This post has a few links that need to be read and worked through. The rewards for our youth are incalculable.
Allstate Insurance and Planned Parenthood have a few things in common. Both want our teen and young adult children in their hands. Both seek to make money by doing so. Both would have us believe that they have our loved ones health and safety in mind.
Do they?
In dealing with each of these billion dollar corporations, we borrow Allstate’s slogan: Are YOU in good hands?
From a full-page Allstate ad in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:
Why do most 16-year-olds drive like they’re missing a part of their brain?
Because they are.
Even bright, mature teenagers sometimes do things that are “stupid.” But when that happens, it’s not really their fault. It’s because their brain hasn’t finished developing. The missing part is called the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, and it plays a critical role in teens’ decision-making, and understanding of future consequences. Problem is, it doesn’t fully develop until their 20s. This is one of the reasons why 16-year-old drivers have crash rates three times higher than 17-year-olds and five times higher than 18-year-olds. Car crashes kill more than 4,000 teens every year. And injure nearly 400,000. Is there a way for teens to get their driving experience more safely? Is there a way their brains can be given the time to mature as completely as their bodies?
Allstate thinks so.
SUPPORT THE STANDUP ACT
The Standup Act (H.R. 1895) creates a National Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) law that would give teens on-the-road experience gradually while helping them avoid risky conditions. When states have implemented comprehensive GDL programs, the number of fatal crashes among 16-year-old drivers has fallen by almost 40%.
Let’s help our teenagers not miss out on tomorrow just because they have something missing today. Please tell your congressional representatives that you support the STANDUP Act. Go to allstate.com/STANDUP.
For an excellent Washington Post article on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in teens and young adults click here.
The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has their own document, similarly named, Stand and Deliver. In the document, traditional morality is denigrated as ‘taboo’, and children as young as 10 are targeted for comprehensive sex education and contraceptives. From the document:
“IPPF uses the terms young people, youth and adolescents interchangeably to refer to people who are between 10 and 24 years.”
“Greater investment in primary and secondary education for girls, comprehensive sexuality education for boys and girls, both in and out of school, which can break down gender stereotypes, and provision of youth-friendly services that ignore taboos and stigma around intimacy and sex will empower girls and young women. Young women, like young men, must be given the freedom to assume leadership and responsibility for building a better world.” -Dr.Gill Greer Director-General of IPPF
“I am pleased that this report addresses a number of the critical issues facing young people today, particularly their unmet needs for comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive health services. Young people have the right to be fully informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services. These rights are enshrined in various internationally agreed human rights conventions and treaties, but – unfortunately – they are still not universally respected.” -Bert Koenders, Minister for Development Cooperation of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
So what’s a parent to do? What does one make of these two organizations? Allstate tells us what has been widely known in neurophysiology and psychology for years: The center in the brain responsible for forming judgements about behavioral consequences does not form fully until the early 20’s. Allstate cites sobering statistics about the accident-prone nature of 16-year-olds, while IPPF is pushing aggressively for teaching children as young as 10 to be sexually active and to use contraceptives.
If giving a 16-year-old the keys to the car gives us pause, what sane adult would hand condoms to those of similar age, much less 10-year-olds? The medical folks at IPPF are all too aware of the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex and its developmental timeline. In fact, they’re banking on it, literally.
Last year when Abby Johnson left as director of a PP ‘clinic’ in Texas, she told us of PP’s push for abortions, as contraceptives have a lower profit margin. The big money is in the abortions.
Driving a wedge between children and their parents’ traditional mores is step one. Step two is to involve younger children for whom contraceptive failures will approach 100%. Then step three is to argue for abortions in such children whose lives will be claimed to be endangered by pregnancy so young, and who would be forever economically disadvantaged by a baby.
That’s their game.
Kudos to Allstate. Safety is a money-maker for them. Planned Parenthood talks a good safety game, but the fact is they thrive on the failure of the contraceptives they know to be intrinsically ineffectual. See these posts here and here for all of the CDC data that prove this point. They know these data better than anyone.
It isn’t that IPPF is clueless. They’re bloodless.
Coming Home 
well, hmmmm. I’m torn by this post, because I see your point and it’s hard to disagree with your ideals. I too applaud allstate and think that it is a great idea.
As for IPPF, well, I think they do a job that no one else wants to do. I’ll bet Bristol Palin could have used some contraceptives (though in truth, I don’t know that she didn’t and no one does except her, levi and God). She got pregnant as the daughter of a huge abstinance proponent and probably had the best abstinance education available. If it happened to her, it could happen to anyone’s daughter. Surely you aren’t going to fault the parents in every case. Surely Sarah did the best job she could in raising her. So, while no parent wants their child going to planned parenthood for condoms or abortions, how could disallowing them access to contraceptives be a good thing? Do you really think that teens are not going to have sex? Some will certainly abstain, but many will not.
If, in fact, they are “pushing” abortions for profit, then that is despicable and should be criminal if it is not. If it is, then that office should be investigated and the leadership removed.
“Step two is to involve younger children for whom contraceptive failures will approach 100%”
Okay, I read the article and understand how you extrapelate (sp?) your figures from that.
However, that is mathematically innaccurate, though a common error. Each condom and therefore, each use, has a probability of working or not. Through testing, the average effective rate is determined. The defective condom does not have an 83% rate of success – it has a 0% chance regardless of what point in your stated “cycle” it is used.
Your figure is like saying that if I play the lottery every day long enough, I am certain to win it given enough time. This is obviously not true.
It simply does not follow that if a person begins having sex with a condom at a young age, then by age XX they are 100% (or 99% or 98%, etc) to have a pregnancy.
Well I don’t have much to say about the article: I think it is a good analysis of interestingly related sets of data.
On the other hand, I have much to say about “The_Conservative_Lie”‘s comment…
First of all, that one would consider pushing abortions for profit to be “despicable” and at the same time simply resign the fact that, because many teens will have sex, we should equip them with contraceptives, seems duplicitous to me. Both realities—profit-driven abortions and ‘realistic’ contraceptive education—seem to share a similar, utilitarian base that views procreation merely as some disposable good seen only in relation to the total good in the aggregate. If we concede the permissibility of contraception, we concede that of abortion; it’s only a matter of degree. Profit or no profit, abortion is abortion.
Second, a clarification: Gerry’s statement that “contraceptive failures [would] approach 100%” is not, I think, inaccurate. This is not saying it will be 100%, or even anywhere entirely close—only that it will approach closer and closer to that mark as children become sexually active at younger ages.
If these are the issues you’re “torn” over, I hope to have provided some further clarity.
Conservative Lie,
I don’t know what your background is, but I know my statistics and epidemiology. They are the ABC’s of my trade. The analysis in the post linked to about condoms is based upon each individual over the course of an entire year. These are CDC and Alan Gutmacher’s own data.
So, you have a quarrel with Planned Parenthood’s own statistician, not me. I like using Gutmacher and Planned Parenthood’s own data, as well as CDC, because it leaves the opposition shooting blanks.
As for your quote:
“As for IPPF, well, I think they do a job that no one else wants to do.”
Think long and hard about why that is so.
Hi CL.
“However, that is mathematically innaccurate, though a common error. Each condom and therefore, each use, has a probability of working or not. Through testing, the average effective rate is determined. The defective condom does not have an 83% rate of success – it has a 0% chance regardless of what point in your stated “cycle” it is used. Your figure is like saying that if I play the lottery every day long enough, I am certain to win it given enough time. This is obviously not true.”
I haven’t read the article that you are discussing, but just from this description of yours that I have quoted, your understanding of probability is problematic. It IS true that if you play the lottery long enough your chances of winning will approach 1. The problem is that our lifespan is not long enough to reach that. Here is why:
Each lottery (or condom use) is an independent trial; that is, the outcome of one does not affect the other. So now suppose that the probability of winning the lottery is 1/100, just to make the numbers a little easier. If you play one game, what is the probability that you will win? Well, P(X)=1/100. If you play two games, what is the probability you will win at least once? Well, that is the same problem as figuring out what the probability is of LOSING both. Since these are independent, we apply the product rule and determine that (letting Y denote the probability of not X)
P(X)=1-P(Y)=1-(99/100)(99/100)=1-.9801=.0199
In general then, if you play the lottery n days in a row, the probability of winning AT LEAST one time is
P(X)=1-P(Y)=1-(99/100)^n
Thus, for example, if you play 500 days, you chances of winning at least one lottery game is .993429517. You are nearly guaranteed.
The same thing would be true of condemns then, if they are indeed independent trials.
“It simply does not follow that if a person begins having sex with a condom at a young age, then by age XX they are 100% (or 99% or 98%, etc) to have a pregnancy.”
So if using condemns are independent, it absolutely does follow that they will have a high probability of being pregnant by a certain age. Maybe it can be argued that condom use or sex should not be considered independent trials, but otherwise, this is basic probability theory. God love you, CL.
Gerard, Bobby,
You are both correct, of course. I am wrong about the statistics. I did a little research and apparently have been under a misinturpretation of something I learned for years.
Nothing makes one feel more silly…
Andrew,
I think you make a lot of assumptions about what I feel concerning abortion based on what I posted. Regardless of how you or I feel about it, abortion is legal in this country for now. However, pushing abortion for profit should be illegal and I assume it probably is if the fracts are as clear cut as the ones stated in the article. My words don’t imply that I approve of legal abortions.
Further, I don’t approve of teens having recreational sex, however, as a realist (not inconsistant with also being an idealist), a former public school teacher and a parent, I know it is going to happen and don’t believe restricting access to birth control is not going to stop or even curb it.
CL,
Please don’t feel silly. Probability trips up a great many solid thinkers, so consider yourself in very good company.
I’m sorry that your post ended up in the spam folder. I got it out as soon as I saw it.
It happens, bro. Stats is a really tricky subject, and we all make mistakes.
My respect for you, CL, has SKYROCKETED at the fact that
1) You and I have never interacted online before and
2) You are honest and humble enough to admit when you make a mistake.
That is great. Please stick around, CL. The blogosphere needs more honest people like you. God love you.
CL,
Stats make many people shiver and shake!
I also think that most of the stuff that CDC and AG spews forth often support the case AGAINST abortion and contraception.
If you look at the UK, they have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe.
They also have one of the most comprehensive and liberal sex ed programs in the universe.
The solution is to throw out more condoms and more sex ed.
A the result is going to be more teen abortions and pregnancies.
I think the important issue here is that teens are still developing. Their brains are not developed to the point that they understand the consequences of their actions.
We, as adults need to recognize this.
We also need to recognize that teens are especially vulnerable because of their immaturity.
Sex has alot of consequences. One is pregnancy, borne (no pun intended) almost exclusively by the teen mother.
We should encourage abstinence.
Teens have no business having sex. They need to work on developing their gifts, personality and social skills. They need to focus on their education.
Many teens WANT an adult to tell them “no”.
It gives them permission to say no themselves instead of being sucked into the harmful hookup culture.
I should clarify my remark:
If you look at the UK, they have the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe.
They also have one of the most comprehensive and liberal sex ed programs in the universe.
The solution, according to the UK government is to throw out more condoms and more sex ed.
And the result is going to be more teen abortions and pregnancies.
[…] Does All State care more about teenagers than Planned Parenthood? […]
IPPF is displaying a classic social worker mentality, by which I mean, they have some panel of experts who have concluded that a single, standardized, education is appropriate, nay mandatory, for all youth between 10 and 24 years of age. Human beings are much too variable for that.
Some children genuinely will do best within the framework offered by the Roman Catholic Church. Some of those children have parents who are Roman Catholic and raise them in the church. Some do not. An African American friend of mine, probably a 12th cousin on the Cherokee side of our respective families, told me she grew up in a Catholic parish in New York during the worst of her mother’s heroin addiction, being light enough that people assumed she was Italian. She’s currently a member of a Baptist Church in a southern state. Some Roman Catholic raised children will not actually take to what the church offers, as is true of Muslim, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and other children. It is good to have many options, it is good to have a great deal of parental autonomy, it is worth remembering that offspring will, in time, make their own choices.
Beyond that, pushing sex at an early age is dead wrong. It is a facet of life each individual needs to grow into, and each child/adolescent/adult develops at their own pace. It is not a bad idea to keep it within some social and cultural channels, preferably ones that will give young people time to come to terms with their adult capacities and responsibilities. At one time, PP was dealing with the fact that children WERE experimenting and didn’t have much of anyplace to turn to for help. Now, they seem to assume that ALL children are copulating at age ten, which is equally false.
I agree with CL that large-scale profit-taking from abortion is deviant, although it arises in part from the way large parts of the medical profession have been intimidated into staying away from abortion entirely. It really should be something any OB/Gyn is able to do for their own patients in the relatively rare circumstances where it is necessary. I consider Roe v. Wade a proper framework for intervention by the blunt instrument of the law. Within that framework, there are many reasons abortion could be an appropriate choice or a very bad choice, and many people have many ways of evaluating which is which. Aside from the ill-considered reflex to reimpose criminal penalties, the currents of thought which have been labeled as the pro-life movement have an important and legitimate place at the table.