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 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 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 contraception.
|