In light of the recent Isle of Wight proposal, that young women coming forward for the emergency contraceptive pill be offered birth control on a month-to-month basis, the blogosphere has been alight with ranting and raving against this outlandishly liberal proposal. As an outlandish liberal myself, as well as a feminist who keeps the issue of reproductive rights near and dear to my little heart, I couldn't help brandishing my laptop and adding my unofficial two-cents to the debate.
Contraception isn't a "license to have sex" as the Conservatives would have you believe. Adolescents will have sex whether or not they have access to contraceptives- this is not a debatable point. Their surging hormones and peaked curiosity are all the "license" they need. Proper contraceptives will, however, help to ensure that the sex they are already having is safer. It will also hopefully make a dent in our staggering teen pregnancy rates. This is good common sense, yes, but it also makes good economic sense. Less teen pregnancies equal less teen mothers on state benefits and more productivity for the next generation. Who can honestly say that a lower benefit bill and higher worker productivity would be a bad thing, particularly in this economic climate?
The propaganda being pushed by the right is that contraceptive pills will be given out willy-nilly, without any medical advice or follow up, and as a substitute for practical sex education. The facts, however, are very different to this and are spelled out clearly in the Isle of Wight's initiative. There will be a follow up, and the pills will only be distributed on a month-to-month basis. This is yet another example of Tory fear-mongering and a reliance on the electoral base blindly believing whatever they're told without doing their own research.
Furthermore, the pill is widely considered to be medically safe with millions of young women being prescribed it each year. While there are a small percentage of girls for whom taking the pill would not be medically sound, the same could be said about all medications including over-the-counter formulations and herbal supplements. Some people will suffer severe allergies to aspirin, for example, but it is not prescribed only on doctor's advice. On a similar note, there are members of the public who have extreme reactions to latex. Are we going to argue that because there's a very slim chance of a girl going into anaphylactic shock due to condom use, that the sale of condoms should be prohibited?
Perhaps the bigger issue is that we have less of a problem with boys taking charge of their sexual health than with girls demanding control over their own bodies.
No one is saying that girls (or boys, for that matter!) as young as 13 should be having sex. Of course they shouldn't, but it does still happen and denying it would be naive. No one is saying that our sex education policies don't need a massive overhaul. They obviously do. No one is claiming that a wider and easier distribution of the pill is the answer to every underage sex problem. For example, the pill doesn't protect against STDs. Still, burying our heads in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist isn't the answer. Look where that approach as gotten us, with teen pregnancy rates the highest in Western Europe!
If parents are genuinely concerned about what their kids are up to, they should try asking them. If they feel they can't, or that their kids aren't being honest with them, then perhaps that's a problem which they should address independently of the state.
Rant officially over.
