Yes, their approach is more scientific than that of many "decree-swallowing" fundamentalist Christians, but SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH IS NOT PURE SCIENCE, despite the rather arrogant implication.

Many more variables are involved than can be accounted for in their study. Hard conclusions from this kind of research should be reached very dubiously, if at all. Many people use this kind of research to punt abstinence education totally, and that is a tragic, tragic mistake. While abstinence-ONLY education currently appears lacking, abstinence should surely be part of any educational process, not least because practicing abstinence prevents unwanted pregnancies, STD's and emotional trauma much better than contraception. It is also the approach most fundamentally congruent with historic Judeo-Christian values.

It would be interesting to conduct a study on how studies of this type influence the culture and teen sexual behavior.

Given the rarity of pregnancies in teens when I was in high school in the early 60's (no b.c. pills and no legal abortions), when folks were alot more conservative than now, and sex was hardly mentioned in a public school, I wonder why there wasn't alot more pregnancy then than now?

Maybe the values that were taught us in the 50's in terms of sexual responsibility, and responsibility in general, had some influence. I also think public schools provided a much better education back then in terms of critical thinking skills. I'm all for education, but teach people how to rationally figure out things for themselves. Education should return to basics.

Nance

Interesting article, which shows faulty philosophical hypotheses of the authors of the research. For instance, Dr. Strayhorn completely misunderstands true Catholic teaching about artificial contraception. It is not meant to be valid "even when used by married couples", but it is specifically for married and stable couples. To think that Catholic Church intends prostitution and casual sex to be without contraception is preposterous. Even the reference to Catholics is surprising, as most American Catholics can not be classified as religious conservatives.
When Dr. Strayhorn says that "questions of social policy should be justified on the basis of their results", "and not on the basis of claims of knowing what God’s plan is", he is ignoring the position of Catholic and mainline churches, that is to justify policies on the basis of a universally valid rational ethics, as an objective way of knowing God's plan without invoking Revelation.
These and other misunderstandings cast serious doubts about the interpretations and conclusions of the research.
On the other side, the delay of the onset of sexual activity in case of abstinence education is well documented, and some leading epidemiologists agree on this. Studies cited in the comment by Scott have some shortcomings that have already been exposed. The strongest proof is likely the experience of Uganda, where the most successful program against HIV (the ABC approach) developed.

Did I miss the part where you discussed the results of the study? I see where you talked about the background questions, some of the variables, the methodology used to compensate for some variables, but no discussion on what the results were, their significance (if any) etc.

The problem is that ,the moral values are downgraded.our children are no longer being thought the fear of God,we call it religiousity.forgeting that 'the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom',rather our society is teaching them that contraceptives for the unmarried is wisdom.

it is the society that is encouraging these things.let us get back to God.We can not be wiser than God,no matter the scientific breakthroughs we are claiming.

Abstaneance is still the way out of teen pregnancy,and it is the power of religion(personnal convictions )that can really help our youth to weather the storm of pornographic society we made for ourselves.

Joel,

The 3rd and 4th questions deal with results.

Jonathan,

You wrote, "But giving young adults contraceptives instead of challenging them to obey God's laws is just uncaring."

Is that what we are supposed to be teaching adolescents in our PUBLIC schools, to "obey God's laws"? That doesn't make sense on the basis that they are PUBLIC schools. We clearly look at this matter from two different perspectives, but it is not our place to force our religious ideals onto other in public schools. It is not the belief of the culture-at-large that premarital sex is inappropriate. While abstinence should be presented as an option, it is not our place to force our beliefs onto others, especially when these beliefs lead to higher teen pregnancy (assuming the legitimacy of this and other similar studies)--an issue that Christians and non-Christians alike believe is unhealthy.

Jonathan,

I resent your implication that my opinion on this subject calls into question my faith and/or salvation. You say you aren't assuming, but your words seem to belie that.

I never said we shouldn't teach children and teens about God's design and intention for sex. WE SHOULD. OFTEN. I already talk to my 3-year-old about sex at an age-appropriate level and will continue to do so as she grows up. However, we must also realize that, in spite of all our efforts, people make their own choices. Not all our children will embrace our faith. Many will reject it for a time, rebel in their youth, and then later return. This is what most of my friends did. In addition, the research shows that most kids have sex DESPITE our best efforts to teach them to wait. It's not that they don't know why they should wait. They just don't.

I also never said a word about "handing out contraceptives." I said we should *teach* our children about contraceptives and STI preventatives. This is not anti-Christianity. It's good sense. Education about contraceptives does not teach premarital sex. It teaches contraceptives.

I hope that my children wait until they are married to have sex. I didn't. Neither did my sister. I have *one* friend who did. All of us were raised by Christian parents, in the church, and attended Christian schools. We knew the party line, had it drilled into our heads. The REALITY is that most people won't wait. And, should my children choose not to wait, I want them to know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STIs.

Just an initial thought about this research: What type of area were most surveyed from rural or urban? I imagine (my opinion) that lots of rural kids (i.e. bible belt kids) have sex because there is nothing else to do. Urban kids have sex too, but there are other outlets to get involved in. My opinion, but maybe something to look in to.

Former generation? In 1948, the boys from my middle school were assigned to Mechanical Arts HS which they left whenever their shop teacher signed a Certificate of Accomplishment. I, a girl, was assigned to Practical Arts HS, my "neighborhood school" in Boston's Combat Zone. Its curriculum constisted of such skills as, 1. How to cook nourishing meals from Welfare food. 2. How to bathe & diaper a baby. 3. How to wash clothes, without a washing machine, in a sanitary manner. 4. How to fill our Welfare forms. (Planning & Budgeting was an advanced class.)
PA never held a graduation ceremony; no girl ever graduated. Instead, each girl was kicked out when it became obvious she was pregnant. According to my statistics. that's a 100% pregnacy rate. Note: The Combat Zone was NOT a religious neighborhood.

If you read far enough into the report, you find a quote from the authors themselves that basically undermines anything that looks useful about the results: "We would like to emphasize that we are not attempting to use associations between teen birth rate and religiosity, using data aggregated at the state level, to make inferences at the individual level. It would be a statistical and logical error to infer from our results, 'Religious teens get pregnant more often.'"

The reason, which they go on to discuss in some detail, is because it's impossible to know whether or not it's the religious teens who are driving up the birth rate. It's the same problem as a recent study that found higher pornography use in religious areas of the country. Maybe the un-religious residents of these areas act un-religiously at a *really* high rate. From this data, we'll never know.

Frankly, the only reason this is being treated like a big deal is because it was easy for some widely-read columnists to use it to level another ill-informed charge of
"Hypocrisy!" against people who disagree with them. There's absolutely nothing ground-breaking here. Good job, CT, for actually sending someone to get to the bottom of this and find out that people are up in arms over nothing more than someone's school project.

The article had many good points, and it does not surprise me that rates are higher in more religious populations. The reason I agree with this statement is because to many parents are telling their kids not to have sex, but when asked why their only answer is, "because God said so." Teens are way to intelligent and in some ways rebellious. Teens need to know why, why does God say to wait. What is the big deal anyways? I have written a book, "Boundaries: Staying Pure In Your Teenage Years" in this book in explains the why answer. It actually empowers students to stay committed to their vow of abstinence. It also educates the parents on the why question because they were never taught. If you want more info, check out my website: legattministries.com

Adam,

In response to: "It is not our place to force our religious ideals onto others in PUBLIC schools."

I think we've warped the separation of church and state when we back down from sharing excellent ideas in the public forum. Maybe I wouldn't waltz into a school and say, "Obey God's laws, even though you don't believe in Him, because I think it's good for you." But maybe I would say, "Here is a really good idea I learned in church: sex outside of marriage has a world of consequences that outweigh the short term rush..."

I believe good ideas need a place in the public forum. And even though our culture likes to laugh at God, it's all very short-sighted. I'd rather align myself with values that have stood the test of time and have a real backbone than be afraid to debate with a generation enamored with Friends and Paris Hilton.

I don't know where you stand, but if you have good ideas, get them out there, don't keep them in church.

Robyn,

I really wasn't making assumptions about your faith. But this is an inflammatory thread, so please forgive me if it sounded heated. Not to mention, I was replying to two different commentors...

Anyway, since you are a believer, I challenge you to trust God more and raise the bar higher for your daughter. If you simply 'educate' her, but simultaneously put in place safeguards for every natural consequence God gave to educate US, you can bet her chances of purity are even less than yours and mine were.

I also did not make it to marriage, regretfully. I was one of those Christians who didn't use contraceptives. God spared me major consequences, but not without a couple 'scares' that shocked me back to the real REALITY: disobeying Him is eternally dangerous and harmful to the soul. I can't ignore that, I can just be thankful He saved me through Jesus Christ and landed me in a grace-filled marriage despite myself.

I'll never forget what Sarah Palin said in the Fox News interview with Greta Van Susteren regarding her daughter's pregnancy: "I think Bristol's kind of an example of, truly, it can happen to anybody. Bristol, great athlete, great student, great aspirations that she had for herself, plans that didn't include a baby."
It can happen to anybody?! She's not the star athlete, picture of health, who's been struck with cancer. She's not the girl who's fine one day, gone the next because of a shocking bout with meningitis. Sure, those could happen unexpectedly to anyone. Bristol Palin got knocked-up by her boyfriend! That happens to anyone who hits the sheets or rocks the back of their Chevy without any form of contraception. It's no unfortunate accident; it's stupid and irresponsible! The United States has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world and this costs you, the American taxpayer, roughly $7 billion annually. Just something to think about.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28

Hermenuetics

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Does Religiosity Encourage Teen Pregnancy?

Comments

recent posts

Archives

Hermenuetics

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

Does Religiosity Encourage Teen Pregnancy?

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives