Stop Teen Pregnancy

Teen Pregnancy 10: Norplant for Teens

There are two classes of policies we could adopt to implement a ‘Norplant for Teens’ policy. The first would make Norplant implants mandatory for all female teenagers. This blanket policy would be the most effective, for no teenager could fall through the cracks. The number of teenage pregnancies would be directly related to the failure rate of Norplant systems, i.e., 0.5%. This can reduce the number of accidental pregnancies by over a factor of one hundred.

A critical problem with a mandatory ‘Norplant for Teens’ public policy is that it infringes on several recognized constitutional rights. First, since some religions object to birth control, a mandatory Norplant policy would violate those citizens’ right to religious freedom. Second, the Supreme Court recognizes that the Constitution implies rights that “promise that a certain private sphere of individual liberty will be kept largely beyond the reach of the government”. These rights protect the ability to make particular decisions that are considered fundamental for preserving ‘autonomy’ and ‘individual dignity’.

Decisions about procreation, contraception, and marriage have all been recognized as protected by these rights. A mandatory Norplant policy directly conflicts with these rights. Finally, for over two hundred years, any medical treatment performed without consent, unless in emergency cases, has been considered battery by Anglo-American law. As mentioned earlier, Norplant is a drug and its insertion is a medical procedure. To not allow individuals to refuse this ‘treatment’ would violate the long recognized and protected right to self-determination. This right protects individuals from “severe” intrusions of their “personal Privacy and bodily integrity”.

Second, because the government would have to supply Norplant systems to every female teenager, the policy would not be cost-effective. There are just too many teenagers and Norplant is too costly for the economic argument to apply. Putting costs aside, making Norplant mandatory for teenagers completely disregards that Norplant is a drug — levonorgestrel. It has particular health risks and is not safe for everyone. In the previous section I reviewed a considerable amount of side effects that individuals may not want. Furthermore, evidence determining whether or not synthetic hormone contraception causes or increases chances of breast cancer is still inconclusive. This is particularly true of Norplant, since it is a relatively recent drug. Likewise, few comprehensive studies exist that investigates the effect Norplant has on teenagers. Forcing female teenagers nationwide to get Norplant systems may be invoking serious health risks. The only way to avoid violating all the aforementioned rights and to remain cost-effective is by offering, not mandating, Norplant to consenting teenagers.