Abort that Idea! Here’s Some Info You Missed, Mr. Reid (Unpublished)

Senator Ruel Reid is obviously perturbed by the country’s abysmal trajectory of economic growth of about one per cent since independence. Who wouldn’t be? I commend him for continuously positing recommendations in this regard, however, he desperately needs to discard the fallacious arguments that seemingly (mis)inform his reasoning.

It is quite frightening that despite the tremendous amount of information available at our fingertips, the educator and Senator apparently believes it is ok to prolong his ignorance on sexual and reproductive health and economic development, especially as it relates to people’s livelihood and education. Remember his argument in April last year regarding student academic achievement? (See Politicians Afraid To Tell Poor Not To Have Kids - Reid, Jamaica Gleaner, April 22, 2013). Now he has conspicuously returned with a simple solution to solve our economic problems. Restrict the number of children a man or woman can have and voila we will become a prosperous nation. And here we were thinking the controversial megawatt project and logistics hub are the solution. How foolish of us?

There is no denying poverty is still a grave problem in Jamaica (although some of Reid’s colleagues on both sides in parliament seem oblivious to this fact). Nearly eighteen per cent of our people are living in poverty; an increase from 9.9 per cent in 2007. But does that mean the government should consider and pursue a mandatory policy to limit the number of children one can have to reduce costs where social protection is concerned? No, but Senator Reid thinks so. He claims half of our children are depending on state resources and inferred they wouldn’t need to if only people who can afford to maintain children procreate. It’s pitiful so many of us consider this a sound policy recommendation.

To be honest, the Senator is right about the importance of family planning and the fact that PATH is not the answer. We know this! I believe what he meant to say is that many of the poorest families are likely to remain in poverty for a very long time if we do not change the way we do things. Their children will be poor, their children's children and their children's children's children as well. Unless we address inequality and increase opportunities for the poor while at the same time dealing with crime and violence, and corruption, reducing our debt, curtailing waste and pursuing sound economic policies. Surely that’s what he meant.

The senator is also missing the crucial point that many of the people he believes should not be having children do so because of a myriad of reasons. The least of which isn't the fact that they lack sexual and reproductive health knowledge. This shortfall in accessing sexual and reproductive health information and and care ought to be placed at the foot of the state. Unless and until we build the capacity of poor people, and  especially young women, to access proper sexual and reproductive health services as well as address other compounding social ills, we will continue to apply bandaids to our problems and act as if they are panaceas.

There are some critical questions that we must ask Mr Reid. Are our economic problems (in part?) a consequence of people having more children than they can afford? Is our birth rate out of control? Is there a direct link between population size and economic growth? Are we supporting too many children with the measly sum of money given to some of the poorest families through the Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH)? Is half the population of children really on PATH?

What is PATH and what does it do? “PATH offers an array of benefits to children from birth to completion of secondary school; senior citizens 60 years and over, who are not in receipt of a pension; persons with disabilities; pregnant and lactating women; and poor adults, between the ages of 18 to 59 years, who are duly registered. (JIS, 2014)”

Here are some facts you must consider to help you rubbish the nonsense:

1. There are 977,500 persons between 0-19 years living in Jamaica. (A child is usually up to 18 years).
2. The birth rate is actually 2.4 child per woman but too many teenagers are having children (72 per 1000).
3. Since PATH was piloted in 2001 and fully implemented in 2002, over 400,000 people have benefited. Note that is not even 50% of the total number of children (as per 2011 census).
4. Spending on PATH is less than 0.3 as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In January 2008, it was 0.20% and last year as at April and September it was 0.30% and 0.22%.
5. Government spending on social protection protection is 2.8%.

Where did Reid actually get his data? I wonder if he tells his students to avoid coitus with poor women and be cautious about who they impregnate? He should appease his misguided angst by engaging his colleague, Senator Kamina Johnson Smith who has a more informed and nuanced perspective on sexual and reproductive health and rights issues. The Opposition Leader should perhaps introduce a mandatory policy for him to read Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom and restrict him from speaking on these matters until he's done reading and has had tutorial with relevant persons. If not, I hope he has signed that undated letter.