One statistic means nothing. A couple of teenagers could decide to have risky sex with or without good information. The effectiveness debate surrounding sex ed is based on aggregate figures, not scenarios and anecdotes. It's about public harm reduction.

I could (unfortunately) forsee Palin fielding two types of questions involving both her daughter and the abstinece sex ed.

TYPE 1: "Governor, do you approve of your daughter's decision to have premarital sex, and if so, how is that consistent with your preference for abstinence-only sex education?"

PROBABLE RESPONSE: "My daughter has taken responsibility for her decision as an adult and has moved on. She has our full support at this new and exciting stage in her life. I am still in favor for abstinence-only education for reasons I have stipulated before. Next question."

TYPE 2: "Governor, do you think your daughter's pregnancy is due to the fact that she was not given enough information about contraception and the risks of sexual behavior?"

PROBABLE RESPONSE, IF ANY: "My daughter was and is aware of the consequences of sexual activity and made her own decision. Next question." [And for all we know, she was incrediblly informed. I doubt Palin would admit this because it would weaken her own stance.]

None of us know if Bristol had enough info about contraception. But it's still immaterial to the debate because as a recipient of anti-sex indoctrination she could be a statistical outlier, as Palin will imply. Palin will return to the claim that abstinence only sex ed reduces aggregate teen pregnancies and disease...which is dumb.

There was a an article in the Journal of Adolescent Health titled: Abstinence-Only and Comprehensive Sex Education and the Initiation of Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy. Here's the link: <link> The following is the abstract:

Purpose

The role that sex education plays in the initiation of sexual activity and risk of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) is controversial in the United States. Despite several systematic reviews, few epidemiologic evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs on a population level have been conducted.

Among never-married heterosexual adolescents, aged 15–19 years, who participated in Cycle 6 (2002) of the National Survey of Family Growth and reported on formal sex education received before their first sexual intercourse (n = 1719), we compared the sexual health risks of adolescents who received abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education to those of adolescents who received no formal sex education. Weighted multivariate logistic regression generated population-based estimates.

Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy (ORadj = .4, 95% CI = .22– .69, p = .001) than those who received no formal sex education, whereas there was no significant effect of abstinence-only education (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .38–1.45, p = .38). Abstinence-only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .8, 95% CI = .51–1.31, p = .40), but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse (ORadj = .7, 95% CI = .49–1.02, p = .06). Neither abstinence-only nor comprehensive sex education significantly reduced the likelihood of reported STD diagnoses (ORadj = 1.7, 95% CI = .57–34.76, p = .36 and ORadj = 1.8, 95% CI = .67–5.00, p = .24 respectively).

Teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent sexual activity or STD. Adolescents who received comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence-only or no sex education.