Can we at least have a degree of socialism in our society?

kkitkat79

Just to be 100 per cent sure, are you people saying that all else equal lower demand will lead to higher prices? Based on ECON 101?

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

Just to be 100 per cent sure, are you people saying that all else equal lower demand will lead to higher prices? Based on ECON 101?

Yeppity.

kkitkat79

Remember, we said all else equal. In the following diagram demand curve D1 is lower than demand curve D2 meaning at each price point quantity demanded is lower. Which price is lower p1 or p2?

emmaaa

kkitkat79 said:

Remember, we said all else equal. In the following diagram demand curve D1 is lower than demand curve D2 meaning at each price point quantity demanded is lower. Which price is lower p1 or p2?

Are you purposely trying to be facetious? 

kkitkat79

@emmaaa, no, I am trying to understand what it is that you are arguing. You and @TrixieJess argued that it is ECON 101 that all else equal in a competitive industry with relatively low demand prices will be higher. I am an economist. I taught ECON 101. I'll be honest, I am very confused.

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

@emmaaa, no, I am trying to understand what it is that you are arguing. You and @TrixieJess argued that it is ECON 101 that all else equal in a competitive industry with relatively low demand prices will be higher. I am an economist. I taught ECON 101. I'll be honest, I am very confused.

We are ALL confused. Embrace it!

ETA: I guess what they say is true, those who can't do, teach!

chibiyui

TrixieJess said:

kkitkat79 said:

@emmaaa, no, I am trying to understand what it is that you are arguing. You and @TrixieJess argued that it is ECON 101 that all else equal in a competitive industry with relatively low demand prices will be higher. I am an economist. I taught ECON 101. I'll be honest, I am very confused.

We are ALL confused. Embrace it!

ETA: I guess what they say is true, those who can't do, teach!

I learned more from cows then Kitkat. http://news.bitofnews.com/the-world-economy-explained-with-just-two-cows/

TrixieJess

chibiyui said:

TrixieJess said:

kkitkat79 said:

@emmaaa, no, I am trying to understand what it is that you are arguing. You and @TrixieJess argued that it is ECON 101 that all else equal in a competitive industry with relatively low demand prices will be higher. I am an economist. I taught ECON 101. I'll be honest, I am very confused.

We are ALL confused. Embrace it!

ETA: I guess what they say is true, those who can't do, teach!

I learned more from cows then Kitkat. http://news.bitofnews.com/the-world-economy-explained-with-just-two-cows/

The cows rocked my world! I love it!

Cookie Pusher

kkitkat79 said:

@emmaaa, no, I am trying to understand what it is that you are arguing. You and @TrixieJess argued that it is ECON 101 that all else equal in a competitive industry with relatively low demand prices will be higher. I am an economist. I taught ECON 101. I'll be honest, I am very confused.

No wonder the world economy and higher education are so fucked...

lyndausvi

kkitkat79 said:

Just to be 100 per cent sure, are you people saying that all else equal lower demand will lead to higher prices? Based on ECON 101?

If all things were equal, no.   But all things are NOT equal.        

I felt comparing the food and drug industries ridiculous.  They are different.  One is needed by all living people.   Medications are not.    The food industry can work on a lower profit margin and still make more revenue because they have the volume that the pharmaceutical industry does not 

MyNameIsNot

lyndausvi said:

kkitkat79 said:

Just to be 100 per cent sure, are you people saying that all else equal lower demand will lead to higher prices? Based on ECON 101?

If all things were equal, no.   But all things are NOT equal.        

I felt comparing the food and drug industries ridiculous.  They are different.  One is needed by all living people.   Medications are not.    The food industry can work on a lower profit margin and still make more revenue because they have the volume that the pharmaceutical industry does not 

Andplusalso, the food (ag) industry is heavily subsidized by government. It's a weird industry that you can't really compare to much of anything. 

huskypuppy14

Orphan drugs are going to cost more money in the market than a vaccine that everyone wants. 
If a disease only effects a million people, the companies can't make any money if they sell it at a small price, because the demand is low. And it's not just the cost to make the drug. Once all the R&D is completed on that particular medicine, the cost to manufacture it might be X, but add in all the years of R&D (which you might not recoup everything), that could be Y. So Z is the profit, that might only be a little more than Y.  Everyone needs food, so the milk companies might only make a couple cents per gallon. A cure might cost over a million dollars for a one time treatment.

And you teach and know everything don't you. Stop trolling.

[Deleted User]

Update from Fiance- I misunderstood / misheard / misremembered a 2 year old conversation.  There is no known cure for most cancers; he was referring to treatments being outrageously expensive / unaffordable.  He did say Guardasil (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) was technically a cure but there's obviously a LOT of controversy around that- we've all read/seen the news.

The DCA one  (it's not CAD as I thought it could have been) he said has only been tested on animals and human cells to the best of his knowledge; no known human trials that he's heard about (I did mention this after my first post).

Yes I know how many people are working toward a cure for cancer; A guy I wnet to HS with and a friend from college with PhDs are scientists working on discovering a cure.

Yes, it is a good thing Pharmacy Techs aren't responsible for health care- did I say they were? 

Pharma greed is still real, despite my mis-hearing / -understanding / -remembering about cancer treatments.

Carry on.

monkeysip

kitkat's right... all other things equal, lower demand means LOWER prices, not higher prices.

But I agree that we can't treat medication the same as we do most consumer goods.

PrettyGirlLost

FeeleyToBe said:

Update from Fiance- I misunderstood / misheard / misremembered a 2 year old conversation.  There is no known cure for most cancers; he was referring to treatments being outrageously expensive / unaffordable.  He did say Guardasil (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) was technically a cure but there's obviously a LOT of controversy around that- we've all read/seen the news.  The controversy surrounding Gardasil has nothing to do with how well it works or whether or not it actually is a cure for cervical cancer. . . it is.  It grants immunity from the most common strains of the HPV virus which are known to cause cervical cancer.  The controversy has to do with parents' fear that this vaccination will somehow cause an increase in their children's sexual activity by virtue of the fact that they have been vaccinated.

The DCA one  (it's not CAD as I thought it could have been) he said has only been tested on animals and human cells to the best of his knowledge; no known human trials that he's heard about (I did mention this after my first post).

Yes I know how many people are working toward a cure for cancer; A guy I wnet to HS with and a friend from college with PhDs are scientists working on discovering a cure.  Yeah a lot of us are working on better treatments. . . it's been my field for over a decade.

Yes, it is a good thing Pharmacy Techs aren't responsible for health care- did I say they were? 

Pharma greed is still real, despite my mis-hearing / -understanding / -remembering about cancer treatments.

Carry on.

[Deleted User]

PrettyGirlLost said:

FeeleyToBe said:

Update from Fiance- I misunderstood / misheard / misremembered a 2 year old conversation.  There is no known cure for most cancers; he was referring to treatments being outrageously expensive / unaffordable.  He did say Guardasil (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) was technically a cure but there's obviously a LOT of controversy around that- we've all read/seen the news.  The controversy surrounding Gardasil has nothing to do with how well it works or whether or not it actually is a cure for cervical cancer. . . it is.  It grants immunity from the most common strains of the HPV virus which are known to cause cervical cancer.  The controversy has to do with parents' fear that this vaccination will somehow cause an increase in their children's sexual activity by virtue of the fact that they have been vaccinated.

The DCA one  (it's not CAD as I thought it could have been) he said has only been tested on animals and human cells to the best of his knowledge; no known human trials that he's heard about (I did mention this after my first post).

Yes I know how many people are working toward a cure for cancer; A guy I wnet to HS with and a friend from college with PhDs are scientists working on discovering a cure.  Yeah a lot of us are working on better treatments. . . it's been my field for over a decade.

Yes, it is a good thing Pharmacy Techs aren't responsible for health care- did I say they were? 

Pharma greed is still real, despite my mis-hearing / -understanding / -remembering about cancer treatments.

Carry on.

How does vaccination against HPV increase sexual activity? Is this baseless? I have not heard this concern at all. Doesn't make sense to me.

madamerwin

FeeleyToBe said:

FeeleyToBe said:

Update from Fiance- I misunderstood / misheard / misremembered a 2 year old conversation.  There is no known cure for most cancers; he was referring to treatments being outrageously expensive / unaffordable.  He did say Guardasil (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) was technically a cure but there's obviously a LOT of controversy around that- we've all read/seen the news.  The controversy surrounding Gardasil has nothing to do with how well it works or whether or not it actually is a cure for cervical cancer. . . it is.  It grants immunity from the most common strains of the HPV virus which are known to cause cervical cancer.  The controversy has to do with parents' fear that this vaccination will somehow cause an increase in their children's sexual activity by virtue of the fact that they have been vaccinated.

The DCA one  (it's not CAD as I thought it could have been) he said has only been tested on animals and human cells to the best of his knowledge; no known human trials that he's heard about (I did mention this after my first post).

Yes I know how many people are working toward a cure for cancer; A guy I wnet to HS with and a friend from college with PhDs are scientists working on discovering a cure.  Yeah a lot of us are working on better treatments. . . it's been my field for over a decade.

Yes, it is a good thing Pharmacy Techs aren't responsible for health care- did I say they were? 

Pharma greed is still real, despite my mis-hearing / -understanding / -remembering about cancer treatments.

Carry on.

How does vaccination against HPV increase sexual activity? Is this baseless? I have not heard this concern at all. Doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't, but it is something many parents worry/claim will happen, apparently. But they are probably the same parents who believe in abstinence-only sexual education.

ETA punctuation

princessleia22

FeeleyToBe said:

FeeleyToBe said:

Update from Fiance- I misunderstood / misheard / misremembered a 2 year old conversation.  There is no known cure for most cancers; he was referring to treatments being outrageously expensive / unaffordable.  He did say Guardasil (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) was technically a cure but there's obviously a LOT of controversy around that- we've all read/seen the news.  The controversy surrounding Gardasil has nothing to do with how well it works or whether or not it actually is a cure for cervical cancer. . . it is.  It grants immunity from the most common strains of the HPV virus which are known to cause cervical cancer.  The controversy has to do with parents' fear that this vaccination will somehow cause an increase in their children's sexual activity by virtue of the fact that they have been vaccinated.

The DCA one  (it's not CAD as I thought it could have been) he said has only been tested on animals and human cells to the best of his knowledge; no known human trials that he's heard about (I did mention this after my first post).

Yes I know how many people are working toward a cure for cancer; A guy I wnet to HS with and a friend from college with PhDs are scientists working on discovering a cure.  Yeah a lot of us are working on better treatments. . . it's been my field for over a decade.

Yes, it is a good thing Pharmacy Techs aren't responsible for health care- did I say they were? 

Pharma greed is still real, despite my mis-hearing / -understanding / -remembering about cancer treatments.

Carry on.

How does vaccination against HPV increase sexual activity? Is this baseless? I have not heard this concern at all. Doesn't make sense to me.

I've heard that argument... basically, the theory is that sexually transmitted infections are scary enough that they deter kids from having sex.  If we start eliminated STI's, then there is nothing to stop all the teenagers from getting naked and having kinky sex in the middle of the street. Um... yeah... I'm sure that's exactly how that works, right?

PrettyGirlLost

FeeleyToBe said:

FeeleyToBe said:

Update from Fiance- I misunderstood / misheard / misremembered a 2 year old conversation.  There is no known cure for most cancers; he was referring to treatments being outrageously expensive / unaffordable.  He did say Guardasil (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) was technically a cure but there's obviously a LOT of controversy around that- we've all read/seen the news.  The controversy surrounding Gardasil has nothing to do with how well it works or whether or not it actually is a cure for cervical cancer. . . it is.  It grants immunity from the most common strains of the HPV virus which are known to cause cervical cancer.  The controversy has to do with parents' fear that this vaccination will somehow cause an increase in their children's sexual activity by virtue of the fact that they have been vaccinated.

The DCA one  (it's not CAD as I thought it could have been) he said has only been tested on animals and human cells to the best of his knowledge; no known human trials that he's heard about (I did mention this after my first post).

Yes I know how many people are working toward a cure for cancer; A guy I wnet to HS with and a friend from college with PhDs are scientists working on discovering a cure.  Yeah a lot of us are working on better treatments. . . it's been my field for over a decade.

Yes, it is a good thing Pharmacy Techs aren't responsible for health care- did I say they were? 

Pharma greed is still real, despite my mis-hearing / -understanding / -remembering about cancer treatments.

Carry on.

How does vaccination against HPV increase sexual activity? Is this baseless? I have not heard this concern at all. Doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't.  But that is what the controversy surrounding Gardasil is all about.

onefootinthebayou

PrettyGirlLost said:

FeeleyToBe said:

FeeleyToBe said:

Update from Fiance- I misunderstood / misheard / misremembered a 2 year old conversation.  There is no known cure for most cancers; he was referring to treatments being outrageously expensive / unaffordable.  He did say Guardasil (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) was technically a cure but there's obviously a LOT of controversy around that- we've all read/seen the news.  The controversy surrounding Gardasil has nothing to do with how well it works or whether or not it actually is a cure for cervical cancer. . . it is.  It grants immunity from the most common strains of the HPV virus which are known to cause cervical cancer.  The controversy has to do with parents' fear that this vaccination will somehow cause an increase in their children's sexual activity by virtue of the fact that they have been vaccinated.

The DCA one  (it's not CAD as I thought it could have been) he said has only been tested on animals and human cells to the best of his knowledge; no known human trials that he's heard about (I did mention this after my first post).

Yes I know how many people are working toward a cure for cancer; A guy I wnet to HS with and a friend from college with PhDs are scientists working on discovering a cure.  Yeah a lot of us are working on better treatments. . . it's been my field for over a decade.

Yes, it is a good thing Pharmacy Techs aren't responsible for health care- did I say they were? 

Pharma greed is still real, despite my mis-hearing / -understanding / -remembering about cancer treatments.

Carry on.

How does vaccination against HPV increase sexual activity? Is this baseless? I have not heard this concern at all. Doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't.  But that is what the controversy surrounding Gardasil is all about.

Yeah, it's like the fundamentalists (of any religion, not trying to call anyone out here) saying that free condoms or even sexual EDUCATION would encourage underage teens to have sex.  Like, the availability of knowledge or prevention tools would encourage gratuitous effing by our nation's youth (like they aren't doing it dangerously/irresponsibly already)  It's a fucked up viewpoint. 

ETA - punctuation b/c I'm jet-lagged and had wine.  

monkeysip

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

madamerwin

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

That's really disturbing... I am assuming these girls are not taught about barrier contraceptives? But I guess the fact that the states that set abstinence-only sex ed standards have the highest rate of teen pregnancy is the most disturbing of all. (Read all about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/)

kimmiinthemitten

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

How is that any difference than waiting for a condom to have sex? They're being responsible, they intend to do so and know there is a safer way. I'd take a bet that if Gardasil wasn't available they would have done it by now.
When Gardasil went main stream I was 1 year past the effectiveness age. As someone who spent the last 24 months having rotating colposcopies, I salute these young ladies

monkeysip

kimmiandkoley said:

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

How is that any difference than waiting for a condom to have sex? They're being responsible, they intend to do so and know there is a safer way. I'd take a bet that if Gardasil wasn't available they would have done it by now.
When Gardasil went main stream I was 1 year past the effectiveness age. As someone who spent the last 24 months having rotating colposcopies, I salute these young ladies

I'm not saying its irresponsible in general to have sex after the Gardasil vaccine... what I'm referring to is the false sense of security I think some of these girls have in thinking that the vaccine would provide completely safe sex.  And the implication is that without the vaccine, they *may* have chose abstinence (obviously no way to know that for sure).  Which, whatever your moral beliefs, is STILL the only way to 100% prevent STDs and pregnancy.  

monkeysip

tfmrserwin said:

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

That's really disturbing... I am assuming these girls are not taught about barrier contraceptives? But I guess the fact that the states that set abstinence-only sex ed standards have the highest rate of teen pregnancy is the most disturbing of all. (Read all about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/)

For the record, the correlation between abstinence-only sex ed and high teen pregnancy is a correlation, not necessarily causation.  Those states also have other factors that would tend to increase teen pregnancy, like sub-standard education in general, economic inequality, and high divorce rates.  And I'm saying this as someone FROM one of those states (TX).

Don't get me wrong, I think students should know about contraception.  Especially so they can fully understand what it does, and what it DOESN'T do.  For example, some of my girls seem to think the pill can protect them from STDs.  I'm assuming that's partly because they haven't been taught much, if anything, about the pill.  They NEED to know this stuff.

I waited until marriage, and I think that's the better choice, but I don't think information is EVER a bad idea.  It's never wrong to inform students on all these issues.  

LadyMillil

monkeysip said:

kimmiandkoley said:

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

How is that any difference than waiting for a condom to have sex? They're being responsible, they intend to do so and know there is a safer way. I'd take a bet that if Gardasil wasn't available they would have done it by now.
When Gardasil went main stream I was 1 year past the effectiveness age. As someone who spent the last 24 months having rotating colposcopies, I salute these young ladies

I'm not saying its irresponsible in general to have sex after the Gardasil vaccine... what I'm referring to is the false sense of security I think some of these girls have in thinking that the vaccine would provide completely safe sex.  And the implication is that without the vaccine, they *may* have chose abstinence (obviously no way to know that for sure).  Which, whatever your moral beliefs, is STILL the only way to 100% prevent STDs and pregnancy.  

I'm not sure about this in terms of Gardasil, but in the HIV field there has been a lot of research on risk compensation. Many people argue that by giving a drug (PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis) that will protect HIV negative people who are highly exposed to HIV from getting infected, that people will stop using condoms or engage in more risky behaviour because they can't get HIV now. Studies have shown that this is not true. Although a very small percentage of people do engage in more risky behaviour, the vast majority do not change their behaviour because their HIV risk has changed. I suspect the same is true with Gardasil.

STARMOON44

monkeysip said:

kimmiandkoley said:

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

How is that any difference than waiting for a condom to have sex? They're being responsible, they intend to do so and know there is a safer way. I'd take a bet that if Gardasil wasn't available they would have done it by now.


When Gardasil went main stream I was 1 year past the effectiveness age. As someone who spent the last 24 months having rotating colposcopies, I salute these young ladies

I'm not saying its irresponsible in general to have sex after the Gardasil vaccine... what I'm referring to is the false sense of security I think some of these girls have in thinking that the vaccine would provide completely safe sex.  And the implication is that without the vaccine, they *may* have chose abstinence (obviously no way to know that for sure).  Which, whatever your moral beliefs, is STILL the only way to 100% prevent STDs and pregnancy.  



Abstinence only prevents 100% of pregnancy and STDs in a fantasy world. The same way the birth control pill and condoms are not 100% effective, in large part because of human error, abstinence has a massive failure rate because it turns our most humans just want to bone. Without the vaccine, they'd be having sex. Just sex with more cancer.

Wegl13

that's like saying condoms don't work if you poke holes in them? Or BCPs don't prevent pregnancy if you only take half of them. Abstinence is 99.9999999% effective (100% if you're not a Christian, ha bad joke) when people actually, you know, abstain from intercourse. Abstinence only EDUCATION however, lacks efficacy.

kimmiinthemitten

monkeysip said:

tfmrserwin said:

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

That's really disturbing... I am assuming these girls are not taught about barrier contraceptives? But I guess the fact that the states that set abstinence-only sex ed standards have the highest rate of teen pregnancy is the most disturbing of all. (Read all about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/)

For the record, the correlation between abstinence-only sex ed and high teen pregnancy is a correlation, not necessarily causation.  Those states also have other factors that would tend to increase teen pregnancy, like sub-standard education in general, economic inequality, and high divorce rates.  And I'm saying this as someone FROM one of those states (TX).

Don't get me wrong, I think students should know about contraception.  Especially so they can fully understand what it does, and what it DOESN'T do.  For example, some of my girls seem to think the pill can protect them from STDs.  I'm assuming that's partly because they haven't been taught much, if anything, about the pill.  They NEED to know this stuff.

I waited until marriage, and I think that's the better choice, but I don't think information is EVER a bad idea.  It's never wrong to inform students on all these issues.  

I was super religious as a teenager, like voting delegate at the national council of youth ministries, religious teen. When I was called a goodie two shoes, my response was "I just know what's good for me." I lost my virginity as a junior with my boyfriend of 2 years. This was before I drank for the first time and before I started smoking cigarettes. The girls who intend to wait, will. I never saw losing my virginity to someone I loved as a departure from my religion. I thought if that's what separates me from God at the end of the day, then it wasn't the deity I thought it was.

Education, access and freedom to make your own responsible choices are what teenagers need and IMO what I think your girls are exercising.

huskypuppy14

Condoms don't prevent HPV though.  I have only had unprotected sex with my husband, yet I still got HPV when I was 24 (4 years before I met my husband). Also, the vaccine only protects against 4 of the strains of HPV (the most common strains). Prior to the vaccine, I heard the statistic that 80% of women will have HPV.

tfmrserwin said:

monkeysip said:

I teach at an all-girls high school, and unfortunately, some girls have actually said they're waiting to have sex until they get their Gardasil vaccine  So it might encourage sexual activity for *some* (maybe a small amount).  I don't think that's a good reason NOT to get it though, especially since even if my daughter remains abstinent until marriage, that doesn't mean she might not be sexually assaulted, or when she marries, her husband could already have it.

That's really disturbing... I am assuming these girls are not taught about barrier contraceptives? But I guess the fact that the states that set abstinence-only sex ed standards have the highest rate of teen pregnancy is the most disturbing of all. (Read all about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/)