Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 843
  • Darwins +120/-1

I do appreciate your analysis. 

I did find a way to do it from a book.  let me see if I can make this work.  Source David Barton's Myth or Separation 1992

I just added a pdf to the attachments and options, looked at the preview and didn't see anything.
It will  only have statistics to 87 but lets see if it comes up

File size too big, so I'll put a link to my drop box here:
If you find a way to put it in the body, please do so.

As requested, here's the chart from your scan of Barton's book:

I went looking for data to see what the trend looks like for years outside the range of Barton's chart. With only a little googling, I found stats for teen births for the same 15-19 age group from 1940 to 2010 on the CDC's web site. Bingo. Or so I thought.

I sort of half-expected that the statistics outside the range of Barton's chart would not support his claims. But I didn't expect that the CDC's data would be radically different from Barton's for the same time period. The CDC shows the teen pregnancy rate declining significantly during the very same period where Barton's chart shows a steep incline. Also, the CDC's chart shows significantly higher numbers in general. Even as disreputable as Barton is, I wouldn't expect him to completely fabricate data. It's not his style. He's more of a "cherry pick real data and present it in a misleading way" kind of guy rather than a "make stuff up from scratch" kind of guy. Also, although it's going the opposite direction, the bumps in Barton's chart look like they're in the same places as the one's in the CDC's chart, suggesting that the data is somehow related.

So, what gives? I noticed that Barton cited the DHHS as his source, so I went to the DHHS website and searched for "teen birth rate". I found no data there, just references to the CDC's data. After poking at this problem for a while longer, I finally spotted the key detail that I had been overlooking. It's sort of obvious really. I'd not be surprised if some of you spotted it right away. The key word in Barton's chart is "unwed". The CDC's chart represents the overall teen pregnancy rate, Barton's data represents only the unwed subset. So, there it is. The upward trend on Barton's chart is not due to any increase in the teen birth rate. That was actually declining. What it reflects is a decrease of teen marriage.

Some interesting little tidbits from the CDC's document:

"The birth rate for U.S. teenagers fell 9 percent from 2009 to 2010, to 34.3, the lowest level ever reported in the seven decades for which a consistent series of rates is available (1,3) (Figure 1)."

"Birth rates fell from 2009 to 2010 for teenagers in age groups 10–14, 15–17, and 18–19. The rate for the youngest teenagers was a record low for the United States (0.4)."

"Fewer babies were born to teenagers in 2010 than in any year since the mid-1940s."

That last one's especially remarkable. It's not talking about the teen birth rate, but the absolute number of teen births with no adjustment for population growth.

Changed Change Reason Date
DumpsterFire Great work, Willie! January 16, 2013, 11:59:50 PM