Welcome Contrast on Birth Control : Gov. Wilson’s contraceptive plan has risks, but it’s a start

Gov. Wilson has tackled a tough subject, state-funded family planning, in an admirably pragmatic and straightforward manner. He has proposed making contraceptives, including an expensive new alternative, Norplant, widely available to women who cannot afford to buy them. But while his practical approach to making birth control more accessible is good, Wilson’s focus on Norplant as a potential panacea is misplaced.

There’s no doubt that Wilson’s attitude is a welcome contrast to that of his predecessor, Gov. George Deukmejian, who cut the state family planning budget by two-thirds and tried to limit clinics to providing information only. Wilson has called for $10 million in increased funding to the State Office of Family Planning. That additional money would finance programs, specifically targeting teens and drug abusers, that encourage abstinence, provide education and pay for contraceptives.

Gov. Wilson said he favors abstinence for teen-agers--but he lives in the real world. When teen-agers fail to abstain, and that’s all too often, the cost is high not only to them but to government. When mothers are 14 and younger they are rarely married, and their babies are also more likely to have health complications. Poor teen-age mothers generally depend on public health care, welfare and other government subsidies.

According to Planned Parenthood, those public costs added up to $21 billion last year for social, health and welfare services to families begun by teen mothers. That huge expense may pale in comparison, however, to the amount this nation may have to spend caring for children born to the estimated 1 million American women who use cocaine. These crack babies often require extensive medical care, special education, foster care, welfare, housing and other subsidies for years, and perhaps generations.

To help more babies get a healthy start, Wilson has called for increased funding for prenatal care and drug treatment programs. It is within that context that he talked about offering Norplant, the first major new contraceptive to be introduced in this nation in 30 years, to prevent pregnancy in teens and drug-abusing women.

The governor favors Norplant because it does not involve daily maintenance. This new form of birth control involves tiny rods inserted surgically in the upper arm to prevent pregnancy for up to five years. The cost, up to $700, makes it prohibitive for most teen-agers and young women. The proposed state subsidies, plus a $100 co-payment, would make Norplant more accessible.

But if IUD use--another invasive birth control procedure--is any indication, the poor women and teens who are the target of Wilson’s concern are not as likely as he thinks to clamor for the insertion of Norplant into their arms.

The governor has said he hasn’t decided whether to make the device mandatory for drug users. Drug abusers should have every opportunity to use birth control--but the state should not compel its use.

The newness of Norplant, which was only approved last year by the federal Food and Drug Administration, prompts many questions for the governor. Can very young women tolerate the side effects, such as abnormal bleeding? Will women who dislike the method be able to have it removed quickly? Will women who choose Norplant also urge their partners to use condoms as a protection against sexually transmitted diseases? Will women who use it today encounter unknown problems in future years? All women of child-bearing age need a full range of safe and affordable contraceptive choices. And teen-age boys and men must be more strongly encouraged to use birth control, too.

Gov. Wilson is right to try to make birth control more accessible to the poor and the young, women and men. The method is another question.