In January, a debate broke out. Conversations on broadcast media, live shows, Twitter spaces, and call-in shows were discussing anything from sex and culture to pregnancy and pedophilia. Like many debates, this had two, sparsely polarized sides. Only one topic has proven to get Rwandans that polarized; women’s bodies and what they do with them.
This debate was no different. In fact, it was not new on the debating table. The question at hand was: “Should teenage girls aged 18 and under be allowed to access contraceptive services in Rwandan hospitals unaccompanied with their parents?”
It is important to note that teenagers are legally allowed to use contraceptives in Rwanda but with permission from their parents.
The debate stemmed from a bill that was tabled in the parliament seeking, among other things, to allow teenagers to access contraceptives without their parent’s permission. The rationale is to give as much access to contraceptives to teenage girls as possible as one way to curb teenage pregnancies that have marred Rwanda for over a decade. On average, nearly 30,000 girls under the age of 18 get pregnant every year in Rwanda.
Teenage pregnancies are an intersection of many other problems that face Rwandan society currently. Children born to underage mothers are prone to malnutrition, stunting both physically and academically. Malnutrition and poor quality of education are two other problems that have kept Rwandan policy-makers awake for the past few years.
It would not be so far-fetched to say that curbing teenage pregnancies could increase the already-impressive life expectancy of Rwandans from the current 69 to 80 or even 100. Needless to say, we must find a solution.
While debating whether the decision is the best thing for our teenagers, and the spirit of debate for that matter, is great, the futures of 30,000 teenagers are at stake.
The two sides of the debate have ground but are nowhere near a viable solution. One side, the pro side, debates that information and access to sexual rights and reproductive health are the most viable and sustainable solutions to teenage pregnancies. Some countries, the UK for instance, experienced a similar surge in teenage pregnancies in the 1980s. They launched a 10-year campaign and opened up reproductive services to teenagers.
The campaign reduced teenage pregnancy numbers by a half after 10 years. It has been called by researchers “The most successful campaign of our time” (Toynbee, The drop in teenage pregnancies is the success story of our time, 2013). Indeed. A campaign that prevents the reckless, high-on hormones teenagers from ruining their future, is indeed a successful story.
The other side, the con side, refutes the proposal saying that giving unsupervised access to teenagers would be encouraging fornication and undermining abstinence. This site also brings in perspectives of culture, religion, and the fact that such young bodies would be exposed to the side effects of contraceptives. This side would oppose the UK research in the name of fighting Westernization.
The bill in the parliament has been in discussions for three years now. Only two components have clogged the law-making process: access to contraceptives by teenagers without their parents legalizing surrogacy and ironing out complexities.
Rwanda has been working against the rising numbers of teenage pregnancies for a while now. An example of a strong awareness campaign came to be known as “Sinigurisha” in the 2010s, among many others. We can safely say they have ultimately failed because the numbers continue to increase nonetheless.
As our parliamentarians, 60 percent of whom are women, discuss and consider arguments from both sides, one fact remains, we have and continue to fail 30,000 girls every year. To put that in perspective, that is three BK Arenas full of pregnant teenagers. The future of Rwanda will blame us.
