Abort that idea! Here's some info you missed, Mr Reid

By Jaevion Nelson

Senator Ruel Reid is obviously perturbed by the country's abysmal trajectory of economic growth of about one per cent since Independence. I commend him for continuously positing recommen-dations 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 okay 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? 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?

poverty a grave problem

There is no denying poverty is still a grave problem in Jamaica. Nearly 18 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? 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.

The senator is right about the importance of family planning and the fact that Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH) is not the answer. 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.

Reasons for having many children

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 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 Band-Aids 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 PATH? Is half the population of children really on PATH?

What is 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).

Where did Reid actually get his data? I wonder if he tells his students to avoid coitus with poor women and be cautious about with whom 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'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.

Jaevion Nelson is a youth development, HIV and human rights advocate. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jaevion@gmail.com.