U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests.
The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn’t successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise.
Mississippi topped the list for conservative religious beliefs and teen birth rates, according to the study results, which will be detailed in a forthcoming issue of the journal Reproductive Health.
I live in the Mississippi Delta. My hunch is that Strayhorn is missing the mark. He needs to compare the birthrates in the Delta with the rest of the state. I’m told that the birthrate in the rest of the state is much closer to the national average.
The Delta is populated by some population subsets that see teen pregnancy as a rite of passage, for both the male and female, and the siring of many offspring as a sign of male sexual prowess. The Delta’s income level is lower than the rest of the state, and many of these men do not have employment.
I believe the data for the entire state is skewed by one region.
When I lived in Austin, which is known as the liberal oasis of the state, Travis County had the highest teen birthrate of any county in Texas. The Austin school district, in which my wife was a teacher at the time, had the most extensive sex ed program (with access to contraceptives). In response to the survey results, the district wanted to start sex ed as early as 1st grade – fortunately, this was opposed by parents and teachers. Extensive education in this area does not necessarily correlate to lower teen birthrates.
I also think that it is important to consider the higher teen marriage rate and the lower abortion rate in the areas that have higher teen birth rates. Obviously, if teens in less religious areas of the country are having their babies murdered and are not getting married, there will be a lower corresponding teen birth rate than in areas where teens let their babies live and actually marry to form a supportive family structure.
The title of the article appears to me to be framing the discussion with an anti-religious bias.
This is purely my unsceintific observation, but many more teens marry in Mississippi (and the Bible belt) than in the rust belt. Unless the study deals separately with married and unmarried teens, it would seem to be of limited utility.
DaveG stoll some of my thunder, but in some areas people still get married at 18 and have children at 19. Still a teen birth.
In the “most religious areas” a teenage girl may be better prepared to raise children than a 26-year-old “material woman” in New York City. She may also have the nearby support of family and congregation. How old was Mary? 15? I think it would be interesting to see at what age Pennsylvania Amish women marry and have children. They are close to NYC geographically, but live on the land more like those in the MS delta. They seem to raise really sweet children.
One of my statistic teachers one explained to me “Correlation does not prove cause”!
Huh! None of my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents, that, if my math serves me right, is seven couples who did NOT have sex education is school and did NOT have teen pregnancies nor back-alley abortions. They also remained married til a spouse died and provided a loving example to me.
But most of those seven couples were ignorant, bigotted, narrowminded victorians who hated women and copulated just as people do now – or, at least that is what I’ve been told by those who teach the sex-ed classes.
I am a very, very confused man.
Don
Strayhorn’s speculation is shot down by Utah–6th in religiousness and 34th in teen pregnancy.
It is often hard to believe what comes out from academentia. GIGO. I guess since Roman Catholics are very religious, maybe that is why they don’t have birth control and have lots of babies—at least that was how it was in the past. You could also correlate it with the use of Latin in church or spagettie use, etc. No, today religion has little to do with anything. In our state of Mississippi, it is a cultrual thing. Most of the teen mothers are from a culture that has been destroyed by the paternalist welfare scheme. They get a check for the birth, are looked up to for their fertility, and can get “dates” from the boys who wouldn’t date a girl who couldn’t get pregnant. They would be ridiculed by the other gang members as “shooting blanks.” I use to work in a health deparment OB clinic in the Delta. It was rare to see a married mother and I never saw a husband or boyfriend come in with them. Many couldn’t remember who the father was. There was no stigma or shame in all this. They thought it was neat and cool. I had a black RN who taught me a lot about what was really going on there. The government was now their husband and there was no need for a family. Oh yes, they loved to go to their churches and show off the baby. There was lots of entertainment there and it did not matter if the pastor had a number of out of wed lock babies. He was the Big Man. Unfortunately, I see this culture growing in all segments of our society. The government schools are a promotion center for much of this. Thank God for the godley families who honor marrige, raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Generally, their children turn out good. They may marry young, and have children young, but at least they are a permant family. Only true Christianity is the bulwark against this family destruction and death culture that is spreading. So sad for the victims. We need to spread the Gospel to these kids and their “families.” IMHO
Reading the piece, it looks like they only controlled for income and abortion rate. It seems like you’d need to control for many more variables before pinning anything on “religiosity.”
So, I just have to ask – in this survey, were the same people surveyed as to their religiousity and as to their pregnancy rate? Obviously, no, since the data came from different sources. I find this attempted correlation to be absurd science and politically driven statistics.
Judging by the comments above, this seem like more liberal fuzz math to discredit the conservatives and religious in the country!
Jim Elliott
How about we frame it as “less religious states have more abortions because murdering your unborn child is not challenged by secularists”. I bet the correlation could work that way as well.