Stupid is as stupid does
The teen-pregnancy rate in the Valley is always a concern, because it reflects deep failings in our education system, our public health system and it says a lot about the poor health of our families in general.
However, we can at least be somewhat comforted that teen pregnancy isn't an organized extracurricular activity, as it is in Gloucester, Mass. I got a note from the Casey Journalism Center about a recent story in Time magazine called “Pregnancy Boom at Gloucester High” by Kathleen Kingsbury. There's blame flying around everywhere as folks hear about this story, from the school to the families to popular culture depictions of teen pregnancy in movies like "Juno," photo above. And, of course, there are the inevitable references to Jamie Lynn Spears, who became pregnant at 16. What do you think?
This is the note:
Seventeen girls at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts are expecting babies – more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. School officials started looking into the matter last fall after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. They discovered that nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. The question of what to do next has divided this fiercely Catholic enclave. Gloucester isn’t sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control. And some residents worry that the problem goes much deeper: The past decade has been difficult for this mostly white, mostly blue-collar city, where the economy has always depended on a now ailing fishing industry. “Families are broken,” said school superintendent Christopher Farmer. “Many of our young people are growing up directionless.” The school’s nurse practitioner Kim Daly administered some 150 pregnancy tests at Gloucester High’s student clinic this year, when she and the clinic’s medical director began to advocate prescribing contraceptives regardless of parental consent, a practice at about 15 public high schools in Massachusetts. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has been met with hostility. Gloucester’s elected school committee plans to vote later this summer on whether to provide contraceptives. But some believe the decision won’t do much to solve the issue of teens wanting to get pregnant. As one rising junior said of her classmates: “No one’s offered them a better option.”
As always in these cases, my sympathies are with the children, who will start off their lives with uneducated, single mothers. How very sad for those babies. We can only hope the young parents' families will get the wakeup call, support their daughters continuing education and step in to give those little babies a chance. That could mean adoption; it could mean the families to step in to help the young parents raise the child until the parents mature.
Comments
It is just so sad that these young girls have no direction and no one to look to for it. If they truly want to get pregnant they wont take the contreceptives if they are given to them. They are too immature to make these adult decisions and the parents need to step up and hjelp them. They also need to meet with other teen mothers to hear from them that it isn't as glorious as they think it is going to be to give up your teen years.
Posted by: Jackie Krage | June 20, 2008 9:54 PM
I wonder why you felt the need to tell of the horror from far away, when you could have used the same example to make the same point about FRESNO.
On Calaveras there is a 15 year old, who does not go to school, lives with at least 12 others in a single family home, and has mates of the same age and they are all going to have children.
Children having children, is alive and well on Calaveras and in the neighborhood. Broken homes, over packed living conditions, no education, lack of parental control. Takes your pick as to why this is happening.
Posted by: RobDeFrees | June 21, 2008 4:16 AM
Let's look at some points of reason that parallel the arguments in support of gay marriage:
1. IT'S NATURAL--Aren't these girls just following through with actions that are inborne? If they have a natural desire to be mommies, why should any cultural or religious rules force these girls to act against their natural tendencies? If they made a pact, they must have put some thought into this, right?
2. IT'S ABOUT BASIC RIGHTS--Who are we to restrict the girls' "personal freedoms" and right to happiness? Isn't this just a strict Catholic or Christian adherence to oppressive rules that are outdated and don't apply in today's world?
2a. I know there's a legal "age of consent" argument connected to the girls' ability to raise a child, but how old is your babysitter?
3. THE U.S. NEEDS TO ALIGN WITH THE WORLD--In America, we're so hung up on this puritanical idea of waiting to be a certain minimum age to get married; many parts of the rest of the world allow a woman to get married as young as 13 or 14.
4. INVASION OF PRIVACY--Is the private life of any one of these girls anyone else's business?
5. A "MOB MENTALITY" CAN'T DETERMINE THE COURSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL--Should the "will of the people" restrict the personal rights of these girls who aren't hurting anyone? My own mother was raised by an "uneducated, single mother." The result? She has remained married over 50 years and never once depended on public money for financial aid. She--and Dad--never foreclosed on a home, never got arrested, and never did anything reckless that would jeopardize the family.
6. RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE SHOULDN'T BE THE BASIS OF OUR LAWS NOR CULTURAL ACTIONS--Other religions allow young wives. Mohammed consummated his marriage to a girl who was between the ages of 9 and 12 (depending on the source). Brigham Young and Joseph Smith (founders of a "Christian" religion) had wives as young as 14-16 (again, depending on the source). Examples in the Old Testament show men taking young wives or giving away young daughters for marriage. ("Take that, Christian; whaddya have to say about that, you hypocrite?")
Here's my sarcastic point: if gays have rights, don't these girls also have the same rights? Didn't the court set a legal precedent about a month ago that will impact future court decisions on topics such as this? ...Or am I just manipulating a "slippery slope" argument because of my "religious bigotry?" I guess Gavin Newsome was correct when he said on the courthouse steps, "The door's wide open now, like it or not!"
Gail, you sound like you are not in favor of children having children. Despite my sarcasm above, I agree. This is another example of all the negative cultural influences that are destroying families across the nation, including DIVORCE, MTV, too many kids being babysat by SpongBob and video games, and unsupervised 'net surfing. If we are to have change for the better, parents have to take the lead, not schools or Congress or the courts.
I think I'm done with my rant for now...
Posted by: Matt McIntyre | June 21, 2008 8:03 AM
Matt I think you're right in your sarcasm. I'll elaborate:
"If they have a natural desire to be mommies, why should any cultural or religious rules force these girls to act against their natural tendencies?"
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"Who are we to restrict the girls' "personal freedoms" and right to happiness?"
We have no right to restrict their personal freedoms and right to happiness. They can get pregnant all they want, but actually that's not what this is about. It's more about the inexperienced immature age at which they are doing it and everyone else's take on the reasons why.
"...many parts of the rest of the world allow a woman to get married as young as 13 or 14."
We have laws for the legal age of marriage...but marriage isn't the issue here.
"Is the private life of any one of these girls anyone else's business?
Nope, it's none of our business. But all of us like thinking it is because we love the self-serving action of spouting our opinions.
"Should the "will of the people" restrict the personal rights of these girls who aren't hurting anyone?"
Absolutely not. As long as nothing illegal has occurred. We do have underage sex laws. And I commend your mother and grandmother. It's very difficult and these young mothers will soon find out that maybe this wasn't such a good idea.
"Religious doctrine shouldn't be the basis of our laws nor cultural actions."
I'll split this one. Religious doctrine shouldn't be the basis of our laws. I agree wholeheartedly. However, cultural actions are collective actions of individuals and their own beliefs. Some are religious and some are not. That's an individual right.
As for my self-serving opinion, it doesn't really matter. I think those of us who have children know what these girls are in for and they have our sympathy.
By the way, The Baby Borrowers premieres Wednesday on NBC. This show may just may be the "birth control" it professes to be...as well as give us parents a chuckle.
Posted by: Scot | June 21, 2008 1:30 PM
With the constant hand wringing and furrowed brows about this and that... I wonder what the shelf life for genuine concern on a topic is for the Bee editorial staff.As far as the wanna-be-mommies...isn't this a form of sexual assault or rape.DNA test for the daddies and prosecute and punish them fully with much publicity.Give the guys something else to think about in the HEAT of the moment...like jail time.
Posted by: Brian Murray | June 22, 2008 6:37 AM
It is imperative for young girls and boys to be supervised at all times and to keep the line of communication open so they are comfortable talking to their parents. Parents have to get the my kid would never do that out of their head and just be parents. Fathers and Mothers need to be a part of their kids lives so they don't feel as compelled to look for attention from the opposite sex.
Posted by: Jackie Krage | June 22, 2008 9:18 PM
wanting kids and wanting attention are not the same thing. if these girls wanted attention they could have auditioned for Baby Borrowers on tv where they could have borrowed infants to see what it is like raising one, without the life-long consequences of actually bearing a child
Posted by: Gary | June 23, 2008 4:42 PM