Teen pregnancies at 30-year low

By Lisa Anderson |Chicago Tribune correspondent

NEW YORK — News of a cluster of at least 17 pregnant teenagers at a Massachusetts high school recently made headlines around the world, but it came at a time when teen pregnancies and abortions in the United States actually are at their lowest points in 30 years.

Pregnancies — whether they end in birth, miscarriage or abortion — among women age 15 to 19 dropped to 72.2 per 1,000 women in 2004, down from a peak of 117 per 1,000 women in 1990, according to the latest data compiled by New York's Guttmacher Institute, which focuses on reproductive health research, policy analysis and education. While some 700,000 women age 15 to 19 become pregnant every year, the rate has declined 36 percent since it peaked in 1990.

The rate of abortions among teens also plummeted, to 19.8 per 1,000 women in 2004 from a high of 43.5 per 1,000 in 1988.

That's the good news.

The not-so-good news: The pregnancies at Gloucester High School on the Massachusetts coast spotlight a potentially bigger problem. Despite decades of improvement and for reasons yet unknown, there is statistical evidence that the drop in pregnancy rates, the age of first sexual activity and contraceptive use among teens stalled after 2001.

The exception may be in the teen birthrate. After a 14-year decline, the birthrate, meaning the number of live births, among women age 15 to 19 rose 3 percent in 2006 to 41.9 per 1,000 women from 40.5 per 1,000 women in 2005, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Until more data are compiled, it is unclear whether the 2006 uptick in births was an isolated blip or the harbinger of a more significant and negative change on the teen reproductive landscape, according to David Landry, a senior research associate at the Guttmacher Institute.

At this point it appears likely that the unusual number of pregnant teens in Gloucester, an old whaling town depicted in the 2000 film "The Perfect Storm," is an aberration. Time magazine's report that the girls made a "pact" to deliberately become pregnant remains in dispute. Such a pact was denied by Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk; by Lindsey Oliver, one of the pregnant students, who appeared on ABC's "Good Morning America"; and in the Gloucester Daily Times by two other student mothers. In a statement issued Thursday, high school Principal Joseph Sullivan said he could not recall using the term "pact" in his interview with Time.

U.S. leads in teen births

The U.S. still leads developed nations in the rate of pregnancies, births and abortions among teenage mothers, but it has whittled the numbers dramatically through a combination of greater accessibility to and use of contraception, the tendency of teens to delay sexual activity longer than they did in the past, and education programs, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Nonetheless, the Gloucester cases raise a question about why, in a time when most sexually active teens use contraception, some 17 young women became pregnant.

"Pact or no pact, what seems to be not in dispute is that the number of pregnant girls in this particular high school has tripled in one year's time," said Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a Washington-based private, non-partisan and non-profit research group.

Some observers indicted the glamorization of pregnancy out of wedlock in popular culture, citing the recent pregnancy of 17-year-old actress Jamie Lynn Spears, as well as such popular films as "Juno" and "Knocked Up."

"The fact of the matter would be you'd have to be pretty Pollyanna-ish to think the popular culture doesn't shape the social agenda for kids," Albert said. "On the other hand, over the past couple of decades we have seen extraordinary progress. Teens have become more responsible" despite such popular culture influences, he said.

Others, including Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, blamed the Gloucester situation on the availability of a free day-care center at the high school and comprehensive sex education, which includes information about contraception and abortion, as opposed to the abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs funded by the federal government.

'Not ideological question'

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, thought it unlikely that on-site day-care would prompt a student to get pregnant. It is more likely, she said, that the government's sole emphasis on and funding for abstinence-only programs over the past decade has contributed to the stall in progress.

"This is not an ideological question. You have to look at the data, and the data says abstinence-only has been a complete failure and a waste of money," Richards said.

Several studies, including a nine-year study by Mathematica Policy Research mandated by Congress and released last year, concluded that students in abstinence-only programs were no more likely to delay sexual activity, have fewer sexual partners or use contraception than students in comprehensive sex education programs. Studies also have found that students receiving comprehensive sex education were no more likely to have sex than those in abstinence-only programs.

lbanderson@tribune.com

Original here

US handgun ban challenge spreads

The lawsuits say a ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment

A powerful pro-gun lobby group in the United States has filed legal challenges to handgun bans in San Francisco and Chicago.

The lawsuits come a day after the US Supreme Court ruled that a ban on the private possession of handguns in Washington DC was unconstitutional.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) says it wants similar bans in other states and cities overturned as well.

San Francisco's mayor says he plans to fight the NRA challenge.

The NRA lawsuit in San Francisco challenges the city's handgun ban in public housing; while in Chicago it challenges a ruling that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.

"In Washington DC, or in any state, whether you live in the housing projects or a high end suburb, you have the right to defend yourself and your family at home," said Chris Cox, from the NRA.

"These laws all deny that right."

Self-defence

The NRA is joined in the San Francisco suit by a gay man living in a government-owned housing development who says he needs a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city would "vigorously fight the NRA" and said the ban was good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing? I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority," Mr Newsom said.

The Supreme Court's ruling says that the constitution "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defence within the home".

The ruling enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and limits efforts to reduce their role in American life.

"The Supreme Court's decision was very encouraging, but it is just a start," NRA lawyer C D Michel said.

Original here

Robots ready to support soldiers on the battlefield

The US army has 1,700 Lockheed Martin Mule armed vehicles on order

At a desert test site in Texas, a street battle rages between US soldiers and local "insurgents". It's much like any other training exercise, except the soldiers are accompanied by a Mule (Multifunctional utility/Logistics & Equipment), an armed robot the size of a Humvee. The insurgents are positioned overlooking an intersection, a potential kill zone. The commander pulls out what looks like a PlayStation gamepad and the Mule is sent forward.

It presents a tougher challenge than the typical human soldier. The Mule can fire Javelin anti-tank missiles and has a turret-mounted machine gun, in addition to a digital "eyeball" with laser and heat-recognising target acquisition systems for aiming its weaponry. It is semi-autonomous, using GPS to navigate and localised perception to avoid trees and buildings. Its six wheels are on pneumatic legs, enabling it to climb over cars and barriers. Within minutes, the formerly deadly intersection is secure.

In just a few years' time, Lockheed Martin will start shipping the Mule to conflict hotspots. The US army has 1,700 on order for 2014. Fifteen Warfighter brigades will be equipped with the units, constituting a human to robot ratio of 29:1. Many will be used to clear minefields and carry gear, but half will be armed.

Unfriendly fire

Foster-Miller is another company fielding Armed Unmanned Ground Vehicles (AUGVs). Three Swords robots - tracked devices the size of a chest of drawers fitted with light machine guns - were tested in Iraq last summer by the US army. Apparently they were a success. The company is now promoting a heavily armed version called Maars, which, according to the brochure, can be programmed to recognise no-fire zones.

"The robot hasn't fallen over once," says David Byers, assistant program manager for the Mule. "In fact, last summer in testing, it was being used to pull soldiers out of a ditch."

In the past five years, military use of robotic systems has increased dramatically. The US army alone has fielded more than 6,000, many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are mostly used to conduct reconnaissance and disarm explosives, but there are regular news reports of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) performing missile strikes on insurgents they were monitoring (Launching a new kind of warfare, October 26, 2006).

"A lot has been learned from UAVs," says David Chang at West Point Military Academy. "UGVs are almost a decade behind UAVs in development and the technological challenges are far greater. Picture the difference for a UAV at 20,000 feet with no obstacles, and contrast that with a UGV, which must navigate in a dense urban environment. Sensors, fusion of information, detecting negative obstacles and real-time control is imperative to ensure safety."

Byers says autonomous convoy experiments with the Mule, where the UGVs follow each other in a flocking pattern, have been going well. "If the robot is lost, inertial navigation systems can put it out of harm's way. If the operator is taken out" - injured, killed or loses contact - "then control can be transferred to another authorised party." The reaction from the US army has been overwhelmingly positive.

The British army would not comment on whether it plans to use armed robots, but it already incorporates many of the unarmed models in its operations. Stefan Kern, one of the organisers of the European Land Robot Trial, says: "The German army is strongly investigating the use of unmanned ground vehicles, but armed robots are not the focus of this process. Short-term realisable robots are the major challenge at the moment."

No one thinks the robots will be completely autonomous any time soon. Chang says: "There are still challenges to be overcome in situational awareness and tactical behaviours. When these units are eventually fielded, there will always be a human in the loop to make the tough decisions." Byers adds: "There will always be a soldier involved, at least part-time."

Shooting second

In Australia, a company called Metal Storm has adapted the Packbot, produced by its American partner iRobot. The Packbot is usually used to gather sensory data on dangerous locations, and has been adapted into a semi-autonomous killing machine called the Warrior: it can automatically acquire and fire at three targets in approximately 1.2 seconds, selecting the appropriate munition for each target. Stationary versions of Metal Storm weapons are already used for perimeter security. According to Joe Dyer of iRobot, the real benefit of the system is its resilience. As he succinctly puts it: "A robot can shoot second."

Nimblett of Lockheed is confident that army units with robotic capabilities will have a clear advantage over their enemies. "Battlefield perception is much better with the robots," he says. "So the real advantage is in our situational understanding." You only have to watch the video of a Swords cruising into a potential combat zone, its gun turret rotating, to get the idea.

The only force outside the US with plans to deploy armed robots is the South Korean army. Last year Samsung announced it had built an armed sentry to be deployed at the border with its northern neighbour. The robot is essentially a machine gun turret, without the manoeuvreability or firepower of its US rivals. It doesn't interact with other battle units in the way the American, network-centric, models do.

For now, the US army has the clear advantage in armed robotics. The technology it is developing gives them and their allies the ability to outmanoeuvre and outgun enemy combatants with unprecedented ease.

But won't that be unfair on human opponents who don't have the US army's resources? Byers is dismissive: "I hope it is unfair. You should never go into a fair fight."

Original here