FSU study: Abortion notification, consent laws reduce risky teen sex

<p>This is interesting:</p>

<p>Laws that require minors to notify or get the consent of one or both parents before having an abortion reduce risky sexual behavior among teens, according to a Florida State University law professor.</p>

<p>Jonathan Klick, the Jeffrey A. Stoops Professor of Law, and Thomas Stratmann, professor of economics at George Mason University, came to that conclusion after they looked at the rates of gonorrhea among teenage girls as a measure of risky sex in connection to the parental notification or consent laws that were in effect at the time.</p>

<p>The researchers found that teen gonorrhea rates dropped by an average of 20 percent for Hispanic girls and 12 percent for white girls in states where parental notification laws were in effect. The results were not statistically significant for black girls. The study will be published in an upcoming edition of The Journal of Law Economics and Organization.</p>

<p>“Incentives matter,” Klick said. “They matter even in activities as primal as sex, and they matter even among teenagers, who are conventionally thought to be short-sighted. If the expected costs of risky sex are raised, teens will substitute less risky activities such as protected sex or abstinence.”</p>

<p>In this case, the incentive for teens is to avoid having to tell their parents about a pregnancy by substituting less risky sex activities. In doing so, the researchers say, the rates of gonorrhea among girls under the age of 20 went down.</p>

<p>“This suggests that Hispanic and white teenage girls are forward looking in their sex decisions, and they systematically view informing their parents and obtaining parental consent as additional costs in obtaining an abortion, inducing them to engage in less risky sex when parental involvement laws are adopted,” Klick said. “Unfortunately, the data do not allow us to differentiate between the possibility that teens engage in less sex or they simply have the same amount of sex but are more fastidious in their condom use.”</p>

<p>The researchers ruled out the possibility that teens simply substitute risky sexual behaviors for which pregnancy is not a concern, such as oral or anal intercourse, because these activities still could transmit gonorrhea. The use of birth control pills also would not protect against the sexually transmitted disease.</p>

<p>The researchers used data from the Centers for Disease Control to determine the rates of gonorrhea for women by age and race for the years 1981 through 1998. Gonorrhea rates for teenage girls were compared to those of women 20 and older whose behavior would not be affected by the notification and consent laws. Using the rate of gonorrhea among older women as a control, the researchers were able to ensure that the decline in incidence among the teens was not simply reflective of an overall decline of the disease in the state.</p>

<p>Forty-four states, including Florida, have adopted laws requiring minors to obtain consent or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion, but the laws have been blocked by the courts or otherwise not yet enforced in nine of those states, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.</p>

<p>Source: <a href=“http://www.fsu.com/pages/2006/09/27/AbortionNotification.html[/url]”>http://www.fsu.com/pages/2006/09/27/AbortionNotification.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Awesome survey. How informative and interesting!</p>

<p>Thanks for the link!</p>

<p>Well, gonorrhea infections decrease among teens in states with parental consent/notification laws. I can’t help but ask… why this STD? Why not herpes or AIDS or any of the others? Why not measure pregnancy rates, which is really the issue when you’re talking about abortion? Gonorrhea doesn’t cause kids to get abortions; pregnancy does.</p>

<p>well, the % of girls who went and got tested, not necessarily the % of girls who had it at all…</p>

<p>idameyer, that was going to be my point</p>

<p>if the girls are afraid the tests results will be reported to parents, will they go in and get the test? was that taken into account at all?</p>

<p>and why no such study for males to see if the laws affect them as well</p>

<p>and I am not understanding the use of data from 1998 and earlier</p>

<p>and was there a study or survey done to see if fewer girls were going in the testing and if so why?</p>

<p>the study does not feel complete to me</p>

<p>And do they make your whites whiter, too? :)</p>

<p>It seems like if I were behind this study, the obvious metric for these laws would be the before & after abortion rates, pregnancy rates, etc - but definitely not gonorrhea! Good economic studies are all about your control, and how well you can weed out causal factors, outside trends, and hidden variables that muck up real world statistics. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.</p>

<p>Jonathan Klick

and another article by this pair

</p>

<p>Just so we know where they are coming from</p>

<p>And from the ghonorhea study

</p>

<p>quite an assumption.</p>

<p>gla, that last quote of yours really says it all, doesn’t it. Have these individuals ever met a teenager?</p>

<p>Link to the study if anyone is interested
<a href=“http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=819304[/url]”>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=819304&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>thanks for the info, gla…tells me alot…who does a study is really relevant</p>

<p>the study, as my Ds would say, seemed sketchy, and wth a certain goal in mind…</p>

<p>Obvious point, CGM: they used pre-1998 data as a control - i.e. pre-notification/consent laws. That’s just good science.</p>

<p>Second, the notification laws are for ABORTION, not STD results. So no issues with kids not being tested adequately.</p>

<p>The rest of it is a little off, though. I wonder if they only did the gonorrhea numbers so far and more later w/r/t other STDs.</p>

<p>from what I saw or the data from 1998 was for women, not teens</p>

<p>but that was not adressed in the study was in, no where does it talk about #s tested, or percentage pre and post consent laws</p>

<p>Thanks gla for giving us more perspective on who these researchers are. Just because the study is linked to a University, does not make it unbiased. (We all know how many “academic” studies on drug therapy are supported by big pharma companies)
Studies that have an obvious “political” agenda always seem to come out the way the “researchers” intend them to turn out.
Just call me a skeptic.</p>

<p>from the CDC:</p>

<p>Gonorrhea: Disease Rate Falls to Historic Low But Drug Resistance on the Rise</p>

<p>Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported infectious disease in the United States, with 330,132 cases reported in 2004. From a high of 467.7 cases per 100,000 population reported in 1975, the U.S. gonorrhea rate fell to 113.5 in 2004 (a 76% decline) — the lowest recorded level since reporting began in 1941. More recently, from 2003 to 2004, the rate fell 1.5 percent (from 115.2 cases per 100,000 population to 113.5). Like chlamydia, however, gonorrhea is substantially under diagnosed and under reported, and approximately twice as many new infections are estimated to occur each year as are reported.</p>

<p>So Gonorrhea is at its lowest rate in a long time generally</p>

<p>what about the states without consent laws, maybe I missed it, but where in the report was it stated what the rates for teens in those states were in comparison to the past</p>

<p>and other STDS are UP in those same states…so I wonder about the validity of this study, alot seems to be missing and I checked out the website</p>

<p>sure, it SOUNDS good, but the study was incomplete, had a strange choice of STD, didn’t comment on the rate of those getting tested and didn’t discuss the RISE in other STDs…ie, Utah has a high rate of other STDs</p>

<p>so if someone has more info on this study, the paremters, what states were used, how the information was gathered, etc…I take it for how it is presented, not a complete study with questions about the motivation</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>These laws existed in many states long before 1998.</p>