From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Condom Discussion
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:08:20 GMT


dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger writes:
"Passing out condoms has resulted in an increased birth rate among

teenagers at a Colorado high school.  See the article below."

[USA Today quote about condom distribution and increased incidence
of teen pregnancy at a Colorado high school deleted]

The article did not suggest that the distribution of condoms CAUSED the
increase of teen pregnancy.  Just because the two actions occurred in
tandem does not mean one action caused the other.  Correlation does not
prove causality.  The article in no way stated that distributing condoms
increased pregnancy.  Several confounds are pointed out within the article:
1) a greater acceptance of teen pregnancy
2) a school program which allowed teen mothers to remain in school
   <this is a double confound because not only can a girl in school
    BECOME pregnant, the girls who already ARE pregnant can STAY in
    school, therby increasing the number of prengncy and births by
    teen moms>
3) The population of the school is non-representative of the national3) The population of the school is non-representative of the national3) The population of the school is non-representative of the national
 avereage for which it is compared
 <The article stated that of the 1,200 students, 50% are low-income, single
 parent homes; however, they compare teen prenancy rates based on a 
 National average which is not 50% low-income, single-parent>

4) The number of girls as compared to boys entering the school in the given
   year is not mentioned (more girls could mean a higher incidence of
   teen pregnancy for that given year)
	
5) The size of the incoming class could confound the statistic:
   if the incoming freshmen class were significantly smaller, then the amount
   of teens who first became pregnant close to the end of the previous
   academic year or in the summer, they would still have their babies in the
   year the program began.  (this follows for those who became pregnant
   prior to the starting date of the program)  
6) There is no mention in the article in reference to how many students
   actually knew about and used the condom distribution services.

I'm not exactly sure what the people in USA Today are trying to say.  Are
they suggesting that such programs encourage teen pregnancy?  If the programs
keep pregnant teens in school, is the program "not worth it"?  They presented
an argument that they (some people in the school) say they believe the
programs encourage people to become pregnant for all the wrong reasons
(ie keeping a boyfriend or attention) because it will allow the pregnant
teens to remain in school, etc. etc.  To me, this is like saying groups 
such as AA encourage alcohol abuse, becuase it allows people to return to a 
normal life.  I agree that condom distribution by itself is not going to
cure teen pregnancy.  That would be similar to throwing a person some
flippers, without teaching that person to swim.  I personally think a good,
detailed sex-ed class (including showing people HOW to use condoms and 
what exactly condoms are supposed to do, and why teen pregnancy is BAD)
coupled with effective condom distribution (going to the school nurse who
gives you a pamphlet, etc) is probably the most realistic way to combat
the problem of teen pregnancy.

David L. Leon
dleon@seas.smu.edu

Xref: sparky tx.politics:4804 alt.politics.clinton:4028