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 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, 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.
|