An In-Depth Look: Texas vs. California
Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje's 3 front-page articles in the San Antonio Express-News examine teen pregnancy in San Antonio, looking in-depth at the reasons Texas' progress lags behind California's.
Part 1 of the series looks at the high cost of teen pregnancy, in both fiscal and human terms. In addition to the $70 million price tag that Bexar County teen pregnancy carries in tax costs, teens and the community pay in other ways. "Teenage mothers are more likely than older mothers to drop out of school, end up on welfare, and have their children placed in foster care because of abuse or neglect," writes Stoeltje.
Since 1990, California saw a 55% drop in teen birth rates, while Texas, a state with similar demographics, had a drop of only 31%.
Why the difference? Stoeltje points out that California (1) includes both abstinence and contraception in sex education; (2) increased access to contraception; and (3) developed public-private partnerships. In Texas, in contrast, most schools teach only abstinence; family planning funding has been slashed; and few teens can get birth control without parent consent.
In Part 2, Stoeltje focuses on contraception as a fundamental factor in reducing teen pregnancy. California has spent $102 million per year on teen reproductive services, serving more than 125, 000 teens, while Texas spent just $10 million and served 49,000 low income teens.
Consent is another critical piece of the prevention puzzle. In California, minors can legally obtain contraception without parental consent. The article describes a Los Angeles high school-based clinic that provides condoms and birth control.
In Texas, parental consent is required for many teens (except those teens seeking birth control at certain federally funded clinics like University Health System). Stoeltje quotes Dr. Janet Realini, who points to the importance have confidential access to services, "There is lots of evidence that teens will not seek care (at clinics) or ask questions if not assured of confidentiality."
Part 3 focuses on the differences in school-based sex education. California has declined abstinence education funding, and instead has focused on comprehensive programs that promote both waiting and contraception. Texas has taken more abstinence education funds than any other state and turned down funding for comprehensive programs. Most Texas school districts take an abstinence-only approach, and few use proven (evidence-based) programs.
In Bexar County, with the help of organizations such as UT Teen Health, Project WORTH, and Healthy Futures of Texas, more school districts are moving to evidence-based sex education for their students.
The series closes by asking if Texas can do what California has done. Because of Texas' contrasting political landscape, "it may be a steeper climb."
