I always take with a grain of salt studies involving latinos in the United States. I always feel the frame of reference in a lot of polls is not based on the diverse cultural dynamics of US latinos. When I read polls focused on Latinos, they strike me as being based on assumptions of cultural and political assimilation made by both the pollsters and the media outlets reporting on the data finding.
The Associated Press is one of those media outlets making tons of assumptions about minority politics in the US. Check out their latest crapping on minority in this article reprinted by Newsday [1].
This is what they've republished :
The study, which was based on a 2005 survey of teens in grades 9 though 12, drew no conclusions as to why New York's teen girls were less likely to be on the pill than girls elsewhere, but the data suggested that cultural differences might play a role in some birth control choices.
Teen girls in the city's poor, predominantly Hispanic South Bronx neighborhood were nearly twice as likely to have had recent unprotected sex as girls nationwide. Black teenage girls in New York, on the other hand, were no more or less likely to have used birth control during their last sexual encounters than the average U.S. teenage girl.
I immediately went into a rage because there is no social, cultural or political context whatsoever to the data findings --and the AP doesn't care a bit to question those findings. On the contrary, they've taken the NYC Health Department's press release and highlighted all the negative aspects (percentages of teen pregnancy, unprotected sex) while downplaying the positives (69% teens used condoms).
Yet the biggest omission is the only direct statement by NYC Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden that appears on the report.
It's as if at the last minute the abstinence-only police demanded to put in the obligatory piece of propaganda that "compassionate conservatism" has imposed on this country's health and education systems.
This is what appeared on the report :
“Postponing sex has many benefits for teens ... It’s the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Teenagers who choose to have sex should know that condoms and long-acting contraceptives are both important.â€
The issue here is one of ideology : Abstinence-only programs not only deny teenagers their autonomy and right to reproductive health services, but it creates a "culture of denial".
The laws in New York may be ok towards women when it concerns reproductive health rights and when we compare ourselves to states like Mississippi. The problem is the climate in which health providers are working these days is one that is atrociously hostile to women in general; but specifically sexually active women under the age of 18. And it certainly doesn't help the city's top health official foster that "culture of denial" promoted by abstinence-only conservatives.
[ And, by the way, if you cringe at my use of the term "sexually active women under the age of 18", please refer to the following article in Psychology Today, Trashing Teens [2]. ]
So let's take for instance the politization of the "Morning After" pills.
It took massive campaigning from women's organizations and Congress to have the head of the FDA remove his decision to ban the pill ---and the win was polluted by a provision that obligates sexually active women under the age of 18 to get a prescription for the drug.
This means that a 17 year-old teenager has two choices : the public health or the private health route.
If going the public health route, in order to get emergency contraception, a teenager would have to visit one of the DOH's STD clinics [3].
Ponder that one for a moment : A 17 year-old who may be freaking out over the possibility of being pregnant has to march into the stigma of a Sexually Transmitted Disease clinic in order to receive emergency contraception.
Talk about hostile branding.
If the teen so chooses not to go, then now she has to shlep to a teenage-friendly reproductive right's clinic. Let's assume this clinic is Planned Parenthood.
At Planned Parenthood they try mightly to make the process as painless as possible BUT given the liability involved with dealing with anybody under the age of 18, the process for seeking EC from them is still complicated.
Even if it is for Emergency Contraception, the 17 year-old still has to make an appointment. There are forms to be filled and a battery of questions to be answered, especially if the teenager doesn't have the money to pay for the visit --especially if they are choosing to opt out of their parent's medical insurance in order to protect their privacy.
So right there, that could take at least a day and a half to navigate.
Then comes the checkup with a nurse or physician. Once the check up is done, they get the prescription. There is a sliding scale at Planned Parenthood based on the teenager's personal income (and not their parents', which, btw, I think is great).
Counting baby sitting gigs and the like, they may end getting the prescription for free or pay up to $15. If the teenager chooses to by-pass all of this, and they still show no health insurance, they have to pay $20. Not bad given that, if gotten over the counter, emergency contraception costs anything between $40 and $50 in Manhattan.
By the way, the "over the counter" moniker is deceiving : The pharmacist has to dispense the emergency contraception treatment and they are obligated to ask for proof of age. What teenager from the South Bronx will have $50 to get EC from a pharmacist who is legally bound to shoo away teens under the age of 18?
None of this is contextualized in the department's latest findings. There is also no information provided on social class, social class self-identification, income, education, religion, cultural beliefs, personal ethics and/or politics.
Don't get me wrong : As a former high school teacher and college professor I know the realities of teen pregnancy. As a former teenager, I know what goes down with teens and sex.
So I am not disputing some of the validity of the findings. What I find outrageous is the jump from their findings to the "teens' should not fornicate" conclusion.
I believe it's obscene and a crime to deny that teenagers have not only a sexual life, but a right to privacy and autonomy --even if it means going against their parents' and families' wishes.
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6] | 
[7] | 
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12]