January 19th, 2010 by cat
A more sophisticated objection to the policy for subsidizing Norplant, or any other single form of contraception, argues that such a policy interferes with a woman’s right to make her own contraceptive choices. Instead of offering true choice among alternative methods, governmental contraceptive incentive policies effectively force low income women into making a single contraceptive choice. Thus the policy is interfering with their right to choose a contraceptive method by reducing her feasible options to only one form of birth control. Further, by promoting only one form of contraception, the government can mislead women about their contraceptive options, such as the safety of one particular contraceptive method. For example, in Bangladesh it is not clear to the extent women were informed about their contraception options prior to being introduced to Norplant. This bias towards a particular contraceptive method can serve the interest of the government, and not necessarily the interests of the women the policy effects. For these reasons, any public policy that deals with contraception should guarantee women a choice of all the different contraceptive methods.
It is important to recognize the Norplant for Consenting Teens policy does not specify that it is the only contraceptive method available to teenagers. As mentioned earlier, provided their costs are affordable, other effective methods could be used, e.g., Depo-Provera. The policy never suggested that no other contraceptive methods should be available to teenagers. Since synthetic hormone birth control methods do not protect against STDs and AIDS, the government should not solely promote this form of contraception. Programs to encourage condom use exist for this purpose.
While it would be optimal that all synthetic hormone contraception birth control methods cost the same, contraceptive costs will probably always affect women. It may be a governmental obligation to supply women with affordable contraception, but this does not entail that the government should supply women with every possible form regardless of cost or effectiveness. This is just not practical considering real world costs. However, subsidizing long term synthetic hormone contraception may help broaden the contraceptive choices for teenage women. Presently, oral contraception is the most common teenage contraceptive choice. When cost was not a factor, 48% of the teenagers chose Norplant instead. This high rate suggests that the excessive cost of Norplant is denying some teenage women access to their first choice of synthetic hormone contraception.
January 19th, 2010 by cat
The morality objection disapproves of sexual education programs. These programs, it claims, teach teenagers about all types of sexual behavior, even though some of these acts are immoral. Because of their age and inquisitiveness, teenagers will be intrigued by what they have learned. They will then want to practice these immoral behaviors.
Thus, sexual education programs encourage teenagers to practice immoral sexual behavior that they have learned from these programs. Since the Norplant for Consenting Teenagers program requires sexual education and counseling, it is subject to this objection.
Underlying the morality objection is the assumption that sexual education programs introduce students to various sexual behaviors and this encourages students to become sexually active. There is no evidence for this assumption. In fact, there is evidence that sexual education programs encourage students to abstain from sex. A study in Atlanta revealed that students enrolled in a sex education program are significantly more likely to postpone sexual intercourse through to the end of ninth grade than non-program students. Likewise, a study of over a thousand students showed that males who participated in a sexual education program are less likely to have sexual intercourse than non-participating students. If parents want their children to abstain from sexual activity, they should be promoting sex education instead of protesting it.
Ideally it would best if parents would teach their children the health and moral issues involved with sexual behavior. The problem with letting parents have total responsibility of their child’s sexual education is that parents are not doing it. Only 18% of males and 32% of females in the United States first learn about sex from their parents. Further, research suggests that there is a great difference between what information parents think they have conveyed about sex-related topics and what the teenagers think they heard from their parents. Sexual education programs teaching about what type of birth control to use offer reliable sources for teenagers to learn about sexual issues and these programs act as safety nets to guarantee that teenagers have access to important sex-related information so that they can act more responsibly.
January 19th, 2010 by cat
A solution to both of the problems facing the Norplant for Consenting Teens policy would be to center the program in the schools.
Schools offer a place where most all of the teenagers will be and because of its pedagogical function, it is ideal for sexual education. By incorporating sexual education into the curriculum of public schools, teenagers will have a regulated and reliable source of information in an environment that they are more comfortable in. Comprehensive sexual education programs are very successful at increasing teenager’s knowledge of reproduction and contraception. If the government implements a comprehensive sex education program and subsidizes Norplant for teenagers within public schools, the policy could have educated teenagers consenting to have inexpensive Norplant birth control systems. Furthermore, since the public schools traffic a large proportion of the teenagers in the United States, the program would probably either give teenagers a better standard of living for the same cost that we are spending on teenage pregnancies or save the government in social service costs.
Objections
There are four common objections to the public policies similar to the proposed ‘Norplant for Consenting Teens’ policy. The first two objections, the message objection and the morality objection, argue against any governmental subsidized contraception and sexual education, respectively. The other two objections, the eugenics objection and the reproductive choice argument, object to the particular use of Norplant in a public policy.
The message objection states that the government is sending the wrong message to teenagers with this program. By subsidizing Norplant birth control, teenagers are simply ‘equipped for sex’ and the policy complacently ignores important moral issues about sexuality. This policy effectively encourages teenagers to become sexually active and implies that they are not responsible for their actions. The government should not send such messages because it directly attacks the moral fiber of the country.
The message objection is correct in that the policy may project a message to teenagers. What that message states is hard to interpret. With education about contraception and the health consequences of unprotected sexual behavior, the message may be that the government is concerned about the health of teenagers. Furthermore, the message states that the government is aware that some teenagers will act sexually and that it wants to help protect their health and welfare too. Reducing the cost of birth control methods shows that the government is willing to help sexual teenagers act more responsibly. Finally, with public icons making books that promote unsafe sexual practices, it is hard to believe that any message that the policy gives is worse than the media messages that bombard teenagers every day.
