Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3786 LivesSaved
3568 Lives0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
Imagine your daughter and her seven friends came over and you knew that one of them would definitely be pregnant. If your daughter went to Robeson High School in Chicago, this would be the case: of 800 girls, 115 of them are pregnant or have had a child. The one in seven rate is astounding, and there are hundreds of factors that may contribute to the school's pregnancy numbers.
These factors include a lack of access to sexual health education and pregnancy prevention and a lack of access to reproductive health resources. The school's students are largely from poor communities of color where teenage pregnancies can be high. The Principal of Robeson adds that absentee fathers may also be a factor.
At least Robeson is a school in which young women are not being thrown out or transferred to other schools. Principal Morrow notes, "We're looking at how we can get them to the next phase, how can we still get them thinking about graduation?"
So often we may be quick to blame or judge the pregnant girls in the situation, their parents, or other individuals. But Robeson's numbers are a product of a much larger institutional problem - poor reproductive health education in low-income communities. Educational classes and centers need to be set up that normalize and encourage the use of birth control methods and distribute condoms. A teen health center is being built across the street, which is a step in the right direction. But funding needs to be poured into the creation and maintenance of centers such as these so that teenage pregnancy rates go down. The health of young women of color need to be addressed directly so that they aren't struggling to raise children or give birth while trying to graduate from high school.
Add a Comment128 Comments
I find it rather shameful that you would categorize our own gender into "whores" because they they expressed their sexuality, though in an inappropriate way. If your actually going to comment, say something useful that adds to the discussion of this issue. Repression, especially in terms of demonizing women's sexuality is only further establishing the patriarchal notion that these "stupid" women got what they deserve and women should remain "pure" until a man can rescue them from their evil nature. This is a problem with access to resources and de-stigmatizing using such preventative measures to enjoy sexual expression responsibly.
December 28, 2009 - 10:57amThis Comment
women and men should be pure until marriage duh if everyone did there would be alot less stds but no everyone is too set on pleasing themselves and only themselves these kids are getting what they deserve i dont care who they are they did what they did and now they have to face the consequences just like everyone else does.
December 30, 2009 - 11:14pmThis Comment
First of all, please use sentences with punctuation, it's pretty much a basic practice we have in the English grammar system. Secondly, how is staying "pure" until marriage a "duh"? I understand where you're coming from saying that abstinence does eliminate problems that may come with sex, but that is no reason to categorize sexual expression solely under the guise of marriage, or we'd have divorce attorneys making even more of a killing than they do already. The problem is that for these women the consequences are much greater due to their lack of access to resources and education on how to use these resources properly. I'm sure if you chose to have sex, you would have cheap access to birth control, plan B, condoms, etc., and while some blame IS placed on them (they made the choice to have unprotected sex), you cannot blame these women in total for a societal problem like this.
January 4, 2010 - 10:45amThis Comment
i wouldnt chose to have sex before marriage becuase im not a whore. I believe in staying pure until marriage I don't take it to the extreme of not dating until I'm marride but sex is supposta be something between to people who love eachother, and I believe that if you break that you are letting down your future spouse.
January 14, 2010 - 9:51pmThis Comment
Ok, we're going to work through this. Capitalization is important, it's wouldn't, not wouldnt, and learn the difference between choose (as in "I choose you Charizard!") and chose (as in "I chose to go to the market instead of the cafe."). It's married, not "marride", because, not "becuase", I'm going to let the "supposta" slide because of its slang use, and "each" and "other" are two separate words that should remain that way. Now to actually comment. Good for you for making your own decision about your sexual expression. Since you've gotten to make this wonderful choice about your own body, why not let other women do the same and not marginalize their decisions to crass and archaic definitions of how a women "should" act. Also, love and marriage, while certainly in cahoots with each other sometimes, do not always equate. Marriage is a contract, plain and simple, and some people choose not to enter into that contract, though they are allowed to express their "love" or "lust" or "desire" in pretty much whatever way they see fit. Lastly, I didn't know this was 1536 and we were still holding virginity competitions? Unless you contracted Herpes during your sexual escapades or cheated, your future spouse will probably not care how many have come before him, and I guarantee if your partner's a male than he's more than likely had more than one sexual partner. Do you want your future partner to "let you down" that way? Maybe, maybe not.
January 15, 2010 - 11:10amThis Comment
Ok I get it makes you feel better to correct people on their English, but it doesn't impress anyone, if you find comments to difficult to read skip them. Anyway I find it prefectably acceptable to be a virgin until marriage regardless of the year. It is also acceptable for someone to feel let down because the person they decide to spend the rest of their life with has not kept themselves pure until marriage. Maybe you don't, but I am sure there are more than a couple people who would agree with me.
January 25, 2010 - 7:33pmThis Comment
It doesn't make me feel better, it makes English feels better. Your comments regardless of this have been quite intriguing and I will not skip over them. I too find it perfectly acceptable that you have and will wait until marriage to have sex. And you could even go so far to say that YOU would feel let down if your partner had sex before you. Again, that's good for you and I'm sure some people would agree with you. My point is you shouldn't be demonizing these women for making a choice that you wouldn't make, just as I won't demonize you for not having sex until marriage. It seems to make more sense that an underlying societal problem needs to be addressed honestly to the public and specifically teen women. The issue I take is that you appear to assume that everyone should hold your views and you label those that don't follow your moral guidelines. There needs to be greater sensitivity as to how these women got themselves into the situation and how we can combat the problem for future generations and not just writing off these women as whores.
January 26, 2010 - 11:23amThis Comment
Umm ok for one English would feel better Ms. Grammar, that is if English could feel anything which it can't. How is it wrong for these girls to be called whores, but not wrong for people to say that others are going to hell for not believing what they believe? The people who are not religious are not necessarily going completly against what the religious people believe in, but they are told they will suffer an enternity in hell for not believing, even though religion cannot be proven true. It can however be proven true that teenagers should not have sex.
January 31, 2010 - 11:12amThis Comment
Wow. It was a joke. Obviously English doesn't have feelings. Maybe I'm losing your sarcasm towards me over this post. I think it IS wrong for people to say these girls and any other "sinners" are going to hell. People who are religious and impose their beliefs on others who don't agree with them ARE making a grievous error, and so to combat these inherently judgmental viewpoints, we shouldn't be calling women whores AND shouldn't be telling them they're going to "hell" for a natural human process. Furthermore, it cannot be proven teens shouldn't have sex. There is definitely a strong correlation that teens who have unprotected sex will have a higher chance of getting pregnant, just like adults who have unprotected sex follow the same guidelines. Teen sex is natural and shouldn't be repressed, however teens also need to know and have access to all forms of contraception so they can have safe sex. It's not them having sex that's bad, it's their lack of using resources to prevent pregnancy that's the problem.
February 1, 2010 - 10:32amThis Comment
it doesnt matter if its our own gender or not they are ruining their own lives and their childrens and btw you are what you act like
December 30, 2009 - 11:11pmThis Comment