Mayor: No support for claims of pregnancy pact

[lolly]

Source: Yahoo

GLOUCESTER, Mass. - School counselors, teachers and families of students the principal said made a pact to get pregnant and have babies together have no information to back the claim, the mayor of Gloucester said Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Mayor Carolyn Kirk plans to meet Monday with school, health and other local officials after Gloucester High School Principal Joseph Sullivan was quoted by Time magazine saying the girls made such a pact.

. . .

Kirk told The Associated Press that Sullivan has told officials in this hard-luck New England fishing town that he can't remember his source of information.

"The high school principal is the one who initially said it, and no one else has said it," Kirk said. "None of the counselors at the school, none of the teachers who know these children and none of the families have spoken about it.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_re_us/pregnancy_pact;_ylt=AhabRV7RrS3VJGnx4LH_4qdvzwcF

---

Well, there goes THAT story.


On edit: for background, here's a previous DU link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3360251

[blue sky at night]

1. hey it made sense....

and heck, there had to be some explanation for why Abstinence Only is not WORKING!

[seriousstan]

2. You mean they couldn't find the legally binding contract

signed by 2 witnesses and the pregnant getting parties?

[rpannier]

3. It was an Satanic Oath, signed under a withering oak

they signed it in their blood, while dancing naked and chanting.

I think that's how these pacts work -- at least that's how the fundies see it.

[lolly]

5. Did it play into a fundy framework?

I was trying to figure out why this story had such legs--all the stern editorials, etc. Maybe the idea that teenage girls are nuthin' but trouble and should be locked up or married off as soon as possible?

And then to find out that it was all on the basis of what one principal said.

Wonder how old he is? He sounds rather out of touch.

[enlightenment]

7. The story should have legs, whether the girls made a pact or

not. There is something desperately wrong when 17 girls sixteen and younger are pregnant at one, relatively small high school. It is NOT a good thing. It's not freedom, it's not autonomy. It is unbelievably stupid - and it's not morality that makes me say that. Just common sense. Something that these girls - and many, many more like them - obviously lack.

I teach college. In the last few years I've had four female students - two were 18, one 17, one 20 - who were pregnant and utterly clueless. I have pregnant women in my classes all the time, some married, some not; but those four stood out because they all said that they got pregnant on purpose because they thought it would be fun to have a baby. They all wore skin tight garments to show off their "bumps" and not one had given any thought at all to what this would mean to their lives and the lives of the fetuses they carried. They looked on their pregnancies like they were fashion accessories. It made my hair stand on end.

It's not morality that has people in a fizzit, lolly. I'm sure there are folks that care about nothing but that, but there are many more who are simply concerned that young women are growing increasingly incapable of making rational choices. There is nothing rational about deliberately getting pregnant at fifteen or sixteen. Nothing.

The principal may have been wrong to spread the story of a pact - but he's not wrong to be very concerned about what is happening at his school.

[timtom]

11. "There is something desperately wrong..."

You're very correct. Statistics speak loudly of something amiss.

Population info:

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=2955

[lolly]

12. True--but hardly new.

Teen pregnancy rates were higher in the 50s than the are now.

They just got married then--or disappeared to visit an "aunt" for 6 months.

The "pact" thing was what got the news coverage. I doubt if 17 pregnant teenagers would have gotten such heavy coverage without that angle.

[enlightenment]

16. I don't disagree - so I'm glad it did grow legs,

even if they were spindly and unsure.

On the rates; true, they were higher in the 1950s, but those teens lacked any reliable form of birth control; they were not taught about birth control in "sex ed" (neither was I, in the early 1970s) or have access to safe and legal abortion.

Not exactly apples and oranges, but not a true straight across the board comparison.

[lolly]

17. Ok, look at it a different way

At least one study has shown that girls from economically disadvantaged backgrounds don't, in general, benefit statistically from delaying childbearing. They can have a baby at 17, complete high school in a continuation program (why did somebody else on this thread disparage the daycare settings at school? Should they instead be forced to drop out?) and go on to dead-end jobs/welfare. Or they can be "good" girls, have a baby at 21, and then go straight to dead end jobs/welfare. And waiting until marriage certainly doesn't provide guarantees that a father will still be around or employed.


So, the issue isn't "ZOMG girls the sky will fall and your life will be RUINED RUINED RUINED RUINED if you have a baby in your teens." The issue is class, background, culture--lots more complicated.

[enlightenment]

18. Appreciate what you're saying -

would like to see a link to the study (so I can read it through), and remind you that we're not just talking about girls from economically disadvantaged backgrounds or even just the girls. This is a more complicated issue indeed, and it shouldn't be reduced to the economics of childbearing.

I don't believe day-care centers should be banned from high schools; that's shutting the barn door after the cows have wandered off; I do believe that pregnant girls and new parents (girls and boys - but let's face it, the boys are usually long gone or identifiable) who choose to continue their education should be in restricted programs. Education at that point should be their JOB. They have voluntarily given up their childhoods, so why should they be on the sports teams, cheerleading, marching band, drama club, or any other extra-curricular activity? That's not part of the job; the job is to finish the education that earns the diploma, and extra-curricular activities don't "count" in that regard.

I also believe that the day-care centers should have separate entrances and that the teen parents should not be allowed to bring their children into the general population before, during or after school. They can go and see their children of course - at lunchtime or between classes. They can arrange feedings the same way that working mothers arrange their lives - around their jobs.

I don't think this is punitive or judgemental - the restriction on activities is simply a realization that these teens have made a choice. We all make choices. They have chosen to be parents and that will be a fundamental part of their lives for the next 18 years and less so for the rest of their lives. The diploma will aid their success in life as a parent, cheerleading not so much.

Separating the day-care center and the children from the general population of the school simply reinforces the concept that these teens are at school for one reason - and one reason only. They aren't there to have it all - to wander the halls with an infant - or to sit outside so all the other teen girls (and boys) can ooh and aah over their progeny. If they want to do that, they can do it after school is out.

You have commented that the issue isn't about the girls being "ruined" and of course you're right. Ruined in the way you are using the word suggests an antiquated morality that shouldn't be in play in the 21st century. Still, I wonder how many teen mothers, asked five or ten or fifteen years later, would use the word "ruined" to describe their lives? Perhaps not ruined in an economic sense or social sense, but in a personal one . . . more the idea that by choosing to become a parent at such a young age that they gave up things that they will never get back. How many of them would tell a classroom full of teen girls, "don't do it. Wait."

Our willingness to cater to teen mothers by modifying the high school experience to accommodate them doesn't help the situation. When we allow a pregnant 15 or 16 year-old to have her cake and eat it too - to be a cheerleader, audition for the role in the school play, and go to prom wearing a maternity dress - we are telling other teens that it's perfectly OK to be 15 or 16 and pregnant. No price to pay, girls, nothing to give up, when in truth we KNOW that they are going to be giving up a hell of a lot in the years to come. If they want to be adults and be parents, then they should start behaving like adults the moment they make the choice.

That's not morality, it's common sense.

[lolly]

21. A link in-house

Well, a search for the study found it in an earlier thread here at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2818946

And I really, really disagree with your post. I doubt if many teen moms are on the chess team, but if they are, bully for them! The problem is not that teen moms (and do you really think teen dads would be kicked off the football/chess/debate team, if they were even found?) want to "have it all;" it's that they DON'T.

If they are choosing to get pregnant, they are deciding that they're not chess players or athletes or Future Farmers or whatever. I would ENCOURAGE them to branch out and start seeing themselves as something else.

Your position is punitive and ultimately counter-productive, since it would probably lead to more girls dropping out and taking away what little chance they had.

My use of RUINED RUINED RUINED is NOT in the medieval or Victorial sense. It's a critique of more modern attitudes that hammer into young girls that THEY WILL NEVER HAVE ANY FUN EVER EVER AGAIN AND WILL BE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY MISERABLE if they have a baby--without taking into account that they may be miserable anyway because of other economic and cultural factors. Programs to "punish" girls (make them go through a separate entrance at school!) seem to me to be attempts to fulfill the prophecies of these campaigns, since real life isn't enough to fulfill them. Kind of like warning people that smoking marijuana will ruin their lives, when it's actually being arrested and thrown in jail for smoking marijuana that does the most damage.

It also is ineffective in many groups. If these girls can see that their older sisters/aunts/friends who had babies are no worse off than those who waited, then they see the whole campaign as a lie.

[enlightenment]

22. Thank you for the link -

and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

My post is neither punitive nor ultimately counter-productive; you read into it what you wanted to see. I didn't suggest that the girls should have to go into a separate entrance at school. I said the day care centers should have separate entrances so that the parents aren't toting their infants through the halls. Nor did I suggest that fathers not have their high school experience modified in a similar fashion - they should. You're the one who suggests that they won't - and that would be the fault of giving fathers a "pass," which is, certainly, traditional.

We simply see this differently. You're leaning heavily on hyperbole (and capitalization) and I'm not. Words like never and always defeat discussion. Some facets of society may say that these girls will "never have any fun again" but I wasn't saying it. What I was saying is that they have made a choice to be a parent and that means they will need to give up their own childhood. That's the way it works, whether you like it or not. Childhood gains you membership to the debate club and the varsity football team and the cheerleading squad. Parenthood gains you membership in entirely different things; some fun, some not so fun. Too suggest that teen parents should be able to have both of those things is more damaging than telling them they can't, because it sets up a pattern that leads them to believe that they are entitled to have it all - and while that might be a wonderful pie-in-the-sky philosophy, it's just not realistic.

Parenting requires you to make sacrifices. What you gain may more than compensate for what you lose, but you do make choices.

I find this comment jaw-dropping: If they are choosing to get pregnant, they are deciding that they're not chess players or athletes or Future Farmers or whatever. I would ENCOURAGE them to branch out and start seeing themselves as something else.

Are you suggesting that becoming pregnant at 16 is something to be encouraged? Why? Because, by your reasoning, life is probably going to suck for them anyway, baby or no baby?

We've been discussing the teens so far, but I believe I made it clear in my first post that I think it is wrong to consider a child an accessory. I find it hard to believe that you are advocating teen pregnancy as an alternative, because you are certainly showing no regard for the child these children are producing. Perhaps their older sisters/aunts/friends aren't any worse off for breeding at 16, but is that really where you want to leave these girls and their children?

You seem to be saying that their lives are doomed anyway, so we might as well applaud and support their decision to sentence another generation to the same fate.

If, as I believe, you are saying that they should be encouraged to do something with their lives, do you think it's rational to support a decision to get pregnant at 16? Shouldn't we be making it clear that the additional responsibility will make it that much more difficult for them to achieve whatever fledgling goals they may have? Not impossible - just more difficult. Why should we sit by with a benign smile while these kids do this to themselves? And that, lolly, is what you're suggesting we should do.

*edited to correct spelling*

[lolly]

23. So, who's reading things that aren't there

I'm trying to figure out how you jump from the point that teen mothers should be encouraged to be more than just mothers to claiming I'm encouraging teens to become mothers?

:wtf:

Why do you think that telling a teen mom she can't be on the debate team/dance team whatever is going to help? If there is any chance at all of her escaping the economic cycle, it's not going to come from limiting her options.

Second, What is this "no right to childhood" thing? Why do they give up the right to enjoy life, to socialize, to explore options? Obviously, her time will be limited, but if she's able to work out caring for a child and serving as president of the French club, why should we deny her that--if not as a punitive measure?

This isn't childhood; it's young adulthood. And why is it a "right" that we can take away from her? And why can we take away social activities from those under 18 just because they have a kid, but not over 18? Or should we tell grown up they're not allowed to join the Elks once they have kids because they've given up the right to fun stuff once they entered the realm of adulthood?

As to the guys--of course the no activities rule couldn't feasibly be enforced against guys. So, thankfully, the whole program wouldn't pass legal muster.

[hokies4ever]

9. Reminds me of that Dave Chappelle episode

Where he plays a juror and is asked what evidence he needs to see to convict R. Kelly. :rofl:

[madeline_con]

4. Why's the mayor involved in this?

And who the fuck cares?

[sasquatch]

8. Because his ass is on the line in this contreversy

[hokies4ever]

10. Her ass is on the line

I saw her on MSNBC (I think Dan Abrams show) and she kind of looked completely out of the loop. Won't take much time until those parents are beating down her door. She better hope she's not up for re-election this November.

[lolly]

13. Why is her ass on the line?

She seems to have been blindsided by the whole thing.

[hokies4ever]

14. She seemed out of touch

when she was on Dan Abrams' show.

[AngryAmish]

19. Problem One: You are watching the Dan Abrams show

There are more useful things to do with your time. Looking at pornography is a more constructive use of time than watchng the Dan Abrams show. Having a farting contest is a more useful activity than watching the Dan Abrams show...

[rocktivity]

6. He can't remember the source of his information and the others have no evidence?

Translation: kill this story because it makes us look really really bad.

:eyes:
rocknation

[MrsBrady]

15. i actually read both the old and new article...

it would seem to me that maybe somehow the town is grooming these girls to get pregnant.

the school and local hospital won't provide contraceptives...the school nurse quit under protest.
and the school has day care???



"Just last month, two officials at the high school health center resigned to protest the local hospital's refusal to support a proposal to distribute contraceptives to youngsters at the school without parental consent.

The heavily Roman Catholic town, which has a large Italian and Portuguese population, has long been supportive of teen mothers. The high school has a day care center for students and employees."

[slackmaster]

20. Not a conspiracy after all

So the girls are just stupid.