« There's No School Like the Green School | Main | Do Poverty Numbers Lie? »

January 05, 2006

Babies Not Having Babies

Some more good, or at least interesting, news for 2004:  teen birth rates in Cascadia hit an all-time low. There were just under 27 live births per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19, according to final data for the year.  That's probably not just the lowest rate in recent history, but the lowest since humans first inhabited this place.

Teenpreg19702004 (Just to be clear: we spend a lot of our time comparing trends in BC, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho -- the main political jurisdictions whose rivers flow through the temperate rainforests on the Pacific Northwest coast.  For short, we call the region "Cascadia."  End of public service announcement.)

Teen births throughout the region have fallen by about 57 percent since 1970.  But they've fallen unevenly, as the chart shows.  In the Northwest states, teen pregnancy rates are about half of what they were in 1970.  In British Columbia, however, teen pregnancies fell by an astonishing four-fifths over the same period.  Or, said differently -- teen birthrates in BC and the Northwest states used to be quite comparable.  Now, the teen birthrate is more than three times as high in the Northwest US as in BC.

As with many social and environmental trends, BC more and more looks like, well, it's in a different country than Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.  Gasoline consumption, sprawl, health, teen births -- on these measures and many others, BC substantially outperforms the Northwest states; and on many of them BC's lead just keeps getting bigger.  I'm not sure what this means; perhaps nothing. But it may also be a sign that the politics and cultures of these neighbors are gradually diverging.

Regardless, given the similarities in climate, language, and history between the two halves of Cascadia, the differences between BC and the US Northwest demonstrate--fairly convincingly it seems to me--that minor differences in policy and outlook can gradually add up to huge differences in outcomes.

Posted by ClarkWD | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834573a7069e200d8349f08e969e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Babies Not Having Babies:

Comments

Three words: Comprehensive Sex Education. I don't know as much about ORegon and IDaho as I do about Washington, but I know in Washington there is NO law about what can be taught to kids in a sex-ed class. In this state, if sex-ed is taught (it doesn't have to be) you can tell kids anything, even blatant lies like "You will get pregnant if you have sex." (which, from what I have heard from a friend who is working to get medically accuracy to be required when and if sex ed is taught in Washington's schools) kids are taught on a regular basis. Essentially, in many places in this country, it's just fine, legally, to lie to kids.

In BC, meanwhile, sex ed has to be medically accurate. This means that a class has to include information on birth control options as well as the fact that only fool-proof method to keep from getting pregnant is not to have sex.

It's wildly liberal and dangerous to teach the truth to kids who are gonna do it no matter what, I know. Oh wait, seems to be safer to tell kids the WHOLE truth in this instance. SURPRISE!

Posted by: Charlie | Jan 6, 2006 12:57:08 PM

i'm pregnant and the daddy wants to be a part of the babies life but his girlfriend don't want him to. what should he do?

Posted by: alana wylie | Feb 1, 2006 8:25:32 AM