Whenever "reproductive rights" (read birth control and abortion) are even broached by conservatives, there is an immediate and visceral backlash to characterize us as troglodytes who wish to rewind history so that women are perpetually "barefoot and pregnant" so as to serve their chauvinists masters. Setting aside the stereotypes and hyperbolic tone, can we just step back and look at what we have as a result of this reproductive revolution? Because the evidence is contrary to every major assumption about the liberating effects of reproductive rights and their associated tents of intellectual enlightenment. According to the Brookings Institute:
- In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers.
- By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families.
This is the direct result of the abrogation of long-held mores that have husbands and wives at the sides of their mates, and fathers at home with their children. As George A. Akerlof, Nonresident Senior Fellow at Center on Social Dynamics and Policy points out:
"We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception ... is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births. Although many observers expected liberalized abortion and contraception to lead to fewer out-of-wedlock births, in fact the opposite happened because of the erosion in the custom of "shotgun marriages."
So, instead of reproductive rights leading to improved conditions for women and lower birth rates of unwanted children, it has created the polar opposite: an absolute dissolution of the atomic family structure and a meteoric rise in out-of-wedlock births. A myriad of studies by federal government organizations, medical research institutions, and universities have uncovered the following disturbing data:
- the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana
- the majority of sexually abused children come from single parent homes
- teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families
- black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school
So while the sexual revolution and easy access to birth control may bring moments of ecstasy for hormone-driven teens and a measure of control for people who use it appropriately, it has been more of a curse than a blessing for our youth. A report by the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy points out that every year,"...there will be about 1 million (teen) pregnancies, resulting in 406,000 abortions, 134,000 miscarriages and 490,000 live births. Of the births, about 313,000, or 64 percent, will be out of wedlock. And about 3 million teen-agers will suffer from a sexually transmitted disease, including AIDS."
But you don't have to be an economist, a psychologist, or a social worker to know what happens in staggering numbers to the unfortunate children from these situations, especially children of single mothers. Our schools are overwhelmed with their behavior problems, our streets are covered in their blood, and our prisons house their scarred and battered bodies. It is a sad, pathetic, and seeming endless procession of pain, death, and degradation of our youth, their minds, dreams, and potentials.
But you don't have to be an economist, a psychologist, or a social worker to know what happens in staggering numbers to the unfortunate children from these situations, especially children of single mothers. Our schools are overwhelmed with their behavior problems, our streets are covered in their blood, and our prisons house their scarred and battered bodies. It is a sad, pathetic, and seeming endless procession of pain, death, and degradation of our youth, their minds, dreams, and potentials.
This is no way glorifies the concept of a shotgun wedding, nor does it mean we should not have birth control. Nobody wishes a loveless or forced relationship on a potentially mismatched couple, and contraceptives have allowed responsible couples an unprecedented measure of economic and personal control over their lives. Moreover, as people with individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, we have the right to choose whom we marry, and how many children we bring into the world. However, it begs a bigger question: What do we do about it?
One seemingly reasonable response might be sex education. It seems only logical to assume that equipping kids with appropriate knowledge and behaviors would lead to better decisions about when to have sex and how to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Yet, the data seems to be cloudy at best. A recent report by the University of Washington in Seattle indicated that comprehensive sex education seemed to "lead to less teen pregnancy" as measured by self-reports of sexual behaviors by teens. The study indicated "teens who received comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report becoming pregnant or impregnating someone than those who received no sex education." And, according to lead author of the study, Pamela Kohler , “It is not harmful to teach teens about birth control in addition to abstinence."
Moreover, the study found the effects of abstinence education was statistically insignificant. This seems to be a slam dunk for sex education proponents. However,looking into the details of the study raises some important concerns.
First of all, the study relies on self reports from teenagers. This type of statistical analysis is fraught with issues of validity. In a 2009 report from the Archives of Pediatric Medicine found there was a significant degree of discordance between self-reports of consistent condom use and empirical data. Why such a discrepancy between what teens state and reality? The researchers offered the following plausible explanations: 1) teens and young adults inaccurately reported condom use; 2) teens used and young adults used condoms consistently but incorrectly; 3) teens and young adults responded with socially desirable answers.
Should anyone be shocked that young people are out of touch with reality and make mistakes? But the third reason offered, that teens responded in ways that conform to expected social norms, is at once disturbing, yet promising. It is disturbing (though not shocking) that teens are likely to lie in order to make them look better in the eyes of adult society. However, it offers a potential insight into the mindset of our youth. For if teens feel compelled to lie in oder to be held in esteem by their adult counterparts, isn't it then rational to suppose they actually wish to conform to the moral framework which prevented such reckless behaviors because they inherently know it is beneficial for them in the long run? Is it possible that adolescents are asking us to restore, at least to some degree, the healthy respect for for sexual boundaries and delayed gratification that constrained generations prior to the cultural revolution of the 1960s? Is it possible that sex education, as well as abstinence education (which also typically relies on self reporting of sexual behaviors) both fail because they are not framed by a larger moral dimension?
Should anyone be shocked that young people are out of touch with reality and make mistakes? But the third reason offered, that teens responded in ways that conform to expected social norms, is at once disturbing, yet promising. It is disturbing (though not shocking) that teens are likely to lie in order to make them look better in the eyes of adult society. However, it offers a potential insight into the mindset of our youth. For if teens feel compelled to lie in oder to be held in esteem by their adult counterparts, isn't it then rational to suppose they actually wish to conform to the moral framework which prevented such reckless behaviors because they inherently know it is beneficial for them in the long run? Is it possible that adolescents are asking us to restore, at least to some degree, the healthy respect for for sexual boundaries and delayed gratification that constrained generations prior to the cultural revolution of the 1960s? Is it possible that sex education, as well as abstinence education (which also typically relies on self reporting of sexual behaviors) both fail because they are not framed by a larger moral dimension?
For years, conservatives have advocated that a consistent moral code, while far from perfect, and often fallible, was the best overall deterrent to reckless behaviors because it provides a strong ethical imperative that prioritizes a stable family structure over individual fulfillment. Though it may be easy for progressives to dismiss such as system as antiquated, naive and unrealistic for contemporary youth, they are at a loss to explain what should replace it.
I am in no way dismissing sex education, nor advocating for a return to suffocating Puritanistic values. What I am saying is that in the absence of cohesive, stable family unit, amidst the milieu of a permissive view of sexuality and the elevation of individual wants over what is best for children, we will continue to get minimal results from our interventions, be they sex education, access to contraceptives and abortion, or even abstinence education.
In the end analysis this is not about curtailing choice or individual freedom. Though the argument has been framed as the right to choose, this does not mean that people, especially young people, always make the right choice.
I am in no way dismissing sex education, nor advocating for a return to suffocating Puritanistic values. What I am saying is that in the absence of cohesive, stable family unit, amidst the milieu of a permissive view of sexuality and the elevation of individual wants over what is best for children, we will continue to get minimal results from our interventions, be they sex education, access to contraceptives and abortion, or even abstinence education.
In the end analysis this is not about curtailing choice or individual freedom. Though the argument has been framed as the right to choose, this does not mean that people, especially young people, always make the right choice.
Gary
