Tuesday, September 24, 2013

A Modest Birth Control Proposal

At present, the US has a myriad of problems all of which are linked to the big problem of devolution and decline. We might need to expand our horizons, think differently and look for stones that would kill multiple birds. Connecting multiple threads, the US (and world) has an education problem as well as an underclass problem as well as a social dysfunction problem as well as a social welfare expenditure problem that all seem to tie back to a dysgenics problem due to lax morals and unrestrained impulses of teens. It is time Americans get real about the problems around us and as governor, I would propose a "Norplant or No Welfare" policy.

To use the words of President Obama, a pregnancy is a punishment for young girls. Abortion is framed as a really difficult decision that young women need in order to alleviate the burden of a child (adoption = too hard). Birth control is a near scared "right" that women will vote for over all other issues, including civilizational decline. I'll stop mocking liberals. Pregnancy in school messes with our graduation rates. Teenage pregnancy is also one of the leading markers for someone who will drop out, live in poverty, have children that exhibit dysfunctional behavior, and a host of horrible things. Teen pregnancy also stretches the social safety net and kicks more tax dollars to people for popping out a kid while unmarried. Despite nearly universal sex education and the availability of cheap and easy to access birth control, teenagers are pretty stupid or just do not care. Norplant solves this.

Let us draft a proposal. On the 13th birthday of a daughter, the parents (or legal guardians) of said daughter have the choice of:

1. Their daughter will receive a free Norplant implant that will be effective until her 18th birthday (Norplant lasts five years). In the event that their daughter gets pregnant while on Norplant (99% unlikely), they would be eligible for welfare benefits for said child.


2. They decline the free Norplant. In the event that their daughter gets pregnant, they nor their daughter cannot claim any welfare benefits. They will be denied all programs and have to pay for the child themselves.

Is Norplant safe? Perfectly safe. Is it effective? Over 99% effective at preventing pregnancies, and the stupid teens don't have to do anything. Is this admitting defeat to teenage sex? No. It is fighting the negative outcomes in a different manner. Conservatives want to gripe about free birth control? You already pay for birth control, but this one would be a small outlay for a huge savings. This localizes the consequences of choices to the teen and their parents. No one is forced to use Norplant. You reject the cornucopia of birth control around you, you will pay for the results. Teenagers are bad about maintaining schedule of pills, which is avoided with Norplant. Norplant is 99% effective and lasts five years without the teen doing anything. Through Obamacare and insurance mandates, we are already subsidizing birth control. I would hope that everyone would want to see this smorgasbord of birth control put to effective use.

In addition to these programs, I would suggest the following add-ons. If a women turns 18 and was in the Norplant program with their parents, she would have a one time option of re-upping the Norplant at age 18 to carry them through the next five years. Those feisty young women will shout that it is her body, therefore it is her decision. I'm right there with you, but with the above conditions. The other add-on would be a far more important one, but if a woman childless or with child signs up for social welfare programs, she must get a Norplant implant. Social welfare programs will last as long as her Norplant lasts. If a woman rolls off of a social welfare program and Norplant and is pregnant within one calendar year, she will be ineligible for further social welfare benefits. The progressives may be upset, but even one lonely, undergraduate voice at Harvard thought this might be a good move in 1993. This is a simple program. We just need a good propaganda campaign. A child living in poverty is a crime against that child. It is a soft form of abuse. Let us not place one more child in the clutches of an impoverished home. Think of the children.


Red said...

Penalties on bastardy and single motherhood are historically more effective than birth control and abortion. The Romans had both birth control and infanticide and were unable to stop their slide.

Billy Chav said...

Beautiful idea but of course it would get shot down as racist eugenics immediately if anyone had balls to propose it. Possibly more palatable proposal: offer every girl in US $3000/yr for every year after 13 she remains childless, up to some specified age. 23? On cost/benefit alone it would pay off, demographic concerns aside. And you could spin it as encouraging "youth" to make the most of their inestimable talents.

peterike said...

New York talk radio legend Bob Grant was pitching a similar idea 35 years ago, the "Bob Grant Mandatory Sterilization Program."

Of course, it's a great idea. Of course, it's a non-starter. It would require a dictatorial takeover of the United States by a leader who believes in eugenics. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Dan said...

Good post. A minor correction. Norplant is yesterday's news.

The thing these days is intrauterine devices such as Mirena that have almost no side effects and last for many years with almost 100% effectiveness.

Contrary to what you think, I suspect that eventually public policy will come around to this. Social problems will eventually become too large and social programs too bankrupt to avoid the obvious solution. Democrats will sell it. If they can sell abortion and gay 'marriage', this one should be easy.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Dan, I knoe of mirena but the problem is weight gain can throw th iud's fit. The underclass has weight problems so it might not be perfect. Norplant is set and forget.