This is what we’re learning about teen pregnancy: it is, too often, a form of child abuse. An Alan Guttmacher Institute study last summer found that 66 percent of all teen mothers had children by men who were 20 or older. In many cases, the age spread isn’t extreme–three or four years. But a 1990 California survey seemed to indicate that the younger the girl, the older the guy (among mothers aged 11-12, the father was an average 10 years older). And a 1992 Washington state study found that 62 percent of 535 teen mothers had been raped or molested before they became pregnant; the offenders’ mean age was 27.4 years. “This is a situation that no one really wants to talk about,” says Aurora Zapata of Homes for the Homeless in New York, “but everyone knows it’s true.”
No one wants to talk about the situation because it is inconsistent with the prevailing mythologies about teen pregnancy, both liberal and conservative. No one wants to talk about it because it exposes the criminal stupidity of the national debate over welfare reform. Conservatives are uncomfortable because it posits another victim class: girls who become pregnant aren’t just amoral, premature tarts – they are prey. Who could support cutting off these children’s benefits, as some Republicans have proposed? But liberals are also uncomfortable because the data are further proof that an intense social pathology–a culture of poverty–has overwhelmed the slums. Certainly, these studies raise huge new questions about the social work community’s disastrous ideology of “family preservation.” The “families” preserved too often house a sexual predator: a stepfather, mom’s boyfriend, an “uncle.” In any case, single parents–usually former teenage mothers themselves–seem quite unable, and sometimes unwilling, to stop the abuse. “They do not want to admit it’s their men who are doing this,” says Zapata. “In many cases they’re not unhappy their daughter is having a baby. It brings more [welfare] money into the household.”
The psychology at work is deep and discouraging. For the men, hitting on young girls may be a consequence of powerlessness–though one wonders what sort of man is empowered by the rape of an 11-year-old – compounded by the absence of all ethical moorings and by a welfare system ready to bankroll irresponsibility. As for the girls, who are inevitably fatherless, Charlette’s yearning for protection–for a father–seems entirely comprehensible. (No doubt many young girls also expect that a new baby would bring fulfillment and status in an otherwise bleak world.) “The most depressing thing is, these behavior patterns are tacitly condoned,” says Kathleen Sylvester of the Progressive Policy Institute. “Not enough mothers say, “You’re too young to be with a man’ or “That guy’s too old for you’.”
What to do? Enforcement of statutory rape laws, especially for serial progenitors like Charlette’s partner, would seem a good idea. “Child abuse is a crime,” says Sylvester. “A lot of these guys should be in jail. But it’s very hard to get the girls to testify – they’re ashamed, they’re frightened and in many cases they still have an emotional attachment.” What to do? The nostrum that pregnant teenagers must live at home in order to receive welfare money seems exactly the wrong thing. “The only way to break the cycle,” says Aurora Zapata, “is to get them out of those homes.”
Kathleen Sylvester has proposed a system of government funded, privately run “second-chance homes” where pregnant teens could be protected from predators, given something like the structure and support of a permanent home, taught motherhood and morality. In other words: orphanages. But liberals, enthralled by social work ideologues and “family preservation” fantasists, tend to blanch at both the word and the concept; most conservatives simply don’t want to spend the money. Still, there was surprising support for a $150 million “second-chance home” pilot project–especially among conservatives, who see it as an alternative to cash payments–in the Welfare Reform Act vetoed by the president.
But even if welfare reform does eventually pass, a stray “second-chance home” here or there isn’t going to put much of a dent in this disgraceful situation, nor will it provide much evidence about the effectiveness of removing these children from dysfunctional families. Someone–some small state or big city–has to propose an intensive experiment with the idea, perhaps even a mandatory program for pregnant children under the age of 15: if you want government support, you can only get it at a “second-chance home.” “I’d like to see it given a try,” says Charles Murray, the sociologist who first proposed cutting teenagers off the dole. “At the very least, it might have a deterrent effect. Of course, I’d also like to see some city try a complete suspension of benefits, so we could compare the results.” That’s probably a bridge too far, even for most conservatives. But I wonder: Breathes there a Republican governor with the courage to request a federal waiver for a real “second chance” project in one of his cities? Breathes there a New Democrat president with the courage to grant it?
