Is Condom Distribution Smart Health Policy?

Recommend (1) Comments (2)

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” Milton Friedman and others have said; neither is there such a thing as “free” condom availability programs at public schools. Taxpayers bear the financial costs, while society leaves the kids to bear the physical and emotional costs.

That taxpayers foot the bill for such programs goes without saying, but it is worth saying another way: society, made up of taxpayers, willingly pays to provide adolescents as young as age 13 with unlimited quantities of an item that has utility only during sexual acts. It is, in effect, a paid advertisement to teens (who cannot legally smoke, drink alcohol, or cast a ballot): “It’s just groovy if you want to engage in the most physically, emotionally, and psychologically intense and intimate act known to humanity. Just slap this on and all will be well.”

All is often not well, resulting in steep costs. Even when used correctly, condoms provide surprisingly low rates of protection against many sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). This begs the question whether public funds should be used to subsidize teen’s condom procurement, which implicitly communicates an inflated view of the efficacy of condoms while encouraging early sexual activity. Perhaps teaching teens the facts about condom performance and then informing them where condoms are sold conveys a more accurate lesson about the forethought, responsibility, and cost/benefit analysis that a teenager should be applying to the decision of whether or not to have sex.

“Free” condoms contribute to the normalization of casual sex among teens. When one out of every four teenage girls in the U.S. is living with an STD, the bill is already coming due for American teenagers and taxpayers alike. Similar to “free” love, “free” condoms represent an expensive proposition, socially as well as fiscally.