A new report from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy:
…The teen birth rate in rural counties in the United States is nearly one-third higher compared to the rest of the country, according to new research from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.This first of its kind analysis shows that the teen birth rate in 2010 in rural counties surpasses that in suburban counties and major urban centers.
Categories: Childbearing
Well, duh. Fewer jobs that provide health insurance, and no nearby Planned Parenthoods. This is why it makes sense to provide birth control access in high schools.
After-school activities might help, too.
Rural poverty probably plays the biggest role.
Poverty, no jobs. I understand that. However, something else is going on. Here’s what I mean:
How do we account for going from 16.7% to 50% out-of-wedlock births? We all know that 1930-34 was the Great Depression: poverty, no jobs, and no artificial birth control but an out-of-wedlock birth rate significantly lower than 1990-94.
Things were far better in the early 90s than in the early 30s, at least in social programs, fairly good jobs yet, access to education, etc. So, what happened?
What happened: greater rights/more equality for women in the public sphere. Women don’t have the same fear of pregnancy, because now it is possible to have a job and raise a child without being married. Teens can complete their education, because schools can no longer kick them out for being pregnant (they never did kick out young men who fathered children without being married).
Aside from the first sentence, are we thinking the second sentence is a social good? I’m asking this sincerely, and not as one pontificating from some airy-fairy world; but, as one intimately involved in the problem, not removed from it.
Every social indicator demonstrates that being a single mother from out-of-wedlock birth makes life difficult for mother, child, and society. If it’s really not about poverty, or lack of jobs (nevertheless, essentials) then we should remove these as our focus from this problem … maybe?
I’m going to channel a variant of Dr. Lawrence Mead here by asking a question: are we, as a society, affirming this behavior in subtle and not so subtle ways? Should we dismiss, out-of-hand, social stigma per Dr. Mead’s suggestion … or, some other social proscription?
Teresa, you are comparing single motherhood to the ideal: a good marriage. Single pregnant women are comparing their current situation to their most likely situation. If their most likely situation is “a good marriage”, they get married. If their most likely situation is something other than a good marriage (especially if they see marriage as bringing additional burdens at what is already going to be a challenging time), they stay single.
Why on earth would single mothers (note: Mead is not recommending stigma for single fathers) deserve stigma? I can’t imagine anyone other than a deeply hateful person thinking that is a good idea.
(Should we dismiss, out-of-hand, social stigma per Dr. Mead’s suggestion … or, some other social proscription?)
Dr. Mead’s suggestions are not only cruel but completely impractical. People just won’t stand for it and you have no way to make them. Legal penalties that conservatives are pursuing at the state levels are all about restricting abortion, birth control access, health care and welfare. None of which do much to encourage stable family formation or reduce poverty.
In the long term, the situation is self correcting. States that pursue these policies will end up with more poverty, a less educated population and more unstable families. Plus the governors of these states are going to find any national careers they had planned are gone with the wind. It’s only a matter of time before conservative politicians read the handwriting on the wall or their states become democratic. Suck for all the women and children who get screwed over but to quote Kurt Vonnegut, So it goes.
In case I was misunderstood, I was simply theorizing about social proscriptions. If we’re facing a crisis in many social issues, e.g., elder care, marriage, etc., I don’t think we can exclude, off hand, any reasonable ideas without some input, debate from many people. Social proscriptions seem within the realm of a reasonable idea.
Speculating, theorizing is not about making people do anything. It’s about coming up with solutions that has as its goal (I’m thinking) the common good: helping most of the people, most of the time.
(In case I was misunderstood, I was simply theorizing about social proscriptions)
I am sorry, since you mentioned Dr. Mead I was confused. So if we aren’t discussing Dr. Mead’s social proscriptions, whose are we discussing? Because Mead’s are non-starters.
Yes, Mont D., I was working within Dr. Mead’s framework; but, thinking perhaps some variant of social proscription might have value.
Dr. Mead’s thoughts are non-starters. I thought that since he was included in the lost list of professionals linked in one of FS’ recent posts, his ideas were worth speculating on. Are you implying, Mont, that FS has agreed that Dr. Mead’s suggestions are off-the-table … or, is that just your opinion?
I interpret this information as the situation is improving. However, it is not clear if the rate of rural change on this matter is inconsistent with the rate of rural change on other matters of social policy when compared to other areas (e.g. rural areas are normally slower to adapt to change). My life experience suggests that rural areas are very slow to change.
I do not dispute that teen pregnancy is a problem, rather that the information provided is too narrow to evoke reasonable ideas toward a solution to rural teenage pregnancy; I cannot tell if there is an anomaly here. Perhaps time is the solution.
OK, now I understand. And, yes, I was doing exactly what you’ve stated: comparing single motherhood to the ideal: a good marriage. I was not giving any thought to what life looks like through their lived experience.
La Lubu, yes, I agree that social stigma is wrong. Let’s stick with social proscriptions, and work with that. Don’t you as a mother have certain guidelines, rules for your daughter. And, what if she doesn’t follow them. What then? Doesn’t society have some interest in, perhaps, proscribing certain behavior?
This is all mere speculation, on my part. Simply discussing, and trying to learn.
I have no idea of what the difference between social stigma and social proscriptions is. As for what is off the table, my point was Dr. Mead’s ideas are not going to be accepted by the majority of the people in the country. And if the new conversation on marriage follows Dr. Mead’s advise it won’t be new at all.
Tereesa, I’m having a really hard time following; like Mont, I have no idea what the difference is between stigma and proscriptions—-it is the same thing to me.
Perhaps you can start with what behavior you think is wrong. Do you think that having sex prior to marriage is wrong? Or is it just getting pregnant prior to marriage, without a shotgun wedding, that is wrong? Do you think keeping one’s child, rather than having an abortion or placing for adoption is wrong? Because these are all different questions.
Looking at what records we have of the past shows that no amount of social stigma is going to stop people from having sex prior to marriage. Looking at the economics of the present, shotgun weddings are not going to make a comeback because they provide significantly more disadvantages than advantages. Stigmatizing single parenthood itself (a return to hush-hush abortions and adoptions) is not going to return because people are having fewer children (there’s that economics again!), which means (for the most part) parents and extended family embrace children whether their parents are married or not. There is no amount of social stigma that is going to come between people and their family members—quite simply, people value their family (in most cases, the only people who have ever given a damn about them) more than strangers.
What will reduce unwanted pregnancy—free, effective birth control of one’s own choosing. Here’s a post on Barry’s blog about the role effective contraception can play. What is crucial is that the most effective forms are also the most expensive; when cost is not a factor people can and do choose those forms.
Teresa, I would guess that maternal mortality is also another factor in the difference between the 1930s and today.