On Contraceptives and Classrooms: Should Public Schools Provide Birth Control To Teens?
Posted: Saturday, July 19, 2008
by Ben Morrish
http://alltruism.blogspot.com
The issue of whether public schools should provide contraception to teens, especially younger teens, is a contraversial one, with strong views on either side.
I think there's some common ground however, and I think most people would accept the following:
1 - Ideally, young teens would not be sexually active, but inevitably, some will be - at that young age we cannot expect them all to show a mature restraint.
3 - Birth control is preferable to increases in young teens having children before they are ready, willing and able to raise them properly (increases in unplanned teen pregnancies has been shown to lead to widespread social problems, including increased crime).
Based on the above, I'll lay my cards on the table - I think schools SHOULD provide birth control to teens, but with the following important considerations (because to some extent the act of making birth control available seems to legitimize or even promote promiscuity, and that perception needs to be thoroughly countered):
1 - Education is key, and abstinence should be promoted as the best solution, especially for young teens. Teens should be given the facts - facts about STDs, the strengths and weaknesses of the various forms of contraception (and how they are correctly used), pregnancy, the financial burden of raising a child, the hard work and social sacrificies they'd have to make if they had a baby, the responsibilities of a stable sexual relationship, the legal consequences of under-age sex and so on.
Abstinence should be promoted as the best choice for young teens, but stable, monogamous relationships should be promoted over promiscuity. Other, milder, forms of intimacy should be encouraged over full sex.
Not all young teens will be capable of making a mature decision, but they should all have been given the best factual information about the possible consequences.
2 - Barrier methods of contraception should be promoted as the contraceptive pill does not protect against STDs. Cultural changes may need to be promoted to make sure any stigma about, for example, condoms is overcome - birth control is no use if it isn't used due to embarassment or it being considered "uncool".
3 - Schools should also provide trained advisors that young teens can turn to, in confidence, to get expert advice and guidance. Teens who feel pressured, either by a prospective partner, or by their peers in general, into having sex should have access to impartial advice on what they can do to take control.
4 - Everyone needs to play their part - parents, teachers, the media and the government all need to contribute to a healthy and sensible attitude to sexuality. It seems to me that parts of the media have been encouraging young teens to enter into sexual relationships - being a young teen isn't easy, and keeping those developing (and perfectly natural) urges under control can be hard enough without additional pressure from film and tv.
I think making birth control available to teens is preferable to the alternatives of a) increased numbers of abortions or b) an increased number of unwanted babies and c) an increased number of unprepared, financially insecure teen parents. And not just preferable for the teens themselves, but preferable for society in general, as these alternatives are strongly linked to societal problems.
Ideally teens should be restraining their urges until they are mature enough to handle them..and their consequences - but in the real world a lot of them won't be able to. Given that, making birth control available, but making every effort to minimise the need for it, seems to me to be the most sensible option.
This Article has been viewed 4,460 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsIf you Google the term:
'Underage sex is on the increase 2008 UK'
You will see a WIDE array of news items relating to this epidemic. From drink binging to have sex more easily, to abortions being higher than ever amongst young teens.I was focusing on US statistics as the original question included references to US media "glamorization" and the pact of girls in Massachusetts. In the UK, alcohol use amongst young teens is a growing problem, and a strong factor in teen sexual activity (the UKs drinking age of only 18 may be a factor here).Higher number of abortions amongst young teens strongly indicates that there is a need for contraception as well as education.The Royal Institute for Public Health details some plans to reduce unwanted pregnancies and abortions:"The National Teenage Pregnancy Strategy is set out in the Social Exclusion Unit Report on Teenage Pregnancy launched by the Prime Minister in June 1999. Its action plan for reducing the rate of teenage conceptions and getting more teenage parents into education, training or employment covers four categories:
- A national campaign – to improve understanding and change behaviour.
- Joined-up action – to co-ordinate action at both national and local levels.
- Better prevention – to include better education and access to contraception, to target at risk groups and reach young men..
- Better support – for pregnant teenagers and teenage parents
The Government has established the Teenage Pregnancy Unit in the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) with an extensive programme for reducing teenage pregnancy rates, particularly for those under the age of 16. "There's two ways to reduce teen age pregnancy rates - reducing the numbers of them who are having sex, and making contraception available to those that need it. I think we need to make the most of both of these methods.This is an extract from an MTV newsroom article written JUNE 2008
"
Officials at Massachusetts’ Gloucester High School were at a loss to explain why the teen pregnancy rate at their school had more than quadrupled over the past year. According to a report in the new issue of Time magazine, the dramatic increase is due, in part, to a pact among eight girls from the school, none older than 16, who vowed to get pregnant and raise their children together.
The girls’ plan shocked parents and administrators at the 1,200-student school and sparked a still-simmering debate about contraception in the fiercely Catholic fishing town’s schools, the Boston Globe reported.
“More students are coming in and asking about pregnancy testing,” Gloucester’s public health director, Jack Vondras, told the Globe last month. “What’s odd is that some of them are disappointed because they’re not getting pregnant.” The Time article reported that at least half the pregnant teens planned to have the babies and that some high-fived each other and began planning baby showers when they found out they were expecting, while others seemed disappointed when their results came back negative. School officials began investigating the unusual spike in teen pregnancies in October, when more than the usual amount of students began visiting the school health clinic for pregnancy tests. By May of this year, Time reported, the school’s nurse practitioner had administered 150 pregnancy tests at the clinic, prompting the staff to advocate prescribing contraceptives to students without parental consent."
This would indicate things are pretty bad in Massachusettes, quadrupled pregnancies is NOT an decrease it is a significant increase!
Yes, its a massive increase in that particular school, but as the article says, its largely due to the pact, and so the increases there aren't representative of the wider population.What's unusual there is that those girls are *deliberately* getting pregnant, which is if anything even more worrying that the problems with unplanned pregnancy at that age.
The answer to this problem is 'give contraception' but this is NOT cutting down underage sex. It merely assisting it. The problem to address should be curbing 'underage sex' not just handing out contraceptives as if they are sweets. Sex at too early an age can cloud your entire view of it as an adult.I'm not (and I don't think anyone is) suggesting that contraceptives should be handed out as if they are sweets - doing so would surely not serve to reduce young teen sex (although of course of 100% of them were using barrier contraception then the many of the problems resulting from teen sex would be greatly reduced).Contraception needs to be freely available to all those who are sexually active, but as a last resort within a broader framework that focuses on education and reduction of teen sexual activity. It should not be provided on its own, and when it is provided should be directly accompanied by counselling, instructions and clear explanation of the risks.Contraception is very much a "second best" option, with "not having sex" being the best one.The "third best" options of abortion and unwanted pregnancy are something we should seek to avoid, and if we can't get the first best option working for everyone (and the failures of abstinence-only programmes demonstrates that we can't) then I think contraception in those cases is vastly preferable to them being forced into the "third best" options.There is a reason why children (age 11-15yrs) do not use condoms and it is not lack of education, it is pure embarrassment.
Also if your daughter or son is preparing themselves when they go to the school disco for sex then ask yourself why that is.
Why is a virgin of 13yrs old who has been taught 'no sex until age 16+' going to a child orientated event armed with contraceptives anticipating they may have sex?
Who are they going to have sex with? Where are they going to have sex? Where is the adult supervision?
Why are young girls feeling under pressure to have sex when really they don't want to. YES that is the reality. Pressure (consentual rape) is how most girls these days lose their virginity. is that what you want for your daughter? To permit to rape so she can 'get it out the way' to be with 'the in crowd'. We need to teach children about sex in a way that makes them confident to say 'no' and risk being the 'odd one out'.
The only way to prevent underage pregnancy is to prevent underage sex.
That or hand out abortions like smarties which they are doing already.I completely agree that we need to teach children about sex in a way that makes them confident to say no - in fact I think we need to go further and make it uncool to be having sex so young - make those who ARE feel like the "odd ones out".The only way to prevent, 100%, underage pregnancy is to prevent, 100%, underage sex. But that isn't realistic - prevention 100% is not going to happen. We are, unfortunately, talking about *reducing* rather then eliminating entirely. And for that, there isn't only one way - there's contraception as well.Abortions aren't handed out like smarties, but we'd all like to see less of them taking place. Increased contraception would contribute towards that goal.Contraception has been available to young people for a while, having them in schools sends out the wrong message and is completely unnecessary. Why not give kids cannabis at school too, save them having to steal and visit dealers who can lead them onto harder drugs? Just how far are we prepared to go to 'protect' children from having to make tough decisions. This is was is called 'assisting an offender' as far as I can see it. Underage sex is supposed to be illegal yet giving contraception to underage kids is assisting them in breaking the law. Quite a bizarre state of affairs really."Protecting" children from such tough decisions (with potentially life-long consequences) is a tricky issue, but where we can reasonably do so, we should. Young teens, through no fault of their own, aren't always capable of listening to reason and making mature decisions.
Why should they suffer the full consequences if there's an easy, effective way to dampen the consequences? And why should society suffer the consequences of increased crime and other social disorder?
I accept that if we present it as consequence-free then that would encourage it, which is why I've made it very clear that contraception alone is useless, even counter-productive.
It needs to be part of a targeted package of measures, with everyone from parents to teachers to media companies to the teens themselves playing a part. Contraception would promoted as a compromise to those who can't be talked out of having under-age sex - never promoted as being an ideal solution.
There should be a lot of focus on the risks involved - no contraception is 100% effective, and no contraception is 100% protection against STDs.
Under-age sex between consenting teens is (and should continue to be) a crime, but it is a very different crime from most others - it is, in many cases, a crime of weakness against one's own natural lusts - the participants are the primary victims.
Giving contraception to kids doesn't assist them to break the law, since they can and do break the law anyway. What it does do is protect the victims of the crime - the teens themselves (and society in general).This isn't about giving contraception to kids it's about giving it to them at school without their parents knowledge meaning they have NO support back up should things go wrong. Health care proffessionals do not give out the advice these days that fully provides users of these contraceptive the facts. if they did many women would not even be on the pill. A lot of pills cause depression, mood swings, temper outbursts and irrational behaviour. If girls have the pill from age 13 upwards they may grow up thinking this is 'how they are' naturally. I know I did! After being on the pill for many years from age 19, I came off it and found I was a much calmer person than I had been behaving due to the affects of hormones added unaturally to my system. I am back on the pill but have tried many before finding one that lessens these affects as well as taking Vit B6 and Agnus Castus to counter the effects of polluting my system with hormones. Giving children hormones without back up is irresponsible and it is the parents right to be able to protect their child from any side affects, something they cannot do if they don't know their child is taking them.
At the end of the day, underage pregnancy was less of a problem years ago, so all this liberation and easy access IS the problem not the solution.
I am not anti contraception for those that need it, but I am anti it at school without the parents knowledge. It is inappropriate and unacceptable.Providing it without parental knowledge is another, albeit related, issue, and I'm not sure where I stand on that - I don't like the idea of it at all, but equally I wouldn't want to see teens getting pregnant just because their parents find contraception unacceptable for personal reasons.Thinking about it, there's three "levels" here - parental knowledge AND parental consent, parental knowledge (without their having to give consent) and no parental knowledge.I know some women who've suffered quite serious health issues as a result of the contraceptive pill, and some that have actual found it gives a number of beneficial side effects. People need to be given as much information as possible, and preferably a medical consultation before being given chemical-based contraception.Society has certainly changed a lot over time, giving new standards, rights and accompanying these, new problems (or rather increased dominance of certain problems over others).It may well be that the problem of teenage pregnancy has become more significant in recent decades than previously (and other problems are less significant than they used to be). Prior to the 60s, the contraceptive pill wasn't even an option, for anyone, teen or not.Now it is, and we as an ever-changing society have to make use of all the options we have to minimise the problems we face without sacrificing any more of the greater freedoms we enjoy than absolutely necessary.
Here is an extract from wddty dot com" 01 November 1991Doctors are working on a contraceptive pill that they say will also prevent breast cancer.The new drug, called gestodene, used as an ingredient in a low dose contraceptive pill Femodene, will be stepped up in potency in order to work as a "chemopreventive".Supposedly the drug works by stopping the growth of cancer cells in the breast and could be available in two years with the announcement of the result of a two year study.Once women are persuaded to gulp down this drug as a just in case measure perhaps the next to follow is a drug to prevent the known side effects of the pill itself, such as stroke."1991A pill promoted as anti cancer for which the side effect is STROKEI became suicidal after having a contraceptive implant, fortunately I was able to have it removed. Imagine if that had been an injection! My children might be motherless.These are things they do not tell young girls or women about the pill.I completely agree - there are dangers with all forms of contraception, and the individuals being given contraception aren't always educated on all the relevant facts (in particular, the risks - not just of failure to prevent pregnancy, but of complications and side effects).This is terrible, and needs to be corrected - people need access to all the best information available in order to make an informed choice.Education is absolutely vital, and would likely reduce the need for contraception amongst young teens - they need to know that contraception doesn't make sex risk free, and indeed can come with risks all of its own.Precisely, but sadly education about the risks is unlikely given that their objective is to increase uptake not decrease it. I have asked for advice before and been told 'all things carry risks, how long is a piece of string' and so on. I had to do my own research.
Are the Docs unaware of the risks or can they just not be bothered to discuss them? Either way giving drugs to kids is wrong without their parents consent!The education issue is a crucial one, and I think pretty much everyone from both sides of the debate can agree on that - people should be given the best available advice along with any drugs they are given, or are considering taking. Freedom is about having the ability to make informed choice - if the information is supressed or distorted, then really our decision is not entirely our own.Anyone presenting contraceptives as a magic solution that makes sex completely consequence- and risk-free is spreading dangerous mis-information.I'm not sure its always wrong to give drugs or medical treatments to kids without parental consent, although I strongly dislike the idea in principle there are some circumstances where I think it may be the right thing to do...not sure if I think it would be the right thing in relation to contraception though. There's rarely easy answers to such problems :(I would disagree with the issue of ANY drug without parents knowing. ALL drugs carry risks and it is naive to think governments and health bodies will ever inform us of all of them adequately. It is not in their interests to do so.I'm not sure I agree with you on that - governments get into big trouble whenever they're found to have been misleading the public over health issues, so it is in their interest to provide accurate and honest information.
The trouble is when lobbying by pharmaceutical companies is allowed to corrupt the government and cause them to release misleading or outright false information. However, when they get caught out doing this, they get the wrath of the public turned on them, and in a democracy that's likely to be a devastating blow.Parents not knowing, parents knowing but not giving consent, and parents giving consent are three different things - although I think there may be situations where each is appropriate. Some parents are not good parents, unfortunately, and might not always put their child's interest as their first priority.
Meanwhile in your last comment you say you are not sure that giving drugs to kids without parents consent is right in the case of contraception. Does this mean you have changed your mind then about them being given out in schools? This afterall would be done without parental consent.I haven't changed my mind (although my mind is far from made-up decisively either way on this) - as I mentioned before there's three possible ways contraception could be made available:With parental consent (and obviously with their knowledge)Without parental consent (but with their knowledge)Without parental knowledgeI think there's circumstances were all of these might be appropriate, although obviously the first one is much to be preferred over the second, and the second over the third.I think the proposal re contraception in schools is the third option:
without parents consent or knowledge
You did say in your earlier comment you think this unadviseable in the case of contraception.I said I don't like it but I think sometimes it is necessary.Making contraception available through schools doesn't necessarily include lack of parental knowledge (and technically doesn't inecessarily include lack of parental consent either although in a practical sense it would probably imply it).Whilst I'm uneasy about this element of it, I'm also uneasy about parents having total rights and responsibility - because not all parents are the good parents we hope ourselves to be, and because there needs to be a degree of rights and responsiblities passed to the teen, as part of the process of becoming an adult.Despite all the difficult and uncomfortable aspects, I believe that making contraception available to those teens who can't be pursuaded through education, parenting or other means is desireable over the alternatives.So you are saying that the governments decisions are better than bad parents decisions? Given the government is really only managing it's own agenda and really has no interest in the child's wellbeing as an individual I can't see how one evil is better than the other myself.
But we shall agree to disagree, it's been a great debate. :) Thank you!In many instances a governments decisions will be better than a bad parents decisions - not that governments are particularly great (they're not), but there are some VERY bad parents out there (education might help, but it seems some people just aren't good or motivated parents and will put their own prejudices over the interests of their children).I'm not completely convinced one evil is definitely better than the other, but I've weighed it up and picked the side that seems to me to be the most pragmatic.... its not a clear-cut issue for me by any means!I agree that we shall agree to disagree (that's almost a tongue twister! ;-) ); it has been a great debate - and I think there's a lot that we do agree on!
Ben, I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I think there is too much emphasis on education and not enough on moral training. Education alone cannot possibly be the answer. How do I know? Because when my parents were growing up, teens knew a lot less about sex than they do now, but the teenage pregnancy and STD rates were much lower. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to imply that ignorance is the answer. It is quite interesting that as religious teaching has been removed from the schools, the teen pregnancies and STD rates have gone up. Go figure!Education needs to cover self-esteem, setting boundaries and other psychological aspects of sex and relationships, not just the dry facts. It should certainly also include moral education - the absence of quality education in the fields of ethics and morality is potentially a factor in a whole swathe of societal ills in addition to those being discussed here.
On the subject of religion, there's actually a strong positive correlation between religiosity and *increased* rates of teen-age pregnancy and crime ( see The Journal of Religion and Society published by The Rabbi Myer and Dorothy Kripke Center for the Study of Religion and Society, amongst other sources).
However, with both this correlation and the one you mention showing that the decline in religious teaching correlates with increases in teen pregnancies, we need to exercise caution - correlation does not imply causation.
hi ben,i agree. the kids who have a strong constitution against having sex early on, will not be affected, but the kids who are going to anyway, should be prepared against pregnancies and stds, that would further stifle our welfare sytems, and promote abortions. as well as teens raising kids, and not having a clue how to do so, further impeding on the positive growth of their child intellectually, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. if giving out condoms after an intensive consultation, will save the misdevelopment of a child, and possibly the abuse of a child by young teen parents, i say, help them prevent that from happening. kids don't abstain from sex simply because teachers, parents, advisors, and other adults tell them they should. why should an innocent child suffer because of that?teens having kids by multiple fathers, food stamps, welfare, parents providing money, housing, and raising their grandchildren, would all be avoided.i think a class in motherhood and fatherhood would be key in letting these kids see the reality of the situation. let moms and their babies volunteer their time for one school day to allow these young teens hands on experience. then, there may not be a need for condoms:)thanks for a great article,best regards,sueThanks for your comments Sue. Lots of wisdom in your words there!
Classes in motherhood and fatherhood could be very beneficial, as would classes in relationships and confidence (confidence in yourself - self esteem and the power to say no, for example).
Ideally, as you say, there'd be no need for condoms, but I think realistically there will always be some need - and that need should never have to go unfulfilled.
how would being pregnant increase crime?Being pregnant itself doesn't increase crime, but an increase in unplanned teen pregnancies (and the corresponding increases in unwanted babies) has been shown to be linked with various social problems, including increases in crime.
There's many factors that contribute to this - some of the young mums will not be able to cope with the stress (mental and financial) of raising the (unwanted) child and may turn to drugs (and from there to theft), or may develop psychological problems. People under stress are more likely to be involved in arguments or fights.
As well as that, many of the unwanted babies will grow up having been poorly raised (by unwilling and unready parents) and be more likely to get involved in crime than children raised by loving parents who were ready and willing to have a child.
Not to say that all unwanted pregnancies turn out this way, many of the accidental mums do a great job and succeed in raising their child in a happy and loving home..but the odds of this are lower for unwanted babies with teenage mothers.
I have another question if you don't mind.. you state "increases in unplanned teen pregnancies has been shown to lead to widespread social problems, including increased crime.."
I don't get when you say "increase" should it decrease unplanned pregnancies.
can you please rephrase that sentence. I don't understand what you mean.
This subject really interests me, and I would really like to know your opinion if the school's birth control fails and someone gets pregnant, who would be held responsible?
thank you BenBy "increases in unplanned teen pregnancies has been shown to lead to widespread social problems, including increased crime" I was pointing out that increases in unplanned teen pregnancies lead to increases in various social problems....with the implication that decreasing unplanned teen pregnancies should therefore lead to a reduction of those social problems (or at least stop their increase).
I'm not sure seeking to find one person or institution to be "held responsible" is a good idea - every person / institution has a part to play.
If birth control is used correctly but fails then it isn't anyone's "responsibility" in the sense of taking blame (as long as the risk of failure was made clear), it's just unfortunate. Ultimate responsibility always lies with the parents, but blaming them, especially when they have taken every precaution, isn't going to help them deal with the situation.
As an additional point I didn't cover in the article, all forms of contraception / pregancy avoidance have a failure rate - even abstinence.
This may sound bizarre at first, since if you abstain, you can't get pregnant (excluding artificial insemination)...but to work out the real-world failure rate of any method you have to factor in not only the failure rate of that method when used correctly (0% for abstinence ~2% for condoms, ~1-2% for the contraceptive pill), but you also have to include the probability of failing to use that method correctly (i.e. the chance you'll forget to take the pill, or the chance that in the heat of the moment you will fail to abstain or fail to use the condom correctly [or at all!]).
As well as the failure rates, its also important to consider other health effects from the various methods - some women find certain types of contraceptive pill cause them problems, some people are allergic to certain types of condom, and the repression of natural sex drive in abstinence can in some cases be harmful.
Interesting subject. I'm against the whole contraceptives being provided in public schools.I have a question for you..do you think contraceptives will influence students to have sex more than they probably already do?I'm not sure contraceptives would, overall, influence students to have more sex. They might do, they might not.
But even if they did, I'd rather they had a little more sex with protection than a little less sex without.i agree that students may feel that it would be ok too have sex if controceptive items were availiable to them. and that it may lead too having a more risk of pregnancy,and a sexually transmitted disease.Condoms are'nt 100% protective of that.
i am a high school student. some people would think that just because a teenager is on birth control it means they are having sex. i know plenty of people who are on birth control not because they are sexually active but because they want to make sure they are covered if they were to get put into that position. i think parents would agree however that they would rather their child to be sexually active with protection then without. I do not agree with condoms and birth contol being provided in middle school. when i was in middle school everyones attitued towards someone being on birth control was that they were a slut and couldnt control themselves and thats why they needed to be on it. however in high school people agree that all girls should be on birth control and that it should be provided.i used this article to help me with my debate topic for english class. it helped alot so thanks.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.