The Atlantic Report: IUDs and Implants

No serious journal has seen a greater decline in the Internet age than The Atlantic. As a sharpening tool, I'll be examining an article a day for the next month.

As we reach progressive domination, it is more and more clear that their real enemy is consequence.

IUDs and Implants Are the New Pill is a water-testing article. Look for agitation supporting long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for teens in the future.

According to an important new study that will appear in tomorrow's New England Journal of Medicine, more than 16 times more teenage women would choose these options over birth-control pills if given proper information and affordable access to all forms of medical contraception. That would dramatically lower rates of unplanned pregnancy and abortion, which cost the country billions of dollars every year.

That "if given proper information," et al, is fun. Teenage "women" respond positively to a sales pitch for LARC, in other words.

What is this a consequence of? Well, the Pill reduced the ostensible risk of extra-marital sex. The result was a general loosening of public sexual morals. "General"--not "responsible." The culture of "sex=no big deal" meant an increase of consequences:  unplanned pregnancies and STDs. Taking the Pill, or using condoms, requires a level of discipline that is not usually found in conjunction with teenage sexual activity.

The progressive vision preaches freedom, so, when it's necessary to compel, it relies on economics:

The United States has more teenage pregnancies than any other wealthy country, and the cost of that is around $11 billion every year─in the form of public assistance, care for infants more likely to suffer health problems, and income lost as a result of lower educational attainment and reduced earnings among children born to teenage mothers. 

That last, "income lost as a result," is one of those amusing line items that seems to always appear within alarming figures. How is imaginary lost income a cost?

The phrasing here is interesting:

But [unintended teenage pregnancy] is a stubborn problem in that it persists despite being, apparently, readily solvable. 

Writer James Hamblin falters at the word "stubborn" because he fails to realize that not everyone is as smart and responsible as he is.

Well, not really. The attitude reflected in this article is the sideways acknowledgement Progress gives to intractable human nature. Teenagers--even grown-up teenage women--aren't as responsible as full-grown adults. It's best, then, to make sure that they don't have a choice but to be responsible.

CDC has targeted the country’s teenage pregnancy rates as among a handful of what it calls “Winnable Battles.” Apart from the implication that some battles are un-winnable, it’s been a laudable initiative.

Implying that we can't do everything we want to is dangerously close to thought-crime!

Finally:

Like any public-health solution, the primary challenge is culture. No less than the bastion of sexual liberation the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that countries with the most sex-positive sexual instruction have the best outcomes in preventing unintentional teenage pregnancy, and that the public-health issue is best addressed with "societal acceptance of adolescent sexual relationships."

The long-running argument on the left has been that teenagers don't practice responsible sex because they are embarrassed. They are embarrassed because of social attitudes toward teen sex. Society must change so these kids can get it on worry-free!

What is the underlying assumption in this article? That sexual "freedom" is sacrosanct--its consequences must be managed. I say, fruit of the poisoned tree, and all that.