ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, February 17, 1997 TAG: 9702170072
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
WITH THE carrot of a $20 million bonus from the federal government dangling before them, Allen administration officials have taken a new interest in reducing out-of-wedlock births. And not just those resulting from teen-age pregnancy, but all such births.
This is something of a departure, with a rationale: Nationwide, three of every 10 children born out of wedlock are born to teen-age mothers, but the majority of out-of-wedlock kids are born to women between 20 and 30 years of age. While there are any number of public- and private-sector pregnancy-prevention programs aimed at teens, few if any focus on unintended pregnancies among older, unmarried women.
By some estimates, U.S. taxpayers will spend $7 billion this year to pay for social problems stemming from out-of-wedlock births. That toll includes not only welfare costs, but a host of ills found in greater numbers among single-parent families, including impoverished children, school dropouts, drug use and juvenile delinquency.
Obviously, taxpayers in Virginia, where the percentage of out-of-wedlock births is an astounding 30 percent, will pay a goodly share of that bill. Randolph Gordon, the state's health commissioner, is right: ``If we can reduce unintended pregnancies, then we are all winners, whether we win [the $20 million bonus] or not.''
But notice he said "unintended pregnancies." The Allen administration apparently deserves congratulations for, in effect, a strong endorsement of family planning and birth control for unwed women past their teen years.
Such an endorsement is at least implied. Efforts to encourage abstinence may be meaningful, at times marginally effective, with teens. Most sex educators advise that programs focusing entirely on abstinence don't work. But surely abstinence has a place on the menu when the goal is to prevent teen pregnancies.
Just as surely, though, it's hard to imagine a public initiative convincing many women in their 20s and early 30s that they should postpone sexual activity until they are older and more mature.
Similarly out of touch would be those suggesting the solution is simply to encourage marriage among women in this age group. Many single women would like to marry, but haven't found anyone they want to marry or who wants to marry them. Or, for career-related or other reasons, they're not ready to wed. Yet many still want to have sexual relations.
Whatever values we might hold for our own lives and families, it would be naive as well as patronizing to expect the state to convince women of this age that they should put off sex until or unless they are married - the state's desire for a federal bonus notwithstanding.
The feds will pay $20 million to the five states that are most successful in reducing out-of-wedlock births without increasing abortion rates. Virginia should get into that competition, not for a paltry share of $20 million, but because the goal is so worthwhile - in itself, and for innumerable reasons.
Let's be clear, though, about what's involved. Under most circumstances, it is better if a woman having a child is married. That's a value we should feel free to espouse. But, meantime, countless unmarried women ages 20 to 30 are having sex without getting pregnant, and they're not having abortions. They and their partners are sensibly using contraception.
If the state seriously hopes to reduce unintended pregnancies and out-of-wedlock births among these adults, promoting birth control is the pragmatic way to go about it.
LENGTH: Medium: 64 linesby CNB