The causes of this reversal are a matter of conjecture, but the most likely explanation is the most obvious: Bush era policies that supported ineffective “abstinence only” sex education for young people, while limiting both discussion of and access to condoms.
We could agree that abstinence might be a good idea for many teens, and yet still agree that it won't always be the option they choose. There ought to be a contingency plan.
Making contraceptives available to young people does not encourage them to have sex; the research on that topic is quite consistent. It does, however, make the sex teens are having less dangerous -- less apt to result in either unintended pregnancy, HIV or other STD transmission. Ideology should not be a blindfold that prevents us from seeing the facts of epidemiology.
The case for making teens aware of contraceptives, and for making condoms available to them, is a case based in such facts. Epidemiology, when it provides such facts as in this case, should trump ideology. Otherwise, we risk being faithful to our ideals, while generating results at odds with them.
What do you think about teens and contraceptives? Support it? Oppose it? Join the conversation below.
More on Healthy Parenting
13 life lessons all kids should know
Keep your kid safe from swine flu
Fast food meals even nutritionists eat