For those who would like to think today's murder in church of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, is an isolated incident, here's the horrifying news: You are wrong. The pattern is clear and frightening.

In March 1993, three months into the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.

Today's assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes 5 months into the term of our second pro-choice president. For anyone who would like to believe that this is a statistical anomaly, a coincidence that doesn't portend anything, again, you are wrong.

During the entire Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders.

During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were 6 abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers (one of these attempts was on Dr. Tiller who was shot in both arms.) There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.

During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.

One can only conclude that like terrorist sleeper cells, these extremists have now been set in motion. Indeed the evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.

In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.

And so the execution of Tiller, 67, is not only tragic but ominous. He was born into an era when being an abortion provider meant saving women's lives. And the cold-blooded murder in church and in front of his wife of this stalwart defender of women rights and beloved physician, comes as a message for others, as well as tragic deja vu.

Battered women are at greatest danger of being killed by their abusers when they are most strong -- that is, when they muster the courage to leave. The same phenomenon may be true in the abusive political abortion debate. The pro-choice movement, specifically our abortion providers, are in the greatest danger of violence when we take power. When the anti-abortion movement loses power, their most extreme elements appear to move to the fore and take control. The murder of Dr. Tiller suggests that violence against abortion providers may be far more linked to the power, or lack thereof, anti-abortion groups have politically than to laws designed to increase penalties against such acts.

History has another disturbing lesson for us. The escalation of anti-abortion rhetoric plays a direct role in instigating violence. When anti-abortion groups ratchet up the rhetoric, they know exactly what they're doing and the results it will have. Even if they maintain deniability, as Operation Rescue recently did saying, in effect, we wanted Tiller gone, but didn't want him murdered, they have inflamed the rhetoric. And suddenly people Like Dr. Tiller's murderer become inspired.

Eleanor Bader, author of Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism, in an article in March for RHRealityCheck.org about clinics bracing for an uptick in violence after the election of Obama wrote, "immediately after Obama's election, Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director of the National Right to Life Committee, called him a "hardcore pro-abortion president." The American Life League dubbed him "one of the most radical pro-abortion politicians ever," and Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life warned that Obama will "force Americans to pay for the killing of innocents." Americans United for Life, the Family Research Council and Operation Save America quickly joined the chorus."

Bader interviewed clinic staff -- many seeing a direct relationship between the pro-choice victory in November and increased aggression against them and their patients. Claire Keyes, of Allegheny Reproductive Health in Pittsburgh, explained:

Right after the election we saw a small upsurge in anti-abortion activity. But since the inauguration, things have gotten measurably worse. There's been an increase in picketing by students from Franciscan University in Ohio. On Saturdays there are 60-plus protesters and there's been an increase in screaming and aggression. We don't have a parking lot so people park on the street. The antis have surrounded cars, trapping the women inside, and in several cases the antis jumped into vehicles and touched or grabbed at them. The police were called but so far they don't seem to be responding appropriately.

Bader also quotes Elizabeth Barnes, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Women's Center, who explained, "When the pendulum swung in the direction of protecting women's rights, we expected something. The way the antis are reacting has changed, they're taking more liberties, pressing the boundaries of legal, civil protest."

Many in the pro-choice movement believed that the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law, passed in 1994 in response to Gunn's murder, was responsible for reigning in violence against abortion providers. Clearly that is not the case. Based on statistics on violence against abortion providers compiled by the National Abortion Federation, even after the passage of FACE in 1994, there was still considerable violence and threats against clinic personnel, including six murders. As appears clear, the pro-choice movement has looked through rose-colored glasses, assuming or hoping that legalities can restrain terrorists.

In fact, it didn't abate after FACE, as we've seen. It was not until a comforting anti-abortion president did they calm down and stop the murder, bombing and harassment spree.

As we are witnessing now, Bush policies resulted in a surge in abortions. That has failed to inspire introspection from anti-abortion groups. That Clinton presided over the most dramatic decline in abortion rates in the recorded history of our country left them unmoved. That Obama has assigned his senior-most staff to the task of finding ways to reduce the need for abortion has not protected clinics nor providers nor Obama. Holder and his Justice Department should take note of the chatter and move aggressively against this form of domestic terrorism. The hate-filled rhetoric against Obama from the anti-abortion movement is at unprecedented levels, even for this reflexively inflammatory group. They refer to him as the "Most Pro-Abortion President Ever" ignoring the fact that he is the first to extend an olive branch in hopes that together we can make abortion more rare.

Anti-abortion groups will put out carefully worded press statements condemning the murder of Dr. Tiller, as became routine for them during the Clinton years. But unless the rhetoric they choose from now on becomes careful too -- they may be the enablers of murder and terror.

A colleague who was invited to the White House announcement of the nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today asked me to fill in for her on a radio interview about common ground. Here's a link to the broadcast. It's not very often that I, or anyone for that matter, have the opportunity to discuss this subject with a pro-lifer who is reasonable and looking for solutions. David Gushee, who was also on the show, is such a person. Listening to him gives me faith in this new and albeit small movement of pro-lifers who genuinely want to support policies that help reduce the need for abortion. We, as a nation, have much to gain from creating a more civilized and productive dialogue about abortion. But, as I hope you agree after listening to the interview, women are poised to be the greatest beneficiaries of the common ground effort.

On a related note, I noticed in Sonia Sotomayor's bio that she served on the board of Childbirth Connection (formerly known as Maternity Centers Association.) I called them today to find out more about the organization and what it possibly says about our new Supreme Court nominee. Childbirth Connection takes no policy position on abortion but it is very much a proponent of women's rights during childbirth.

Carol Sakala, their program director, explained to me what she thought Sotomayor's affiliation with the organization may say about her as a person. Sakala said,

"Today, in her acceptance statement, Sotomayor showed she is very much indebted to the people who have supported her and she showed a good deal of gratitude. Being raised by a single mother, she knows what it takes to support a family under challenging circumstances, to be in it for the long haul and the importance of having warm family connections and relations. Our organization is all about the foundation of those families and relationships; giving women the opportunity to make good decisions and build healthy relationships. People need to be informed, need to have the time to be able to make informed decisions, need to be respected and have options to make the best decisions for them and their families. The abiding theme of our organization is high quality maternity care for all woman and their families—it's family centered maternity care that serves the needs and best interest and their family."

Her interest in this organization, albeit several decades ago, stands out on Sotomayor's resume. It really is the only entry that does not have a purely legal focus. Considering Sotomayor is not a mother herself, it makes it all the more interesting of volunteer activities. To me, it's an important sign and one from which pro-choice and women's health advocates can derive some comfort. Childbirth Connection is an organization dedicated to identifying and promoting best practices in women's health based on rigorous scientific evidence. If Sotomayor's connection to the group is any indication of the value she places in science and her respect for the field of medicine, her nomination is good news for women's health.

A dream spokesperson is someone who has the media hanging on every word. Of course, she or he needs to actually be able to speak on the subject too in order to fill the “spoke” part of the job description. Bristol Palin, the newly chosen spokesperson for Candies Foundation’s teen pregnancy prevention campaign, has, yet again, harnessed the immense media interest in her to draw attention to the problem. This week she landed the cover of People magazine, appearing in graduation cap and gown, beaming with her baby Tripp in her arms. On the cover also appears a quote from her. It reads, "If girls realized the consequences of sex, nobody would be having sex. Trust me. Nobody."

Before Bristol gets the cover of another mass market magazine or sits down with Larry King, someone needs to arm her with the tools to convey her message most powerfully. When it comes to teens having sex, “trust me” is not the most convincing argument against it (more likely it’s the phrase used to convince someone to go for it.) Bristol’s style as a spokesperson seems decidedly uninformed. The Candies Foundation may feel Bristol has the media Midas touch and that having her out there basically saying “Teen Mom...Hard” is enough as long as she draws attention to the issue. But what would be much more interesting and have a greater impact is if she strayed beyond her personal experience to help inform the national discussion with some compelling facts about the teen pregnancy problem which happens to be near epidemic proportions in the US. With a national platform comes a responsibility to rise to the occasion, become informed about the issue, and be a true leader.

Just a couple of weeks ago I observed Bristol in person for several hours at a her debut press event. It’s probably safe to say she hasn’t gotten the much needed media and message training between then and the People interview. For advocates like me, the cover of People magazine is the Holy Grail. And so, it’s particularly painful to have Bristol squander the massive opportunity to educate by not being fully educated herself on the issue. It's especially unfortunate since so many of the facts about teen parenthood underscore the points she is trying to make. For example, Bristol appears on the cover in cap and gown, to signify her recent graduation from high school. Becoming a mother and a high school graduate in the same year is a true achievement, not to be minimized. But it’s also an opening for Bristol to point out that it’s tremendously unusual too. In fact, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, teen pregnancy is the leading cause of school drop out among teenage girls. Less than half of the mothers who have a child before they turn 18 ever graduate from high school. Bristol hopes to go to college, but she could point out that it’s going to be much more difficult for her to complete college than it will be for her peers. Less than two percent of mothers who have children before age 18 complete college by the age of 30. These facts would have made her message all the more sobering and given her another chance to use her life to point out the most severe outcomes of premature parenthood.

Interviewers always ask her about her strained relationship with Levi too. This has provided awkward moments for Bristol who clearly doesn’t want to go there. Yet, these questions provide a great opening for her to get to a more important point. She could say, “Here’s another problem with teen pregnancy. Levi and I are like most other teen parents in that we aren’t together. Eight in ten teen fathers do not marry the mothers of their first children. Levi will play an important part in Tripp’s life, because I’m committed to that and believe every child needs father. But it’s far from the ideal arrangement. But it will be the arrangement we’ll all have to struggle with for the rest of our lives.” If she wants to use her experience as an example, well then let’s do that. The facts, again, offer her an easy way to be a powerful messenger.

The outcomes of teen parenthood are too serious to be ignored by someone who is now the most prominent messenger on the issue. The impact is not just on the teen mom's and dad’s life either. In fact, the greatest effect is on the children of teen parents. They are more likely to be born prematurely at low birthweight compared to children of older mothers, which raises the probability of infant death and disease, mental retardation, and mental illness. Children of teen mothers are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to complete high school. The children of teen parents also suffer higher rates of abuse and neglect (two times higher). Not only can Bristol use her experience to dissuade others from falling into the same fate, she can be a model for those who do.

Bristol has so much opportunity to make an important impact in these areas and with just a little guidance from the experts she can. Hopefully, she’ll seek out that help. It’ll make her a much more interesting figure who, while keeping the fickle media engaged, can educate those at greatest risk. There are many people ready to help because the experts know it takes a village to raise a spokesperson too.

At the recent conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the organization released findings from a recent Gallup poll it commissioned. The survey results reveal as alarming news about women's reproductive health in a declining economy.

Here's the takeaway: Women say that using birth control is extremely important to them but, increasingly, they can't afford it.

Gallup found that six percent of women using a hormonal form of birth control, such as the pill, said they had abandoned the method because they could not afford it. Ten percent of women said they were worried about their ability to keep paying for contraception. Some women said they had switched birth control methods because of cost. Women reported that, on average, having a reliable method of contraception is extremely important to them (a "9" on a scale of one to 10). Women who said that they have been affected a great deal by the country's economy are more than twice as likely to report that they have decided to limit the size of their family (29% vs. 13%); are more than twice as likely to talk to their partner about having an unintended pregnancy (26%
vs. 12%); and are more than three times as likely to postpone a planned pregnancy (15% vs. 5%). While family planning in tough economic times is no doubt a reasonable path there's another alarming finding: women are sacrificing their health when their pocketbooks are pinched.

Fourteen percent have postponed their annual Ob/Gyn check-up.

Given this, the Obama adminstration could not have had better timing with the report they released today, "Roadblocks to Health Care: Why the Current Health Care System Does Not Work for Women."

The report explains that "Women are more vulnerable to high health care costs than men," and that, "Women's reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care." We're paying for these biological differences too: Women are often charged higher premiums than men during their reproductive years. According to the report, keeping other factors constant, a 22-year-old woman can be charged one and a half times the premium of a 22-year-old man. This difference largely disappears well after our fertility does--by age 64.

The cost disparity has a cascading effect. Almost half of women report problems paying medical bills, compared with 36% of men. One in three women were "forced to make a difficult trade off such as using up their savings, taking on debt, or giving up basic necessities." Increasingly, as the Gallup poll shows, the necessities they are forced to give up include contraception.

Lucky for us, the Obama administration is approaching the health care crisis with the understanding that women and men might not have equal access to the care they need. They identify the actual problem before designing a solution. This is heartening after so many years of an administration that viewed the solutions as the problem e.g., Bush’s opposition to birth control. The new approach is to view women's health and rights as critical pieces of our nation's recovery plan. Beginning to feel better already.

This week, appearing in a Town Hall-styled press event, Bristol Palin debuted as a teen “ambassador” for the Candies Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Candies shoe brand that raises awareness of the teen pregnancy crisis. It was an unsteady first step, which pleased those cynical about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s politically expedient version of her daughter’s pregnancy: Remember? Bristol and boyfriend Levi are in love and will marry soon after the election. Bristol and Levi are now broken up and seem to be doing much of their communicating, even seem to subtly be negotiating custody/visitation arrangements for their son Tripp, on prime time TV. Now that no one any longer has to pretend that the pre-election fictions are true, there is a valuable lesson to learn. And, oddly, the quiet girl thrust into the public spotlight as a result of a most private of mishap might just help teach it. That is if Levi is invited along.


On the morning of the Town Hall appearance, Bristol also appeared on ABC and NBC, broadcasting maddeningly mixed messages about teen pregnancy prevention on the nation’s most widely watched news shows. She seemed to emphasize the abstinence-only approach to pregnancy prevention on Good Morning America (“It’s important for me to get involved just to advocate and promote abstinence and send my message out…abstinence is a hard choice but it’s the safest choice and the best choice”) only to appear on the Today show minutes later to admit that abstinence can be unrealistic for some teens and, if so, they should use contraception (“If you’re going to have sex I think you should have safe sex.”)

I recognize I’m trained to listen for nuances in the sex ed debate. I’m also twice Bristol’s age. And so it’s easy for me to slip into the Simon Cowell role. No, she’s not polished. Hers is a kind of witness-cross-examined-style speech—short statements which leave you wondering what she isn’t saying. I’m not even sure Bristol realizes that she’s been contradicting herself.

So at first listen, her message sounds way off-key. On a second closer listen though, I started to hear something else. It sounded more like a new, albeit unrehearsed and out-of-the-studio, style. In truth, if her televised appearances this week are cobbled together, there is definitely a message worth listening to. Even comprehensive sex ed proponents should be fine with what she’s actually saying. People who favor comprehensive sex ed have reflexively shunned her. She has seemed at times brainwashed by the group which still believes abstinence is the only form of contraception a teenager needs to know. But in her roundabout way, Bristol is in fact voicing the core message of comprehensive sex ed which is: there’s no better protection against pregnancy and disease than abstinence, teens should postpone becoming sexually active, but those that are having sex need to use to protection.

But prevention is not Bristol’s area of expertise. (That’s for sure.) Bristol is much more interested in warning teens about premature parenthood than putting herself forth as an expert on teen pregnancy prevention. That, I think, is part of the reason why she sounds confused when discussing what teens should or should not be doing. Being a teen mom is her new expertise. This is where she becomes clear: she wants to use her experience to help other teens avoid the same fate. She explains, “If I can prevent even one girl from getting pregnant, I will feel a sense of accomplishment.” It’s on this point where Bristol and the Candies Foundation (which supports both abstinence and safe sex approaches) have a truly shared perspective, one that gets overlooked by the traditional teen pregnancy prevention messengers. Bristol’s and Candies’ shared message to teens is: you don’t want to become a teen parent.

The traditional pregnancy prevention messages have often missed this. They have assumed teens don’t need convincing on that issue. They assumed teens just need to know how not to get pregnant. But statistics provided by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy indicate that about one in five pregnant teens was trying to conceive. For this demographic, messages about abstinence and/or contraception are useless.

And so Bristol may be reaching an emerging demographic. Candies may have found a powerful messenger in her. And let’s give her credit, hers is possibly the most difficult of messages to impart. She loves her baby, Tripp is a blessing in her life, though if she could have done it over she would definitely have waited to become a parent—it would have been better for her and her son. There are difficult emotional acrobatics here, seeming contradictions that, to her credit, she manages to present in a way that feels honest and understandable.

But there is one thing very important missing from the Candies campaign. Lucky for them, the opportunity to fix that is standing right before their eyes. What their campaign needs is Levi Johnson. And Levi has something to say. Few have noticed that Levi has been trying to get in on this important conversation. It may seem like he is just trying to spoil Bristol’s day now that he is persona non grata in the Palin household. Whenever Bristol is backed into pushing abstinence, Levi pops up with a wry smile and a disclaimer: “It’s unrealistic.” Levi has been taking to the airwaves himself. In fact, on the morning of the Town Hall he got himself on the Early Show, in an unofficial capacity, to discuss their unplanned pregnancy. He quite diplomatically praised Bristol for encouraging teens to abstain but, based on his first-hand experience, he encouraged consistent condom use.


Watch CBS Videos Online

What this national conversation desperately needs is for teen boys, like Levi, to be involved. How can we expect them to take responsible steps to prevent teen pregnancy if we act as if they play no part? Levi brings with him a great chance to make boys the stakeholders they inevitably are. He also offers a unique perspective on the difficulties of being a teen father, one that will resonate with boys in a way Bristol’s point of view will not. It’s also worth noting that Levi is as sought-out by the media as Bristol. He has the same humble, and winning, way of delivering a simple message. He can balance out Bristol’s warnings about Saturday nights changing diapers with a pragmatic strategy for avoiding that fate. And, let’s not forget, he needs a job. He’s also handsome enough (New York Magazine calls Levi, a hockey player, “sex on skates”) to get girls to pay attention to his pro-protection message.

These two are never gonna be slick, media trained, celebri-teens with talking points and agents (Bristol’s entourage in New York was her aunt, baby and Dad.) No doubt, Candies is taking a risk with Bristol and would extend that risk even further by giving Levi an equal voice in the discussion. But with great risk comes the possibility for great gains too. The United States is suffering from a teen pregnancy scourge—we have the highest teen birth rate of any other developed country, and by a long shot. Teen parents are less likely to complete the education necessary to qualify for a well-paying job -- in fact, parenthood is the leading cause of school drop out among teen girls. College then becomes the remotest of possibilities. Less than two percent of mothers who have children before age 18 complete college by the age of 30.

Too often heartbreaking sacrifices are also foisted on the children of teen parents. These children are more likely to be born prematurely at low birthweight compared to children of older mothers, which raises the probability of infant death and disease, mental retardation, and mental illness. Children of teens are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to complete high school. The children of teens also suffer higher rates of abuse and neglect (two times higher).

Teen parents and their children are not the only ones paying dearly. Premature parenting in the United States costs taxpayers (federal, state, and local) approximately $9.1 billion each year. Most of the costs are associated with services to address the negative consequences detailed above.

Bristol and Levi are bravely offering their intensely personal misstep up for others to learn from. They may be at odds with each other (another statistical likelihood they realized) but they are united in their message about the not-so-glamorous life of teen parents.

Big News...here's the press release about the Obama's 2010 budget from Planned Parenthood...

PLANNED PARENTHOOD STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2010 BUDGET
Ends Ineffective Abstinence-Only Programs,
Provides New Funding for Evidence-Based Comprehensive Sex Education —
Missed Opportunities to Strengthen Title X
And Ensure Women’s Access to Full Range of Care

“As our nation works to strengthen women’s health care, there is both good and bad news in this budget. While the budget is a step in the right direction toward reducing alarmingly high unintended pregnancy rates and helping ensure that young people have the information and health care they need to become healthy and productive adults, it misses an opportunity to build on one of the nation’s most effective programs in reducing unintended pregnancies,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

Notable items in the Obama FY2010 Budget include:

—Ends funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs (CBAE and Title V program)
—Provides $178 million for evidence-based comprehensive sex education programs that prevent teen pregnancy
—Provides a modest $10 million increase in the Title X family planning program, to a total of $317 million
—Extends access to basic health care to millions more women through the Medicaid State Option Family Planning Waiver
—Does not remove onerous restrictions on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health care

SEX EDUCATION

“President Obama’s budget makes clear that the government won’t waste federal dollars on programs that don’t reduce the number of teen pregnancies or keep teens healthy and safe. We applaud the president for rejecting failed abstinence-only programs that have cost our government more than $1 billion and, instead, invest in evidence-based sex ed programs that have proven to help prevent teen pregnancy,” said PPFA President Cecile Richards.

President Obama’s budget completely eliminates funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program and the Title V Abstinence Education program for states, saving the federal government $149 million. In addition, the president’s budget includes $178 million in new funding for “evidence-based” teen pregnancy prevention programs. Of that, $75 million is designated for "programs that replicate the elements of one or more teenage pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven through rigorous evaluation to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), or reduce teenage pregnancy”; and $25 million is slotted for research and development of new and innovative strategies for preventing teen pregnancy.

FAMILY PLANNING

“We commend the investment in women’s health and the commitment to make family planning and basic health care services, including lifesaving cancer screenings, more accessible and affordable to millions of low-income women and their families,” said Richards. “Yet, at a time when health centers like ours are seeing an increase in the number of women seeking basic preventive care, the president’s budget misses an opportunity to further invest and strengthen the Title X program. Title X is a vital component of the health care safety net and one of the most effective programs in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. We will continue to work with President Obama and Congress to ensure that Title X and women’s health are priorities as they move toward reform of our health care system.”

President Obama’s budget provides a modest $10 million increase in the Title X program, the nation’s family planning program, for a total of $317 million. The Title X family planning program provides basic health care to more than five million women and families. Six in 10 clients consider a family planning center their main source of health care. However, funding has not kept pace with inflation, and more than 17 million women are in need of publicly funded family planning services. Investing in the Title X program also saves money. According to the Guttmacher Institute, taxpayers save $4 for every $1 dollar spent on family planning.

President Obama’s budget also includes a provision to expand family planning under Medicaid, which would extend family planning coverage to millions more women.

Expanding family planning under Medicaid has been one of Planned Parenthood’s top priorities under our Prevention First Agenda. Also known as the Medicaid Family Planning State Option, it would simply allow states to expand their Medicaid family planning services, including cancer screenings and other preventive care, to more women in need, without having to go through the burdensome Medicaid waiver process.

The Medicaid Family Planning State Option would have a significant impact on women’s health and is vital to expanding care to the millions of women who are losing their jobs and/or their health insurance in this economic downturn. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision would provide coverage to 2.3 million low-income women by 2014. A study by the Guttmacher Institute finds that this flexible option would help 500,000 women avoid unplanned pregnancy.

ABORTION RESTRICTIONS

An additional aspect of concern is that the president’s budget does not remove government funding restrictions on abortion services. Restrictions on public funding for abortion services have severely hindered access to safe abortion care for women, disproportionately affecting poor women.

“We are disappointed that the budget did not remove restrictions on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health care services,” said Richards. “Placing onerous restrictions on women is not effective public policy. We look forward to working with the president and Congress to remove these restrictions.”

“As the nation’s leading advocate and provider of women’s reproductive health care, every day we see that the best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and promote healthy families is to invest in family planning programs and ensure more women have access to affordable, quality reproductive health care,” said Richards. “The president’s budget is a step in that direction.”

Today is The National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy and, so, there's no better time to reflect on a few startling statistics about teen pregnancy.

In 2001, UNICEF conducted a survey of teenage birth rates in the industrialized world--it wanted to figure out why some rich countries have teenage birth rates that are ten or fifteen times higher than others. The United States ranks number one for teen moms, far outpacing the rest of the industrialized world--four times the European Union average and 60 percent higher than the rate in the United Kingdom, which came in second. In the 28 countries reviewed, there were 760,000 births to teenagers, two-thirds of which occurred in the United States. The United States is so bad at preventing pregnancy that it is the only rich nation smack in the middle of the Third World block for teen births--ranking just behind Thailand and directly before Rwanda.

Some countries have successfully reversed this trend. The Netherlands, for example, has reduced its teenage birthrate by a staggering 72 percent in thirty years while also having the lowest teenage abortion rates in the industrialized world. UNICEF reports “In general, studies of the Dutch experience have concluded that the underlying reason for success has been the combination of a relatively inclusive society with more open attitudes toward sex and sex education, including contraception.” For example, young people in the Netherlands “feel comfortable discussing sexuality in a warm, mutually supporting atmosphere” in which “requests for contraceptive services are not associated with shame or embarrassment” and in which “the media is willing to carry explicit messages designed for young people about contraceptive services.” The result is that teenagers who are having sex in the Netherlands see using of contraception “as ingrained as not going through a red light.” Interestingly, the Dutch approach hasn’t led to a sex-indulgent teenage culture, but rather, as the report concludes to a “higher average age at first intercourse.”

Another example of a country that had found a solution is Sweden. Beginning in 1975 Sweden radically reviewed its school sex-education curriculum. UNICEF reports, “abstinence and sex-only-within-marriage were dropped. Contraceptive education was made an explicit part of the school curriculum, and a nationwide network of youth clinics was established to provide confidential advice and free contraceptives to young people.” The Swedes took a practical, non-judgmental, approach their teenagers’ sexuality considering it “neither as desirable nor undesirable, but as inevitable—this being the case, teenagers’ use of contraceptives is viewed as highly desirable because it will prevent both childbearing and abortion.” As a result of these changes, Sweden has nearly half the teen abortion rate than that of the United States (17.7 vs. 30.2 per 1,000 teens).

Now that we have an administration not opposed to evidence-based solutions, we can once again consider the strategies proven to work to reduce teen pregnancy. We may not have to look far for them either. We witnessed a dramatic decline in teen pregnancies and births during the Clinton administration, a 36% drop, and that positive trend continued until just recently when CDC researchers discovered a spike in teen births in the Bush years, beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2007 (the latest year data is available.)

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has the "What If Project" which explores how different the U.S. would be today if the dramatic decline had not happened. The organization reports,

"Declining teen birth rates have significantly improved overall child well-being in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, according to a new state-by-state analysis released by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Specifically, declines in the teen birth rate have had a direct impact on improving child poverty in all 50 states. That is, child poverty would have been worse in 2002 if state teen birth rates had not declined between 1991 and 2002."

In fact, they calculate that 8.3% more children would be living in poverty today as a result of being born to teen mothers if this decline had not taken place. More tax-payer dollars would have had to be devoted to services related to teen births too. In fact, the steady decline in the teen birth rate saved taxpayers an estimated $6.7 billion just in 2004 alone. Over the 13 years of decline, the number of years the National Campaign calculated the cost-savings, the American tax-payer saved $161 billion in estimated public costs associated with teen childbearing.

However, despite a one-third decline since the early 1990s, the United States still has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and birth among comparable countries. In fact, 3 in 10 girls in this country become pregnant by age 20. The financial costs associated with teen parenthood appear to be the least of our concerns. According to the National Campaign,

"Early pregnancy and childbearing is closely linked to a host of other critical social issues, including poverty and income disparity, overall child well-being, out-of-wedlock births, and education, to name just a few. Simply put, if more children in this country were born to parents who are ready and able to care for them, we would see a significant reduction in a host of social problems afflicting children in the United States, from school failure and crime to child abuse and neglect. If more children in this country were born to parents who are ready and able to care for them, we would see a significant reduction in a host of social problems afflicting children in the United States, from school failure and crime to child abuse and neglect."

Lucky for us, the Obama has made the reduction of teen pregnancy a priority of his administration. Time to dust off the book of proven remedies and get back to work.

In Missouri, state legislators approved an amendment that would let pharmacies refuse to stock "morning-after" emergency contraceptives. This should come as no surprise, Missouri lawmakers have been in the vanguard of restricting access to pregnancy prevention for years. For example, Missouri is one of only five states to attempt to deny abortion providers public funding for contraceptive services.