Teenagers, Long Term Contraception, and Public Policy
The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the western
world. It is twice as high as Canada’s, England’s, and France’s
teenage pregnancy rate, three times higher than the teenage pregnancy
rate of Sweden, and seven times greater than the Dutch rate. Meanwhile
U.S. citizens are getting frustrated by spending billions of dollars in
social, health, and welfare services to families that are increasing the
need for these programs. Wisconsin, Arkansas, New Jersey, and Georgia
are setting trends in legislation to deny women on welfare the usual increases
to cover the cost of any child they decide to bear. This plan of action
is not politic, however, for denying the family fundamental care for their
children only punishes the children in question and handicaps their future.
If the U.S. wants to reduce its spending on social services, then it needs
to create policies that decrease the number of people in need of social
welfare without harming its citizens. Since teenage pregnancies tend to
make the parents dependent on social support, setting policies to decrease
the outrageous teenage pregnancy rate in America is a simple, non-damaging
way of cutting social welfare costs.
Presently forty-three states cover Norplant under Medicaid. The irony
of the situation is that by the time the state is willing to pay for a
Norplant system for a teenager, she has already given birth. Due to the
costs of that child the mother has now become eligible for Medicaid benefits,
which coincidentally include subsidized Norplant. Once the state subsidizes
a good form of birth control for the teenager, the damage has already
been done. The teenager and her child are dependent on social services.
Instead of this ad hoc policy, why doesn’t the state supply teenagers
with contraceptives before they become pregnant and consequently incur
great social costs?
|