Gilbert, Arizona, school district to abort page from biology textbook ...

Posted 18 November 2014 by Matt Young

... because it (gasp!) uses the word, "abortion." But wait -- there is a glimmer of hope: The new superintendent, who was ordered to offer a plan for redacting the textbooks, says that the books comply with the law already and instead plans to hold a public discussion. Meanwhile, as a service to the affected high-school students, Rachel Maddow has posted the offending page on a blog, ArizonaHonorsBiology.com, which her show apparently owns. If you are curious or have a prurient interest, you may also see the verso of The Page, as well as several other pages on human reproduction. For the record, the book is Reece, et al., Biology: Concepts and Connections.

35 Comments

DavidK · 19 November 2014

Yes, I heard the first story on Maddow's show, and a recap tonight. What she also said was in the latest school board elections, these wacko tea party members have been ousted from the board. Though other conservatives were elected, apparently they're not as crazy as the TP group. And yes, the books may indeed be saved from the book burning far right.

stevaroni · 19 November 2014

Rachel Maddow has posted the offending page on a blog

Actually... that little flowchart on page 982 is probably the most concise comparison of the various contraception methods that I've ever seen. It seems to be missing an IUD, though. I suppose because nobody is really certain how those work. Be that as it may, it seems like it might be an awfully good thing that some concise information about birth control might be available to the average teenager. I'm willing to place a heavy bet that over the years there have been quite a few parents of teenage girls in Gilbert that at belatedly realized that "total ignorance" was, in hindsight, not such an awfully good plan.

eric · 19 November 2014

stevaroni said: it seems like it might be an awfully good thing that some concise information about birth control might be available to the average teenager.

That depends on your social goal. Is it to improve the health & safety of teens, or is it to ensure that dirty dirty sluts are forced to reap what they sow?

DS · 19 November 2014

Well if the book advocates abortion, that's one thing. If it merely presents information on birth control, (as appears to be the case based on this one page), that's another thing altogether. The book actually states that abstinence is the only effective method of birth control. What more do these people want? The point is that if people go around censoring any part of any textbook that they don't like, evolution will be next, then history, then germ theory, then the earth going around the sun, then the earth being round, etc., etc. etc. Where will it end?

If the information in the book is factually correct and does not advocate any particular action, what possible legitimate objection could be raised? Do these guys honestly think that they can prevent young people from accessing any information they want about anything? Maybe one hundred ears ago that would have worked, but not anymore. For now, it appears that all they will accomplish is to give the book publicity and to draw attention to this source of information.

DS · 19 November 2014

The page doesn't actually talk about abortion. The only time the term is even used is in regard to RU486 which is not a clinical abortion but a "morning after" pill. Besides, if they cut out the page, what about the information on the back of the page? Maybe it details satanic rituals. Maybe that is secretly what they are really trying to get rid of. Or maybe they just don't like the fact that the book specifically states that the rhythm method is unreliable. Don't want people to find that out now do we?

scienceavenger · 19 November 2014

DavidK said: What she also said was in the latest school board elections, these wacko tea party members have been ousted from the board. Though other conservatives were elected, apparently they're not as crazy as the TP group. And yes, the books may indeed be saved from the book burning far right.

This seems the consistent history with such people. They must get elected on stealth, and then once revealed, even other conservatives want no part of them. A glimmer of hope...

DS said: The book actually states that abstinence is the only effective method of birth control.

Which is a load of crap, as I'm sure you know, and as the high birthrate of teens in states that push it attest. It's like saying "not drinking" is the only effective method of curing alcoholism.

TomS · 19 November 2014

DS said: If the information in the book is factually correct and does not advocate any particular action, what possible legitimate objection could be raised? Do these guys honestly think that they can prevent young people from accessing any information they want about anything? Maybe one hundred ears ago that would have worked, but not anymore. For now, it appears that all they will accomplish is to give the book publicity and to draw attention to this source of information.

"A hundred years ago", there was a market for information, and, when there is a market, there are suppliers. Whether accurate, or (largely, vastly, horribly so) not. BTW, OT - has there been a (welcome) change, and I thank whoever is responsible - I was warned that I was not signed in?

ksplawn · 19 November 2014

DavidK said: And yes, the books may indeed be saved from the book burning far right.

It really has come to that, hasn't it? One could say they're taking a page out of the more openly fascist elements of history.

scienceavenger said:
DS said: The book actually states that abstinence is the only effective method of birth control.
Which is a load of crap, as I'm sure you know, and as the high birthrate of teens in states that push it attest. It's like saying "not drinking" is the only effective method of curing alcoholism.

Actually the book said that "Complete abstinence (avoiding intercourse) is the only totally effective method of birth control," which is not a load of crap. Most of those teens didn't get pregnant while practicing abstinence. It's just an extremely difficult method to put into practice; unfortunately, sometimes the practice is even broken against a woman's will. That's why comprehensive sex education is absolutely necessary.

eric · 19 November 2014

ksplawn said: Actually the book said that "Complete abstinence (avoiding intercourse) is the only totally effective method of birth control," which is not a load of crap. Most of those teens didn't get pregnant while practicing abstinence. It's just an extremely difficult method to put into practice; unfortunately, sometimes the practice is even broken against a woman's will. That's why comprehensive sex education is absolutely necessary.

While I agree their statements are not a load of crap, I think they are still 'sinning by omission.' Instead of making qualitative statements in the text, the right way to treat it would've been to directly compare the 'abstinence method' to other methods by adding it to Table 27.8, and showing the percent of women who say they practice abstinence and then get pregnant. (I'm going to make a SWAG here and guess that the numbers would be 0 in the first column and about 5 in the second...IOW, it has a failure rate due to 'incorrect use' about equal to BC.) But they don't do that. They don't do a direct comparison, and they don't show kids and parents in an easily understood form that while kids who 'practice abstinence' in theory have a zero chance of getting pregnant, in practice its a non-zero chance because, just like any other form of birth control, kids often don't practice this method "correctly." I take serious issue with that. If you're going to distinguish between 'correct use' and 'typically' for other pregnancy-avoidance practices, then show those same numbers for abstinence. If you don't, its exceptional treatment and in this case that exceptional treatment is geared towards actively and intentionally hiding the problems with the abstinence strategy...and that is miseducation.

Jim Thomerson · 19 November 2014

Perhaps we are seeing a very clever conspiracy to get the offending pages much more widely read than if there had been no controversy. In any case, that has been the result.

Just Bob · 19 November 2014

scienceavenger said:
DS said: The book actually states that abstinence is the only effective method of birth control.
Which is a load of crap, as I'm sure you know, and as the high birthrate of teens in states that push it attest. It's like saying "not drinking" is the only effective method of curing alcoholism.

Well, it works if you, you know, actually ABSTAIN. The problem is, many kids don't (and signing pledges doesn't seem to deter them). If 'abstinence' is the only method available to kids, whether through restriction to access or ignorance (as this page removal seems to be aimed at), then it will fail when kids fail to abstain. Which they do. And will.

Just Bob · 19 November 2014

DS said: The page doesn't actually talk about abortion. The only time the term is even used is in regard to RU486 which is not a clinical abortion but a "morning after" pill.

I think their problem is that they see it as telling kids HOW they can get an abortion: take an RU486. This whole nonsense reminds me of years ago when Mel & Norma Gabler (extreme textbook censors) appeared on PBS Nightly News complaining about some health book or other talked about masturbation and how women could do it with a cucumber. They didn't want kids to know about things like that. So they used their time on national TV to describe the kind of thing that they didn't want in books, where kids might see it.

Just Bob · 19 November 2014

eric said:
stevaroni said: it seems like it might be an awfully good thing that some concise information about birth control might be available to the average teenager.
That depends on your social goal. Is it to ... ensure that dirty dirty sluts are forced to reap what they sow?

Of course it is. And to ensure that the children grow up knowing that they are the punishment inflicted on their dirty slut mothers.

eric · 19 November 2014

Just Bob said: Well, it works if you, you know, actually ABSTAIN. The problem is, many kids don't.

Yup. The most honest way to show that is to list it in table 27.8 as a birth control method, put a 0 in the first column, and then report the observed rate of 'falling off the wagon' pregnancies in the second column. It is incredible to me that parents would be resistant to even having such information. Yes he/she is your special little angel and no statistics is going to replace what you know about your unique kid...but even so, don't you want to know the rate at which kids who claim they are abstinent, get pregnant (or get girls pregnant)?

nobodythatmatters · 19 November 2014

ksplawn said:
DavidK said: And yes, the books may indeed be saved from the book burning far right.
It really has come to that, hasn't it? One could say they're taking a page out of the more openly fascist elements of history.
scienceavenger said:
DS said: The book actually states that abstinence is the only effective method of birth control.
Which is a load of crap, as I'm sure you know, and as the high birthrate of teens in states that push it attest. It's like saying "not drinking" is the only effective method of curing alcoholism.
Actually the book said that "Complete abstinence (avoiding intercourse) is the only totally effective method of birth control," which is not a load of crap. Most of those teens didn't get pregnant while practicing abstinence. It's just an extremely difficult method to put into practice; unfortunately, sometimes the practice is even broken against a woman's will. That's why comprehensive sex education is absolutely necessary.

Maybe that is the real part they have a problem with. The assertion that complete abstinence is a totally effective method of birth control denies the possibility of immaculate conception, which denies the divinity of jesus.

DS · 19 November 2014

eric said: While I agree their statements are not a load of crap, I think they are still 'sinning by omission.' Instead of making qualitative statements in the text, the right way to treat it would've been to directly compare the 'abstinence method' to other methods by adding it to Table 27.8, and showing the percent of women who say they practice abstinence and then get pregnant. (I'm going to make a SWAG here and guess that the numbers would be 0 in the first column and about 5 in the second...IOW, it has a failure rate due to 'incorrect use' about equal to BC.) But they don't do that. They don't do a direct comparison, and they don't show kids and parents in an easily understood form that while kids who 'practice abstinence' in theory have a zero chance of getting pregnant, in practice its a non-zero chance because, just like any other form of birth control, kids often don't practice this method "correctly." I take serious issue with that. If you're going to distinguish between 'correct use' and 'typically' for other pregnancy-avoidance practices, then show those same numbers for abstinence. If you don't, its exceptional treatment and in this case that exceptional treatment is geared towards actively and intentionally hiding the problems with the abstinence strategy...and that is miseducation.

Well my point was that the authors seem to have bent over backwards to be as unobjectionable as possible already and it didn't work. But you are absolutely correct, in all fairness the presentation of the data should at least be consistent.

DS · 19 November 2014

Just Bob said:
DS said: The page doesn't actually talk about abortion. The only time the term is even used is in regard to RU486 which is not a clinical abortion but a "morning after" pill.
I think their problem is that they see it as telling kids HOW they can get an abortion: take an RU486. This whole nonsense reminds me of years ago when Mel & Norma Gabler (extreme textbook censors) appeared on PBS Nightly News complaining about some health book or other talked about masturbation and how women could do it with a cucumber. They didn't want kids to know about things like that. So they used their time on national TV to describe the kind of thing that they didn't want in books, where kids might see it.

Before all this stink the kids would have just ignored that chapter when they didn't do their homework as usual. Now, do they really think that there is one single kid who isn't going to read that page? Good job guys.

Matt Young · 19 November 2014

Why do you suppose that Table 27.8 does not include IUD's? They are only hinted at in the text. It is very difficult to use them incorrectly -- typically -- so I presume they are the most effective in practice.

eric · 19 November 2014

Matt Young said: Why do you suppose that Table 27.8 does not include IUD's? They are only hinted at in the text. It is very difficult to use them incorrectly -- typically -- so I presume they are the most effective in practice.

A brief googling brought up this article on the subject of IUD use and understanding. It doesn't answer the 'why not in textbooks' question directly, but I can see how the factors they cite might lead to textbook authors leaving it out - because the authors themselves didn't know much about it, because the authors became experts at a time when IUDs were essentially unavailable to the US market, or perhaps because only a small minority of US women today use it and they wanted to spend textbook inches discussing those methods most commonly used by teens.

TomS · 19 November 2014

I wonder how many kids when they get to this part of the book wish that they had learned more math and reading skills. Like how to read a table of numbers.

eric · 19 November 2014

Matt Young said: It is very difficult to use them [IUDs] incorrectly -- typically -- so I presume they are the most effective in practice.

I would also have expected the same thing for vasectomies. After a brief thought, what I think may be the answer springs to mind: the (slight) difference is associated with men having sex very soon after the surgery, before the doctor 'clears them for takeoff.' But pretending we don't know that for the moment, it is amusing to try and think about how 'typical' use of vasectomy differs from 'correct' use. Are they not guaranteed to work in some specific position? In a VW bug? After drinking? Enquiring minds want to know how I ought to use a vasectomy 'correctly.' :)

Matt Young · 19 November 2014

Enquiring minds want to know how I ought to use a vasectomy âcorrectly.â

Interesting - tubal ligation also has different numbers for correct and typical uses. What gives?

scienceavenger · 19 November 2014

ksplawn said: Actually the book said that "Complete abstinence (avoiding intercourse) is the only totally effective method of birth control," which is not a load of crap. Most of those teens didn't get pregnant while practicing abstinence. It's just an extremely difficult method to put into practice; unfortunately, sometimes the practice is even broken against a woman's will.

But don't you see you just contradicted the claim that its totally effective? Rape is just one way it fails. Weakness of will is another. Intoxicated change of mind, the list goes on. "This method works if practiced perfectly" reduces the claim to meaningless tautology. Along that same line of thought, the only totally effective way to bat 1.000 is to always hit the ball, or the only effective way to remain on the wagon is to abstain from drinking. Ask any alcoholic how effective that is.

RPST · 19 November 2014

eric said:
Matt Young said: It is very difficult to use them [IUDs] incorrectly -- typically -- so I presume they are the most effective in practice.
I would also have expected the same thing for vasectomies. After a brief thought, what I think may be the answer springs to mind: the (slight) difference is associated with men having sex very soon after the surgery, before the doctor 'clears them for takeoff.' But pretending we don't know that for the moment, it is amusing to try and think about how 'typical' use of vasectomy differs from 'correct' use. Are they not guaranteed to work in some specific position? In a VW bug? After drinking? Enquiring minds want to know how I ought to use a vasectomy 'correctly.' :)

By having its efficacy checked before proceeding with unprotected sex, as one example. I never returned to have my fertility checked after my procedure and so, when my wife became pregnant seven years later, it may have been due to this negligence. Its far more likely that it was effective at first but then "reducted," but I didn't use my vasectomy correctly and may have caused it to fail--much as if I had used a condom correctly, but without noticing it was damaged.

ksplawn · 19 November 2014

scienceavenger said: But don't you see you just contradicted the claim that its totally effective?

It's totally effective as long as it's in place. Arguably, once you're not longer being abstinent you're not using it as a birth control method.

"This method works if practiced perfectly" reduces the claim to meaningless tautology.

It's not really different from condoms, IUDs, the pill, etc. The effectiveness of ANY method of birth control depends more on correct and consistent application/use than anything else. You can flub condom usage just as you can "fall off the wagon" on abstinence. Assuming proper and consistent usage, all the others have a success rate that's slightly less than 100%. Used correctly (and not defeated by e.g. sexual assault), abstinence really is about 100% effective. I don't think the batting analogy holds up because abstinence is one of those Do Or Do Not, There Is No Try approaches which is why it doesn't always work out. Given how unreasonable an expectation that is, the other forms of contraception should be explained and made available. The better educated people are on all kinds of contraceptives, the safer and more reliable each option becomes in the real world.

Sylvilagus · 19 November 2014

nobodythatmatters said:
ksplawn said:
DavidK said: And yes, the books may indeed be saved from the book burning far right.
It really has come to that, hasn't it? One could say they're taking a page out of the more openly fascist elements of history.
scienceavenger said:
DS said: The book actually states that abstinence is the only effective method of birth control.
Which is a load of crap, as I'm sure you know, and as the high birthrate of teens in states that push it attest. It's like saying "not drinking" is the only effective method of curing alcoholism.
Actually the book said that "Complete abstinence (avoiding intercourse) is the only totally effective method of birth control," which is not a load of crap. Most of those teens didn't get pregnant while practicing abstinence. It's just an extremely difficult method to put into practice; unfortunately, sometimes the practice is even broken against a woman's will. That's why comprehensive sex education is absolutely necessary.
Maybe that is the real part they have a problem with. The assertion that complete abstinence is a totally effective method of birth control denies the possibility of immaculate conception, which denies the divinity of jesus.

It denies virgin birth, not immaculate conception. Two different things altogether.

Bobsie · 19 November 2014

Just Bob said:Well, it works if you, you know, actually ABSTAIN.

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of "abstain" is.

Charley Horse · 19 November 2014

RPST said:
eric said:
Matt Young said: It is very difficult to use them [IUDs] incorrectly -- typically -- so I presume they are the most effective in practice.
I would also have expected the same thing for vasectomies. After a brief thought, what I think may be the answer springs to mind: the (slight) difference is associated with men having sex very soon after the surgery, before the doctor 'clears them for takeoff.' But pretending we don't know that for the moment, it is amusing to try and think about how 'typical' use of vasectomy differs from 'correct' use. Are they not guaranteed to work in some specific position? In a VW bug? After drinking? Enquiring minds want to know how I ought to use a vasectomy 'correctly.' :)
By having its efficacy checked before proceeding with unprotected sex, as one example. I never returned to have my fertility checked after my procedure and so, when my wife became pregnant seven years later, it may have been due to this negligence. Its far more likely that it was effective at first but then "reducted," but I didn't use my vasectomy correctly and may have caused it to fail--much as if I had used a condom correctly, but without noticing it was damaged.

I don't know whether to laugh or not...RPST, give me another clue.

eric · 20 November 2014

ksplawn said: It's not really different from condoms, IUDs, the pill, etc. The effectiveness of ANY method of birth control depends more on correct and consistent application/use than anything else. You can flub condom usage just as you can "fall off the wagon" on abstinence.

I agree. And putting on my 'pragmatic policy maker' hat, I care very much about the rate of failure of the method to achieve the desired result, regardless of whether the failures come from "well I really want to use this condom right, but we're in a rush, so here goes..." or "well I promised myself I wouldn't, but just this once I will..." Whatever philosophical distinction there may be between those two outcomes, from a public health perspective they can both be considered 'failures of the method.' Switching to my pragmatic parent hat, information on falling-off-the-wagon rates is also very important for how I might relate to my kid. Imagine two cases, one in which the abstinence entries in table 27.8 would be 0,1, and another in which the abstinence entries in table 27.8 are 0,20. If I see the former and my kid tells me they are choosing to remain abstinent (and I believe them), then I will probably not push or force them to carry or use a form of birth control. Given that failure rate, forcing or pushing some form of birth control or prohylaxis on them does not gain me much, it's a switch from one strategy to another which is just as likely (or more likely) to fail. But if I see the latter, I'm not taking "I don't need to worry about it, I'll just remain abstinent" as an acceptable answer. If the rates are 0,20, then we're going to have some long talks about BC. About carrying and using condoms. And I may push my kid to always have some form of protection or BC at hand, because even if I think they are the most sincerely abstinent teen in the world now while we're talking, with a 0,20 rate I simply can't trust that their choice is going to work out the way they want it to.

harold · 20 November 2014

scienceavenger said:
ksplawn said: Actually the book said that "Complete abstinence (avoiding intercourse) is the only totally effective method of birth control," which is not a load of crap. Most of those teens didn't get pregnant while practicing abstinence. It's just an extremely difficult method to put into practice; unfortunately, sometimes the practice is even broken against a woman's will.
But don't you see you just contradicted the claim that its totally effective? Rape is just one way it fails. Weakness of will is another. Intoxicated change of mind, the list goes on. "This method works if practiced perfectly" reduces the claim to meaningless tautology. Along that same line of thought, the only totally effective way to bat 1.000 is to always hit the ball, or the only effective way to remain on the wagon is to abstain from drinking. Ask any alcoholic how effective that is.

Technically those are failures of abstinence (as a corollary, to be abstinent, you have to get other people to agree not to rape you). The bottom line is that, while successful abstinence is more or less 100% effective, "abstinence only" is a very poor model for sex education, because empirically, it doesn't lead to adequate levels of abstinence. I don't know whether red state teenagers have sex about as often as other teenagers and get pregnant more often, have sex less often but get pregnant more often because they don't use birth control, or maybe even have sex more often. (And the latter is possible because making something "forbidden" and "secret" could have that effect on teenagers.) I do know that where abstinence only sex education models are in place, teenagers get pregnant more often, than where appropriate sex education models are in place. "Abstinence only" sex education is to cancelling sex education outright as ID is to "creation science". What fundamentalist right wingers actually want to do is to cancel sex education outright. That won't fly, so they find a way censor and distort. The only difference is that so far, the ID scam didn't work, and got thrown out in court, but the "abstinence only" scam is going strong.

harold · 20 November 2014

Technically those are failures of abstinence (as a corollary, to be abstinent, you have to get other people to agree not to rape you).

This was intended as a sardonic reference to the ineffective and judgmental nature of programs that preach "abstinence". Any reference to the topic of rape that seems inappropriately dismissive or cavalier is offensive. That wasn't my intent here.

Rolf · 21 November 2014

Ah, abstinence, reminds me of the (anecdote, but most likely 'true' in some sort of way) guy who wrote at one of the blank pages at the back of his Bible "Today I masturbated for the last time in my life" only to add another similar entry some days later until there was no more blank space left.

Henry J · 21 November 2014

Remember the old saying - abstinence makes the heart grow fonder!

What?

Oh.

phhht · 21 November 2014

Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder! -- Hugh Drummond

Henry J · 15 January 2015

Kind of like "beauty is in the eye of the beer holder"?