Somehow, robots babies don’t work, but birth control does
The day that abstinence-only education was introduced in schools should be a day celebrated in history. From that day forth, every single teenager — or at least most, right? — to sit through one of those super fun assemblies saw the error in their loins and realized that sex was for losers, and abstinence was the only way their genitals would not catch STDs or accidentally impregnate something.
Over the decades, they’ve come up with a plethora of creative ways to shame teens… uh we mean, inform teens of the horrific consequences of having sex, such as comparing sexually active teens to dirty socks or half-eaten candy.
The latest plot to cut down on the hanky panky is robot babies. Researchers in Australia thought it’d be a genius idea to give teenage girls robot babies in order to dissuade them from having sex. (We assume that there wasn’t enough money to give the boys robot babies, after all it does take two to tango.) Aptly named Baby Think it Over, this was a sure-fire gold mine to stop teen pregnancy all together.
Weirdly though, the program was a bust. Instead of cutting the rates, the robot babies actually increased the chance that the girls would become pregnant over girls who did not have robot babies.
But this must be the one abstinence-only education program that failed, because teen pregnancy rates are down. It can’t be due to contraception, like the study from the Journal of Adolescent Health suggests. The study attributes the drop in rates to improved and frequent use of various forms of contraception. Well, imagine that!
We know the robot baby makers are probably sad since they spent so much time and money making the metal infants. But never fear; repurpose those babies to hand out condoms and pamphlets about IUDs or the pill. Then at least they’ll be fulfilling their purpose.
Cars and the oval office
In many ways, vehicles are an iconic part of the American lifestyle, representing freedom, endless possibility, even luxury — get in the car and see where the wind takes you. Or use it to commute to work because public transportation is largely lacking in this country and you can’t afford to live in the city of your employment.
Either way, 95 percent of households in America own cars. Which we can only assume is why Autolist.com decided to poll the audience and see which car-owners are voting for what 2016 presidential candidates, all to point out the vast difference between Trump and Clinton supporters (while not bothering to figure out the car-buying trends of the majority of the American population who don’t want to see either candidate in the Oval Office this January). Regardless, the results are hardly shocking.
Clinton voters are 30 percent more likely to buy a hybrid, while Trump voters are 17 percent more like to factor in engine horsepower and torque. The most common car for Clinton supporters is the Honda Civic, while they most commonly buy Japanese cars. Trump voters overwhelmingly purchase American cars, most commonly the Ford F-150.
Where does that leave those of us jonesing for a high-powered electric truck made by a Asian American immigrant, thus defying all the odds of the overbearing auto industry that tells us such a feat is impossible? Right back where we started, plagued by the dismal presidential options voters are faced with this year. Overall, American car owners are only slightly more likely to vote for Clinton over Trump — 40 percent to 38 percent. Reassuring.
The Lancet’s study is not a representation of our curriculum and simulator learning modality but the researchers’ “adaptation” and is consequently not reflective of our product nor its efficacy. The RealCare Baby® Program is a combination of curriculum and hands-on aids, and if it is being tested and judged for effectiveness, it should be judged in its entirety. The “adaptation” used in the study was developed by Australia’s Swan Hills Division of General Practice, the Coastal and Wheatbelt Public Health Unit and the North Metropolitan Population Health Unit. The class time designated for teaching the adaptation was a mere 2.5 hours. The RealCare Program is 14 hours of class time, learning activities and a prolonged take-home simulator experience. This study is not measuring Realityworks’ program and infant simulator but – as stated in the study – is investigating the effect of Australia’s Virtual Infant Parenting program.
Coincidentally, during the times of this study, Australia had implemented a “Baby Bonus Maternity Payment” with the hopes of increasing the country’s fertility rates. A lump sum was paid to families following the birth of a child. They deemed this program successful with a 12.8% increase of births to mothers ages 20-24 years; they also saw that the program served as an incentive for mothers in their early twenties.