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.

"Cohabitation is no place for children" writes nationally-syndicated columnist Michael Gerson.

In a piece that appeared yesterday in the Washington Post, Gerson makes the case that Brad Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, and others have made. Namely, children do best in two-parent, stable, married families. For Gerson, Wilcox, and many others, they would underscore the married part.

Let's take his argument in bites.

• Being a 20-something at present is different in important ways from previous decades.
• Two markers of this change are earlier sexual activity and later age of marriage.
• In the absence of what Brad Wilcox calls the traditional "courtship narrative"--dating, marriage, children--many young people have adopted a different life choice: cohabitation.
• Gerson concedes that the link between sex and marriage is a thing of the past. However, he believes that the connection between marriage and having children remains absolutely essential.

A gross oversimplification to be sure, but you get the point. Gerson also notes:

• Marriage is "the most effective institution to bind two parents for a long period in the common enterprise of marriage."
• Age of marriage matters too---Gerson calls the early to mid-20s the "marital sweet spot" for marital longevity and happiness.
• Citing research by Wilcox, Gerson says "serial cohabitation trains people for divorce...cohabitation by engaged couples seems to have no adverse effect on eventual marriage."

That's a lot to chew on. We are anxious to hear what you think. Put you comment shoes on and get busy.

It was the weirdest "talk" we had ever had.

My mother had always been very open and honest with me when I had questions about sex and relationships, but this just took the cake. So what was this strange piece of unsolicited advice I received as we drove through my high school boyfriend's neighborhood?

"I know you really love him, but don't marry him. It's okay to have sex with him if you think that's the right thing to do."

Maybe she saw the gleam in my angst-y, seventeen-year-old eyes as we drove past his house on the way home from school that day. Maybe she remembered what it was like to be a teenager in love. Maybe she and her sisters had visited a spirit guide on their annual girls' night out earlier that year who told her that her youngest daughter would marry before the age of 20 (true story). Whatever it was - and I'm assuming it's probably a combination of all three of these factors - this was a message she delivered with the same urgency and conviction as the information she had been giving me about my body and birth control, the realities of raising kids, and all the other important stuff for my entire life.

To the extent that the National Campaign has a tag line it is this lovely bon mot: "Responsible Behavior. Responsible Policies." That is, if we are to make true and lasting progress in reducing teen and unplanned pregnancy it will take a heaping helping of both responsible behavior on the part of individuals and responsible policies in both the public and private sectors.

The emphasis today is on the former. The role of personal responsibility in pregnancy planning and prevention is examined in some detail in a new book out today, Rethinking Responsibility: Reflections on Sex and Accountability. Released by The National Campaign, the volume includes 29 essays written by leaders in their respective fields. Contributors include:

• Leading media voices, such as syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne, radio talk show host Tom Joyner, and Will Saletan, National Correspondent, Slate.

• Leaders of national organizations, such as Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Janet Murguía, President and CEO of the National Council of LaRaza, and Roland Warren, President of the National Fatherhood Initiative.

• Religious leaders and thinkers such as Jim Wallis, President and CEO of Sojourners, Rev. Samuel Rodriquez, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Fred Riley, Commissioner, LDS Family Services, Rev. Sterling Lands, Senior Pastor, Greater Calvary Baptist Church in Austin, TX, and Rev. Debra Haffner, Co-Founder and Executive Director, the Religious Institute.

• Individuals who have worked with or written extensively on teens and young adults, such as Michael Carrera, Director, The Children's Aid Society Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, Elayne Bennett, President and Founder, Best Friends Foundation, Laura Sessions Stepp, Senior Media Fellow at The National Campaign, and Kay Hymowitz, the Manhattan Institute.

• Twenty-somethings, such as author Amber Madison and Cassandra Debenedetto, Founder, Anscobe Society, Princeton University.

We do hope that--in some modest way--these essays will be both thought-provoking and will help foster a national discussions about what personal responsibility means vis-a-vis pregnancy planning and family formation.

We also hope that you will take the opportunity to tell us what you think about the essays--don't worry, there's something in there for everyone to hate--or to simply tell us what you think about personal responsibility. Don't be shy, we really do want to hear from you.