.bmp)
.bmp)
To be fair, the article doesn’t say how many of those teens were actually underage but I’m willing to bet that those stats reflect a huge number of juvenile girls who gave birth:There were 52,770 babies born to teen moms in California in 2006, the most recent year available, for a rate of 37.8 births per 1,000 teens. That was a small increase over the previous year’s rate of 37.2 births per 1,000, but it was remarkable for ending a streak of declining rates that the state’s public health officials had pointed to with great pride.In San Francisco, 288 babies were born to teen moms in 2006, for a rate of 18.9 per 1,000 teens.California’s teen birthrate is still well below the peak of 70.9 births per 1,000 in 1991, and it also is below the national average today of 41.9 births per 1,000 teens. But public health officials throughout the Bay Area said part of the blame for the sudden increase statewide is complacency among themselves.
I wonder how many of the children (mothers and/or babies) were seized by Child Protective Services? I mean, if some - probably many - of those teen births were to underage girls, there must have been some sort of illegal or immoral conduct somewhere along the road, from statutory rape to parental neglect, wouldn’t you think? And I’m sure much of it was investigated, but I doubt there was a roundup like we saw in Texas recently. Why?Because if there was abuse suspected then each case was investigated individually, that’s why. Nobody came into a neighborhood and just started dragging people from their homes, putting them on transports, and taking them away until it was decided at some future time if anything unlawful had occurred, that’s why.Interesting numbers. You can decide for yourselves if the right thing was done - in either case.
By Pilgrim
As in the days of Noah.....
