Today the CDC released a report on the effectiveness of various approaches to teen pregnancy and HIV/STI prevention. The study was conducted by the Task Force on Community Preventative Services, an independent panel convened by the CDC. The report suggests that such prevention programs are most effective when they combine a clear message on the benefits of postponing sexual activity with medically accurate and comprehensive information on how to reduce the risks of pregnancy and STIs among teens who are having sex--including the use of contraception.

Most of the American public gets this. It's common sense. Yet, today's results are debated by many, with some saying they prove comprehensive sex ed programs work and abstinence education programs don't, and some saying the reverse. This debate arises in part because comprehensive sex ed and abstinence-only actually encompass many, many different programs, with varying levels of effectiveness behind them. The debate is fueled as much by ideology as it is by science and will likely continue for some time to come.

For those practitioners, educators and parents looking for a common-sense way forward in the meantime, I suggest focusing on specific programs rather than programmatic approaches. Some, but not all, comprehensive programs have rigorous evidence of positive impacts. These have been well-summarized. To date, none of the abstinence-only curricula have this level of evidence behind them, although that is not to say there may not be some in the future.

Efforts have their best chance of success if they stay grounded in science, whatever the state of the science is at the time. It's also important to realize that, while the reproductive health education we provide our teens in school is critical, no curriculum, regardless of its underlying ideology, is a silver bullet. Communities that truly care about preventing teen pregnancy need a comprehensive approach that includes not only schools, but also parents, community leaders, the media, and teens themselves.

On September 17th, the journal Reproductive Health published an article, "Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States," on the relationship between teen birth rates and "religiosity" (level of religious affiliation) by state. The study found that the states with the highest religiosity also had the highest teen birth rates, even when controlling for income and abortion rates (the study also found that high religiosity correlated with lower income levels and lower likelihood of abortion). Predictably in this contentious field, there are already some who question the overall analytic approach of the study.

Even so, the speculation of the study's authors that "conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself" is worth contemplating. On a personal level (I'll leave the policy theorizing for Rachel Maddow), I've spoken to several of my colleagues from religious backgrounds about this study and they all echoed the theory offered by several blogs and articles--that teens from religious backgrounds are less likely than other teens to use contraception when they do have sex because they don't think it works, or because they feel that thinking about contraception would suggest premeditation and intention.

Normally, I would preface this with an explanatory statement, conveying the seriousness with which we approach our work (especially in the policy realm). But sometimes, you just have to stop and smell the roses. And by "smell the roses," I mean "laugh 'til it hurts at Stephen Colbert."

President Obama released his FY 2010 budget today and called for at least $164 million in funding for a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative. This includes competitive grants for evidence-based programs, research and evaluation, and an authorization for $50 million in new mandatory teen pregnancy prevention grants to states, tribes, and territories. The budget eliminates funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education and the mandatory Title V Abstinence Education program. Based on an initial reading of the budget, the National Campaign released the following statement:

"Regarding teen pregnancy, President Obama's budget is just right--it emphasizes good science, encourages research and innovation, and increases the overall investment in teen pregnancy prevention" said Sarah Brown, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

"During an economic downturn and at a time when the teen birth rate is on the rise after 14 straight years of decline, it is particularly important that public dollars be devoted to those interventions that have evidence of success. The President's budget does just that.

We also appreciate that 25% of what the President proposes in his budget is devoted to carefully testing innovative approaches to preventing teen pregnancy. If we are to make continued progress in preventing teen pregnancy and childbearing, it is clear that we will need fresh new approaches that, for example, help underserved populations and that employ new technology to reach young people. This will continue to expand the roster of effective approaches that states, tribes and communities can use to prevent too-early pregnancy and parenthood."

Please visit www.TheNationalCampaign.org for language from the President's budget, as well as related and relevant information and updates.

Big study came out about today about abstinence and virginity pledges. The headline is that teens who take virginity pledges (sometimes as part of an abstinence-only education program) are no less likely to have sex -- but they are much less likely to use protection when they do.

This nation has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on abstinence-only education, with barely a condom's width of proof that any of it is helping. So what makes this study different from all the others that have also questioned the efficacy of such pledges? For starters, this time they looked at teens who were quite similar to one another in numerous ways (attitudes about sex, religion, birth control, etc. -- also their parents' attitudes), and found that the big difference between those who promised to stay virgins until marriage and those who did not wasn't in the having sex department, it was in the having safe sex department.