Paying Teens Not to Get Pregnant?
Published July 07, 2009 @ 12:43PM PT
Via Postbourgie, who gets it from AverageBro, I see that a NC-based maternity nurse has launched a program that pays teen girls $1 per day to remain pregnancy free. At least that's how the papers tell it. Founder Hazel Brown expands on the program's goals:
"Our three goals are that they avoid pregnancy, graduate from high school and enroll in college," Brown said.
So, as I wrote over at PB, why hasn't this been framed as "Program provides cash incentives to graduate" or "Students eligible for thousands in aid if they go to college". Too neutral? Too boring? Or inaccurate?
I realize Brown founded the program based on her experience as a maternity nurse. I realize only women can get pregnant, and that teen pregnancy is a pretty strong obstacle to graduating high school, going to college, or exiting poverty. But seriously, isn't this a program focused on helping girls graduate? It requires weekly meetings. It fosters community and support networks among young women. It provides either additional or new reinforcement for their dreams and ambitions as a guard against the difficulties they face. It likely provides a safe space for vulnerable young women. All of which reduces their risk for peer pressure, sexual violence, or freely acting on raging hormones. So, perhaps the most obvious outcome, and certainly from a nurse's frame of reference, is the reduced risk of pregnancy. But these young women likely also see reduced access to drugs and alcohol, as well as are protected from the precariousness of idle, unsupervised time.
I'm a big believer in incentives, and I'm a big believer in responding to the particular risks and opportunities that different groups (e.g., teen girls) face. But I find the framing of this initiative troubling, as it seems to me it once again reduces women to our reproductive capacity, rather than incorporating and responding to the risk of teen pregnancy as one particular obstacle for low-income young women among many on the path to college and out of poverty.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (35)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
Featured Poverty in America Actions
-
-
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
88 People
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
This is a GREAT followup to the post at Postbourgie.
Posted by Jeremy Levine on 07/07/2009 @ 01:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks! Like seeing you around the internetz!
Posted by Leigh Graham on 07/07/2009 @ 01:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think it would be better to pay for temporary sterilization and give them and extra $1000 on top. That way, they won't have kids, have extra cash toward college and then hopefully make enough to have it reversed when they are ready for them!
Posted by Doug Dederich on 07/10/2009 @ 01:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Doug, involuntary sterilization of low-income women is an historic social injustice. I realize you may be speaking of men (given you're talking about something that's reversible), but regardless the sentiment is totally inappropriate.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 07/11/2009 @ 05:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That sort of plan is basically eugenics - akin to genocide by way of impeding reproduction - and is quite immoral. It's been done before, as Leigh notes, by the privileged to the oppressed. The only way sterilization isn't, is if it is completely voluntary (real choice, not forced choice).
Posted by Hoby Van Hoose on 07/11/2009 @ 06:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Pay is NOT FORCE! except possibly on the part of the taxpayer, certainly not on the part of the recipient, and since it saves the taxpayer at least ten times what it costs, it's not force there either.
However the pay should be to use contraception or sterilization, not just to avoid pregnancy by any method, like these people.
http://www.projectprevention.org/
Posted by Alan Ditmore on 07/12/2009 @ 04:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We should also pay boys not to have sex with girls, give them a certificate of celibacy that they can trade for x-box games and hot pockets. Somebody write this down...
Posted by Turk Fowler on 07/07/2009 @ 04:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Lol. Nice spin off the current story. I think that under a certain assumption this type of thing (paying the boys) is already happening. Only the majority of reports are coming from unemployed couples that are seeking all possible options to stay afloat.
Posted by Aaron Shaw on 07/07/2009 @ 08:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yeah right.. and how would they prove their celibacy? Pregnancy is impossible to hide but sexual activity is very easy to hide.
Posted by Hoby Van Hoose on 07/11/2009 @ 05:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is the most shocking story thus far. How in the hell are we gonna let the same people that were born under assumptions of free spirited feelings tell us as the up-in-coming leaders that we should adhere to policies that take the consideration of bribery to influence action.
This brings the respect that I have had for the baby-boomers down. Did your parents bribe you not to do drugs?
The moral behind this comment is trust.
As the adolencent mind brings us towards the fact that trust is the main concern on there mind coming from a parent. If they have thier parents trust as a teen, they feel that they have obtained the ultimate level of responsibility there is. If you can get this from your child then you should feel blessed, you have opened a channel of communication that may stay open with a level of understanding that will keep your children from becoming involved in actions such as an unexpected pregnancy.
Posted by Aaron Shaw on 07/07/2009 @ 08:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
They don't see it as bribery - they see it in terms of basic economics. We make decisions based on incentives.
If the incentive to avoid pregnancy is more appealing than the perceived incentive of becoming pregnant, a rational individual will avoid pregnancy.
My dad used to incentivize (if that's a word) good grades, before college. I was rewarded with cash, based on the grades I received each quarter. If I did poorly in one of my classes, I missed out on a chunk of money, but was rewarded for the classes I did do well in. They talk about programs designed to create incentives for good grades here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2008-01-27-grades_N.htm
They could create a program specifically for teen boys to not get teen girls pregnant, and reward them for it. It might prove more difficult to track though. And...guess what? Many of the fathers are older!
And a great one by Mike Males - http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-males13-2008jul13,0,4392044.story?track=rss
"A large majority of male partners involved in teenage pregnancy are not the high school boys frequently blamed, but men age 20 and older, according to birth tabulations by the California Center for Health Statistics and national surveys. ... In addition, in an era of gender equality -- in which men are expected to share in sexual responsibility and child-raising -- why is a 19-year-old woman knocked up by a 22-year-old man stigmatized as part of the "social problem of teenage pregnancy," but a 22-year-old woman impregnated by a 19-year-old man isn't? Isn't the real problem, regardless of the mothers' ages, fathers who fail to support their kids?"
Here's another good article on young pregnancies: http://www.miller-mccune.com/news/pregnant-with-possibility-530
Posted by Marissa Pherson on 07/08/2009 @ 10:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Marissa - great links. I just wrote a follow up post about this.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 07/08/2009 @ 12:49PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Isn't the real problem, regardless of the mothers' ages, fathers who fail to support their kids?"
No. Age makes a HUGE difference. As teenagers, girls are not exactly able to know which guys are losers and which aren't. If they were older and more experienced, it might help to cut down on dating a dead beat in the first place. Not only that, but getting pregnant so early ruins the chances of the female to live her life, take vacations, have a career, do all of the fun things that youth entails, etc. Most often, these young girls become poor because they cannot work or cannot get high paying jobs since they dropped out of school (and the loser fathers left). What kind of life is that child going to have?
The answer is not wasting more money to pay stupid young girls to not get pregnant, same for the boys. Boys and girls will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS find ways to have sex - didn't all of you? The answer is EDUCATION. Make EVERY girl at age 12 have to carry around one of those ridiculous crying baby dolls (many have experienced this in high school health class) that comes with the ankle bracelet that records if the student "mom" has not cared for the baby. This would cause young girls to UNDERSTAND what it is like to have a baby every second of the day and the impact a baby would have on their bodies, social lives, careers, happiness, etc. Now that is a true education, not some stupid abstinence program or monetary reward - what a joke.
Age certainly matters. Teenagers are simply not ready to be parents, as they are still children. This is true into the early 20's. I certainly have room to talk since I am now in my early 20's and was recently a stupid teenage girl who has dealt with going after idiot boyfriends and pregnancy (as the majority of my other teenage friends have dealt with).
Females need to wait to have children until they are old enough (physically and mentally) to have the knowledge and the finances to give the child a proper life. Instead of dishing out more money that does not exist, how about we find ideas that have a chance of actually working - by working I mean reducing the incentive to have a child at such a young age. I truly believe if every girl had to carry around that screaming health class baby doll, and had to complete assignments that ask them to figure out how they are going to go to the dance, party, vacation with a baby or arrange for a babysitter, then the teenage pregnancy rate would surely fall - and less lives would be ruined.
It also would not hurt to make birth control pills and other contraceptive prescriptions over the counter and readily available (and way less expensive, such a rip off), along with education on natural birth control (such as Ladycomp or Pearly) for those who know the dangers of the prescription birth control pills.
Posted by Lana Little on 07/10/2009 @ 08:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The ideas are starting to flow....we fit every kid with a chastity belt and make them stand in a "DMV" like environment to obtain the key. THEY pay US to have sex!
Aaron- can you get another piece of paper. I feel the muse and she's comin' like a freight train...
Posted by Turk Fowler on 07/09/2009 @ 08:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Do you have anything constructive to add to the converstion? Perhaps a different way to look at the "problem" or a different way of working with people who see unmarried women giving birth before a certain age as a problem?
You might make your point (formal social control in this situation is ridiculous) but leave the reader desiring something more. Can you take it further and provide ideas, rather than just snark?
Posted by Marissa Pherson on 07/09/2009 @ 09:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What Marissa said.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 07/09/2009 @ 10:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Although teens are getting pregnant at younger ages than ever, paying $1.00 not to have sex is ridiculous!! It is a given that married couples have more unwanted pregnancies than teens but the issue here is lack of parental involvement and a lack of sex education in the public schools. It is the year 2009 and Americans are stuck in Puritanical times. Open discussions about sex are still taboo in many homes and the teen mothers are shouldering the responsibility of a life of poverty..who I do feel sorry for??? I choose the children..growing up in proverty in my world IS child abuse. I don't have a workable solution but education and prevention does work. Birth-control only works when it's used properly and some STD's in my mind, are far worst than an unwanted pregnancy
Posted by leatrice brantley on 07/26/2009 @ 08:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There is another point here.
I believe that population control may be the single most important issue facing humanity. However, this program would disproportionately appeal to girls from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds. If the program were successful, over a long period there would be a kind of underhanded eugenics. We would weed out the poorer girls in favor of the richer girls who aren't motivated by $365/year. That would be outrageous.
It's like paying people to participate in clinical trials... we infect the poor to produce drugs for the rich, and it's unacceptable. We must find more ethical ways to tackle these issues, both scientific and social.
Posted by Che Green on 07/10/2009 @ 09:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I disagree that this is a form of eugenics. Many (not all, but many) young women, especially from lower socioeconomic groups, tend to do what others have done before them.......they have babies at an early age as a rite of passage into adulthood, but end up working low-wage jobs because of the inability to go to school and/or from even graduating from high school. Because they don't have any other source of financial support (from family, or otherwise, as young women from other socioeconomic groups would more likely have), many of these young women unfortunately end up on some sort of welfare, which CAN become a form of incentive, but not necessarily.
As a posting earlier clearly stated, this is an incentive program not only to avoid teen pregnancy, but also to raise self-esteem, and lean these young women towards a life that benefits them as individuals, to fulfill their dreams. This doesn't mean that they will be sterilized and will never be able to have children (eugenics). This means that they can make a CHOICE as to when in their lives they will have children. They will be more likely to have children for the right reasons......when they have a loving partner in their lives, and when they have finished school and/or attain a good job and have the capacity to fully support a child. This will help with so many of the social ills we have in this country today in regards to health care, welfare, etc.
When you do have money at your disposal (higher socioeconomic groups) you can still have babies at a young age and and potentially have the financial capacity to go to school/college. You probably have college-educated parents and extended family who will push you in that direction, and who are willing to pay for day care and support you while you go back to school. Young women for middle and lower socioeconomic groups will not necessarily have that luxury. So what is the problem with giving them a financial incentive to help them achieve their dreams?
Posted by B. Graham on 07/10/2009 @ 10:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It isn't necesarrily a form of eugenics. This program would not keep low income women from EVER having children, just when it is undesirable to do so. They can have all the babies they want after doing the program, going to college, and getting a reliable job.
Posted by Tracy Stevens on 07/21/2009 @ 08:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Payment is still not coersion or eugenics, and still would not be even if it did last a lifetime. Which this project does.
http://www.projectprevention.org/
Posted by Alan Ditmore on 07/22/2009 @ 10:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I disagree that this is a form of eugenics. Many (not all, but many) young women, especially from lower socioeconomic groups, tend to do what others have done before them.......they have babies at an early age as a rite of passage into adulthood, but end up working low-wage jobs because of the inability to go to school and/or from even graduating from high school. Because they don't have any other source of financial support (from family, or otherwise, as young women from other socioeconomic groups would more likely have), many of these young women unfortunately end up on some sort of welfare, which CAN become a form of incentive, but not necessarily.
As a posting earlier clearly stated, this is an incentive program not only to avoid teen pregnancy, but also to raise self-esteem, and lean these young women towards a life that benefits them as individuals, to fulfill their dreams. This doesn't mean that they will be sterilized and will never be able to have children (eugenics). This means that they can make a CHOICE as to when in their lives they will have children. They will be more likely to have children for the right reasons......when they have a loving partner in their lives, and when they have finished school and/or attain a good job and have the capacity to fully support a child. This will help with so many of the social ills we have in this country today in regards to health care, welfare, etc.
When you do have money at your disposal (higher socioeconomic groups) you can still have babies at a young age and and potentially have the financial capacity to go to school/college. You probably have college-educated parents and extended family who will push you in that direction, and who are willing to pay for day care and support you while you go back to school. Young women for middle and lower socioeconomic groups will not necessarily have that luxury. So what is the problem with giving them a financial incentive to help them achieve their dreams?
Posted by B. Graham on 07/10/2009 @ 10:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Pregnancy is not "one risk among many" it is the main risk, not just personaly but for the entire society, human race, environment, and planet as a whole. The other risks are minor details in comparison. However I prever this as my favorite charity.
http://www.projectprevention.org/
Posted by Alan Ditmore on 07/10/2009 @ 11:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I personally find this disgusting. If incentive would be enough to stop teenage girls from getting pregnant - don't you think that NOT having a child that costs thousands and dollars, one's childhood and the next 18 years of their life be enough?! Do you really think $1.00 a day would trump that?! The problem lays in the education of these teenagers - not that they aren't offered incentive. Perhaps North Carolina should consider taking that $1.00 a day for each teenage girl and put it towards proper education regarding sex and family planning. If every teenager was well aware of how to prevent pregnancy and STDs and the responsibilities involved in taking care of a child and how to manage their finances (you know, things we all have to face at some point of their adult lives) then perhaps THAT would empower these teenagers to make the right choice. And those who agree with this policy should probably pick up a child rearing book as well to learn that bribery does not work in the long run with children.
Posted by Katie McGinn on 07/10/2009 @ 01:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This seems pretty dumb to me. Three reasons girls get pregnant, in no particular order: #1 - They want a baby because they think it will make them "grown up" or give them love. #2 - They just want sex and aren't educated about how to prevent pregnancy or don't have access to birth control methods. #3 - They are having sex they don't want within a relationship that doesn't let them opt out or use proper birth control.
The promise of $2000 someday - especially if the girl is not already planning on college - is not particularly compelling in the face of those other factors. The ones deliberate and resourceful enough to collect the money were probably already on track not to get pregnant.
Posted by Barbara Saunders on 07/10/2009 @ 05:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a joke right? Bribing girls and a race against mother nature? Do people understand that you have to enforce values into kids from the moment they are born to make wrong and right choices, that effect them later on in life... You can not bribe teens to make right choices.. you CAN teach them from the time they are young that boys should be gentelmen, and girls should be ladies... and maybe just maybe they will grow up and take care of one another...if a pregnancy happens, hopefully it will happen through love.. and not just because they were toying with mother nature... This treats a symptom, while placing all the blame/reward on girls... BAD IDEA! BAD! Boys share in the responsiblity here...
Posted by Melinda Morris on 07/10/2009 @ 10:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, I haven't yet thought about all the ramifications of this program but basically, it sounds like a pretty damn good idea - frequent positive-reinforcement applied.
Posted by Hoby Van Hoose on 07/11/2009 @ 05:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The author, graham, is an evil zoner, they are the primary cause of homelessness because they slow down and hinder homebuilders.
Posted by Alan Ditmore on 07/12/2009 @ 04:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
LOL! You do realize zoning was ruled constitutional back in the 1920s?
But you're totally right; really, if we didn't have zoning, EVERYONE would just be rushing to build more affordable housing! You have a keen mind for how real estate development processes work, no doubt!
And what does this have to do w/the original post?
I can't bring myself to delete your comment, which a kinder member thought was offensive, because it's so entertaining.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 07/13/2009 @ 05:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This has a point. And the “evil” zoners affect not only housing, but also access to entry level jobs and where young people can work. The result is that the young people have time on their hands, raging hormones, and no way for a responsible follow-up should things get out of hand.
(Evil above is in quotes because many act out of good intentions, just not recognizing the negative results of their actions.)
Many businesses, for example Ford, Hewlet-Packard, Apple, started in garages, but today zoners have made that illegal in most places. At one time it was allowed for young people to work, and while I have no intention of bringing back the long hours at dangerous jobs of a century ago, the pendulum has swung too far the other direction; when a 14 year old kid can’t start a business and work very part time at a bike repair shop in a neighborhood garage.
Get kids busy with that, and they won’t have time for fooling around. It will give them self-respect when they can see the positive results not only of a job well done, but the money in their pockets as a reward as well. And should the need arise, really low cost, entry level housing would be available.
Back to the original idea, I’m not enamored with the dollar a day scheme, but it is better than some of the other options tried, especially if it is connected with counselling sessions teaching young people self-control and discipline.
Posted by Richard Ortiz on 07/14/2009 @ 02:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The most relevent thing I hate about zoning is that any dollar a municipality spends administering or enforcing zoning is a dollar they did not spend on contracption including contraception incentives like this.
http://www.projectprevention.org/
Which would do ten times as much to protect local environments and neighborhood tranquility.
Posted by Alan Ditmore on 07/15/2009 @ 10:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh and I forgot, the above funding competition probably includes the author's salary. (wish this had an edit feature).
Posted by Alan Ditmore on 07/15/2009 @ 10:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What are you talking about? And leave me out of your non-sensical rantings about zoning.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 07/15/2009 @ 02:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
i feel this is an attempt, maybe not the greatest, but an attempt to try and help young teens from ruining their lives, and controlling over population at the same time. can a child born in a broken family with a teenage mother really grow to be as successful as a child raised by both parents who were ready for parenthood? I do not believe so. Giving an incentive is a good idea. Better start doing something now before it gets as bad as it is in other countries with over population.
http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/Sidebar/ChinaPop.html
Posted by hector dc on 07/17/2009 @ 12:51PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't like the idea of paying girls my age not to get pregnant. I like the idea of community meetings for inner city girls, but I don't like the idea of paying girls like me just for not getting pregnant.
Posted by Casey Williams on 07/20/2009 @ 10:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.