 |
| generated via ChatGPT |
Trump regime shifts teen pregnancy policy to abstinence and marriage, echoing Project 2025's theocratic vision. {NYT 22 June}
As one who believes our world is already profoundly overpopulated, and that humanity's present trajectory is environmentally unsustainable, I have no desire to see more teenagers becoming parents… or most anyone else. Bringing a child into the world ought to be among the most carefully considered decisions any person ever makes, not something undertaken casually or because of social pressure, religious dogma, or political ideology.
Suggesting that teenagers delay sexual activity is not, in and of itself, unreasonable. Expecting abstinence, however — particularly as the centrepiece of public policy — is another matter entirely. Decades of evidence tell us that comprehensive sex education and reliable access to contraception are far more effective at reducing unintended teenage pregnancies than abstinence-only programmes. Teen pregnancy rates have fallen dramatically over recent decades, and access to contraception is absolutely the reason why. It works, and it ought to be readily available to anyone who needs it without any shame or guilt.
Alas, the Christian Nationalists (or ‘Christofascists’) will never be satisfied with that conclusion because abstinence is not truly the destination they seek. Their broader vision places marriage and childbearing at the centre of young adulthood, reflecting a social order more reminiscent of the nineteenth century than the twenty-first. Modern societies are more complex than agrarian communities of centuries past; young adults spend longer in education, enter stable careers later, and face housing costs and economic pressures unknown to previous generations. Encouraging earlier marriage and parenthood does not resolve those realities; it does not merely ignore reality, it openly defies it.
Ideology is increasingly replacing evidence. Public-health policy ought to be judged by measurable outcomes rather than theological preference. If a programme demonstrably reduces unintended pregnancies, improves maternal health, and gives young people greater control over their futures, abandoning it for ideological reasons strikes me as not merely profoundly irresponsible, but sinister in its intent.
Humanity already consumes resources at a rate the planet cannot sustain, whilst climate change increasingly demonstrates that ecological limits are not theoretical abstractions. Obviously some level of reproduction is necessary to keep the species from extinction, but we should be encouraging thoughtful, deliberate parenthood, not treating reproduction as a cultural or political obligation. Bringing children into the world should be an act of responsibility, not ideology, and I do not believe every man or woman deserves the privilege (another rant for another day).
I predict, within a few years, America shall begin seeing teenage pregnancy rates climb once more as comprehensive sex education and access to contraception continue to be undermined. When that day comes, we shall know exactly who bears responsibility. After all, this is what y'all voted for, #Muricans.
🪐💔 #QueSeraSera 𓅨 🕈
