Peltzman effect

One of the questions thrown my way lately is related to the big RH bill debate--it came out of a discussion on why making condoms easily available (i.e., free) in health centers would not be good for society. The question is: "How about you? If somebody gave you a condom for free right now, you wouldn't go crazy-wild and use it, would you?"

Of course not. But, you see, this is exactly the kind of thinking that makes people complacent about allowing condoms or other pseudo-essential medicines to be readily available to anybody who walks in a health center: "It won't change me; so, how can it change society?" You'll be surprised.

WHO campaign for road safety, focused on
seat belt use. See the rest here.

The Peltzman Effect
Have you ever heard of the Peltzman Effect? Economist and University Professor Sam Peltzman, in his studies, noticed that regulations imposed by the government tend to fall short of their goal and even cause the opposite of the intended effect. How so? In a 2004 lecture that Peltzman gave at the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, the University of Chicago professor cites a seat belt car safety regulation as an example. To quote:

"I argued that this regulation would encourage greater risk-taking.... If you are in a hurry and tempted to drive faster or more aggressively part of the price you pay for this is the extra risk of getting into an accident and then suffering injury or even death. The mandated safety devices would reduce this price by reducing the severity of the consequences you could expect if you got into an accident. If those consequences had been sufficiently severe to deter you before the regulation came along they were now less likely to do so. So simple economic logic suggested that, in the aggregate, the mandated devices would encourage more risky behavior--and this great risk taking would offset to some degree the safety benefits these devices seem to promise." (Emphasis is mine.)

It's not that condoms are ineffective (I must emphasize though, that they are not 100 percent effective), but that their mandated availability will do much in promoting risky behavior. In the recent Real Love Revolution talk given by youth speaker Chris Stefanick, a simple comparison brought to light how the Peltzman Effect could apply to RH matters, too.

Chris Stefanick, at the Real Love Revolution 2012, held at the World Trade Center, Sept 1, 2012.  

Stefanick pointed out: "In 1984 was the AIDS breakout in the Philippines and in Thailand at the same time. The response in the Philippines was to promote abstinence; the response of Thailand was to promote condoms. Twenty years later, the rate of AIDS infection in Thailand was 50 times higher than in the Philippines."

Risky behavior
In other words, it's not about the effectiveness of a certain device (or the strength of personal wisdom of individuals) but about the pervading culture of society. If people learn to be more open to risky behavior simply because they have an escape route of sorts, what will we be in 20 years? in 50 years?

"Safe sex" is a lie. Wearing that rubber latex balloon, taking the Pill, or inserting that copper coil contraption do not make the sexual act safer--because really, sex (that is, sex within marriage and with fidelity) is safe to begin with. (Aside: having a baby is a natural effect of the conjugal act and is definitely not the same as getting sick.)

What makes sex unsafe is to have multiple partners, to engage in it outside of marriage and to contracept. With side effects like allergic reactions (condoms), headaches, mood swings, higher breast cancer risk (Pills), and a perforated uterus (IUD), how can it be said that contraceptives (and the latter two, abortifacients) actually make sex safe? If you disagree, it's a good time to look up the word "safe" in the dictionary.

Is it for us?
The condom culture is not something to make light of--it's real and it's happening now: in the US, Europe, Southeast Asia... all over the world. You hear people saying (in a derogative way) that the Philippines is the only country without an RH law--but I want to point out that passing an RH law just to avoid "being left behind" is just plain thoughtless. How about first considering how such laws have changed the family culture of other countries and then deciding whether or not we want that for our country? Consider real safety; and choose a culture that preserves the true meaning of family.

"Your own safety is at stake when your neighbor's wall is ablaze."-Horace