Why Contraception For Teens Matters

Last month, Attorney General Ken Paxton announced he was once again suing the Biden administration. This latest lawsuit concerns a program known as Title X that offers family-planning services for low-income Americans, including contraception for teenagers. 

The Title X program that offers free contraception for teenagers was previously targeted by a lawsuit filed in Texas known as Deanda v. Becerra that was heard by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The plaintiff in that case was an Amarillo father, Alexander Deanda, who said he objected to a federal program that could give access to birth control for his children. Jonathan Mitchell, the man who was the architect of the abortion ban Senate Bill 8, was Deanda’s attorney. 

Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit largely upheld Kacsmaryk’s opinion. As the original Amarillo case was being litigated, the Biden administration announced an update to Title X affiliates that they “may not require consent of parents or guardians for the provision of services to minors.”

Paxton’s lawsuit is seeking a permanent injunction to the Biden Administration’s Title X updated guidance. “Federal courts have already shut down their previous attack on parental rights, and I will ensure that we stop them once again,” wrote Paxton in a statement about the lawsuit.

Title X providers in Texas have been complying with the original Kacsmaryk decision, which has impacted the number of Texas teens enquiring about contraception at clinics that had previously dispensed birth control without parental consent. Paxton filed his lawsuit in Amarillo, where it will once again be heard by Kacsmaryk, who was also the same judge that invalidated the FDA approval of mifepristone. A ruling from him could potentially jeopardize Title X programs across the nation, not just Texas. 

Title X was implemented in 1970 under the Nixon administration. Many medical professionals credit the decrease of teen pregnancy around the country to its programs, like the one that provides contraception to teenagers without parental consent. Texas Signal spoke to Dr. Deborah McNabb a retired San Antonio-based OB-GYN and member of The Committee to Protect Health Care, about why requiring parental consent for contraception to teenagers is so harmful.

“For a multitude of reasons, this should not be happening,” said Dr. McNabb. She cited this lawsuit goes against public opinion regarding contraception, but also for medical and public health concerns. Teen and adolescent pregnancy is associated with several medical risks. “The younger a [pregnant] teenager is, the higher the risk of mortality and the more poorly [an] infant will do,” says McNabb.

McNabb also noted most parents, even if they would like their children to delay sexual activity, would prefer them to have contraceptive options just to prevent pregnancy or STD’s. There are also many reasons why a teenager would access to hormonal birth control beyond sexual activity, such as easing cramping or acne.

Earlier this year, the first over-the-counter birth control known as Opill became available. Still, that costs money – which is why Title X was so effective.

For McNabb, Paxton’s lawsuit is nothing more than “performative politics,” because it doesn’t serve a medical purpose. “This is an action that can appeal to his base.”