I lecture on these issues semester after semester. One common theme that arises is that many young poor women are choosing to have babies as a means to creating a future — the only future they can see as an option — to replicate what they knew growing up.
To the Editor:
Re “Beyond Marriage,” by Isabel V. Sawhill (Sunday Review, Sept. 14):
One key component of this discussion is missing.
I lecture on these issues semester after semester. One common theme that arises is that many young poor women are choosing to have babies as a means to creating a future — the only future they can see as an option — to replicate what they knew growing up.
For many of them having a baby is a means to collecting an array of social welfare benefits (falsely believing that those benefits will support them), and a way of having someone to love and of possibly getting a guy at least somewhat invested in their lives.
My students regularly suggest that what is needed is for these young women to have some hope for their future that does not involve becoming a mother at a young age. What if these women had a more affordable option for higher educational opportunities?
What if there were great guidance counselors or school social workers willing to discuss family planning with teenagers? Until young poor girls have a broader array of future possibilities, I don’t think that increased access to IUD’s will make much of a difference.
LEAANNE DeRIGNE
Boca Raton, Fla., Sept. 14, 2014
The writer is an assistant professor of social work, Florida Atlantic University.
To the Editor:
As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I applaud Isabel V. Sawhill’s appeal to increase access to the most effective forms of birth control: IUDs and the implant. Even when women choose those methods, there are frequently additional barriers they have to overcome.
Ideally, women should be able to have the IUD placed the same day they make the decision to use it, but the high upfront cost and limited access prove to be continuing impediments for many women. Even women with insurance coverage often have to pay for it first, or wait for their doctor to order it.
IUDs and the implant are not right for every woman, but many women want them and cannot get them. Increasing access to all methods by eliminating barriers of cost and access will ultimately empower women to make the best decision for themselves and their families.
KATHLEEN MORRELL
New York, Sept. 15, 2014
The writer is a reproductive health advocacy fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health in New York.
To the Editor:
Isabel V. Sawhill ponders options about how to raise children outside of marriage. There are three options she didn’t mention:
First, be like Sweden has been since the 1950s. Instead of hoping that the parents will figure out how to struggle on their own, the government gives a subsidy to each child, every month, from the time of conception until 18.
Second, have financial disincentives to having many children and financial incentives to waiting to have children.
And third, encourage the poor to have an education to lift themselves out of poverty by providing an affordable method for attending college. For the poor, that means free — with obligations. For example, after high school, if graduates work for two years or so in areas in which the government needs help, then they get college paid for.
JUDY EINZIG
San Francisco, Sept. 14, 2014
To the Editor:
There have been so many changes in the structure of the economy, the structure of the family and the politics of the nation that it is hard to believe that more effective contraception is the answer to child poverty and “irresponsible parenthood.” Is it lack of effective contraception that has increased economic inequality so greatly, or is it the unequal distribution of wealth?
There was a time, not too long ago, when one parent (the man) supported the family and the family enjoyed economic upward mobility. Why can’t a single parent support a family today? Is it because that single parent is a woman, often earning less than minimum wage, often working fewer than 40 hours a week (not by choice) and often earning less than a man?
Yes, contraception is important. But there is no reason a single woman cannot support her family if she earns a living wage, has supportive child care and health care, and lives in an environment that doesn’t consider her a bad parent.
MARCIA BOK
Hartford, Sept. 15, 2014
The writer is professor emeritus of social work at the University of Connecticut.
To the Editor:
Isabel V. Sawhill provided timely information on the vital role and efficacy of various methods of family planning available to the American public.
Effective contraception, if made easily available and affordable to all adolescent girls and women, along with solid education through schools, physicians’ offices, clinics and other agencies that serve the public, would to a large extent render the fraught debate about abortion less relevant, while significantly improving the life prospects of millions of children and their families.
The actions of politicians, including Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, to reduce funding for Planned Parenthood and the drop in federal funding for contraception in overseas programs are counterproductive at best.
NANCY T. BLOCK
Berkeley Heights, N.J., Sept. 15, 2014
The writer is a psychiatrist.
Re “Beyond Marriage,” by Isabel V. Sawhill (Sunday Review, Sept. 14):
One key component of this discussion is missing.
I lecture on these issues semester after semester. One common theme that arises is that many young poor women are choosing to have babies as a means to creating a future — the only future they can see as an option — to replicate what they knew growing up.
For many of them having a baby is a means to collecting an array of social welfare benefits (falsely believing that those benefits will support them), and a way of having someone to love and of possibly getting a guy at least somewhat invested in their lives.
My students regularly suggest that what is needed is for these young women to have some hope for their future that does not involve becoming a mother at a young age. What if these women had a more affordable option for higher educational opportunities?
What if there were great guidance counselors or school social workers willing to discuss family planning with teenagers? Until young poor girls have a broader array of future possibilities, I don’t think that increased access to IUD’s will make much of a difference.
LEAANNE DeRIGNE
Boca Raton, Fla., Sept. 14, 2014
The writer is an assistant professor of social work, Florida Atlantic University.
To the Editor:
As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I applaud Isabel V. Sawhill’s appeal to increase access to the most effective forms of birth control: IUDs and the implant. Even when women choose those methods, there are frequently additional barriers they have to overcome.
Ideally, women should be able to have the IUD placed the same day they make the decision to use it, but the high upfront cost and limited access prove to be continuing impediments for many women. Even women with insurance coverage often have to pay for it first, or wait for their doctor to order it.
IUDs and the implant are not right for every woman, but many women want them and cannot get them. Increasing access to all methods by eliminating barriers of cost and access will ultimately empower women to make the best decision for themselves and their families.
KATHLEEN MORRELL
New York, Sept. 15, 2014
The writer is a reproductive health advocacy fellow at Physicians for Reproductive Health in New York.
To the Editor:
Isabel V. Sawhill ponders options about how to raise children outside of marriage. There are three options she didn’t mention:
First, be like Sweden has been since the 1950s. Instead of hoping that the parents will figure out how to struggle on their own, the government gives a subsidy to each child, every month, from the time of conception until 18.
Second, have financial disincentives to having many children and financial incentives to waiting to have children.
And third, encourage the poor to have an education to lift themselves out of poverty by providing an affordable method for attending college. For the poor, that means free — with obligations. For example, after high school, if graduates work for two years or so in areas in which the government needs help, then they get college paid for.
JUDY EINZIG
San Francisco, Sept. 14, 2014
To the Editor:
There have been so many changes in the structure of the economy, the structure of the family and the politics of the nation that it is hard to believe that more effective contraception is the answer to child poverty and “irresponsible parenthood.” Is it lack of effective contraception that has increased economic inequality so greatly, or is it the unequal distribution of wealth?
There was a time, not too long ago, when one parent (the man) supported the family and the family enjoyed economic upward mobility. Why can’t a single parent support a family today? Is it because that single parent is a woman, often earning less than minimum wage, often working fewer than 40 hours a week (not by choice) and often earning less than a man?
Yes, contraception is important. But there is no reason a single woman cannot support her family if she earns a living wage, has supportive child care and health care, and lives in an environment that doesn’t consider her a bad parent.
MARCIA BOK
Hartford, Sept. 15, 2014
The writer is professor emeritus of social work at the University of Connecticut.
To the Editor:
Isabel V. Sawhill provided timely information on the vital role and efficacy of various methods of family planning available to the American public.
Effective contraception, if made easily available and affordable to all adolescent girls and women, along with solid education through schools, physicians’ offices, clinics and other agencies that serve the public, would to a large extent render the fraught debate about abortion less relevant, while significantly improving the life prospects of millions of children and their families.
The actions of politicians, including Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, to reduce funding for Planned Parenthood and the drop in federal funding for contraception in overseas programs are counterproductive at best.
NANCY T. BLOCK
Berkeley Heights, N.J., Sept. 15, 2014
The writer is a psychiatrist.