Parent Licensing: One Step Away From Totalitarianism

Why mandatory birth control is unnecessary for 21st century North Americans.

Right now, there are over 7 billion people on the planet; that means that our population has almost tripled over the past 65 years, and Earth isn’t getting any bigger. The population growth rate continues to steadily climb in developing countries, but it is actually decreasing in North America. This could be caused by a plethora of factors: life spans are shortening, the population is aging, less importance is being placed on nuclear families, conditions on the planet are worsening, fertility rates are dropping, and more. According to the United Nations, that means that the world’s population should peak and level out at around 10 billion. It’s a high number, but it is manageable. 

Keeping that in mind, enforcing mandatory contraception could make sense in developing countries where birth control and sex education is inaccessible. It’s just impractical and needless for North Americans. 

Yet according to a poll on debate.org, 73% of people disagree. In a Blogger post, Bailey Wyka represents that percentage. She argues for the enforcement of “parent licensing”, the purpose of which is “to certify every person who wants to be a parent with a stamp of approval on a certificate stating [that] they will be a good parent…male or female.” Until they receive that stamp of approval, they will be forced by governments to surgically implant a contraceptive when they hit puberty age. The purpose for the procedure would ultimately be “to stop unfit people from having children,” as it could not be removed until the license was earned. An article on PBS echoes, "Imagine what our nation would be like if every child had competent parenting. This is not an unrealistic goal if we really care about our future."

This proposition raises a lot of questions. First of all, the current political model in North America does not permit government to force its citizens into physical surgery. Mandatory surgery as a concept is unavoidably illegal; if a person does not want to go under the knife, how are they to be forced? Will they be drugged, restrained, bribed or threatened? Those seem to be the only options, and none of them sound ethical, democratic, or safe.

Another important concern is how this surgery would even take place. There is no existing contraceptive that works for men and women and can be safely implanted in the way Wyka describes. If this procedure were to be enforced, the technology would have to exist, and a safe surgical method would need to be created. Right now, that hasn’t happened. Therefore, neither can parent licensing. 

Wyka also argues that “the most well known people who become pregnant are teenagers,” and that “if there was to be a contraceptive placed in every child once they hit puberty then the rate of teen pregnancy would be almost nonexistent.” She cites an article on the Daily Beast to prove that “teens who get free contraception are more likely to use it and contraception that is long lasting dropped the birth rate even lower.”

First, teenagers don’t conceive, carry, and deliver babies as often as middle-aged people (anymore). The only meaningful difference is that teens are more likely to have unprotected sex. If they are more likely to use free, long-lasting contraception, it’s extremely probable that they’re doing so by their own will. The methods that the Daily Beast refers to are for willing participants, not teens forced into sterilization. Frankly, the only realistic outcome of that would be a traumatized generation. 

The final portion of Wyka’s argument elaborates on the method of analyzing a person’s parenting abilities, which would lead to them being denied of or given their license. 

“A certification process would be in place where professional social services representatives would analyze the person’s life and decide if they meet the qualifications of being a parent. Some characteristics of a well-fit parent would be being able to handle stressful situations, doesn't have a short temper, non-violent, and overall is a loving person. The process would include a home and family visit, checking financials, and multiple interviews over a few weeks. A child also requires two parents who are equally responsible and loving to the child. That is why not only one parent needs to be certified, but both need the licensed in order to have a baby. Once both parents have been approved by the representatives then doctors will take out the contraceptives and a baby may be created.”

The qualifications of being a fit parent would unavoidably vary from person to person, including the authorities who conduct the analysis. Personal bias would come into play and easily allow for unfair discrimination. Even if there were a perfect human who could conduct the analysis without bias, how could they measure adequate abilities? There are so many different parenting methods that it would be nearly impossible to find a uniform expectation for parents. "I can only imagine how kids would turn out if everyone was subjected to the same 'ideals' of child-rearing," says Kimberlee Bradford of Michiko Baby. If it’s a simple background check, a clear history doesn’t mean that the person will be a good mother or father. Granted, it may mean that the children will grow up with a family that can support them financially, but that’s about it. Plus, it’s a tad reminiscent of communist China’s regime to put limitations on who can have children based on government-enforced expectations. That’s not very democratic. It’s also discriminating against single parents, financially unstable parents, and likely, minorities who would suffer from the previously mentioned, inevitable bias. 

The entire process of parent licensing would theoretically paid for by taxpayer dollars, meaning that it would only cost “close to $5” for each participant to print their license. However, taxpayers have no reason to fund mandatory birth control. Frankly, it’s not their problem. More specifically, it’s not a problem at all. As mentioned, overpopulation is not a primary issue in North America, ultimately rendering Wyka’s argument irrelevant. 

Photo by US Army.

How I improved my title's SEO: When I used Google Trends to search "parent licensing", I found that it is at its second highest popularity (98) right now, surpassed only in April 2014 (100), and compared to a score of 0 in January 2014. It was searched only in the United States, which is why I referred to "North Americans" rather than Canadians. I made sure to use 'parent licensing" in my title for that reason. There were no related searches, so I searched "totalitarianism", which also had a high and similar score (100) in the US. I chose "totalitarianism" rather than "dictatorship" (77) or "communism" (38) for SEO and clarity.