Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Well. I'll go by the figures Dan. Teenage pegnancy has decreased.
"The Labour party did have targets and to meet these a dedicated teenage pregnancy co-ordinator (TPC) was allocated to health regions. The figures for 2009 show teen pregnancy reducing in England and Wales as the dedicated support for teens throughout the country seemed to be taking effect.
In fact the teen pregnancy rate for 2009 (of 38,259 girls aged 18 or younger in England and Wales) was estimated to be the lowest since the early 1980s.
Unfortunately the effects of the change of government on teen pregnancy can't be seen as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) teen pregnancy rates are two years out of date. We do know that the number of TPCs is reducing as the rearrangements in the health service take place, as Rachel Williams discovers :
TPCs have been cut in just over a third of areas – including several where conception rates among under-18s are very high.
Further research from Rachel Williams shows that of the 150 councils surveyed for the piece, 71 still have a TPC or equivalent (3 councils had no TPC before). Of the 76 councils loosing their TPC, 61 councils will see the loss this year and in 15 councils the loss has already happened.
We can only wait to see what the ONS report in the future about teenage pregnancy rates.
Other interesting facts include:
• The number of conceptions to women aged under 18 was 38,259 in 2009 compared with 41,361 in 2008, a decline of 7.5% • Nearly half (48.8%) of conceptions to women aged under 18 in 2009 led to a legal abortion • The number of conceptions to girls aged under 16 was 7,158 in 2009, compared with 7,586 in 2008 (a decrease of 5.6%) • Three-fifths (59.8%) of conceptions to girls aged under 16 in 2009 led to a legal abortion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From a reliable source!!
But keep going, ya might find the truth for once. Then old lies made by men who the pill made feel less of a man will fade from your clouded eyes.
(V): You cite only short term losses. I clearly said that over the long run:
Peter Arcidiacono found that among teens, “increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other hand, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, may lower pregnancy rates in the long run.”
You must have forgotten to read that part. And just in case you need an extra clue, from 2008 to 2009 is a "short run pregnancy rate...."
题目: Re:You cite only short term losses. I clearly said that over the long run:
Artful Dodger: No.... You didn't read THIS part...
"In fact the teen pregnancy rate for 2009 (of 38,259 girls aged 18 or younger in England and Wales) was estimated to be the lowest since the early 1980s"
>>>>>>>>>>>
"And just in case you need an extra clue, from 2008 to 2009 is a "short run pregnancy rate....""
Yes, but [[I'll repeat so you don't miss it this time]] .... from the early 80's isn't.
Just accept, your guy.. messed up. Maybe one of those actually doing the work for him (as it seems is the way with him) screwed up and he lazily didn't check.
... which seems to a common factor in conservative circles.
题目: Re:You cite only short term losses. I clearly said that over the long run:
(V): Again, that was comparing a one time year to a previous year. NOT A STEADY DECLINE.
The SHORT TERM LOSS you cite was from 2008 to 2009. It just so happens that the loss was lower than the high of 1980. But what is needed to prove your thesis is a long term STEADY DECLINE.
You didn't show that now did you? And here I though you studied stats!